Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.

Official Conduct of Judge Chase.

duced by himself in a former Congress, which was expressed in general terms, and directed to general objects, and of course was perfectly dissimilar to the present one.

JANUARY 1804.

and censure? But gentlemen are alarmed at the ephithet inquisitorial, and imagination teems with the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. If the creation of this committee be an unauthorized act, if in creating it we transcend those limits which we ought, by a reasonable construction of the Constitution, to set to our own powers, it instantly becomes inquisitorial in its nature and in its operation. We must delegate to it more than general powers. We must authorize it to send for persons, and probably for papers and records. The proposition is hostile to republican principles, and, as a republican, I cannot give my vote in its favor.

Mr. HOLLAND.-When I before addressed the House on this subject, I had no doubt of the charge being sufficiently explicit to found an inquiry into the conduct of the judges. My only doubt was whether it was proper to proceed without affidavit. Since yesterday, I have reflected on the course pursued in similar cases; and I will state to the House the proceedings adopted in two or three cases in the Legislature of which I was a member: In the year 1796, a charge was preferred against certain judges of the State of North Carolina for illegally extending their power. A committee was appointed to inquire into their conduct, and the result was, that the judges had exiled certain persons from the State. The proceedings did not go so far as an impeachment; for the judges wrote an explanatory letter, which gave satisfaction, and they were acquitted with honor. The other charge, to which I have allud

Allusions have repeatedly been made to a remark of mine in the debate of yesterday, that this House is the grand inquest of the nation. It has been asked, if a grand jury were informed that a murder has been committed, would they not send for evidence to ascertain the fact? We are the grand inquest of the nation, and our practice ought, in many respects, to be analogous to that of grand juries; but in becoming that inquest, we do not entirely lose our deliberative and legislative character. I believe it would be descending from the dignity of our station, to listen to the murmurs of general rumor, and seek for guilt. I have heard that one of the judges whom we are called upon to censure, when in the exercise of his judicial functions, inquired of a jury, "Is there no sedition here? Are there no seditious newspapers within your jurisdiction?" I am ignorant whether this report be or be not founded on fact. But if it be true, let me ask, shall we not pursue a similar course by adopting the present resolution? Shall we not authorize a committee to inquire. Is there no judicial guilt abroad in our land? Is there no latent inquiry in some unexplored corner of our country? A grand jury is sworn diligently to inquire, and true presentment make, of all such offences against the laws of the land, as shall come to their knowledge. Have we taken such an oath ? Are we under such obligations? And are we not about to attach to ourselves that charactered, was against the board of army accounts; that which gentlemen tell us is so odious, the character of common informers? I am under no fears that the stream of justice, which ought to be so pure, will become turbid, from a want of accusers, when our judges shall be guilty of crimes. When our courts shall become corrupt and despotic, patriotic motives will induce our citizens to bring forward accusations. I am also sensible of the propriety and force of the observation of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. R. GRISWOLD) that the trial in question was a transaction of great publicity, and all its circumstances must have been known to thousands of our citizens. This induces me to believe that the conduct of the court was not so oppressive and despotic as is now represented. Why has this awful charge slumbered so long?

[ocr errors]

also was referred to a committee. The last case is the most recent. A suspicion existed that the Secretary of State had been guilty of misconduct. A letter had been received by the Governor from some citizens to that effect; in consequence of which, and of other corroborating circumstances, the Legislature appointed a committee of inquiry, of which I had the honor to be a member. That committee was empowered to send for persons and papers. There was no specific charge, but an impeachment was contemplated, if the of ficer should appear to be guilty. The Secretary was brought before the committee, who examined him on oath, and reported the existence of frauds much more extensive than had been imagined; in consequence of which the land office was shut up, and the Secretary notified that articles of impeachment would be exhibited against

admitting of a trial, it was postponed to the next General Assembly. At the succeeding Assembly the officer resigned, and superseded the necessity of an impeachment. He was afterwards indicted at common law. These precedents, drawn from the proceedings of the Legislature of the State which I have the honor to represent, induce me to think that the course proposed is proper, and I shall, accordingly, vote for the appointment of a committee of inquiry.

