H. of R. Breach of Privilege. JANUARY, 1800. attacked the conduct of the gentleman himself, for disrespect to the President. But this is said only to be the opinion of the committee. Sir, the report goes out to the world under the sanction of this House, and in this view it becomes one of its acts. In this view it is casting a Legislative censure on a member! From these views, and because we could not otherwise come at the report, I moved to recommit it; in which I do hope a majority of this House will concur, in order that we may avoid injustice to the gentleman; but without any view of inflicting punishment on the officers. familiar. The gentlemen from Massachusetts the officers; on the contrary, they actually have (Messrs. SEWALL and OTIS,) and from Connecticut, (Mr. EDMOND,) say there is no censure included in the words of the report; others say there is. I thought there was, and, therefore, I made the motion of recommitment. What more severe language can be used, sir, than that of the report? It is, in my opinion, the most severe censure that possibly could come from the pen of a committee. Our judgment, even on this point, may differ, according to habit. It is well known that there is a coolness of temper, which is not easily irritated; harsh and severe words will not raise the habitual temper of some men in the world, while in others, nothing can exceed the offence which habit Mr. SHEPARD.-I wish to ask the House what and natural warmth of temper would construe the we are about? I think we are debating on a matsame words into. I consider these words are of-ter of very little consequence indeed. The quesfensive, and I confess it appears to me extraordi- tion is, whether the report of the select committee nary that those gentlemen who do not consider shall be recommitted or not. How did this comthem so, and who represent them as quite inno-mittee come to have the matter before them? It cent and unimportant, should appear so very averse to their being stricken out. In my opinion, it would have evinced the candor of gentlemen if they had suffered the report to have been recommitted; it certainly was unfair to introduce a censure by report; had it been done by resolution, we could then have given our opinion, and our vote upon the subject; but the committee having issued their censure by report, we have no means, but by recommitment, to get rid of the offensive matter. Gentlemen have said that it would be casting a censure on the committee to reconsider the report. If so, how often do we censure different committees of the House? How often are reports recommitted? The practice is common. If the principle is to be adopted, that we must not recommit a report for fear of offending a committee, we may as well make their decision final; upon the same ground we must not alter their resolutions. I do not mean, said Mr. S., to go into the reso lutions; I think they might be modified; upon this subject I would not wish severity. I well recollect that when I was an officer in the army, at the age of the young gentlemen, I should have felt as they did; perhaps I should have done moremy youthful zeal for the honor of the army might have excited me to actions which would have actually brought on a quarrel with the gentleman. I think there can be no doubt, from a review of the whole of this testimony, but the gentlemen accused meant to produce a quarrel; that they did not do it was owing to the moderation of the gentleman. Gentlemen say mere words are not cause of quarrel! Nothing but violence, in the opinion of those gentlemen, is cause. Sir, I consider words may be worse than blows; words may destroy a man's fame and his honor; blows can be cured, by making the party answer with his life for the offence. We should be careful of countenancing the impetuosity of young officers' tempers, lest we place ourselves in a situation which can little promote the good of the country. It appears to be the opinion of the committee, that no notice ought to be taken of the conduct of was on account of a few impertinent words which fell from the member from Virginia—a young member, and therefore he certainly was the more excusable. These words struck hard at the young gentlemen of the army. They resented it. I like them all the better for it, Mr. Speaker; they were commendable in showing their resentment at any degrading terms used about the army. Where are we going to end? Gentlemen get up, one after another, repeating the same things over and over, and making no new remarks, no new ideas. Sir, we are only degrading ourselves and lessening the dignity of the House by continuing a debate of so little consequence. It is high time to take the question. Not all that can be said more will alter the mind of a single member; they are already determined how to vote. