The Enquirer

Congress.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Debate in committee of the whole,
ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF
JUDGE CHASE.

Monday Dec. 9.

Mr. Varnum in the Chair.

The reported articles were read.

Mr. Elliott. 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. Elliott 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. Elliott 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 merit--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. E. 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, and 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--71 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 & 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 500 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, & 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 & inserting those in a parenthesis--" John Basset one of the Jury who wished to be excused from serving on the said trial because he had made up his mind 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 Callendar 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 that 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 adopt- ed 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- :efore called for reading so much of the evidence as related to the Juror mentioned in the 2d article.

Mr. Nicholson mentioned page 155 of the de- positions of the witnesses on the part of the U- nited 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 previ- ous question was put to him, that though he had never read or heard the charges in the in- dictment, and knew not what the traverser had published, yet he had formed an unequivocal o- pinion, that such a book as " The Prospect Be- fore Us," was, came within the sedition law : But no objection was made to him, and he was sworn like the rest."

Mr. E. 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 charg- es in the indictment, because in fact, he knew not what they were, no objection was over-rul- ed."

And also from page 61, as follows;

" It is to be observed that Mr. Bassett who had been summoned on the jury, seemed to have considerable scruples at serving, and stated that he had expressed some opinion as to the " Pros- pect Before Us." Judge Chase howeve- de- clared Mr. Bassett a good juror, and he was worn and acted as a juror."

Mr. J. Randolph thanked his friend from Kentucky for every suggestion tending to im- prove 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 ob- taining by a full, fair and free discussion, two objects ; first, to determine whether the charges exhibited are such as the House are willing to prefer against the person impeached, and in or- der if they be found incorrect to make them as perfect as possible. On both these points I in- vite discussion in the name of the select commit- tee, who brought in this report. At the same time I wish to suggest to my friend (Mr. Boyle) the propriety of re-examining his idea, and as- certaining whether the eighth juror alluded to in the account of Callender's trial is the juror mentioned in the testimony 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. Bassett, must not the article fall to the ground if the proposed alteration should take place. I think it one of the strongest circum- stances 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 va- riation between the testimony in page 155 & 56. In the first the writer introduces " with a per- haps 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 the indictment, yet he had formed an opinion that such a book as the_ " Prospect be- fore us" came within the sedition law." This I believe is the amount of what is said in that page, and it appears from this to be an incidental cir- cumstance only; whereas if you turn to page 56 it is there stated with the clearest precision, that he was unwilling to serve because he had made up his mind on the book called the Pros- pect. It does not appear to be drawn from him by the previous question, but it does ap- pear 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 report is better as it stands than it would be with the alteration, and I submit to my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Boyle) whether 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. Bassett are diffe- rent persons.

Mr. Boyle had heard no objection but which might be obviated by another amendment, that was to strike out the name of John Bassett, and then it would apply to the juryman who had us- ed the expression ; in that case the house might rely in sustaining their impeachment before the Senate upon the evidence as well of page 155 as on that of 56. He moved to strike out " John Bassett."

Mr. Nicholson did not think it necessary 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 155. And he had no doubt but the Senate would ad- mit 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 impeachment that technical precision is not required, which is re- quired by our courts of law on indictment, if however gentlemen are embarrassed, about hav- ing this testimony directly pointed, this may be easily come at. They can add it to the article as another count is added to a bill of indictment. This mode is very well known, and may be a- opted by those who think it necessary ; for his part he did not think it necessary.

Mr. Boyle withdrew his motion for the pre- sent.

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

The third article before the committee.

Mr. J. Randolph read the following testi- mony in support of this article, viz.

" When the trial commenced, Col. John Taylor, of Caroline, was introduced as a wit- ness for the prisoner. I believe 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 re- duce the questions, which they wished to pro- pound to Col. Taylor, to writing, and then to submit them to his inspection, that he might de- termine 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 aristocrat--that he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest." Proving half, he said, was doing nothing; both facts must be proved. It was contended, on the part of the prisoner that if it was necessary t, prove both facts by the same witness, the charge in both points would be proved by the testimony of col. Taylor. He would prove that Mr. Adams had professed aristocratical - pinions; 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 suspending all intercourse with Great Britain. The judge (Chase) repeated that the evidence was inadmis- sible, 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 following viz.

