I take up the matter individually, because I mean to treat it on a private footing; and because, though I do not acknowledge any peculiar responsibility, it happened to be my lot, as chairman, principally to conduct the conferences on the part of the committee.
I regard the whole of this business as a most unfortunate one; in which, probably, none of the actors will acquire great credit. I deplore it, as tending to interrupt the harmony between Congress and a respectable, a meritorious member of the Union. Who were right, or who were wrong, is a question of less importance, than how mutual irritations may be best healed. Whatever revives, or continues, the former, is to be regretted. I lament to be under an inducement to discuss circumstances that relate to it in the remotest degree. Nothing but an attack upon the ingenuousness of my conduct, could have called me to it. Its prudence, either collectively or individually, would patiently have been consigned to the lash of censure and criticism, merited or unmerited.
Happily, in the present case, the members of the committee have a strong ground, from which they cannot easily be forced. Apprehensive of misconception, I will not say of misrepresentation, they tried to render it impossible by written documents. The presumption, with impartial minds, cannot fail to be in favor of that side which gave so decisive a proof of its disposition to fairness, as to endeavor to put it out of its own power to misrepresent.
The professed scruples of the Council, cannot be admitted to have any weight. Usage, and the plainest rules of propriety, will dictate, that it never could have wounded the dignity, or delicacy, of the executive of any State, to have given to a committee of Congress, appointed to confer on a subject of moment, a written answer to a request in writing after previous explanations. The fact stated speaks for itself. The consequences show, that the precaution of the committee was well judged; and that it would have been well for the Council to have concurred.
In the present case it might be observed, that there was, in the first instance, a written application from Congress to the Council, in the customary form of resolutions: and though a committee was authorized to confer and explain, a formal and authentic answer might reasonably have been expected by Congress; and, when desired by the committee, should have been understood as desired on their behalf.
There is an awkwardness in reasoning upon self-evident positions; but as the Council have, by their conduct in the first instance, and by their message since, put forward a doubt upon the subject, and made it a point of importance, I shall be excused for examining it a little further. On what could the objection of the Council be founded? They say it had been unusual. Admitting the fact, was the mere novelty of the thing a sufficient reason against it? If there was no apparent inconvenience in making a new precedent; if; on the contrary, there was a manifest convenience in it; ought not such a punctilio to have given way to considerations of utility?
Was it derogatory to the dignity of the Council? Surely, if they communicate in writing with the executive servants of Congress, even those in subordinate stations, as is the practice of every day, and as is indispensable to the prosecution of public business, they might, at less expense of dignity, pursue the same mode with a part of that body itself.
The distinction taken by the Council, in their message to the Assembly, respecting the responsibility of such executive officers, as not applicable to a committee, if it amounts to any thing, proves only this: That such officers ought, in prudence, to take greater precautions for their own justification than a committee of Congress need to do. It is not to be inferred, if a committee of Congress, acting ministerially, think it expedient to use circumspection, that those with whom they are transacting business, can, with propriety, refuse to join with them in that mode which is best adapted to precision and certainty.
But, indeed, the ground of distinction is erroneous. A committee of Congress act in a ministerial capacity, and are therefore responsible to the body to which they belong, as well as the servants of that body, though in a different manner. If it be said they do not act ministerially, but stand in the place of Congress; then the Council, upon their own principles, ought to have complied with their request.
To diminish the exceptionableness of their refusal, it is true, as stated by the Council, that though they said they could not condescend to do what the committee had asked; yet they declared themselves willing to grant an answer in writing, if Congress should request it; and that they proposed, that the committee should put their verbal answer in writing, to be afterwards perused and examined by them.