Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The

COLUMBIAN

AND

Balance,

REPOSITORY.

Political.

FOR THE BALANCE.

HAIL SACRED POLITY, BY FREEDOM REAR'D !

46 HAIL SACRED FREEDOM, WHEN BY LAW RESTRAIN'D !"

BEATTIE.

HUDSON, (NEW-YORK) TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1803.

"Nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice."

AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OF FACTS,

CONCERNING

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL SPENCER's
LATE ATTACK

ON THE

Liberty of the Prefs,

IN THIS COUNTY.

Written by a gentleman who was at court during the whole transaction, and who pledges himself that the detail is substanstially correct.

MR.

[CONTINUED.]

R. VAN NESS began by regretting, that on a queftion of fuch acknowledged importance to every freeman, longer time for preparation could not be afforded. He felt that in defending Mr. CROSWELL from the demand of the public profecutor, he was defending the legiti mate rights, the legitimate privileges of every freeman-rights and privileges which could be entombed only in the great tomb of our republic. He believed, that the attempt of the Attorney-General was a direft attack upon the moft important principles of a republican government; and if be fhould fucceed, no man could hereafter know when he was fecure from the venHe felt it, therefore, a geance of power. facred duty to raise his voice against this unhallowed attempt, and to exert all his powers, in concert with his friend, to

fnatch Mr. CROSWELL from the clutches
of the profecutor.

He faid, the gentleman who had prece-
ded him, had taken fo wide a fcope-fo
thoroughly investigated the authorities ad-
duced, and fo conclufively proved the il-
legality of the motion, that little remained
for him to obferve upon the law. His
obfervations would be principally directed
to the confequences which would refult
from a refriction of the prefs, fuch as was
now demanded.

where the prefs is free, the arts and fciences flourish. From this fountain, have flown all the improvements in modern times, in general intelligence, in the science of political government, in all the conveniences and luxuries of life. In a word, in every country where it has been protected and cherifhed, its bleffing were far beyond the reach even of the piefs to defcribe. It was, he faid, and fo experience had demonftrated, the unbending protection of the rights of man, and an unconquerable bulwark againft oppreffion. He enjoined it upon the judges, as they valued the noble ft principles of freedom, and as they wished to leave their children in the full enjoyment of its bleffings, to avert the blow aimed at the very vitals of our republic.

Mr. VAN NESS proceeded, with great ability, to prove that the prefent measure, if executed, would reftrain the true liberty of the prefs. He quoted Blackflone's definition of the liberty of the prefs."The liberty of the prefs is indeed effential to the nature of a free flate. But this confifts in laying no previous refaint upon publications, and not in freedom from cenfure for criminal matters when pubjifhed." And, with great force and clearnefs, he demonftrated, that in every point of view, this recognizance would operate as a previous refraint.

The prefent cafe, he faid, exhibited a curious fpectacle. It was within the recollection of every man, what clamors, what tumults were raifed by a certain party, when a law was paffed forbidding any man to publish falfhoods refpe&ting government. By that flatute, the truth might be given in evidence. But fcarcely has that law expired-scarcely have these clamors ceafed to echo through the continent, when that very party commence profecutions upon the principle that the truth itfclf is a libel, and must not be told of thofe facred characters whom they have exalted to power. Thefe circumftances furnished topics for reflection which he would not indulge. He wifhed that the prefent queftion might be abftrafted from party. And he hoped that the short-lived pleasure of triumphing over his opponents, would not urge the public profecutor to persevere against conviction For, faid Mr. VAN and confcience. What, faid he, is the due courfe pic-" NESS, tranfitory indeed would be those laufcribed by law for the punishment of a lirels which he may reap around the ruins of bel? Indictment and conviction by a ju the freedom of the prefs. ry. Upon what ground does the public Mr. VAN NESS then, in glowing col-profecutor demand a more fummary proQurs, painted the bleflings refulting to the community from a free prefs. Look round the world, faid he, and in every country

cedure? Does he contend that Mr. CROSWELL is a perfon of bad fame? He dare not contend it. For every act of his

life is a living monument of the reverfe. -No! he goes upon the ground that Mr. CROSWELL is a libeller. And by what right does he pronounce him a libeller? Has he been convicted by a jury? Have his peers pronounced his publications libellous? Let him wait the illue of the trial; let him reftrain his eagerness to fetter the prefs until a jury fhall judge Mr. CROSWELL guilty; then, indeed, with fome plaufibility, may he come forward with the prefent motion.