One or two remarks upon the allusions that have been made to my observation, that we are about to assume censorial and inquisitorial pow-him. But the late period of the session not then ers, and I will dismiss the subject. What is the language of the resolution? Without the allegation of a single fact, it constitutes a committee to inquire whether the judges have not so acted in their official capacity as to render necessary the interposition of the Constitutional powers of this House. The expression is unequivocal; the allusion to the power of impeachment is perfectly obvious. This is what is called a petitio principii; it takes for granted, at least in some degree, what remains to be proved, that the conduct of Mr. DENNIS said, he did not rise for the purthe judges has been improper and illegal. Else pose of entering into an investigation of the merwhy adopt a language which implies suspicionits of the question, but principally for the purpose

JANUARY, 1804.

Official Conduct of Judge Chase.

H. OF R.

of stating, in a few words, what appeared to be He said he read this by way of argument, to the difference between the friends and the oppo-show that the present resolution ought to be renents of the resolution. He had never experi-jected, and though he would not offer it himself, enced, on any occasion, a stronger conflict be- in case the resolution before them should be retween inclination and duty than in the present jected, yet he would pledge himself to vote for instance. On the one hand, he was confident such an one, if the gentleman from Virginia or that, after the official conduct of the judges had any other member would offer it. The resolution been thus publicly implicated, it must be de- which has been read, embraces all the facts stated sirable to them that an investigation of the by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, which confacts charged against them should take place, and tains the only charge that has been exhibited. it seemed to be a duty due to those gentlemen, But if any gentleman possesses a knowledge of that they should have an opportunity of being any other facts or charges, let him specify them, confronted with their accusers. On the other and he would be willing to vote for an extension hand, we owe to the laws and Constitution, as of the powers of the committee to them also; for well as to those considerations which must al- he did not wish to confine the inquiry to the speways govern in the establishment of important cific charge stated by the gentleman from Pennprecedents, a paramount duty, which appeared in sylvania, if other gentlemen had charges to exhibit, this case irreconcileable with the indulgence of and would state them in the resolution. If they individual considerations. The true difference would specify a charge or charges of a serious between the advocates and the opponents of the nature, and give us any reason to believe them resolution appeared to be this: That the one true, although originating from hearsay evidence, thought it a proper procedure to raise an inquisi- he would vote for the inquiry proposed; and he torial committee, without any definite or assigna- begged that he should be understood as objecting ble object. and without stating in the resolution rather on the ground that no charge had been any specific charge. The other did not demand, specified, than on the ground of incompetent evias it had been supposed, the production of all the dence. The vague charges verbally communievidence in the outset of the proceeding, which cated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and might be necessary in the ulterior stages of the none of which are reduced to writing, give no transaction, nor that precise and technical speci- grounds of procedure; not only because, if true, fication of the charges which might be proper in they constitute no cause for impeachment, but bearticles of impeachment, but only required that cause they are not specified in the resolution. some fact should be stated, or charge alleged, as the basis on which to erect a committee. He believed, to create a committee by resolution, with Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire general inquisitorial powers, without specifying into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the any charge, or stating any reason in the resolu-associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United tion for the proceeding, was without precedent, and might become an engine of oppression. In order to satisfy the friends of the resolution on that, he did not wish to avoid that investigation which might be founded on proper principles, and which he believed, after what has been said, is rather courted than avoided by the judges in question. He would beg leave to read, in his place, the form of a resolution, such as he supposed ought to be the ground-work of a procedure-yeas 61, nays 43. like this:

"Whereas information hath been given to the House, by one of its members, that, in a certain prosecution for treason, on the part of the United States, against a certain John Fries, pending in the circuit court of the United States, in the State of Pennsylvania, Samuel Chase, one of the associate justices of the Supreme judge for the district of Pennsylvania, by whom the

Court of the United States, and Richard Peters, district

said circuit court was then holden, did inform the counsel for the prisoner that, as the court had formed their opinion upon the point of law, and would direct the jury thereupon, the counsel for the prisoner must confine themselves to the question of fact only. And whereas, it is represented that, in consequence of such determination of the court, the counsel did refuse to address the jury on the question of fact, and the said John Fries was found guilty of treason, and sentenced by the court to the punishment in such case, by the laws of the United States, provided, and was pardoned by the President of the United States."

