The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

CONGRESS.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Debate in Committee of the whole.

ON THE

IMPEACHMENT

of

JUDGE CHASE.

MONDAY, December 3, 1804.

Mr. Varnum in the Chair.

The reported articles were read.

Mr. Elliot, It will be recollected, Mr. Chairman, by every member of the committee who was present at the close of the last session, that upon the report of the committee of inquiry, recommending the impeachment of Judge Chase, no member but myself thought proper to deliver his sentiments. I feel no inclination to retravel the ground which I then occupied in solitude; especially as the opinions which I then advanced remain unaltered. Nor have I a disposition to embarrass the proceedings. I wish, indeed, to simplify them. But I feel it my duty to suggest that course of proceeding, and that mode of decision, which I believe to be demanded equally by our duty to the person accused, to our own consciences, and to our country; and I shall suggest them with confidence rather than with diffidence, because they are so extremely obvious. I believe it to be our duty deliberately to investigate the principles involved in the report, some of which are certainly novel, and to take distinct questions upon each general head of accusation. Because I think Mr. Chase ought to be impeached for two or three misdemeanors, I cannot give my vote in favor of articles accusing him of eight high crimes and thirty or forty misdemeanors. If I should be so fortunate as to be seconded in the opinions which I entertain upon this subject; I will move to amend the report upon the table by striking out that part which relates to the conduct of judge Chase on the trial of John Fries, and which is now comprised in the first article.

The motion being seconded,

MR. SMILIE asked if the motion was in order, observing that the report consisted of a number of distinct propositions which he conceived were to be considered in the usual way article by article and the question would be, either to concur or non-concur. The gentleman (Mr. E.) might gratify his zeal in this way as well as in the mode he had proposed for striking out, and the result would be the same—It would furnish an opportunity for every member to speak for or against each article, as well as to amend any.

Mr. Elliot replied that he was not tenacious of form. His only object was to obtain distinct questions. If the committee of the whole were disposed to pursue the course pointed out by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, he would withdraw his motion.

The Chairman gave it as his opinion that the proper mode of proceeding would be to take the report up by articles.

On the first article being read,

Mr. Elliot moved to strike it out.

The Chairman said the motion to strike out the first section was in order, and was usual in the case of a bill in order to decide upon its merits but in independent articles like the present it would be preferable to take the question on concurring, so that the opinion of the committee might be ascertained on each article.

Mr. Smilie expressed an indifference as to the mode of decision, but he believed what he had suggested was conformable to all former rules and practices.

Mr. F. Randolph, after a short pause, said that the question of concurrence with the select committee in his opinion ought to be taken on each article, separately, and for his part he had no objection to take it upon each separate member of each article, if any gentleman wished it to be taken in that way.

Mr. Nicholson observing that there was no question before the committee, conceived that one ought to be presented for their decision. He therefore moved that the committee of the whole concur with the select committee & agree to the first article. Which being seconded the question was put by the Chairman, a division was called for. and 78 Members rising in the affirmative, it was carried without reversing the question-78 being more than a majority of the whole House had all the Members been present.

The 2d article under consideration.

Mr. Dawson. This mode of proceeding incurs some difficulty which might be prevented by the motion to strike out. as in the latter case the principle upon which the article is grounded would be tested, and if the principle was adopted the phraseology might be varied and amended as might be thought proper.

Chairman. The committee has already determined to proceed in a different manner, it therefore does not rest upon the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Smilie suggested the propriety of reading the evidence in support of each article, as there were many gentlemen here who were not present at the last session when the testimony was both read and printed.

Mr. Findley seconded the motion.

Mr. Nicholson. Reading the testimony will occupy the whole day, it constitutes the volume in my hand (a volume of apparently 200 pages.)

Mr. Smilie would not call for its reading on his own account; he had already perused the testimony, but there were several Gentlemen now present who were not here at the last session, who perhaps have not had an opportunity of seeing the documents, and he believed gentlemen generally voted with more satisfaction on subjects with which they are well acquainted than on those where doubts or apprehensions are entertained. Besides he deemed it more safe and dignified to proceed with caution and due deliberation on so serious a question as that of impeaching a person holding one of the most important stations in the government.

Mr. Nicholson. The manner of proceeding in the business of impeachment at the last session, was, to read such parts of the testimony upon the call of a Member as related to the particular article under consideration. He recollected upon the impeachment of Judge Pickering that the gentleman on the other side of the House from New Hampshire called for reading the particular part of the testimony, most likely to extricate the officer impeached, or produce a conviction in the minds of others such as he felt himself he hoped the same course of proceeding would be adopted by the committee, 'and such portions would from time to time be read as Members required.

The Chairman put the question on reading the testimony generally, which was lost on the division, being only 40 in the affirmative, and 54 in the negative.

The second article being under consideration.

