The motion for postponement being lost, the question on agreeing to the report of the committee recurred.
Mr. Bayard believed it would not be in order to call for a division of the question. The resolution implicated two persons, which he thought improper. If the report of the committee was, however, disagreed to, he supposed it would then be in order to move for a division of the question. He should, therefore, vote against the report, as he wished the cases to be separately considered, as they stood on distinct ground, and were not attended with the same circumstances; and, reasoning from analogy, he knew of no instance in a court of justice, where two persons had ever been included in the same charge when their crimes were different. If the situation of both these gentlemen had been the same, there might have been propriety in coupling them together; but as this was not the case, he was opposed to taking an opinion upon both together.
Mr. McDowell thought it would be proper to take the same course in this business as was taken in a former case. He moved, therefore, that the report be read a second time, for the purpose of committing it to a committee of the whole House.
Mr. Gordon was opposed to this mode of proceeding. Every one knew the question, and were as well prepared to decide upon it now, as they would be after going into a committee upon it.
Mr. Giles thought it would comport more with the dignity of the House to decide this business without going into a Committee of the Whole, as he believed every one had made up his mind upon it. If gentlemen intended by the course heretofore taken to raise the dignity of the House, he thought they had deceived themselves; for he believed the House was never in a less dignified attitude than during that discussion.
Mr. McDowell thought the mode he had pointed out necessary, for the sake of uniformity; but, as other gentlemen seemed to think it unnecessary, he would withdraw his motion.
Mr. R. Williams wished to know whether it would be in order to amend the report of the Committee of Privileges, or to suggest the propriety of disagreeing to it, for the purpose of substituting a different punishment from that proposed, viz: that the offending members should be reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of the House? He believed that a punishment of this kind would satisfy many gentlemen who did not wish to expel the members, but who, at the same time, did not wish they should go unpunished.
The Speaker said that motion would be in order after the report of the committee was decided upon.
Mr. Gallatin remarked, that if the report was agreed to, the resolution for an expulsion would of course be negatived, and then any other proposition would be in order; and, on the other hand, if the report was disagreed to, the resolution would be before them, and open to amendment. Mr. G. said he rose to make an observation upon what fell from the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Bayard.) That gentleman had said he would vote against the report, because he wished to distinguish between the two members. The reason which he gave, though he might have good reasons for his vote, did not appear to him to be correct. That gentleman seemed to suppose that the facts for which the two members were to be expelled, were facts committed at different times, and of a different nature; whereas the facts for which both were proposed to be expelled, were offences of the same nature, and committed on the same day. What related to the previous conduct of the member from Vermont, was not now under consideration. In order to have that conduct before them, it would be necessary that a reconsideration of it should be moved by a member who voted against that member's expulsion, and seconded by another member who voted on the same side of the question. The argument of the gentleman from Delaware, therefore, did not apply. He said he should himself vote in favor of the report of the Committee of Privileges. He was against expelling either of the gentlemen.
Mr. Dana agreed with the gentleman last up, in his conclusions; but he did not seem rightly to have understood the argument of the gentleman from Delaware. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania was acquainted with legal principles, with established principles relative to punishment, he must know that no persons can be charged jointly with an offence, except jointly guilty, and except they had mutually agreed to commit the offence. The resolution, in its present form, therefore, offended against established maxims of propriety.