have already adverted. It is true, that the gentleman
from South Carolina cannot be mistaken as to the vote
of the people for in that state they elect members by
districts. Should he recognize the principle of perfect
obedience to the voice of his district, then should also |
every other member. If this is principle, what would be
the consequence of adherence to it, in the most of cases-
indeed, in the actual posture of affairs at present? It is
plain-no President could be made, and the Vice Presi-
dent would come in. If it is principle, we are bound to
adhere, but if we may give way, and are not bound to
adhere, then it should no longer be dignified with the
name of principle, but it is a mere question of expediency.
Again, if we are not bound by the votes of our districts,
(as is clearly the case, in some of the states, for the sim-
ple reason, that they have no districts,) but are bound
by the votes of our respective states, then this dilemma
might arise-A member might be obliged to vote for a
candidate, who was opposed by every man in his dis.
trict. Here he gives up the wishes of all his constituents,
the only people upon earth to whom he is politically
responsible, and for what? To fall in with the vote of
the state-and by adhering to that vote, no President is
elected and the Vice President comes in, after all these
fearless and patriotic sacrifices.

Again: If our states were all of equal size, that is,
equal in point of population, and the people fail to make
an election in the electoral colleges, it is clear that no
election could ever be made by the House of Represen-
tatives, should the members recognize as correct, and
adhere to the principle, that they are bound to vote in
accordance with the votes of their respective states.
In the present unequal size of the states, under any or-
dinary circumstances of combination, the operation of
that principle would defeat an election nine times out
of ten; and in no solitary case can an election be made
in the House of Representatives by adhering to the
principle, except by enforcing the odious doctrine, that
the minority shall prevail over the majority—that is, by
making thirteen or more of the smaller states, that had
voted for one candidate in the electoral colleges, without
effect, come into the House and do the same, with com
plete effect. What they were unable to do, by reason of in-
equality of population, they are made to effect by the
equality of their sovereignity. Sir, if these are people's
principles, I, for one, beg to be delivered from them.

It is said that, in matters of legislation, it is a vexed question, whether the representative is not bound to obey the will of his constituents, and that many great and wise men have held the affirmative. Sir, I would not give a button for the doctrine, either the one way or the other, so far as regards its practical utility. As to the mere theory, I concede it to gentlemen-they may delight themselves with whatever theories they please, whether ingeniously or inartificially constructed. But, though the question, as to legislation, may be vexed, gentlemen tell us, that, in the business of electing a President by the House of Representatives, there can be no doubt-the case is a plain one. Sir, I argue directly the reverse. In the business of legislation, the people, in primary assemblies, cannot act-it is constitutionally, it is physically impossible. There is, therefore, a propriety, in a representative government like ours, that the legislative body should respond to the voice of the people; that, as a reflector, it should give back the true image of the people's wishes. But, in the election of a chief magistrate, the people can act in primary as semblies. Those assemblies present the proper and the best mode in which the election can be made. But the people, having attempted an election in this mode, and having failed of success, the constitution brings the election to this House: this House is the umpire, the judge on whom devolves the settlement of that momentous question, which the people have been unable to settle themselves, for want of greater unanimity.

[FEB. 3, 1825.

Sir, I hope I have now succeeded in showing the fal lacy of the gentleman's--pardon me-the people's doc. trines, of instruction. What, then, is our duty, in the present crisis, and on the approabhing occasion? Is it to fall into the ranks of the candidate, who may happen to be the strongest? (A very comfortable doctrine, indeed, particularly, to those who happen to be in the minority; our understandings and conscience approving, we should like to be wafted with you gentlemen, on the strong currents.)-Is it to obey the voice of our states? or, is it to obey the voice of our districts? It is, in my judment, neither more nor less than this-To do what is right, according to the best dictates of our own understandings, and leave the consequences to God, and to our country.