The motion was then further amended to read as follows:

States, and of Richard Peters, district judge of the district of Pennsylvania, and to report their opinion whether the said Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, or either of them, have so acted, in their judicial capacity, as to require the interposition of the Constitutional power of this House.

Mr. SPEAKER stated the question, that the House do agree to the said motion, as so amended, when an adjournment was called for and carried

SATURDAY January 7.

Mr. NICHOLSON, from the committee appointed on the memorial of Alexander Moultrie, agent for the South Carolina Yazoo Company, and of William Cowan, agent of the Virginia Yazoo Company, made a report, going considerably into detail, and concluding with a resolution adverse to the prayer of the memorialist. Referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday.

OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF JUDGE CHASE. The House resumed the consideration of the question depending yesterday, at the time of adjournment, that the House do agree to the motion of the fifth instant, as amended by the House, for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the

[blocks in formation]

United States, and of Richard Peters, district judge of the district of Pennsylvania."

JANUARY, 1804.

himself with this character, Mr. R. said he expected to have seen him at his post-he regretted Mr. J. RANDOLPH expressed his regret that the that he did not see him there, and that his duty attempt which he had made yesterday, to reply did not permit him to withhold the observations to the very personal allusions of a gentleman which he was compelled to make. Whilst, howfrom Connecticut, (Mr. GRISWOLD,) whom he ever, the gentleman was engaged in discharging was sorry not to see in his place, had, by the ad- the new and important function with which he journment, proved abortive. Such was his regard stood self-invested, he seemed cautious of replyfor the opinions of the House, that he should al- ing to the masterly statement of his venerable ways, when called upon from a respectable quar- friend from Pennsylvania, and which he believed ter, justify any conduct which he deemed it proper had remained unanswered because it was unanto pursue in its deliberations. He felt it due to swerable. It must, said Mr. R., be a subject of the respect in which he held the Chair and those high gratification to us all, and I congratulate this around it to reply to the remarks of the gentle- House upon it, that age has not yet dimmed the man from Connecticut, and this consideration lustre of those talents which have so long prealone could have induced him to offer anything sided in the councils of this country. And if the in addition to what he had already advanced in time shall come when we are to resign our underfavor of the motion. He should otherwise have standings and place ourselves under the direction left the resolution to its fate. In that fate he did of an individual, I hope to be permitted to range not feel himself personally implicated. If it should myself under the banners of that tried patriot, be rejected, he would be satisfied in having done and not under those of the gentleman from Conhis duty, and the House, he supposed, would feel necticut. In the same spirit with which he chalequally satisfied in having discharged theirs. It lenged the confidence of the House, as a friend was asked, where was the mover of this resolu- unwilling to see them led into error and absurdity, tion at the time when the alleged misconduct took that gentleman had endeavored to alarm their place? Did it not, said the gentleman, pass un- pride by representing the motion as a demand der their own eyes? Were not their delibera- | made upon them. It was so. It was (if he might tions held on the very spot? and why had the so express it) a writ of right, not of favor-and as motion slept until this day? He hoped he should such he demanded it, as such he urged it. But an be permitted to say that it did not pass under his objection was taken that no act of misconduct eyes, although he knew, at the time of the con- had been alleged. With his friend from Marydemnation in question, he did not become ac- land he would say that, a fact of the first imporquainted with the circumstances under which it tance had been adduced, on which he was sorry took place until long after their occurrence. It his friend had not dwelled longer. It could not was true that the deliberations of Congress were receive too much attention. On a trial for life then held in Philadelphia, the scene of this alleged and death, the jury, who were the Constitutional iniquity, but. with other members he was employ- judges both of the law and fact, were deprived ed in discharging his duties to his constituents, of the right of a discussion of the point of law, not in witnessing, in any court, the triumph of "what constitutes treason?" The rights of the his principles. He could not have been so em-jury and of the accused were equally invaded. It ployed. It would be recollected, that the information given by the gentleman from Pennsylvania formed the ground-work of his proceedings, and he asked whether it was more the duty of the mover of the resolution to have brought it forward than every other member of the House who was a witness of the statement made by that gentleman? This information, of an official nature, given by a member in his place, of a transaction in open court, and which it was the duty of them all to have noticed, had been called a story related on hearsay; a rumor of an affair which had hap pened in a corner; and the House was asked if they would take such evidence as ground of proceeding, on the dictum of any one member, however great their confidence in him might be? If he really felt that respect for the House which the gentleman from Connecticut had professed, he would not have insulted their understandings by such language. He would not have stood up, as amicus curæ, to prevent their being precipitated into absurdity and injustice by an influential member of their body. That, however, was the station which the gentleman had assumed, and he hoped the duties of it would be discharged with the fidelity which they required. After clothing