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that gentlemen will shorten this debate, and spend their great talents on subjects more honorable to them and to the House. I will then listen to them with the greatest pleasure and patience to the last moment. Mr. CHRISTIE thought the gentleman from South Carolina, and some other gentlemen, had gone too far in their criticisms on testimony. Mr. C. said he declared only what he knew to be true, but yet it was said he must be mistaken? How mistaken? He only repeated upon oath words which were positively uttered, and in a place about which he could not be mistaken. Every incidental word of that testimony, Mr. C. said, came under his particular observation. But one lawyer had got up and thought him mistaken in one instance, another in another; another might presently get up and question whether he was at the theatre at all or not. Upon my word, said Mr. C., I do not know what these county-court lawyers cannot do, or how far their habits of culling testimony may lead them. Had I known the manner in which my testimony would have been treated, I should have been very unwilling to have obeyed the commands of the House to give it at all; and I believe in future it will be likely to have that effect upon me. Mr. RANDOLPH said he would call the attention of the House to a single observation. The situation, Mr. Speaker, in which I find my self is indeed new to me-standing upon your floor not as a person aggrieved, but in the character of a criminal. And with what, sir, am I charged? With "transferring the authority of this House to the President of the United States, by appealing to that Magistrate, in the name of the Legislature, on an occasion wherein its privi'leges had been infringed." H. of R. opinion of the case had been that it was a breach of privilege, or if such had been the sentiment of the House, then, indeed, there might have been some ground for crimination. If I had viewed it in this light, where would have been the difficulty of addressing my application to yourself? But it will be remembered, that at the time when the Message was delivered, at the time when. I disclaimed the idea of a breach of privilege or of I have appealed in the name of the Legisla- your protection, I made this declaration. But it ture!" Although this opinion has not been ad- was in his military capacity that I addressed myvanced by the committee in direct terms, it seems self to the President; because I supposed the disto have gained the assent of many members on cretion of the Commander-in-Chief would suggest this floor. Will those gentlemen who are so the necessity of a provision, to which his authoriready to suppose me capable of this monstrous ab- ty was completely adequate, which would remedy surdity, advert to the error of the press in the print- the present instance of misconduct, and repress ed report, which has substituted that word for le- those of a similar nature in future. Can a repregislator? Will they take the trouble of turning sentation to the Commander-in-Chief of the misto the original letter? They will then discover behaviour of his subalterns, in a case not amountthat I have not assumed to myself the right of ing to a breach of privilege, (for the committee acting in the name, not of this House only, but of and the House unite with me in this opinion)— both branches of Congress, unsupported by the can a statement of this outrage, because aggravatauthority of either. They will see that the rela- ed by the consideration of the official conduct tive their can have reference only to the antece- which excited it, and of the legislative character dent "people," and that as the representative of which was its object-can an application to a their majesty which had been insulted; as clothed military tribunal for remedy, to whose provision with their authority which had been contemned; this House is not competent, for an offence in which as the Commander-in-Chief of their forces, did its privileges are not implicated, can such a prothe President become the object of my applica-cedure attract your censure, as derogating from those rights with which your honor, your inde'pendence, and the inviolability of your members, are intimately connected?" tion. 66 It was my intention, Mr. Speaker, to explain the error into which we should be led by adopting the expression of the printed report, and to recall to the minds of gentlemen a chain of facts which display in a proper light the motives by which I have been actuated. It formed no part of my design to enter into any explanation of the various clauses and expressions of my letter, which have become the object of the very ingenious criticism of many members upon this floor; if, indeed, such had been my intention, I should have been anticipated by the candid illustration of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GALLATIN.) His exposition is warranted both by the literal sense of the composition which has become the object of so much virulent invective, and by that which the author has even affixed to the expressions which he has thought proper to use. I have "prostrated the privileges of this House before the shrine of Executive power." And can any one suppose, Mr. Speaker, that it is my desire to enlarge the Executive authority at the expense of the Legislative; to confide your rights to the unsafe guardianship of the President; and to hold at his will the inestimable privilege of free debate? I am under no apprehension, sir, that a serious belief of such an intention on my part can be entertained by any one who is at all acquainted with my political opinions-opinions hostile to the extension of Executive influence, and which inculcate a well-grounded jealousy of its formidable pretensions. But, sir, in relation to the fact: how does that stand? Will gentlemen carry their recollection back to the period when my letter was submitted by the President to their consideration? Did I not contest your right to extend your privileges beyond those limits which the Constitution had prescribed; did I not express a fear least a dangerous precedent might be established which would lead to terrible abuses-which I join with the gentleman from Massachusetts would be prostituted to the most nefarious pur- in the wish that the