What is the effect of this motion? The court is afked to lay HARRY CROSWELL under bonds of 8000 dollars, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The flighteft mifbehaviour forfeits the bonds; and thus, without conviction, without even a trial by his peers, for the smallest poflible offence, Mr. CROSWELL may be plunged in poverty, and his family reduced to beggary and want. His ruin might be the confequence of an act fcarcely criminal, and for which altho' convicted by a jury, he would fcarcely be cenfured.This, Mr. VAN NESS contended, was monfrous do&rine; and he wondered it did not blifter the lips of any man who dared to urge it.

[ocr errors]

He then read the following fentence from the fpeech of Mr. Fox, on the law of libels: In the prefent enlightened age, "Mr. Fox faid, that he had no reason to "fear that previous reftraints would be at

66

66

teinpied to be impofed on the prefs.-The good fenfe of the times would not "brook an imprimatur, or previous fure"ties of any kind for good behaviour. "And it was not in fuch way that he "dreaded any danger to the prefs." In exprefs words, it is here called a previous reftraint, in the form of " previous fureties of any kind for good behaviour."

Can there be a doubt, then, that this

ineafure would operate as a previous reftraint? And if fo, according to the definition of Blackflone, and the opinion of all approved writers, it is an illegal violation of that facred guardian of our rights, the liberty of the prefs.

Befides, faid he, the citizen is robbed of the right of trial by jury. Their province is ufurped by every juftice; by magiftrates always fubje&t to the power of thofe who created them; and they affume the right to decide whether publications are libellous or not. The court would hefitate long before it took a ftep pregnant with fuch awful confequences. For, faid Mr. VAN NESS, hiftory teaches, and our experience confirms the fact, that in free governments parties will fucceffively rife to power, and fink into weaknefs. This is the beaten track of all republics. Today a party rifes to the zenith of power. But a few years roll away when another rifes on the ruins of its predeceffor; and

[ocr errors]

from the afhes of both a third may fpring
up, and aflume all the political power and
confequence in the community. Thefe
fuccefive parties will ever find men calcu-
lated to become their minions. Thefe
men they may alternately exalt into mag-
iftrates. And if the prefent doctrine is ef-
tablifhed, each party in its turn, through
tablished, each party in its turn, through
thefe magiftrates, will have the compleat
controul of every prefs in the country.
And in their hands, the freedom of the
prefs and of pubtic difcuffion, will become
a fpirit haunting thofe places where it
once had flourished. The politicians, the
magiftrates, will have, nothing to check
their mifconduct. The people to whom
they are refponfible, and froin whom they
derive all their power, muft remain igno.
rant of every thing. The ambitious and
the immoral, may triumph in their crimes,
without fear of detection. This country
will fall from its happy flate of freedom,
and the people become the victims of ty-
ranny, until, roufed by accumulated op.
preffion, they will burft the fetters which
reftrain their rights, and feek "through
blood and flaughter their long-loft liber-

ties."

"That in matters which the law hath left indefinite it is better to fall short of than exceed his authority.

It is here obvious, faid Mr. VAN NESS, with what caution the English Magiftrates approach the liberties of the fubject. And in a republic, fhall the courts of juftice negle&t thofe rules of caution, which, in the English Monarchy, are held facred; and, for the purpofe of impofing fetters on the prefs, fhail they refort to more rigid conitructions?

He then read the third fection of the habæs corpus act, which gives to any one

prifoned for any mifdemeanor, (other than treafon and felony) the writ of habes corpus, by which he may come before a judge of the fupreme court, and he recog nized for his appearance at the proper court, and at the proper time; and upon fuch recognizance the judge is bound to liberate him. Here, then, faid Mr. VAN NESS, is cur final fecurity. Whatever may be Mr. CROSWELL's fate before this court, there is an appeal to a higher tribunal.The writ of habæs corpus is fecured, and knowing that no court, no profecutor, can