was conduct not dissimilar to this, in a case of libel, which drew forth from the English Parliament the famous declaratory bill of Mr. Fox. Lord Mansfield had laid down the doctrine that the jury had a right to decide only upon the bare facts of printing and publishing, and not upon the question of guilt, which was compounded of the law and the fact. This produced the declaratory act, which passed a strong censure on the practices of courts-since it did not amend or alter the law, but declared what the law was-and established the point resisted by the court, that the jury was the judge both of the fact and of the law. If, then, on a question of criminal law, where the punishment was only fine and imprisonment, the conduct of a judge was deemed highly reprehensible in encroaching upon the rights of the jury, what shall we say of him who usurps those rights in a case of life and death, in a case of treason? This denial to the prisoner and the jury of the right of having the point of law discussed, seemed to be the first step towards assuming those powers in cases of treason the exercise of which, in case of libel, had drawn down upon the English courts the censure of their Parliament. Would the gentlemen say this was nothing? Would he af

853

JANUARY, 1804.

Official Conduct of Judge Chase.

firm that if a man were under trial for murder, the court would be justified in saying to his counsel, You may, if you can, disprove the fact, with which the prisoner stands charged, but you shall not endeavor to show that it does not amount to the crime with which he stands charged? If you admit the killing you shall not argue the point that such killing does not constitute murder. Would the gentleman contend that treason is better defined than murder? What is murder? Killing with malice aforethought; can any definition be clearer? What is burglary? Breaking in during the night. What is treason? The Constitution defines it as levying war against the United States; adhering to their enemies; giving them aid and comfort. But what had definitions to do with the case? Because murder was defined, had counsel ever been stopped in an attempt to show that the killing with which their client stood charged was not a killing with prepensive malice, a killing which constituted murder? What was more common than to see the facts admitted, and the crime not only denied, but disproved to the satisfaction of the jury; and upon what principle shall counsel be arrested in the attempt to show that the facts charged in an indictment for treason do not amount to such a levying of war, or an adherence or aid to such enemies as would constitute treason? Mr. R. said that the fact mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was of a remarkable nature. He had never heard of a similar proceeding, and he rejoiced that another instance of so black a nature could not probably be furnished by any tribunal in this country.

The gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. DENNIS,) however, had entirely abandoned the ground taken by his friend. He agrees that there is a charge of an important nature exhibited, and if it was incorporated into the resolution, and the inquiry confined to that subject only, he would vote for it. The object of the one gentleman was only to confine the inquiry, whilst that of his friend was to deny it altogether. He could not thank the gentleman for his liberality. He would have what he asked or nothing. He would never consent to confine the inquiry; if it could not be full and free, let it be denied.