Interrogatory 4th.---Did Mr. Chase refuse to the prisoner the testimony of a witness, be- cause 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 Callender's case were sworn, col. Taylor, 'of Caroline, who attended as a witness, in consequence of a sub- poena 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 manner, what the council expected to prove by the wit- ness? 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 sequestration of British debts, and against the suspension of intercourse with Great Britain. Judge Chase demanded that the counsel should state in writing the ques- tions meant to be asked. The counsel for the defendant opposed this, because, 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 unreasonable in itself, and calculated to subject 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 accordingly put in writing, and were as follow, to wit :

1. 'Did you ever hear Mr. Adams expres any sentiments favorable to monarchy or aristo- cracy--and what were they ?

2. Did you ever hear Mr. Adams, whilst Vice President, express his disapprobation' 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 Britain?

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 tra- verfer said of the President, he is a professed a- ristocrat and has proved faithful to the British in- terest;--now you must prove both points, or you prove nothing; and as your evidence re- lates 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 whe- ther they could not be allowed to prove part of a charge by one witness and part by another? To this judge Chase replied, that if the coun- sel could prove the whole of any one charge by Col. Taylor, they might do it, otherwise they should not examine him. The counsel contend- ed 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-re- publican sentiments, and had proved faithful 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. Taylor retired from the Court with evi- dent marks of astonishment."

The question was taken upon the third arti- cle without a division, and carried.

The fourth article being before the commit- tee, it was considered by paragraphs.

Mr. E. Randolph. The testimony in support of the first paragraph has been read on the pre- ceding article; in it is that part of Mr. Nicho- las's testimony stating the demand of judge Chase that the counsel should state in writing the questions meant to be asked.

The Chairman proceeded to read the second parag, ph, and

Mr. J. Randolph read in its support, the fol- lowing affidavit :

City of Richmond, to wit :

This day James Thomson Callender, made oath before me, a magistrate for the said City, that Wm. Gardner, Tench Coxe, Judge Bee, Timothy Pickering, Wm. B. Giles, Steven Thomson Mason, and gen. Blackburn, he be- lieves to be material witnesses in his defence, a- gainst an indictment found against him during the present term of the circuit Court of the U. States for the middle circuit, Virginia district; --That Wm. Gardner, aforesaid, resides, he be- lieves, in Portsmouth, in the state of New-Hamp- shire ;--That Tench Coxe, aforesaid, resides in Philadelphia. in the state of Pennsylvania ;-- That judge Bee resides, the deponent hath un- derstood, in South-Carolina, but in what part of the state he knows not;--That Timothy Pickering, aforesaid. resided of late in Philadel- phia, in the State of Pennsylvania, but where he resides at this time the deponent doth not know; --That Wm. B. Giles, aforesaid. he hath un- derstood. since he hath been furnished with a copy of the indictment, and since the said Giles hath left town, resides in the county of Amelia, and that Gen. Blackburn resides in the county of Bath.

The said James Thomson Callender fur- ther declares, that he expects to prove by the said Wm. Gardner, and that he verily believes that he shall prove by the said Wm. Gardner, that the said Wm. 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 commis- sioner of loans, because he the said Gardner re- fused to subscribe an address circulated in the town of Portsmouth, in New-Hampshire, and presented to the President of the United Stat es in the year 1798, at the instance of several in- habitants of the said town ; in which address unequivocal approbation of the conduct of the said President in the administration of the Unit- ed States is expressed.

2d. The said James Thomson Callender a'. so 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 ur- der the government of the United States, to wit, commissioner of the revenue, from which office the said Coxe was ejected by the present Pre- sident of the United States; because he did not approve the measures of his, the said President's administration, 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 nation in Charleston, Jonathan Robbins alias Thomas Nash, who had been apprehended and carried before the said judge on a charge of murder committed on the high seas on board the British frigate Hermione.

He further deposes on oath, that he verily believes that he shall be able to prove by the evidence of Timothy Pickering, that the Presi- dent of the United States was in possession of dispatches from Mr. John Quincy Adams, American minister 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 govern- ment of the United States, many weeks while Congress was in session, before he communicat- ed the same to Congress.