gination. The tendency of the prefent ly palladium of human rights, which, in
These are not the idle fantafies of ima-deprive Mr. CROSWELL of this right, he
felt perfectly fecure. This writ is that ho-
meafure, is direct to the introduction of
fcenes fuch as I have defcribed. The
the worft times which England ever knew,
freedom of difcuffion now checks, in its
had always fecured to the fubject those
rife, every vicious meafure of government.
privileges which the laws had guaranteed,
Place the prefs in the hands of every mag-
And in this country, it will bear the citi
The people, deprived of true information,
iftrate, and this check is gone forever.-
zen, it will bear Mr. CROSWELL to a tri-
bunal where party fpirit is a ftranger-
where the influence of no man can pervert
can no longer judge correctly of the con-
duct of their rulers; nor can they reform
the freams of justice, and where, happily
abufes until, mad with oppreffion, they
for our country, the law and the conflitu-
rife in their might and fpurn into infignifi.
tion are paramount to every power. Mr.
cance their proud oppreffors. He called
VAN NESS faid, that by whatever he had
on the court to weigh well the step they
faid, he meant no difrefpect to the court
were about to take to reflect on the fatal
he was then addreffing. He had spoke of
he had fpoken his folemn convictions from
the tendencies of the prefent motion; and
the fincerity of his heart. And he hoped
and trufted, that the juflices would weigh
well the question they were about to de-
cide, and that in their decifion they would
be guided by found difcretion and folid
principles. In the full belief that this
would be the case, he delivered his client
into their hands. He did this in the full-
eft confidence, that by their decifion, they
juftice would not fanétion the attempts of
would convince the world, that courts of
any man to fetter the prefs-to deftroy the
rights of a free citizen, and pervert the law
to an engine of party perfecution.

confequences, before they finally paffed
the Rubicon.

Mr. VAN NESS then, with great force
of argument, anfwered the authorities ad
duced by the Attorney General, and took
a view of thofe produced by Mr. WIL-
LIAMS; and clearly proved, that the at-
tempt was illegal, unprecedented, and di-
rectly against the policy of our govern.
ment. But, as his arguments upon this
part of the fubject, were fomewhat fimular
to thofe before advanced by Mr. WIL-
LIAMS, it is thought unneceffary to repeat
them.

Mr. VAN NESS then read the following remarks from Burn's Juftice, vol. 4th, p. 251, "Upon the whole, the magiftrate in this article of good behaviour, cannot exercife too much caution and good advisement." 66

Although the justice of the peace may have a difcretionary power, yet it is a legal difcretion in which in favour of liberty great tenderness is ufed."

Mr. VAN NESS here clofed a very impreffive and forcible argument, and was followed by Mr. SPENCER upon the other fide of the queftion.

of the court, &c. are unavoidably poft[Mr. SPENCER's arguments, the decifion poned until next week.]

Messrs. EDITORS,

IN giving an account of the occurrences at Claverack, in the BALANCE No.

4, I could only state, what took place in open court. In juftice to the Attorney General, I now correct that account in one particular. I am informed that the caufes were put off, in confequence of a propofition made by the Attorney-General, out of court, to the defendant's counfel. This propofition appeared in the Bee.-And I prefume it was affented to, merely because the defendant's counfel believed, that if the affair was left to the judges, Mr. CROSWELL Would have been driven to trial totally unprepared.

FOR THE BALANCE.

TO MR. HOLT,

N

C.

OTWITHSTANDING the two great political parties which exift in our country, difagree in moft effential points on politics, fill they are united in opinion in one refpect, viz.-that it is important that the people have correct information; and that it is the duty of editors of newspapers to furnish it honeftly and truly as far as they are able. This, Mr. Holt, you will almit; and on this ground I fhake hands with you.

You are, fir, on fome occafions, a man of candor, and I intend, in what follows, to be under the influence of candor my felf.-I mean to treat you delicately, and fhali expect the fame in return. from you.-I fhall afk you fome ferious queftions, and have a right to expect catagorical anfwers.

Mr. Jefferfon, in his late meffage to congrefs, has ftated that he had, in one year laft past, paid between eight and nine millions of dollars of the principal and intereft of the public debt.

Where did he get this money? Did it come into the treasury as the refult of measures devifed and purfued under the administrations of Washington and Adams ?

How much money has been faved by the repeal of the judiciary fyftem, internal taxes, the abolition of the law refpecting the army and navy, and by difmifling the revenue officers, &c. &c ?'