question might be immediposes; and did I not oppose a reference of the ately taken. Whatever the success of the moMessage, upon the ground that there had been notion, so far as relates to myself, it is a matter of breach of privilege? The committee agrees with me in this opinion, and it has received the concurrence of the House. Yet that very committee has determined (and you are about to affirm the decree) that I have submitted to the decision of the President a case involving the privileges of the representative body, although they have declared (and although this House has sanctioned the declaration) that no such case has occurred; although it is in evidence to you such was my own impression of the subject. If, Mr. Speaker, my indifference to me. It was under no expectation of averting the censure of the House that I have now addressed it. I entertain not a doubt upon the issue. But in the unshaken conviction of the propriety of my procedure, and in the approbation of my constituents, whose honor and whose interests it will ever be my object to maintain, I can have no cause of personal regret. The question was then taken upon recommitting the report, and was decided in the negativeyeas 43, nays 50, as follows: H. OF R. Breach of Privilege. JANUARY, 1800. CASE OF MR. RANDOLPH. "In executing the task assigned to them, it is with peculiar satisfaction your committee notice the respect shown in his Message by the President of the United States, to the rights and privileges of the House. YEAS-Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C. Claiborne, report of the committee, to whom was referred, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George on the fourteenth instant, the Message of the PreDent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorf, John Fow-sident of the United States, together with a letter ler, Albert Gallatin, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John of JOHN RANDOLPH. Jr., a member of this House A. Hanna, Thomas Hartley, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, George Jackson, James Jones, Michael Leib, from the State of Virginia: and the same being Matthew Lyon, James Linn, Edward Livingston, again read, in the words following, to wit: Nathaniel Macon, Peter Muhlenberg, John Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro, John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, and Robert Williams. NAYS-George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, John Brown, William Cooper, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Franklin Davenport, John Dennis, Joseph Dickson, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, Samuel Lyman, John Marshall, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John Reed, John Rutledge, junior, Samuel Sewall, James Sheafe, William Shepard, George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods. Resolved, That the order for a call of the House this day be dispensed with, and that there be a call of the House on Thursday next, at two o'clock. Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said resolution, and that the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business do prepare and bring in the same. Mr. GRISWOLD, from the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business, to whom it was referred, on the thirteenth instant, to prepare and report a bill to continue in force, "An act declaring the consent of Congress to a certain act of the State of Maryland, and to continue an act declaring the consent of Congress to certain acts of the States of Maryland, Georgia, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, so far as the same respects the States of Georgia and Rhode Island," reported a bill declaring the assent of Congress to certain acts of the States of Rhode Island, Maryland, and Georgia; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next. "On the style of the letter to the President, referred to the consideration of the committee, they forbear any other remark than to express their regret that a mem ber of the House has conceived himself justified in deviating from the forms of decorum customary in official communications to the Chief Magistrate of the United States, justly due to his office and character, and es sential to that harmony between the different branches of the Government, which should be circumspectly cherished by their respective members. "In Mr. Randolph's letter, he states, that for words of a general nature, uttered in debate in the House of Representatives, on the proposition for reducing the Army, he had been publicly and grossly insulted by several persons, officers of the Army or Navy; and demands, of the Executive authority, redress for an attack on his independence and rights as a legislator. "Your committee, being of opinion that the matter of complaint respects the privileges of the House, inhe rent in its own body, and there exclusively cognizable, Executive authority, however otherwise intended, as cannot but consider the appeal, in this instance, to the derogating from those rights of the House with which are intimately connected both its honor and independence, and the inviolability of its members. "Your committee further report that, on inquiry, they found James McKnight, Captain, and Michael Reynolds, Lieutenant, of Marines, to be the persons implicated in Mr. Randolph's charge. They, on notice, appeared before the committee, and denied the truth of the allegations. The committee have collected all the heard the parties accused, with their