Mr. Boyle moved to amend the latter part of the article by striking out the words in Italic and inserting those in a parenthesis-" John Baet one of the Jury who wished to be excused from serving on the said trial because he had made up his as to (that) the publication from which the words charged to be libellous in the indictment were extracted (was within the statute of the United States upon which the said Callender was indicted) &c." Making the allegation in this way you will find it fully supported by the testimony, for they are the words of the testimony itself ; it is said the 8th Juror acknowledged that he had formed an unequivocal opinion that such a book as " the Prospect Before Us" came within the sedition law.

Mr. - supposed that the rule adopted by the committee against the reading of the general testimony would not prevent particular parts as they apply to particular points from being read, he therefore called for reading so much of the evidence as related to the Juror mentioned in the 2d article.

Mr. Nicholson mentioned page 133 of the depositions of the witnesses on the part of the United States as the place where the clerk would find what the gentlemen wanted.

Which being read as follows :

" Perhaps it is not improper here to observe, that the eighth juror answered when the previous question was put to him, that though he had never read or heard the charges in the indictment, and knew not what the traverser had published, yet he had formed an unequivocal opinion, that such a book as " The Prospect Before Us," was, came within the sedition law: But no objection was made to him, and he was sworn like the rest."

Mr. F. Randolph referred to page 56 near the top for other corroborative evidence.

The clerk read the following :

" One of the jury, John Baet, stated that he was unwilling to serve, having made up his mind as to the book called " The Prospect, &c." but as he acknowledged that he had not formed and delivered an opinion concerning the charges in the indictment, because in fact, he knew not what they were. his objection was over-ruled."

And also from page 61, as follows ;

" It is to be observed that Mr. Ba- ett who had been summoned on the jury, seemed to have considerable scru- ples at serving, and stated that he had expressed some opinion as to the " Prospect Before Us." Judge Chase however declared Mr. Basett a good juror, and he was sworn and acted as a juror."

Mr. J. Randolph thanked his friend from Kentucky for every suggestion tending to improve the report of the committee, confident that his motives were highly commendable. The report has been referred by the House to a committee of the whole for the purpose of obtaining by a full, fair and free, dis- cussion, two objects ; first, to determine whether the charges exhibited are such as the House are willing to prefer against the person impeached, and in order if they be found incorrect to make them as perfect as possible. On both these points I invite discussion in the name of the select committee, who brought in this report. At the same time I wish to sug- gest to my friend (Mr. Boyle) the pro- priety of re-examining his idea. and as- certaining whether the eighth juror al- luded to in the account of Callendar's trial is the juror mentioned in the testi- mony of Mr. Hay, and of Mr. Nicholas. These gentlemen mention the juror by name. Mr. Robinson's account of the trial mentions him by number. Now if it should appear that the eighth juror was not Mr. Baset, must not the article fall to the ground if the proposed alte- ration should take place. I think it one of the strongest circumstances in this article that a juror was compelled to serve after stating that he had made up his mind as to the criminal offence on the question he was about being sworn well and truly to try. The committee will perceive a considerable variation be- tween the testimony in page 133 & 56. In the first the writer introduces " with a perhaps it is not improper here to ob- serve," that the eighth juror answered when the previous question was put to him, that though he had never read the indictment, yet he had formed an o- pinion that such a book as the " Pro- pect before us" came within the sedi- tion law. This I believe is the amount of what is said in that page, and it appears from this to be an incidental circum- stance only; whereas if you turn to page 56 it is there stated with the clear- est precision, that he was unwilling to serve because he had made up his mind on the book called the Prospect. It does not appear to be drawn from him by the previous question, but it does appear fully and unequivocally to be of his own mere motion, a conscientious scruple to try what he had already past judgment upon. In my opinion the re- port is better as it stands than it would be with the alteration, and I submit to my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Boyle) whe'ther it would not be better to let the article stand, rather than fail before the Senate, if it should turn out the 8th juror and Mr. Baet are different persons.

Mr. Boyle had heard no objection but which might be obviated by another a- mendment, that was to strike out the name of John Baet, and then it would apply to the juryman who had used the expression; in that case the House might rely in sustaining their impeach- ment before the Senate upon the evi- dence as well of page 133 as on that of 56. He moved to strike out " John Baset."

Mr. Nicholson did not think it ne- cessary that the words proposed to be stricken out should be struck out, He thought that under the words contained in this article as it stood it would be perfectly regular and proper even on a trial proceeding before the Senate to give in evidence the testimony alluded to in page 133. And he had no doubt but the Senate would admit all evidence of this kind to have its proper weight, because it seems to be universally ad- mitted and has been long understood, that in proceedings by way of impeach- ment that technical precision is not re- quired, which is required by our courts of law on indictment. If however gentlemen are embarrassed, about having this testimony directly pointed, this may be easily come at. They can add it to the arti- cle as another count is added to a bill of indictment. This mode is very well known, and may be adopted by those who think it necessary ; for his part he did not think it necessary.