Did Thomas Jefferfon ever invite Thomas Paine to come over from France and refide in this country?

Was it ever proven to your fatisfaction, that Timothy Pickering, Oliver Wolcott,

[blocks in formation]

[Several other queries to Mr. Holt, by the fame correfpondent, are deemed improper for publication at this particular time.

Balance Closet.

[The following articles were prepared for publication last week, but omitted for want of room.]

FIBS OF THE BEE.

Perhaps there cannot exist a more contemptible being, than a man who is in the constant habit of telling falshoods, which he, at the same time, declares are immaterial," and avail him nothing.We will not say that the editor of the Bee is such a man; but we will here note down some of his wan

on mistakes.

No. 1.-A few weeks since Holt published a plump falshood concerning the junior editor of the Balance. It was immediately detected and exposed; when Holt (not having any extracts of letters without signatures to prove it) acknowledged its falsity, observing, that "the writer's argument was not affected by this mistake.”—That is, it was a mere wanton fib

No. 2. In the last Bee, Holt asserts, that, in the warfare between the Balance and the Bee, we were the agressors; but that he holds this immaterial This also will prove to be a wanton fib.-On receiving the very first number of the Balance, published in the spring of 1801, Holt mentioned its establishment, and foolishly and sneeringly remarked, that if its editors had no other business than publishing a newspaper, two of them had better go to West. Point, and enlist for soldiers, and the other immediately follow-or something to that effect. The junior editor of the Balance wrote a short replybut Mr. Sampson, on perusing it, observed, that he thought the Bee too contemptible for notice; and the reply, therefore, was never published.-Some time after this, and before the Bee had ever been mentioned in the Balance, Holt made another unprovoked attack on the senior editor, comparing him with Judas Iscariot. Mr. Sampson still declin

Jn. Dayton and James Rofs, appropriated ed noticing him ; and he was answered by the "jun-
a cent of the public money to private pur-
poses ?

Have not the democrats uniformly de. clared, 'till within two years paf, that no

ior editor."-These facts can be proved by recurring to the files; and they are sufficient to sink the veracity of the Bee lower, if possible, than it now lies.

No. 4.

A PAIR OF BULLS.

The editor of the Bee has long been attempting to bear away the palm from Duane in the democratic art of fibbing. For the want of ingenuity, he has succeeded but indifferently. He is now trying his hand at making bulls.-See, here they come :

Addressing Mr. Sampson, he says, “So long as your name is foremost at the foot of the Balance," &c.

This reminds us of Paddy's companion, who “Walk'd by his side and follow'd before him.” Again, Holt asks, "Have you forgotten your frequent attacks on the Hudson Bee.......previous to its existence ?"

If the editor of the Bee had been but two months from Ireland, he could not have done better. He beats Duane himself.

"With the vulgar, the scurrilous, the unprincipled, and the contemptible, I will hold no converse," says Mr. Holt.-If any reliance could be placed on the promises of this man, there might be some hopes of him; for it would appear evident, from the above declaration, that he is about renouncing his party.

"The greater the truth the greater the libel." Holt ascribes this observation to the editors of the Balance. If he had been at court the other day he might have heard it thundered from the eloquent lips of Ebenezer Foot, ESQUIRE, the DistrictAttorney.

Mitchell, the being who conducts the Poughkeep sie Barometer, or fog mill, after mentioning that Cheetham had been arrested at the suit of Col. W. Smith, for a libel, damages laid at sixty-thousand dollars, asks, "Do ye still think, ye federal editors, that the press is in danger ?"If any thing like honesty or fair-dealing, could be expected from such a wretch as Isaac Mitchell, we should be surprized at this baseness. It is insinuated that the above suit was brought by a federalist, when the fact is, Col. Smith is a democrat, as well as Cheetham.Yes, Mitchell, federal editors still think the press is in danger-not, however, from private actions for libels, but from the malice and persecution of public prosecutors, who are striving to prevent the publi cation of truth concerning the government.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Columbian Congress.

From the Gavette of the United States.

