Monday, April 6.
Publication of Secret Proceedings.
Mr. Grundy, from a committee which had been appointed while the House was sitting with closed doors, made the following report:
The committee, to whom was referred the resolution directing an inquiry to be made, whether there has been any, and if any, what violation of the secrecy imposed by this House, during the present session, as to certain of its proceedings, have, according to order, proceeded in said inquiry, and beg leave to state, that, under the authority with which they were invested by the House, they have caused to come before them four witnesses, whose testimony on oath is as follows, to wit:
Charles Prentiss states that he furnished to the editors of the "Spirit of Seventy-six," a paper printed in Georgetown, the paragraph giving an account of the proceedings of the House of Representatives, while sitting with closed doors, on the subject of the embargo; and he further says, that he did not receive the information, or any part thereof, which enabled him to write said paragraph, from any member of Congress or officer of the House. Upon being interrogated, he states that he received the whole of his information from Nathaniel Rounsavell, one of the editors of the Alexandria Herald; that he received it on Wednesday late at night, and he asked of Mr. Rounsavell whether the injunction of secrecy had been removed. Rounsavell replied that he had not inquired. On Thursday morning the witness spoke to some of the members on the subject, and from their conduct he was satisfied that the injunction of secrecy had not been removed; notwithstanding which, the witness sent the paragraph above alluded to, to the editors of the Spirit of Seventy-Six on Thursday.
John M. Carter and James B. Carter, editors of the "Spirit of Seventy-Six," state that they received from Mr. Prentiss, in writing, the statement which appeared in their paper; that they received no information on the subject from any member or officer of the House.
Nathaniel Rounsavell, upon being interrogated, says he composed the paragraph which appeared in the Alexandria Herald of Friday last, containing a statement of the secret proceedings of the House of Representatives upon the subject of the embargo; that he on Wednesday night, after the adjournment of the House, derived a part of the information, on which he was enabled to give the detailed account, from the conversation of members of the House with whom he accidentally fell in company; that he was acquainted with the members, and they with him; they knew he was present; he partook in some degree in the conversation.
Question by the committee—From the conversation of what members did you collect the information of which you have spoken?
The witness refused to answer the interrogatory.
Question 2—At what place was the conversation held?
Witness refused to answer.
Question 3—Have you seen the members alluded to, or any of them, since you first appeared before this committee on Saturday last?
Witness likewise refused to answer this interrogatory.
Whereupon it is ordered by the committee that the Sergeant-at-Arms detain said Rounsavell in his custody until the pleasure of the House of Representatives relative to the conduct of said witness can be ascertained.
After the report was read, Mr. Grundy offered the following resolution for consideration:
"Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to bring the said Nathaniel Rounsavell to the bar of the House, there to answer such questions as may be propounded to him by the Speaker, under the direction of the House."
Much desultory discussion took place as to the mode of proceeding in this case, the form of the proposed order, its conformity to precedent, &c., in which Messrs. Pitkin, Lacock, Sheffey, Troup, Tallmadge, Grundy, Fisk, and Widgery, took part. This discussion resulted in the proposition of a preamble to the motion, by Mr. Grundy, reciting the grounds of the order.
The motion was then agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Grundy, the select committee were then discharged from the further consideration of the subject.
On motion of Mr. Grundy, it was resolved that several interrogatories contained in a paper which he offered to the House, should be proposed to the witness.
Mr. Burwell suggested the propriety of allowing this person counsel; but withdrew the suggestion, on its being remarked, that this person appeared before the House in the character of a witness, not a criminal, and that it was not usual for a witness to appear by counsel.
Mr. Rounsavell was then brought to the bar of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
After some hesitation on the part of the witness to take the oath required, he was sworn, in the usual form of oath administered to witnesses.
The first interrogatory agreed to by the House was put to him by the Speaker, in the following words: "From the conversation of what members did you collect the information of which you have spoken in your deposition before the committee?"
To this question the witness answered in these words: "I refused to answer that question when before the committee, and I continue steadfast in that refusal."
The witness was ordered to withdraw, and the Speaker reported his answer to the House; having deemed it unnecessary, on his refusal to answer the first, to propound any other of the questions.
Mr. Seybert, after stating his indisposition to encroach on the rights of the citizen, which, however, must yield to the superior rights of the nation, which required them to act in this case, suggested the propriety of recommitting this person to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until further order should be taken by the House, and preventing him in the mean time from communicating with those from whose conversation he might have derived his information. With this view he offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That Nathaniel Rounsavell be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until further order, and that in the mean time he be precluded from all intercourse or conversation with any person or persons other than the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The question on striking out so much of the motion as precludes the witness from conversation with any one unless in the presence and hearing of the Sergeant-at-Arms, was decided as follows—yeas 62; nays 22.
The question was then stated on the motion as just amended, viz:
"That Nathaniel Rounsavell be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until the further orders of the House."
The question was taken on the resolution, and it passed by a very large majority.