The gentleman from Maryland had, with very little dexterity, endeavored to confound the resolution of inquiry with the articles of impeachment which may follow from it, and said that if the House would consent to confine the inquiry to any particular charge he would vote for it. It was true that after articles of impeachment should have been exhibited against the accused, the House would not be permitted to prefer any new accusation, or to adduce testimony to prove any guilt other than that which was charged in those articles. In the same manner as when a criminal was indicted, evidence would not be suffered to be brought forward to prove any act of criminality not contained in some one of the counts of the indictment. But would gentlemen persist in confounding things so entirely different, as to confine an incipient inquiry by the same rigid rules which would govern a criminal trial? It was trifling

854

H. of R.

with the judgment of the House. The gentlebe incorporated into the resolution, and the inman was eager for inquiring, but the charge must quiry confined to a specific point, before he could be brought to consent to it. Whatever other misdemeanors might come to the knowledge of the committee in the course of the investigation, he would not agree to have them reported to the House. And at the same time he told them of the struggle between his inclination and his sense of duty-his inclination as a friend of the accused to grant the inquiry, his duty as a member of the House and a friend of justice to refute it. Mr. R. was sorry to find the gentleman in this awkward predicament; he regretted that it was out of his power to gratify him by narrowing the inquiry. This, his duty would not suffer him to do. He hoped, however, the strength of the gentleman's constitution would carry him through the arduous struggle in which he was involved, by his wishes on the one hand, and his principles on the other.

precedent, he hoped he might offer a few cases to Whilst so much was said on the subject of their consideration. He did not come to the House armed with precedents. Neither his health nor leisure permitted him to search for them. Gentlemen of greater industry, and who attached more importance to them than himself, had furnished him with them. For his part he thought precedents had nothing to do with the case, but for the sake of those who thought differently, he would show the course which he advocated was not desred to Mr. Hatsell's precedents. "On the 21st of titute even of their support. Here Mr. R. referApril, 1626, Mr. Glanvylee, from the select committee appointed to consider of the charges against the Duke of Buckingham, reports that, they desire the House will resolve whether common fame is a ground for this House to proceed upon ?" It is resolved to consider this the next day. After a long debate the House resolve that, "common fame is good ground of proceeding of this House, either to inquire of here, or to transmit the complaint, if the House find cause, to the King or Lords."

House to the opinion of a gentleman, delivered Mr. R. begged to call the attention of the during this debate, to which he must be permitted to attach more importance than to that of the gentleman from Connecticut. When he mentioned the name of Selden, he believed he should stand justified in the opinion of the gentleman himself, and in that of his warmest admirers. "These cases (said Mr. Selden) are to be ruled by the law of Parliament and not by the common or civil law." House for definitive judgment, but for information, Mr. Littleton says, "this is not a denunciation, or presentment, for which common fame is sufficient." two questions-first, Whether a common fame? Second, Whether this fame be true? We will not Mr. Noy says, “There are transmit without the first inquiry: but without the second we may; for peradventure we cannot come by the witnesses; as if the witnesses be in the Lords' House."

H. OF R.

Official Conduct of Judge Chase.

JANUARY, 1804.

Again, "on the 16th October, 1667, the House not. He trusted that they would give an exambeing informed "that there have been some inno-ple of their readiness to bring every offender to vations of late in the trials of men for their lives justice, however great might be his station. and deaths, and in some particular cases restraints Mr. GRIFFIN. I had hoped that no subject have been put upon juries, the matter is referred would have been agitated during this session to a committee." This case (Mr. R. said) was which should have interrupted the tranquillity or precisely in point. "On the 18th of November, disturbed the harmony of this House, so necessary this committee are empowered to receive infor- to the faithful and correct discharge of our public mation against the Lord Chief Justice Keeling, for duties; but, sir, I perceive, from the turn which any other misdemeanors besides those concerning the debate upon the resolution now before the juries." Thus on a particular fact, innovation in House has taken, that sensations have been extrials for life and death, a committee was raised, | cited which I fear it will be difficult to allay. and yet they were not confined to the examination The proposition now before the House, nursed of that single charge, but empowered to inquire with so much secrecy, and forced on us so sudgenerally into the misconduct of the judge. A denly and unexpectedly, comes in such a quesstronger or more pointed precedent could not be tionable shape, that I must beg the attention of conceived. the House for a few moments while "I speak to it."