The deponent further saith, that he veri- ly believes that he shall be able to prove by the evidence of Stephen Thomson Mason and Wil- liam B. Giles, that John Adams President of the United States, has unequivocally avowed in conversation with them, principles utterly incompatible with the principles of the present constitution of the United States, principles which could not be carried into operation un- der any political institution without the esta- blishment of a direct, powerful and dangerous aristocracy : that he declared in express terms to the said Stevens Thomson Mason that he had no more idea of the present federal consti- tution could, for any length of time, controul the people of the United States, than that it could controul the motions of the planets; that he also declared to the said Stephens Thomson 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 Wm. B. Giles, that the P. of the U. S. has avowed in conversation with him a sentiment to this effect, that he thought the executive department of the U. S. ought to be vested with power to direct and controul the public will.

That this deponent verily believes that he shall be able to prove by gen. Blackburn that he did, on the day of in the year 1798, receive an address from John Adams P. of the U. S. in answer to the field officers of Bath county, in which the said President does a- vow, that there was a party in Virginia which deserved to be humbled into dust and ashes be- fore the indignant frowns of their insulted, & offended country.

And this deponent further saith, that he is advised and believes that it is material to his defence by the indictment aforesaid that he should procure authentic copies of sundry an- swers made by the President of the United States to addresses from the inhabitants of the U. States in various parts thereof, which authentic copies he cannot procure, so as to be in readi- ness for trial during the present term.

He also saith, that he is advised and doth believe that a certain book entitled "An Essay on Canon and Feudal Law," or entitled in words to that purport, 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 procure a copy of the same, and evidence to prove that the said President is the author thereof, without being allowed seve- ral weeks and perhaps months for the purpose.

He further saith, that he is told by the counsel who means 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 docu- ments wanted were upon the spot.

WM. DUVAL.
May 28th, 1800.

District of Virginia,
8th Circuit,
to wit.

I certify that the foregoing is truly copied from the original in my office.

WILL. MARSHALL
Clk. Ct. of the United States, 8th Circuit,
Va. U."
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 associated with me, in Callender's defence, attempted to address the jury on the unconstitutionality 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 argument, I was interrupted again, by Mr. Chase. How often I was interrupted I know not, but I was interrupted, rudely 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 belief that Mr. Chase was determined 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. Mott rose and remarked that he was not here when the committee on this subject reported at the last session, and of course did not get a copy of the evidence, he had however seen part thereof in the newspapers and examined so much of the subject as to have satisfied him, that it was proper to vote in favour 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 impeachment with the testimony on which they were founded, and since 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 favour of the 4th article, whereas had he been allowed time he might join 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, Esquires, under the authority of the House of Representatives of the United States.

"The said Nicholas being asked by the said commissioners what was the general deportment and manner of Judge Chase during the trial of James Thompson Callender, answers—

"The general deportment and manner of Mr. Chase during the said trial, appeared to the said Nicholas to be marked with great violence and precipitation: and that Judge Chase manifested a solicitude for the conviction of the prisoner, 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 calculated to prevent that full and free defence, without which it is impossible for them to do justice to their client.

PHILIP NORBORNE NICHOLAS.

Richmond Feb. 7. 1804.

"The additional deposition of George Hay, who being asked what were the manners and deportment of Samuel Chase, during the trial of James Thompson 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 intentionally rude and insolent. The deponent thought and still thinks, that Mr. Chase was determined that Callender should, if possible, be convicted; and that to accomplish this purpose, he endeavoured 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 them with 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 would only tend to cover himself with still greater shame, to subject him to still greater humiliation.