Mr. Boyle withdrew his motion for the present.

The question was now taken on the second article and carried, eighty mem- bers rising in the affirmative.

The third article before the commit- tee.

Mr. J. Randolph read the following testimony in support of this article, viz.

" When the trial commenced, Col. John Taylor, of Caroline, was introduc- ed as a witness for the prisoner. I be- lieve he was sworn. The counsel wished to interrogate him. This they were not permitted to do, until they had stated the points to which his evidence related. They were then obliged by Mr. Chase, to reduce the questions, which they wish- ed to propound to Col. Taylor, to writ- ing, and then to submit them to his inspection, that he might determine, whether they should be propounded or not.

"Col. Taylor's evidence was rejected. The ground of this opinion as stated by Mr. Chase was this, that col. Taylor could not prove the whole of one charge. The charge was, the judge (Chase) said, " that the President was a professed ari- stocrat-that he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest." Proving half, he said, was doing no- thing ; both facts must be proved. It was contended, on the part of the pri- soner that if it was necessary to prove both facts by the same witness, the charge in both points would be proved by the te- stimony of col. Taylor. He would prove that Mr. Adams had professed aristocra- tical opinions; and that he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest, in the way meant by " the Prospect, &c." by voting against the sequestration law, and the law sus- pending all intercourse with Great Britain. The judge (Chase) repeated that the evidence was inadmissible, that the counsel knew it to be so, and that they only wanted to deceive and to mislead the populace."

And afterwards he added the follow- ing, viz.

" Interrogatory 4th. Did Mr. Chase refuse to the prisoner the testimony of a witness, because he, the said witness, could not prove the truth of all the facts set forth, and upon which the indictment was grounded?

"Answer. After the jury in Callen- der's case were sworn, Col. Taylor, of Caroline, who attended as a witness, in consequence of a subpoena served upon him on behalf of Callender, was called to the book and sworn in the usual form. Judge Chase at this moment asked, with considerable haste and eagerness of man- ner, what the counsel expected to prove by the witness? He was informed that they meant to ask him whether Mr. Adams had not avowed in his presence, sentiments inimical to a republican form of government, and whether he did not, whilst Vice-President, give the casting vote in the Senate against the sequestra- tion of British debts, and against the suspension of intercourse with Great Britain. Judge Chase demanded that the counsel should state in writing the questions meant to be asked. The coun- sel for the defendant opposed this, be- cause, although a number of witnesses had been examined on the part of the United States, no similar requisition had been made with respect to them, because it was contrary to the practice in the state courts, and because also it was un- reasonable in itself, & calculated to sub- ject every question of fact to the controul of the court. Judge Chase, however, insisted that the questions should be submitted to his previous decision. They were ac- cordingly put in writing, and were as follow, to wit :

" 1. Did you ever hear Mr. Adams ex- press any sentiments favorable to mo- narchy or aristocracy-and what were they ?

2. Did you ever hear Mr. Adams, whilst Vice-President, express his disap- probation of the funding system ?

"3. Do you know whether Mr. Adams did in the year 1794, vote against the sequestration of British debts, and for stopping all intercourse with Great Bri- tain ?

" After having examined the questions, judge Chase declared that Col. Taylor's evidence was inadmissible. He declared that no evidence could be received that did not justify the whole charge. The charge, said he, is, that the traverser said of the President, he is a professed aristocrat and has proved faithful to the British interest;- now you must prove both points, or you prove nothing ; and as your evidence relates to one only, it cannot be received you must prove all or none. This was in substance, and it is believed the precise words in which Judge Chase stated his objection to Col. Taylor's evidence. The counsel asked the. judge whether they could not be al- lowed to prove part of a charge by one witness and part by another ? To this judge Chase replied, that if the counsel. could prove the whole of any one charge by Col. Taylor, they might do it, otherwie they should not examine him. The coun- sel contended that Col. Taylor's evidence applied to the whole of the charge which the judge had stated in his opinion.-- That they meant to prove by him, that the President had professed anti-repub- lican sentiments, and had proved faith- ful and serviceable to the British interest. in the sense in which those expressions were used in the Prospect. The judge, however, adhered to his determination to exclude the evidence ; and Col. Tay- lor retired from the court with evident marks of astonishment."

The question was taken upon the third article without a division, and car- ried.

The fourth article being before the committee, it was considered by para- graphs.

Mr. J. Randolph. The testimony in support of the first paragraph has been read on the preceding article; in is that part of Mr. Nicholas's testimony stating the demand of judge Chase that the counsel should state in writing the que- stions meant to be asked.