witnesses; and, evidence they could find to be material in the case, and although they believe a series of circumstances to have taken place at the theatre, on the evening of Friday. the 10th instant, which appeared to Mr. Randolph, and others present, to evince premeditated insult towards him, yet, as some of those circumstances have been satisfactorily explained, and others are of a nature too equivocal to justify reprehension and punishment, your committee are of opinion that sufficient cause does not appear for the interference of the House, on the ground of a breach of their privileges. "Your committee have taken the evidence in wri ting, which they submit to the consideration of the House, with the following resolutions: "Resolved, That this House entertain a respectful States has shown to its rights and privileges, in his sense of the regard which the President of the United Message of the 14th instant, accompanied by a letter addressed to him by John Randolph, jun., a member of this House. 66 John Randolph, jun., a member of this House, in his Resolved, That in respect to the charge alleged by letter addressed to the President of the United States, on the 11th instant, and by him submitted to the consideration of the House, that sufficient cause does not JANUARY. 1800. Breach of Privilege. appear for the interposition of this House, on the ground of a breach of its privileges." H. OF R. Henry Lee, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, James Linn, The question was taken, that the House do agree to the first resolution contained in the said report, and resolved in the affirmative. The second resolution being under considera-Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard Stanford, David Stone, tion, a motion was made and seconded to amend Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro, Richard Thothe same by inserting, before the word "sufficient," mas, John Thomson, John Trigg, and Philip Van Cortin the fifth line, the words "although the conduct of Captain McKnight and Lieutenant Reynolds was indiscreet and improper, yet," and to insert, before the word "interposition," in the sixth line, the word "further:" Whereupon, It was further moved and seconded to amend the said amendment, by inserting, after the word improper," the words "and deserves reprehension." And the question being taken, that the House do agree to the same, it passed in the negativeyeas 42, nays 56, as follows: YEAS-Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Robert landt. Brown, Christopher G. Champlin, William Cooper, Williams, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods. And then the main question being taken to agree to the said second resolution as amended, it passed in the negative-yeas 49, nays 51, as follows: Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C. Claiborne, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorf, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, Samuel Goode, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph YEAS-George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, James A. BayHeister, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, George Jack-ard, John Bird, Jonathan Brace, Robert Brown, Chrisson, James Jones, Aaron Kitchell, Michael Leib, Mat- topher G. Champlin, William Cooper, Franklin Daventhew Lyon, James Linn, Edward Livingston, Peter port, John Dennis, George Dent, Joseph Dickson, Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph H. Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, JonaNicholson, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, Richard Stan- than Freeman, Henry Glen, Samuel Goode, Chauncey ford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Talia- Goodrich, William Gordon, William Barry Grove, ferro, John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, and John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Philip Van Cortlandt. Hartley, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, John Marshall, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John Reed, Samuel Sewall, James Sheafe, William Shepard, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard Stanford, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, and Lemuel Williams. NAYS-George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, John Bird, NAYS-Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, John Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Condit, William Craik, Samuel W Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, William Edmond, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorf, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, Elizur Goodrich, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, Joseph Heister, David Wil-Holmes, George Jackson, James Jones, Aaron Kitchell, The question was then taken, that the House do agree to the amendment as originally proposed to the said second resolution, and resolved in the affirmative-yeas 61, nays 39, as follows: John Wilkes Kittera, Michael Leib, Samuel Lyman, A motion was then made and seconded that the House do come to the following resolution, to wit: YEAS-Willis Alston, George Baer, Theodorus Bailey, Bailey Bartlett, John Bird, Phanuel Bishop, Rob-liams, and Henry Woods. ert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C. Claiborne, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Dickson, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorf, Thomas Evans, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, Samuel Goode, William