Mr. Nicholson.—This resolution is grounded upon a statement made during the last session, by a member from Pennsylvania, implicating the character of one of the justices of the Supreme Court. Upon information thus given, my friend from Virginia has thought himself bound to bring the business before the House, that an inquiry may be made into his conduct. For myself I will never hesitate, I care not who the person implicated may be, and however exalted his station, to give my vote for inquiring into his official conduct, when a member of this House rises in his place, and states that, in his opinion, he has been guilty of misconduct. For this reason I shall vote for the amendment; it having been stated by a member that Judge Peters was on the bench and did concur with Judge Chase.
And on the question that the House do agree on the said amendment, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 79, nays 37, as follows:
Yeas.—Willis Alston, jun., Nathaniel Alexander, Phanuel Bishop, William Blackledge, John Boyle, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, John Campbell, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, John Dennis, William Dickson, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Eustis, William Findlay, James Gillespie, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Griffin, John A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, Seth Hastings, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, jun., Thomas Lowndes, John B. C. Lucas, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Patterson, Oliver Phelps, John Randolph, jun., Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Erastus Root, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Ebenezer Seaver, Tompson J. Skinner, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith of Virginia, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, James Stevenson, John Stewart, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Isaac Van Horne, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, Marmaduke Williams, Richard Wynn, Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.
Nays.—Simeon Baldwin, David Bard, George Michael Bedinger, Silas Betton, Adam Boyd, William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Clifton Claggett, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Gaylord Griswold, Roger Griswold, David Hough, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lewis, Henry W. Livingston, William McCreery, Nahum Mitchell, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Mott, Beriah Palmer, Thomas Plater, Samuel D. Purviance, Joshua Sands, John Cotton Smith, John Smith of New York, Henry Southard, Samuel Taggart, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George Tibbits, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, and Lemuel Williams.
Mr. Lowndes.—Were I to be governed by considerations other than those resulting from a sense of duty, I should vote for this resolution, as I believe it would afford the character implicated the readiest mode of vindication. But I do not feel so high a respect for the opinion of any one member as to give up my opinion to his, as to the course most proper to be pursued on this occasion. The gentleman who has offered this resolution says, that the facts on which it is founded are within his own knowledge. Let the gentleman then lay them before the House. Otherwise we shall legislate, not on the facts before us, but merely on the opinion of a single member, on facts only known to himself. We are told that this motion is founded on the statement of an honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania. What is that statement? That one of the counsel in the trial of Fries informed him that the judge declared the counsel had no right to argue a point of law after the mind of the court was made up. I ask if any gentleman is prepared to say that the judge was wrong? I am not prepared to say so. While, too, I am unwilling to detract from the respect due to the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I am equally unwilling to subscribe to his opinions. He may have misconceived the information communicated to him. It is said that it is necessary to preserve pure the streams of justice. I agree in this remark, and I say that the resolution on the table goes to destroy the independence of the judges, and of consequence to pollute the streams of justice; to make the judges the flexible tools of this House. It is impossible that under such circumstances men of talents and integrity will take seats on the bench, when their character shall be liable to be scrutinized without any facts being previously adduced.
I think it absolutely necessary that this resolution should not pass. For if it passes, it will establish a precedent that any member may procure an investigating committee to inquire into the conduct of any executive or judicial officer merely upon his opinion, unsupported by facts, that such an inquiry is necessary. Suppose parties to be nearly equally divided; a member has only to propose an inquiry into the conduct of any officer to whom he may feel inimical, and thereby throw a cloud upon his character, and render him the object of suspicion. Thus do I fear that this precedent will furnish the instrument of vengeance of one party against another. The price we pay for our liberties is the existence of parties among us; but it becomes us rather to restrain than to invigorate their passions. If we establish this precedent we shall render impeachment so easy, as greatly to facilitate the means of oppression.
Mr. Lowndes concluded by saying, that in this affair he threw party considerations entirely out of view. He was personally unacquainted with Judge Chase, and if there was a single affidavit of his misconduct, the appointment of the committee of inquiry should have his vote; but that, under the circumstances attending it, he considered the measure improper in every point of view in which he could consider it.
Mr. Findlay observed, that though the abstract right of the members to move for an inquiry into the conduct of public officers, in order to find whether presumptions against their character afforded ground for impeachment, was not expressly denied, yet the manner in which the opposition to the present resolution was conducted was equal to denying the right. He trusted, however, that the House would support this right, as it was one of the most important of any with which they were vested. It grew out of the power of impeachment, and it was necessary for the exercise of that power, and was justified by precedents. By the rules of the House any member has a right to have the doors shut, in order to move such a resolution as he thinks proper. This has been usual in cases of impeachment in Britain, from which we derive the forms of impeachment. There it has been common to shut the doors, and for a member to move for an impeachment of a public officer, and to procure the officer impeached to be taken into custody before there was time or opportunity to take any other testimony than the information stated by the member who moved the resolution, probably supported by public fame. Taking the party into custody was necessary to the circumstances of that country and the extent of punishment, which might not only affect the liberty and property, but even the life of the party found guilty. It was necessary, because of the influence of the powerful nobility, who might have it in their power to stand in their defence; but, as all the penalties in the power of this Government to inflict by impeachment only affect the official trust and character, taking into custody is unnecessary.
He observed, that the arguments in opposition to the resolution turned chiefly on the ground of expediency and of precedent.
In his opinion, it appeared not only expedient but necessary, from the notoriety of facts on which the resolution was founded; that they were publicly known and had impaired confidence in these judges, could not be denied. That it was known to Congress during the last session was acknowledged. It was not only known, but Congress acted on it. A bill was in progress before this House, appointing the attendance of judges to particular districts—the members of two respectable States, in which, by the bill, Judge Chase was appointed to attend, objected unanimously to that appointment, because they had not confidence in him; and the facts on which the resolution is founded were stated on the floor, upon which the House altered the bill and appointed another judge to that district. This was a strong testimony that Congress believed that this open expression of want of confidence in that gentleman was justified by the facts that had been stated. He said, that though he had not at that time a seat in the House, he had expected an inquiry to be made into the causes of this want of confidence at that time. Perhaps it was prevented by the shortness of the session.