The chairman proceeded to read the second paragraph and

Mr. F. Randolph read in its support, the following affidavit :

City of Richmond, to wit :

This day James Thomson Callender, made oath before me, a magistrate for the said city, that William Gardner, Tench Coxe, Judge Bee, Timothy Pic- kering, William B. Giles, Seven Thomson Mason, and General Black- burn, he believes to be material witne- sses in his defence, against an indictment found against him during the present term of the circuit court of the United States for the middle circuit. Virginia district ;-That William Gardner, afore- said, resides, he believes, in Portsmouth, in the state of New-Hampshire ;--That Tench Coxe, aforesaid, resides in Phila- delphia, in the state of Pennsylvania ;- That judge Bee resides, this deponent believes, in South-Carolina, but in what part of the state he knows not ; _That Timothy Pickering, aforesaid. resided of late in Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, but where he resides at this time the deponent doth not know; —That William B. Giles, aforesaid, he hath understood, since he hath been fur- nished with a copy of the indictment, and since the said Giles hath left town, resides in the county of Amelia, and that General Blackburn resides in the county of Bath.

" The said James Thomson Cal- lendar further declares, that he expects to prove by the said Wm. Gardner, and that he verily believes that he shall prove by the said William Gardner, that the said Wil- liam Gardner was commissioner of loans for the state of New-Hampshire, under the government of the United States, and that he was turned out of the said office of commissioner of loans, because he the said Gardner refused to subscribe an address circulated in the town of Port- mouth, in New-Hampshire, and pre- sented to the President of the United States, in the year 1798, at the instance of several inhabitants of the said town ; in which address unequivocal approba- tion of the conduct of the said President in the administration of the United States is expressed.

" 2d. The said James Thomson Cal- lendar also declares on oath ;-That he verily believes that he shall prove by the evidence of Tench Coxe aforesaid, that he, the said Tench Coxe, in the year 1798, held an important office under the government of the United States, to wit, commissioner of the revenue. from which office the said Coxe was ejected by the present President of the United States ; because he did not approve the measures of his, the said President's ad- ministration, or the principles on which it was conducted.

"That he verily believes he shall be able to prove by the evidence of Judge Bee. that he did receive from the President of the United States in the year 1799, a letter in which he the said President did advise and request the said Judge Bee, then acting in his judicial character, to deliver to the Consul of the British na- tion in Charleston, Jonathan Robbins alias Thomas Nash, who had been ap- prehended and carried before the said Judge on a charge of murder committed on the high seas on board the British fri- gate Hermione.