serious

By the Constitution, Mr. Randolph said, that What, sir, does the resolution demand of us? House was vested with the sole power of impeach- That a committee be appointed to inquire into ment. How this power was to be exercised must the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richdepend on their discretion, and on no other law ard Peters, &c. But how is this inquiry to or principle whatever: for "these cases are not to be conducted? Are there any data by which the be ruled by the common or civil law, but by the committee are to be guided? Is there any specilaw of Parliament" That law of Parliament it fic charge to which their attention or inquiries remained with them to establish. It could not be are to be directed? None. And who, sir, before matter of surprise that he, one of the leading prin- this enlightened day ever heard of a committee of ciples of whose politics it was to support the weight inquiry being raised, without possession of a sinof that branch of the Government, and to be jealous gle subject to direct or guide the inquiry? What, of Executive influence-it could not surprise any sir, erect an inquiring committee vested with all one, that he should exert himself in behalf of the the powers of a Star Chamber, and yet assign Constitutional rights of that House. When he them no specific objects of their duty! But, sir, saw the importance which was attached to pre- the official conduct of these judges has given cedent, he was more than ever solicitous for that offence-and are we now, sir, to probe and search which they were then about to establish. He the whole judicial lives of these gentlemen, for trusted that they would not consent to abridge the causes of complaint and censure? Are the repower with which the Constitution had invested cords of the States of Maryland and Pennsylvathem to reduce it below the standard which the nia now to be ransacked, for evidences of their English House of Commons had fixed as the guilt and cause of impeachment? I never have measure of their own power in similar cases. A and never shall deny the right of this House, time might come when a wicked President and to inquire into the conduct of public officers-but, his flagitious Ministers might so conduct them-sir, if the honorable mover of the resolution is selves in office, as to make every man regret the proceedings of that day, in case they should suffer their power to sleep. The refusing to exercise it, then, would hereafter be adduced as a denial of its existence. Such might be the circumstances of the times, that no private man would dare to step forward with a specific charge against the Executive. If they should deny an inquiry without a specific charge, they would do all in their power to screen such a President and such Ministers at a future day. It had been remarked that, in this Government, an officer found guilty, on an impeachment, could not be punished capitally. The sentence could only remove him from office, and disqualify him, for ever after, from holding one under the United States. If, in a country where the accused may be brought to the block, free, unfettered inquiry is warranted against any rank however exalted-would it be denied here, where the punishment was comparatively light? Should they hold the other departments of the Government more inviolable than they were considered even in England? Would they afford to a criminal, Executive or Judiciary, a shelter denied by the laws of that Government? He hoped they would

[Here Mr. RANDOLPH interrupted, and desired the gentleman to explain his meaning by the word serious.]

Mr. GRIFFIN continued. I will answer the gentleman: my meaning is, that if the gentleman believes there are just grounds for impeachment-if he is in possession of information or facts, let him declare them, and if they appear to my mind to be sufficient whereon to ground an impeachment, let him demand it and I will join with him. Let him specify the instances of malfeasance of which these judges have been guilty, and I will unite with him-let him declare the malconduct of these public functionaries, and I will cordially co-operate with him. If these judges have travelled beyond the line of their duty, if they have wantonly exceeded the limits of their power, I will aid in the infliction of such punishment as they may merit; but, sif, I cannot, I will not, in this indirect manner, wound the feelings or censure the characters of men, holding high responsible offices under your Government. Could I induce myself to believe that the course now proposed to be pursued is correct, I will gladly give

« AnteriorContinuar »