INTERESTING DEBATE

In the house of representatives, on the resolution of Mr. Griswold, calling for information relative to the cession of Louisiana to France.

formation now afked for. The Prefident himself has told us, that it is a fubject which ought to have weight in our deliberations; a fubje&t on which it is our bufinefs to legiflate. I afk then, if we are to deliberate and legiflate upon this fubject; fhall we go to work blindfold? Shall we go to work to deliberate and legislate upon a fubject of which we are totally ignorant? To this day the legislature of the United States have no official information of the fact, that Louifiana is ceded to France, except the flight mention made of it in the Meffage of the Prefident. Of the conditions upon which it is to be delivered up, of the time of the transfer, and of many other important circumftances we know nothing. Yet when we afk to be furnished with information upon thefe great and momentous points, obstacles are thrown in our way we are called upon to delay-to go into a committee of the whole, not for the purpofe of a more full and free difcuffion, not for the purpofe of more readily obtaining the information, but for the avowed purpose of secrecy.

Mr. Randolph was forry that he was under the neceffity of troubling the houfe again upon this question. I have already more than once ftated that I cannot difcufs

[Mr. Griswold in continuation.] Reference has been made to a call for papers in the year 1796, relative to the British treaty, and a comparifon has been drawn between that cafe and the one under confideration. It is infinuated that gentlemen who then voted against that refolution, are now acting inconfiftently; that they then denied the right of the houfe to call upon the Executive for the papers. This, fir, is a mistake: The right to call for papers was not denied by thofe who oppofed the refolution, but the object to which the information was to be applied, was objected to. A treaty had been con cluded by the Prefident and Senate, in whom the treaty-making power is vefted by the conftitution; and the houfe of rep-willing that the refolution fhould be fully refentatives was called upon to make the appropriations neceflary for carrying the treaty into effect. It was contended on the part

of thofe who advocated that refolution, that the houfe had a right to enquire into the merits of that treaty; to judge for themfelves whether it was the beft that could be formed; and if not, that they had a right to withhold the appropriations, and prevent the treaty from going into effect; thus, in fact, ufurping a part of the treating-making power. It was profeffed. ly for the purpofe of enabling the houfe to form a judgment upon this point, that the papers in that cafe were called for. On the other fide, it was objected that the power of making treaties is veiled exclufively in the Prefident and Senate; that after a treaty had been ratified by them, the houfe of reprefentatives were bound in good faith to carry it into execution as a fupreme law of the land, without inquiring into the merits of it. The oppofition, therefore, to that refolution was fupported, not on the ground of a want of a right in the houfe to call for the papers, but on the ground that they were intended to give information on a fubject upon which the houfe had no right to act after obtaining the information. No fuch difpute exifts in the prefent inftance. No perfon can doubt the right of the house to act upon the in

this fubject in public. I have obfervations
which I have already faid must be made ial
fecret, or they cannot be made at all. The
gentleman from Connecticut fays he is

Union. He did not fee, that there could be any thing of a fecret nature in the refolution, nor any thing connected, in any way, with the Prefident's confidential meffage; but he could eafily conceive that the information to be obtained by the refolution might be intimately connected with that fubject; he fhould therefore be in favor of referring that to a fecret committee, but could fee no neceffity of difpuling of the refolution in that way.

Mr. S. Smith. The gentleman from Connecticut has candidly admitted that it is customary in fuch cafes to make a reference, tho' he is not in favor of the reference being made to a committee with fhut doors; but if the object were to obtain a free difcuffion, he would not object to it. He is told that a full and free difcuffion cannot be had without fuch a reference, and yet he perfifts in his hoftility to the motion. He had been told fo by the mover, and common fense would have told of the mover, and for fhutting out the arhim fo at first; yet he is for taking advantage guments he has to urge. The gentleman is mistaken in his statement of the motives of the different fides of the Houfe in the difcuflion on a call for papers in 1796, right to participate in the treaty making when he reprefents one fide as claiming a power. He recollected it had been charged upon them; but they had denied it. We contended, faid General Smith, that when a treaty was formed appropriating a large difcuffed, and therefore contends that it muft not be referred to a fecret committee, fum of money, we had a right to appropriate or not appropriate the money; but we as he is pleafed to term it, where alone, as never affumed the right to fay whether the we have informed him, the difcuffion treaty was concluded or not. Afterwards, which he feems to court can take place: gentlemen themfelves, if he recollected Sir, this made logic, but I do not un-right, moved a refolution that it was expederftand it. A meffage from the Prefident relative to New-Orleans has been referred to a certain committee, and we propofe to refer this refolution to the fame committee. Gentlemen exclaim, that this is denying them information. Does it follow, of neceffity, that we deny the information becaufe we chufe to confider the fubject with clofed doors? Cannot the refolution be as fully difcuffed in private as in public? Do all the reafoning faculties of this houfe Mr. Dana remarked on the practice of cease to exift the moment the doors are clofed? Cannot the eloquence of the genreferring fubjects to a committee of the whole houfe. There are feveral objects tlemen be exerted unlefs when addressed to be answered by this formality. In comto the ladies, who do us the honor of at- mittee of the whole, the fpeaker may take tending in this hall? Sir, I fhall not be part in debate, like any other member, and drawn into a difcuffion of the merits of this thus we can have the benefit of his opinions. refolution at the prefent time. I have Every propofition, adopted in committee arguments to advance upon the fubje&t,of the whole, is liable to a fecond difcuffion which will be known at a proper time. I fhall not advance them now.