" He further deposes on oath, that he verily believes that he shall be able to prove by the evidence of Timothy Picker- ing, that the President of the United States was in possession of dispatches from Mr. Vans Murray, American mi- nister in Holland, containing assurances
on the part of the French republic. That
ambassadors from the United States
would be received in a way satisfactory
to the people and government of the
United States, many weeks while Con-
gress was in session, before he commu-
nicated the same to Congress.
. The deponent further saith, that he
verily believes that he shall be able to
prove by the evidence of Stephen Thomp-
son Mason and William B. Giles, that
John Adams, President of the United
States, has unequivocally avowed in
conversation with them, principles ut-
terly incompatible with the principles
of the present constitution of the Unit-
ed States, principles which could not be
carried into operation under any politi-
cal institution without the establishment
of a direct, powerful and dangerous
aristocracy; that he declared in expres-
terms to the said Stevens Thompson
Mason, that he had no more idea that
the present federal constitution could, for
any length of time, control the people
of the United States, than that it could
control the motions of the planets ;
that he also declared to the said Stevens
Thompson Mason, that he had no more
idea that a political society could exist
without a distinction of ranks, than that
an army could exist without officers:
And also that he can prove by the said
William B. Giles, that the President of
the United States has avowed in con-
versation with him a sentiment to this
effect, that he thought the executive
department of the United States ought
to be vested with power to direct and
control the public will.
" That this deponent verily believes
that he shall be able to prove by George
Blackburn that he did, on the
day of
in the year 1798,
receive an address from John Adams,
President of the United States, in an-
swer to the field officers of Bucks coun-
ty, in which the said President does avow,
that there was a party in Virginia which
deserved to be humbled in dust and
ashes, before the indignant frowns of
their injured, insulted and offended
country.
" And this deponent further saith,
that he is advised and believes that it is
material to his defence against the indict-
ment aforesaid, that he should procure
authentic copies of undry answers made
by the President of the United States to
address from the inhabitants of the
United States in various parts thereof,
which authentic copies he cannot pro-
cure, so as to be in readiness for trial
during the present term.
" He also saith, that he is advised
and doth believe that a certain book en-
titled " An Essay on Canon and Feudal
Law," or entitled in words to that pur-
port, ascribed to the President of the
United States, and of which he believes
the President is the author, is material
to his defence, and that he cannot pro-
cure a copy of the same, and evidence
to prove that the said President is the
author thereof, without being allowed
several weeks and perhaps months for
the purpose.
" He further saith, that he is told by
the counsel who mean to appear for him,
that they cannot possibly be prepared to
investigate the evidence relating to the
several charges in the indictment, even
if all the persons and documents wanted
were upon the spot.
WM. DUVAL.
.May 28th, 1800.
District of Virginia,
2d Circuit,
to wit.
" I certify that the foregoing is tru-
ly copied from the original in my office.
WILL. MARSHALL
Clk. Ct. of the United States 5th
Circuit. Va. Dt."
The committee proceeded to consider
the third paragraph of the 4th article.
Mr. E. Randolph. Under another
paragraph, part of the testimony has
been read, but the following should be
added:
Mr. Hay says,
" The counsel, who were associated
with me, in Callender's defence, at-
tempted to address the jury on the un-
constitutionality of the law, on which
the indictment was founded, They
were interrupted, and obliged, by Mr.
Chase, if not ordered, to sit down. I
then addressed Mr. Chase himself, with
a view, to satisfy him, that I had a
right to discuss this point before the
jury. I told him that what I was then
about to say, was intended for the court
alone. He interrupted me; he asked
some question which was answered : in a
very short time, after I had resumed my ar-
gument, I was interrupted again, by Mr.
Chase. How often I was interrupted
I know not ; but I was interrupted, rude-
ly interrupted several times. Having seen
in the course of this trial what I had never
seen before, having felt what I never
felt before, and what I certainly expect
never to feel again, and being impressed
with a sense that Mr. Chase was deter-
mined to silence me, if he could, my
mind was overwhelmed by conflicting
sentiments, and I quitted the bar, my
client, and the court."
When the question was about to be
put on agreeing to the whole of the 4th
article.
Mr. Monroe rose and remarked that
he was not here when the committee
on this subject reported at the last ses-
sion, and of course did not get a copy of
the evidence. he had however seen a
part thereof in the newspapers and ex-
examined so much of the subject as to
have satisfied him, that it was proper to
vote in favor of two of the articles, to
wit; the first and third, but as he had
not an opportunity since coming to this
place of comparing the articles of im-
peachment with the testimony on which
they were founded, and as he could
not make up his mind in hearing the
evidence partially read, and as the
House have refused to put it off for
a short time, and he was not allowed
to make the examination for himself, he
was obliged to inform the committee,
that he was not satisfied to vote in fa-
vor of the 4th article, whereas had he
been allowed time he might join in a
vote with the majority.
Mr. Nicholson said all the evidence
on the subject of this article had not
been read, he would therefore read it
himself as the clerk was indisposed with
a hoarseness--He read the following:
". The additional deposition of Philip
Norborne Nicholas, taken before
George Wythe and Joseph Scott Es-
quires, under authority of the House
of Representatives of the United
States.
" The said Nicholas being asked by
the said commissioners what was the ge-
neral deportment and manner of Judge
Chase during the trial of James Thomp-
son Callender, answers-
" That the general deportment & man-