"The deponent believes that there 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 misled, by the circumstances attending his own situation. He knows, and can now name men, whose politics then differed 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 entertained by many, that some serious disturbance might take place. Mr. Monroe, 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. Monroe to preserve order, arose from causes totally unconnected with Mr. Chase. The character of the state, he observed, had never been tarnished by any opposition to the laws, or any outrage on persons clothed with its authority. The preservation of this character at that period, (May 1800) was in his estimation a matter of infinite importance, he therefore urged and entreated those, whom he 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. E. Randolph stated the circumstances upon which this article was grounded; by the 34th section of the act of Congress establishing the judicial Courts of the United States, it is provided that for any crime or offence against the United States the offender shall be arrested, imprisoned, or bailed, agreeably to the usual mode of process in the state where such offender may be found: and it is provided by the laws of Virginia, printed in a volume commonly called the Revised Code of 1794, that the manner of proceeding against persons charged with crimes shall be in one of these two modes, the first in capital cases such as treason or felony. The second in cases not capital. 'The Virginia Laws authorise expressly the issuing of a Capias on which the body of the offender may be taken and committed to close custody in the first species of offence. In the other case, that is of offences 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 6th section of the Law of Virginia, page 110, respecting the trial and punishment of crimes, and also section 25, page 112. From these regulations he said there could not remain a shadow of doubt that the process which was issued against Callender, by order of the circuit court, and which is annexed to the articles of impeachment, and which commands the marshal of the Virginia district, to arrest the body 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 7 to 1 voting in the affirmative, and so in the negative.

The sixth article under consideration.

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 Virginia had been both disregarded and contemned.

On the question to agree to the sixth article the committee divided, there being, 70 in its favour and 82 against it: it was carried.

The seventh article before the committee.

Mr. E. Randolph said it was extracted almost word for word from the deposition of George Read, Attorney for Delaware district; the deposition is as follows:

"First. To the first interrogatory this deponent faith 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 United States, holden 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 interrogatory this deponent faith, that he was present 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 faith, that the grand jury, 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 interrogatory this deponent faith, that the said Samuel Chase, did, on receiving the answer 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 informed or heard, a highly seditious temper or disposition had manifested in the state of Delaware, among a certain class of people, particularly in New Castle county, and more particularly in the town of Wilmington, where lived a most seditious printer, unrestrained by any principle 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 person, but it becomes your special duty, and you must enquire diligently into this matter.' That although this deponent will not undertake to say that every word as here set forth is precisely what the honorable 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 faith, that several members 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 reason for the request, that they were generally farmers, and it being the season of harvest, their personal attention was most requisite on their farms; to 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 examining a file of papers published by the said printer."

On the question to agree to the seventh article, it was carried without a division.

The eighth article under consideration.

Mr. Mott rose to move an amendment, which was to strike out the words declaring that the House 'reserved to itself 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 reserved to the House 'the right of applying to any such articles, impeachment or accusation, which shall be exhibited to them.' It seemed 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. E. Randolph hoped the gentleman (Mr. Mott) would not insist on the amendment. He believed the article 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 American people, and of the rights of this House, did not wish to abridge the liberties 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 tacit 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. Mott. 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 impeachment 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 conceived, 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 amendment was taken and lost.

The question was next taken on agreeing to the eighth article and carried in the affirmative. There were for it seventy six members, which are more than a majority of the whole House.

Mr. Ellis. 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 necessary that I should make a few observations, 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 impeachment, 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 Thompson Callender. I considered the conduct of the judge upon that occasion as amounting to a denial of important constitutional privileges to Callender, the privileges of compulsory process for witnesses and of trial by an impartial jury of his country; 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 judgment 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 consider 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 command admiration by its wonderful display of the powers of invention, amplification, 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, and indecent solicitude constitutes the apex. Judge Chase is accused of manifest injustice, partiality, intemperance, rudeness, vexation, solicitude, &c. &c. If this horrid list of the crimes of a judge is to be crowned by "solicitude," 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 connexion 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 manifesting, 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. Solicitude is a mere mental operation. Had the judge displayed an anxiety to save the prisoner, he might with equal propriety have been impeached as guilty of sympathy or pity.

I cannot vote for the last article without a violation of my political principles. I do not believe that the expression of political opinion is a crime in a republican government. I have repeatedly declared that I considered it improper 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 ourselves 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 naturally mingled themselves, in my own mind, while reflecting upon this important subject. Is there no danger that the feeling and views of party have, imperceptibly to ourselves, involved themselves with our reflections, and that they will improperly influence our conduct? For myself I am disposed to look upon a member of our highest judicial tribunal, upon whom, with correct motives, such an irresistible torrent of public opinion is precipitated, with a favorable eye. It is our duty to endeavour 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 sentiments 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 Chairman whether it would be in order to move an amendment to any of the articles now they have been severally agreed to.