Mr. Bacon was opposed to the motion. He thought it would be proper to call for the information immediately, and when it fhall be obtained, to refer that information to the fecret committee on the ftate of the

dient to carry the treaty into effect, by which they did admit the right of the House. Mr. Smith faid he had no previous knowledge of what the gentleman from Virginia meant by his motion; he might perhaps with to amend the refolution; but when he fays he has arguments that he cannot urge without fhut doors, he trusted that indulgence would be allowed him, or there would be a denial of juftice.

in the house. The reference to a committee of the whole, in this refpect, is much the fame with faying that a fubject should ba difcuffed twice. In fome cafes, therefore, it is required, by the ftanding rules of the house, that particular fubjects be referred to a committee of the whole. All mo

ney

bills must first be difcuffed in committee of the whole, and then referred to the house, where they are again confidered. In this manner, the reference of a fubject to a committee of the whole is favorable to a full difcuffion. It is alfo known, that greater freedom of debate is allowed in committee of the whole, than in the houfe, every member being permitted to speak, in the committee, as often as he may choose. But in the house, no member is authorized to speak on a queftion more than twice, without firft obtaining leave in form. This has been exemplified to-day in the cafe of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph). The fpeaker took a vote on the question of giving the gentleman liberty to speak a third time. It is thus, we fee, that a full and free difcuffion of a fubject is fecured by referring it to a committee of the whole. But does this require, that the committee of the whole fhould be a fecret committee? The terms, free and full difcuffion, fo often in the mouth of the gentleman from Maryland (Gen. S. Smith) are fo much in ufe, and their import is fo well known, that the gentleman must be prefumed to understand them, as they are applicable to the ordinary forms of proceeding in committee of the whole. In this known and obvious fenfe, my colleague (Mr. Grifwold) undoubtedly made ufe of the terms. The gentleman from Maryland, therefore, fails in attempt-ing to infer the neceffity of a fecret committee, from what has been faid by my colleague.

But although this is my prefent opinion, if
any gentleman will ferioufly fay, that in his
judgment, there is a queftion of princi-
ple, or fact, which ought to be difcuffed on
this refolution, I would, from refpect to
him, be difpofed to agree to the reference,
and proceed immediately to the difcuffion,
without clofing the doors.

The queftion was then taken on Mr.
Randolph's motion, by yeas and nays and
carried in the affirmative, yeas 48 nays 39.
On motion of Mr. Grifwold the house re-
folved itself into a committee of the whole
on the flate of the union, Mr. John C.
Smith in the chair.

M. Randolph inftantly rofe and faid he held in his hand certain refolutions connected with the meffage of the prefident which had been difcuffed with clofed doors. He hoped the galleries would be cleared and that the committee would confider the refolutions. He fubmitted it to the chair whether the doors ought not to be clofed before reading his refolutions.

Mr. Dana wifhed to know whether it appeared by the journals that any fuch bufinefs was before the committee. If not, it could not be proper publicly to take any order it.

upon

Mr. Randolph faid he would call for the
reading of the confidential meffage.

Mr. Chairman gave it as his opinion that
if any gentleman has bufinefs of a confi-
dential nature to communicate, the infor-
mation fhould be given to the house, upon
which the galleries will be cleared, and the
houfe after having received the communi-
cation will judge whether it is of a nature
which ought to be kept fecret.-He was
of opinion that the committee had no pow.
er to order the galleries to be cleared
read certain rules of the houfe upon which
he founded this opinion.