ner of Mr. Chase during the said trial,
appeared to the said Nicholas to be mark-
ed with great violence and precipita-
tion : and that Judge Chase manifested
a solicitude for the conviction of the pr-
isoner. which, in the estimation of said
Nicholas, was improper in a judge
sitting in a criminal prosecution.—
The said Nicholas further states, that
the deportment of judge Chase to
the counsel, who appeared for Callender,
was rude and overbearing, and calcu-
lated to prevent that full and free de-
fence, without which it was impossible
for them to do justice to their client.
PHILIP NORBORNE NICHOLAS.
Richmond February 7th 1804.
". The additional deposition of George
Hay, who being asked what were the
manners and deportment of Samuel
Chase, during the trial of James
Thomson Callender, deposeth and
saith,
" That it appeared to him at the time
of the trial, and he yet believes that
the manners of Mr. Chase were inten-
tionally rude and insolent, The depo-
nent thought and still thinks, that Mr.
Chase was determined that Callender
should, if possible, be convicted, and that
to accomplish this purpose, he endeavored
to intimidate, to depress, and to
silence his counsel. He interrupted them
frequently, with wanton rudeness. He
ordered one, if not more, of them to sit
down. He charged with them advancing
doctrines which they knew to be illegal,
and which they advanced, he said, only
to deceive and mislead the populace.—
The patience of the deponent was at
length exhausted, and he quitted the
court and the cause, under a belief that
further exertions in the defence would
only tend to cover himself with still
greater shame, to subject himself to still greater
humiliation.
" The deponent believes that those did
not escape from him during the trial, a
word or gesture, that could have given
offence to the Judge. The conduct of
his associates was, he believes, equally
guarded: he does not therefore ascribe
the insolence of Mr. Chase to irritation,
occasioned by the conduct of the bar.
" The deponent is under no apprehension,
that his judgment has been much
misted, by the circumstances attending
his own situation. He knows, and can
now name men, whose politics then dif-
fered from his own, who expressed their
abhorrence of Mr. Chase's conduct in
terms as strong as language affords.--
In fact the public mind was very much
excited, and apprehensions were enter-
tained by many, that some serious dif-
turbance might take place. Mr. Mun-
roe, then governor of Virginia, was so
completely convinced of the danger,
that he not only earnestly recommended
moderation and forbearance to those who
were daily crowding about him, but kept
his eye constantly on the capitol, that he
might be ready to command the peace,
at the first appearance of commotion.—
To him Mr. Chase is probably indebted
for the safety of his person during his
residence in Richmond.
" The solicitude of Mr. Munroe to
preserve order, arose from causes totally
unconnected with Mr. Chase. The cha-
racter of the state, he observed, had ne-
ver been tarnished by any opposition to
the laws, or any outrage on persons
clothed with its authority. The preser-
vation of this character at that period,
(May 1800) was in his estimation
a matter of infinite importance, he
therefore urged and entreated those, who
supposed, might come into collision with
the Judge, to be patient, under every
outrage."
GEORGE HAY.
Richmond, Feb. 7, 1804.
The question was taken on the 4th
article and carried without a division.
The fifth article was then taken into
consideration.
Mr. J. Randolph asked the circum-
stances upon which this article was
grounded; by the 33d section of the
act of Congress establishing the judicial
courts of the United States, it is provid-
ed that for any crime or offence against
the United States the offender shall be
arrested, imprisoned, or bailed, agreea-
bly to the usual mode of process in the
state where such offender may be found:
and it is provided by the laws of Vir-
ginia, printed in a volume commonly
called the Revised Code of 1794. That
the manner of proceeding against per-
sons charged with crimes shall be in one
of these two modes, the first in capital
cases such as treason or felony, the se-
cond in cases not capital. The Virgi-
nia Laws authorize expressly the issuing
of a Capias on which the body of an
offender may be taken and committed
to close custody in the first species of of-
fence. In the other case. that is of of-
fences not capital, this process is not
warranted by our laws which require a
different process, viz; a summons, which
the court may order the clerk to issue
returnable to the next ensuing court.
In the case of Callender who was presented and indicted for a crime not capital,
the circuit court did issue the process
which is only warranted in capital cases.
To convince the committee on these
points. he read the 5th section of the
Law of Virginia page 110 respecting
the trial and punishment of criminals, and
also section 28 page 112. From these
regulations he said there could not re-
main a shadow of doubt that the pro-
cess which was issued against Callender,
by order of the circuit Court, and which
is annexed to the articles of impeach-
ment, and which commands the marshal
of the Virginia district, to arrest the bo-
dy of J.T. Callender. and bring him
forthwith before the judges of the court,
was illegal, being contrary to the laws
of Virginia and of course contrary to
the laws of the United States.
The question was taken on adopting
the 5th article, and carried 71 voting in
the affirmative, and 30 in the nega-
tive.
The sixth article under considera-
tion.
Mr. E. Randolph said the law of
Virginia relative to this point having
just been read, he would only point to
the words which are repeated from that
law by the article of impeachment, they
evince that the authority of Congress as
well as the laws of the state of Virgi-
nia had been both disregarded and con-
temned,
On the question to agree to the sixth
article the committee divided, there be-
ing 70 in its favor and 22 against it ; it
was carried.
The seventh article before the com-
mittee.
Mr. J. Randolph said it was extract-
ed almost word for word from the depo-
sition of George Read Attorney for
Delaware district ; the deposition is as
follows;
" First. To the first interrogatory
this deponent saith, that he was present
in the character of district attorney of
the United States of America. in and
for the Delaware district. at a circuit
court of the said United States, held