Gordon, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, George Jackson, James Jones, Aaron Kitchell, Resolved, That this House do highly disapprove of the conduct of Captain McKnight and Lieutenant Reynolds, towards John Randolph, a member of this House, on the evening of Friday, the tenth instant; but, considering it as an indiscretion of youth, are unwilling to exercise their constitutional authority of punishment, under a hope that similar instances of misconduct will not occur in future. The SPEAKER deciding the said motion not to be in order, an appeal was made to the House from the decision of the Chair; and the question being taken that the House do concur with the SPEAKER in his said decision, it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 56, nays 42, as follows: YEAS-George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, John Bird, Jonathan Brace, John Brown, Christopher G. Champlin, William C. C. Claiborne, William Cooper, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Franklin Davenport, John Dennis, Joseph Dickson, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glen, Samuel Goode, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, Samuel Lyman, John Marshall, Lewis R. Morris, Abraham Nott, Harrison G. Otis, Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John Reed, Samuel Sewall, James Sheafe, William Shepard, George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods. NAYS-Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorf, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, George Jackson, James Jones, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, James Linn, Edward Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, Peter Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro, John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, and Robert Williams. And so the said motion was rejected. THURSDAY, January 30. JANUARY, 1800. said Committee; and, after some time spent therein, the Committee rose and reported several amendments thereto. And then the House adjourned. FRIDAY, January 31. Mr. GRISWOLD, from the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business, made a further report, in part; which was read and considered: Whereupon, Resolved, That the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business do prepare and report a bill to revive and continue in force an act entitled "An act respecting the Mint." A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that they had passed the bill. entitled "An act providing for salvage in cases of recapture," with several amendments; to which they desire the concurrence of this House. The said amendments were read, and ordered to be referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures. The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business, made the twenty-third instant, to whom were referred the amendments of the Senate to the bill to repeal part of an act, entitled "An act to provide for mitigating or remitting the forfeitures, penalties, and disabilities, accruing in certain cases therein mentioned;" and the said report and amendments of the Senate, being again read, Resolved, That this House doth agree to the first amendment proposed by the Senate to the said bill. other amendments of the Senate, with amendResolved That this House doth agree to the ments. Ordered. That the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate therewith. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the bill to discharge Robert Sturgeon from his imprisonment; and, after spending some time therein, the Committee rose and reported the bill without amendment. Ordered, That the said bill be engrossed, and Ordered, That the Committee of the Whole House to whom is committed the bill for the re-read the third time on Monday next. form of the Superior Court in the Territory of the United States Northwest of the Ohio river, be discharged from the further consideration thereof, and that the said bill be recommitted to Mr. CRAIK, Mr. HARRISON, and Mr. BIRD, with instruction to report their opinion on the expediency of dividing the said Territory into two distinct governments: Provided, That the line of division shall commence at the mouth of the Great Miami river, and run due north until it strikes the dividing line between the United States and Canada. UNIFORM BANKRUPTCY. The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported, yesterday, from the Committee of the whole House to whom was recommitted the bill to establish an uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States: Whereupon, Resolved, That the order for a call of the House this day, at two o'clock, be rescinded. The House proceeded in the third reading of the bill to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States: Whereupon, Ordered, That the said bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House immediately. The House accordingly resolved itself into the The first amendment being twice read, was further amended at the Clerk's table, and, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House. A motion being then made and seconded to postpone the further consideration of the said report of the Committee of the whole House, until the first Monday in December next. The previous question thereon was called for by five members, to wit: "Shall the main question, to agree to the said motion, be now put?" And, on the previous question, to wit: "Shall the said main question be now put ?" it passed in the negative-yeas 41, nays 56, as follows: |