He

mittee now rife, report progrefs, and aik leave to fit again-for the purpofe of moving, in the house, that the galleries fhould be cleared.

Mr. Grifwold did hope that the committee would not rife. There is bufinefs now before the committee which ough: to be taken up. The only reafon given for the committee ifing, is that a motion may be made to close the doors, in order again to go into a committee upon fecret bufinefs. What propriety can there be in adopting this measure, when there is already before the committee business of a public and important nature which may now be taken up and acted upon? I refer, fir, to the refolution which has been under difcuffion this morning, and which is the very object for which the house went into committee. Sir I take the liberty to fay that this is bufinefs of a very preffing nature and ought to be acted upon immediately-it ought not to be poftponed for any other business which can be brought before the legislature.

Mr. Dana faid he really fhould hope, that as there is bufinefs, as his colleague had flated, of a very preffing nature, now before the committee, they would not act fuch a farce as to rife immediately without accomplishing any thing. He hoped that gentlemen would not confent to exhibit in the eyes of the world the fpectacle of the national legislature going into committee for no other purpofe than to come out again, and that to when bufinefs of the utmoft importance was before them.

Mr. Rutledge. Although much has been faid about the propriety of a reference to a committee of the whole houfe, and we have been charged, for oppofing it, with a departure from the ufual mode of proceed. ing, and particularly from that purfued when the executive was called upon for information refpecting Mr. Jay's, negociations, yet, in reality, it is quite immaterial to us whether the refolution be acted upon by the houfe, or by a Committee, provided, that before acting upon the fubMr. Randolph faid the reading of a pa-ject connected with it, we are permitted to per had been called for-and no other bufinefs could be introduced till the queftion had been decided whether the paper fhould be read or not.

Mr. Grifwold faid there was other bufinefs before the committee not of a private nature, namely, the refolution which had been that morning difcuffed in the houfe. He hoped the committee would now confider that refolution.

The importance of having information, refpecting the ceffion of Louifiana to France, is not denied. Gentlemen do not profefs to have objections against its being granted. Where then the neceffity of difcuffing the fabject in a committee of the whole? Is any queftion of principle, or of fact, to be debated? The request is for fuch information, and for none but fuch,as the Prefident may judge proper to be com. municated. If the information is important in itself, if it is not objected against by gentlemen, and is finally fubmitted to the Prefident's difcretion, can there be a question about the principle of the refolution? As to any queftion of fact, the only fact, neceffary to be afcertained before adopting the refolution, is our own want of infor- Mr. Grifwold faid there was no fuch mation. This every gentleman can in per before the committee. The paper, the ftantly determine for himfelf. If any gen- reading of which is called for, is before a fereading of which is called for, is before a fetlemen have the information, in confe-cret committee of the whole on the state of quence of being admitted into the cabinet, the union. This is not a fecret committee. they fhould be fo compaffionate as at least to allow an official communication to be made for the benefit of those who have not the fame pretenfions, and who feel and acknowledge their want of information.

As it does not appear that there is any reafon for difcuffing the refolution in a committee of the whole, I would adopt it now, and am against the propofed reference.

pa.

Mr. S. Smith said he believed it had

been ufual, upon information from any
member, that he had business of a confi-
dential nature to lay before the house, for
the house to order the galleries cleared.
This he faid he believed had been the or-
dinary mode of proceeding, and as an ir-
regularity had taken place in the present
regularity had taken place in the prefent
inftance, he would move, That the com-

afk for whatever information the Prefident may deem it proper to communicate. Gentlemen have not affigned their reafons why we fhould not call for information and I cannot conjecture them. Surely they are not afraid that the executive will communicate what ought to be kept fecret becaufe this houfe calls, he is not obliged to give the information asked, and fhould he deem it prudent to withhold it, he will, I prefume, do his duty. It is true that the refolution calling for papers in the year ainety-five, was confidered in a committee of the whole, as has been stated by the gentlemen on my left (Mr. Smilie) but the difcuffion was a public one; whereas gentlemen now with to carry us into a committee with clofed doors, and when

« AnteriorContinuar »