at New Castle, on the twenty-seventh
and twenty-eighth days of June, one
thousand eight hundred, in and for the
said district, by, and before Samuel
Chase, one of the judges of the supreme
court of the said United States, and
Gunning Bedford, district judge of the
United States aforesaid, for the said
district.
" Second. To the second interrogato-
ry this deponent saith, that he was pre-
sent in court on the first day of the
said court, mentioned in this deponent's
answer to the first interrogatory, when
the grand jury then and there attending,
after having received a charge from
the said Samuel Chase as presiding judge,
retired to their room, and also when
they returned to the bar of the said
court.
". Third. To the third interrogatory
this deponent saith, that the grand ju-
ry, through their foreman, upon being
asked by the clerk the question stated in
the third interrogatory, did answer, that
they had found no bills of indictment
nor had any presentments to make.
"Fourth. To the fourth interrogato-
ry this deponent saith, that the said Sa-
muel Chase, did, on receiving the an-
swer from the grand jury, mentioned in
this deponent's answer to the " third
interrogatory," observe to that body in
his hearing-" That he had been in-
formed or heard, a highly seditious tem-
per or disposition had manifested in the
state of Delaware. among a certain class
of people, particularly in New Castle
county, and more especially in the town
of Wilmington, where lived a most se-
ditious printer, unrestrained by any prin-
ciple of virtue and regardless of social
order-That the name of this printer
was"-(here the learned judge paused
for a moment and then observed)-
" Perhaps it might be assuming too
much to mention the name of this per-
son, but it becomes your special duty,
and you must enquire diligently into
this matter." That although this de-
ponent will not undertake to say that
every word as here set forth is precisely
what the honourable judge expressed :--
yet he is perfectly convinced that the
language is for the most part, what was
used by the said judge, and the ideas
conveyed by him at the time, precisely
what the context imports.
Fifth. To the fifth interrogatory
this deponent saith, that several mem-
bers of the grand jury on the behalf
of themselves and their brethren, did,
as soon as the said judge had closed the
observations detailed in the answer to
the fourth interrogatory, then and there
earnestly request the court to dismiss
them from further attendance on that
duty, mentioning to the court, as a rea-
son for the request, that they were ge-
nerally farmers, and it being the season
of harvest, their personal attention was
most requisite on their farms-which
the judge replied, " that the business to
which he had called their attention, was
of a most urgent and pressing nature
and must be attended to, that he could
not therefore discharge them until the
ensuing day, when further information
should be communicated to them on the
subject he had referred to"-or words
to that effect but this deponent did not
at the time hear the judge say that his
detaining the grand jury was for the
purpose of examining a file of papers
published by the said printer."
On the question to agree to the 7th
article, it was carried without a
division.
The eighth article under considera-
tion.
Mr. Monroe rose to move an amend-
ment, which was to strike out the words
"declaring that the house " aved to it
self the liberty of exhibiting at any
time hereafter any further articles or
other accusation or impeachment against
the said Samuel Chase" —and further,
that part which saved to the House
" the right of replying to any such ar-
ticles, impeachment or accusation, which
shall be exhibited to them." It seem-
ed to him unfair that the House should
reserve such a right to themselves, if
there is any thing more with which he.
ought to be charged, it ought to be now
brought forward, and the accused should
be informed at once how far we mean
to go, in order to enable him the better
to make his defence.
Mr. J. Randolph hoped the gentle-
man (Mr. Monroe) would not insist upon
his amendment. He believed the arti-
cle stood very well as it was : but if it
be faulty, it has however one thing in
its favor : it is fortified by precedent,
which is of some importance in cases of
this nature. He hoped the gentleman
who was a decided friend of the Ame-
rican people, and of the rights of this
House, did not wish to abridge the li-
berties of the one, or the privileges of
the other, as they had been granted by
the people, and had been received by us
from our predecessors. He hoped it was
not intended that our powers should be
less than those who sat here before us,
and yet the amendment would be a di-
rect avowal that they were wrong in
making this reservation in the case of
the impeachment of Blount, and that
we ourselves were wrong in so doing,
in the case of judge Pickering. He
trusted the House would not agree to
the amendment, if it was persisted in by
the gentleman.
Mr. Monroe. If precedents are wrong,
they ought not to be our guides, and if
we have such precedents, the sooner we
establish new ones on other principles
the better. He thought it cruel, as well
as unjust, to bring new articles of im-
peachment against a man when on his
trial : a sudden attack when a man is
unprepared, may defeat the best talents
and convict an innocent man. He con-
ceived, if the House had a design to
bring other articles, they ought to do
so at the present time : but if they had
not a design, he would ask why do you
reserve a power you do not mean to
exercise? He knew it was the practice
to make this reservation, and had seen
it in Jersey, but for all that he thought
it improper and unjust.
The question on adopting the amend-
ment was taken and lost.
The question was next taken on agree-
ing to the eighth article and carried in
the affirmative. There were for it e-
venty six members, which are more
than a majority of the whole House.
Mr. Elliot. Mr. Chairman, as I
have voted in opposition to every one of
the articles, and shall of course vote in
the negative when they are considered
in the aggregate, it is indispensably ne-
cessary that I should make a few ob-
servations, in order to rescue myself
from the imputation of voting, on this
occasion, in a different manner from
what I did at the last session : although
I am already sufficiently justified to my
own conscience.
My cool judgment tells me that were
I to vote in favor of the present imp each-