Gen Varnum (chairman) said the amendments might be moved in the House on agreeing to the report of the committee of the whole or in the committee by a vote to reconsider.

Mr. E. Randolph thought it of importance that if amendments were necessary they should be brought forward in committee of the whole, to give gentlemen 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 to discuss and debate at pleasure—If an amendment is wished, he would move to reconsider the first article—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 previous to the trial. He would therefore move to make it read 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 amended 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.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5.

The articles of impeachment against Judge Chase were brought in enrolled.

Mr. Crowninshield from the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, stated the necessity of making some provision for carrying into execution the 10th article of the Spanish treaty, which related to vessels forced into the ports of the United States by stress of weather, providing for the remission of duties upon entry, and that they may reload their cargoes on other bottoms to foreign ports without being subjected to duties; whereupon it was ordered that the committee have leave to report a bill on this subject.

The house resumed the unfinished business of yesterday, viz. the appointment of managers to conduct the impeachment of Samuel Chase one of the associate justices of the United States, and having directed that the number should consist of seven the House proceeded to ballot for the same and upon examining the ballots the following six members were elected having a majority of the whole number of votes, viz

Mr. E. Randolph,

Mr. Rodney,

Mr. Nicholson,

Mr. Early,

Mr. Boyle, and

Mr. Nelson.

The House then proceeded to ballot for the seventh manager, and it appearing that Mr. C. W. Campbell had the plurality of votes given in, but not a majority.

Mr. Speaker, supposing that the rule of the House in the case of committees chosen by ballot was applicable to that of managers, declared Mr. G. W. Campbell duly chosen.

A conversation arose respecting the precedents on this subject, in which it was apparent that on all former occasions a majority of the votes had been given in favor of each manager; but this appeared in the instance of the impeachment of judge Pickering rather from the recollection of gentlemen who spoke on the subject than from the Journal. Mr. Speaker had not recollected how the election was conducted, but he should not regret an appeal to the House on his decision.

Mr. E. Randolph impressed with respectful sentiments of the understanding and integrity of the Speaker, would be the last man to appeal from his decisions but for the purpose of preventing what either has heretofore taken place, or what may hereafter take place, in case of such decisions involving the House or individual members in very unpleasant situations, he would move an appeal to the House from the decision of the chair.

The question was immediately taken and twenty five voted in favor of the Speaker's decision, fifty voted against it, of consequence the decision was reversed.

And the House proceeded to ballot a third time, but no member had a majority.

At a fourth ballot the result was the same.

On the fifth ballot Mr. G. W. Campbell had a majority, and was declared to be duly elected.

On motion of Mr. Nicholson it was

Resolved, That the articles agreed to by this House to be exhibited in the name of themselves and all the people of the United States, against Samuel Chase in maintenance of their impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors be carried to the Senate by the managers appointed to conduct the said impeachment.

It was also resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House have appointed managers to conduct the impeachment against Samuel Chase and have directed the said managers to carry to the Senate the articles agreed upon by the House to be exhibited in maintenance of their impeachment against the said Samuel Chase. And that the Clerk do go with the said message.

Adjourned.

Thursday December 6.

Mr. Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Governor of Virginia, enclosing document relative to the election of Alexander Wilson to a seat in the House—Referred to the Committee of Elections.

Mr. E. Clay presented the petition of Stephen Kingston praying he may receive the drawback on goods shipped from Philadelphia but which were not put on board the George Washington until she passed the Delaware line in the year 1804.

Mr. Claiborne from the Committee appointed, presented a bill making further provision for the payment of the debts due by the United States—Referred to the committee of the whole on Monday next.

Mr. Nelson from the Committee appointed on S. Carson's petition reported in favor of allowing his application, and recommended that a bill be brought in for that purpose—Referred to the same Committee.

A message from the President informed that he had approved and signed the bill making further appropriation for the contingent fund, and made them also a communication in writing, enclosing the report of the Superintendant of the public buildings at Washington.

The House went into committee of the whole on the bill for preserving peace in our ports and harbours, and waters under the United States jurisdiction.

Mr. Dawson in the Chair.

After some time spent in debating and amending the same the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.