ment, in its present form, I must forfeit
in my own estimation that political
character as a republican, which it has
been the study of my life to acquire and
preserve, and which has hitherto secured
me the confidence of a people as truly
republican as ever have existed in any
age or nation. It is upon republican
principles that I oppose the report. At
the last session I declared myself in favor
of the impeachment so far only as related
to the conduct of judge Chase upon the
trial of James Thomson Callender. I
considered the conduct of the judge
upon that occasion as amounting to a
denial of important constitutional privi-
leges to, Callender, the privileges of
compulsory process for witnesses. and of
trial by an impartial jury of his county ;
and had the committee taken that strong
ground, I must have given it my support.
They have, however, abandoned it;
and I am decidedly of opinion that if
the conduct of the judge did not amount
to a violation of the constitution, it
ought to be considered as a mere error
in judgment. And for errors of judg-
ment a magistrate is not impeachable.
It is not upon any trifling or minute
distinction between form and substance
that I found my objections to the second
and third articles, but upon what I con-
sidered as strong and solid ground. But
to the fourth article there are a variety
of objections. After having stated in
the second and third articles, every thing
which it was necessary to state. when
the strong ground of the Constitution was
abandoned, we are presented with the
blackest catalogue of judicial crimes
that has ever been invented. This
article will forever form a phenomenon in
the history of impeachments, and com-
mand admiration by its wonderful di-
play of the powers of invention, ampli-
fication, and embellishment. Never
have I been more completely convinced
that genius is capable of creating any
thing whatever, that it possesses even
magic powers. We are here presented
with a stupendous pyramid of judicial
guilt, of which manifest injustice forms
the pedestal, & innocent solicitude consti-
tutes the apex. Judge Chase is accused
of manifest injustice, partiality, intem-
perance, rudeness, vexation, solicitude,
&c. &c. If this horrid list of the crimes
of a judge is to be crowned by "soli-
citude," if " solicitude," is to swell the
list of new transgressions : I must still be
permitted to believe that its decency or
indecency has very little connection with
the essence of its criminality. Besides,
the conduct of the judge was different at
different stages of the trial, and were I
to consider his supposed solicitude as
criminal, I could not consider the report
as consistent with truth unless amended
so as to read in this manner.-In mani-
festing, in the early part of the trial.
an indecent solicitude and, at its later
stages, a very decent solicitude, for the
conviction of the prisoner, &c. Solici-
tude is a mere mental operation. Had
the judge displayed an anxiety to save
the prisoner, he might with equal pro-
priety have been impeached as guilty of
sympathy or pity.
I cannot vote for the last article with-
out a violation of my political princi-
ples. I do not believe that the expres-
sion of political opinion is a crime in a
republican government. I have repeat-
edly declared that I considered it impro-
per in a judge to read political lectures
from the bench : and I have also had
frequent opportunities, both on former
and recent occasions, of expressing my
conviction that judicial officers ought
not to be punished for declaring their
political opinions. We ought not our-
selves to practice what we reprobate in
others, and it is always desirable to carry
our own theories into practice.
With these powerful considerations,
others of a different nature have natu-
rally mingled themselves, in my own
mind, while reflecting upon this impor-
tant subject. Is there no danger that
the feelings and views of party have,
imperceptibly to ourselves, involved
themselves with our reflections, and that
they will improperly influence our con-
duct? For myself I am disposed to look
upon a member of our highest judicial
tribunal, upon whom, with correct mo-
tives, such an irresistible torrent of pu-
lic opinion is precipitated, with a fa-
vorable eye. It is our duty to endeav-
vor to realize the ancient idea of the
blindness of justice. Let us be blind as
it respects the man, blind to his political
opinions, but eagle eyed as it respects his
crimes. The pure fountain of justice
ought not to be polluted with a single
muddy particle of the spirit of party.
I have said enough to explain my sen-
timents and views upon this subject, and
I will not trouble the committee with a
repetition of any of my arguments at the
last session.
Mr. Nicholson enquired of the Chair-
man whether it would be in order to
move an amendment to any of the arti-
cles now they have been severally agreed
to.
Gen. Varnum (chairman) said the a-
mendments might be moved in the House
on agreeing to the report of the com-
mittee of the whole or in the committee
by a vote to reconsider.
Mr. E. Randolph thought it of im-
portance that if amendments were ne-
cessary they should be brought forward
in committee of the whole, to give gen-
tlemen an opportunity of fuller discussion.
In the House members were trammelled
by the rule permitting them only to
speak twice on the same question, but
here we are free conscious and debate ac-
according to pleasure-- If an amendment is wanted.
he would move to reconsider the first ar-
ticle-And he did move it.
It was carried without opposition.
Mr. Nicholson then observed that part
of the misconduct of judge Chase which
was complained of had taken place pre-
vious to the third. He would therefore
move to make it second by the insertion of
the words in Italic "the said Samuel Chase antecedent to and on the trial of John Fries" so as to cover the whole ground.

Carried.

"Mr. Nicholson proposed a similar amendment to the fourth article "That the conduct of the said Samuel Chase was marked during the whole course of the said trial as well as antecedent thereto" "with manifest injustice, partiality and intemperance."

The amendment was lost.

After some desultory conversation it was agreed that the amendment to the first article be altered, by inserting the words in relation thereto, instead of those in Italic, and a similar amendment was agreed to in the fourth article.

The committee of the whole rose and reported the articles as amended.

Adjourned.