It has been asked, how can we hold up our heads when we return home, if we have gone against the will of our constituents? Sir, we can hold our heads as erect as an angel. The man who has honestly done, what he understood, after deep and anxious reflection, to be his duty, may meet the eyes of his constituents, aye, the eyes of the world, and neither blench nor quail, though none should smile upon him. It has, also, been said, (and the remark, though it can have none here, may be calculated to have an effect abroad,) that, whenever a man has done deeds of renown, the people delight to honor him, and will, with great certainty, elevate him to the highest offices. Sir, this is a mere truism; every body here, knows that this is true. It is what the people will always do; it is what they have done, in a thousand instances; but, sir, it is exactly what, in the present case, they have not done. Else, why does the election come to this House? Sir, a majority of the people have distinctly told you, that not even the most favored candidate is the man of their wishes. Neither is elected, though all may have been honored. It is we who must elect.

We have also been told, that, upon grounds of expediency, the sceptre ought not to be placed in the hands of any man who has not a majority of the votes of his countrymen; and that, if we do place it in the hands of such a one, we only place it there to lop off his arm. Sir, this but ill agrees with what is a fundamental principle in the system of the people's men. What, sir! are the intelligent and enlightened people of these states, who are so much flattered in one breath, to be represented in the next as ferecious as tigers! Are they to rise in their wrath, and hurl the full weight of their indignant vengeance at an individual who has done no harm? Who has done no one act to excite their displeasure? Suppose three candidates should come before us with an unequal number of votes, I admit we should very properly feel inclined to elect him "cæteris paribus," who had the largest number, (for I would not willingly deprive gentlemen of the smallest comfort.) But, suppose the candidate who had the smallest number should, in the result, be chosen President, is it maintained that the people of the United States would rise in vengeance against that man? Surely, sir, whatever phials of wrath might be exhausted on the heads of their guilty representatives, the people would pour out none upon the innocent head of a man who had done no one offensive deed, and whose only crime had been to be constitutionally presented for choice, and constitutionally chosen. We have heard, further, and much to my astonishment, that the doctrine of the gentleman from Delaware would not flourish in old England-nay, that it is too strong even for the military despotism of Napoleon. I scorn to flatter any man, and am sure that, on this occasion, I shall be exempt from the imputation of such design, when I say I was an attentive listener to the gentleman from Delaware, and did think, and still think, that sounder doctrines, or doctrines delivered with more pellucid clearness, never fell from the lips of any man, than from those of that distinguished member; and I did consider the

FEB. 4, 1825.]

Suppression of Piracy.

[Senate.

demonstration by which they were maintained, preclud- up to the authority of the Island where captured, or to ed reply; and I am happy to find my own opinion bol-bring them to the United States for trial and adjudicastered and corroborated by an opinion that comes to me tion, as the said instructions of the President of the with so much weight and authority. United States may prescribe.

I have not heard why his doctrines would not flourish in old England; the gentleman from South Carolina did not condescend to favor us with any thing more on that point than mere assertion. As to what was said in regard to the iron reign of Napoleon, and the declarations that he made, it is indeed true, that that despotic ruler professed to be governed by the will of the people, (Bonaparte, it seems, too, was also a "people's man.") But, sir, while he professed this, he was supported by 250,000 bayonets; and, in such circumstances, what was the "people's will"" It was the will of their tyrant.

Here Mr. M., not having concluded his remarks, gave way for a motion for the committee to rise.

IN SENATE-FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1825.
SUPPRESSION OF PIRACY

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill "for
the suppression of piracy in the West Indies "
The motion of Mr. SMITH to amend the 4th section,
(which Mr. MACON had proposed to strike out,) being
the question pending—

This motion was decided without debate, by yeas and nays, in the negative, as follows.

YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Branch, Brown, Chandler, Clayton, Cobb, D'Wolf, Dickerson, Findlay, Gaillard, Lowrie, Macon, Ruggles, Talbot, Taylor, Van Dyke-16. NAYS.-Messrs Barbour, Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Eaton, Edwards, Hayne, Jackson, Johnson, of Ky., Johnston, of Lou., Kelly, King, of Alab., King, of N. Y., Knight, Lloyd, of Md., Lloyd, of Mass., McIlvaine, McLean, Mills, Noble, Palmer, Parrott, Seymour, Smith, Tazewell, Thomas, Van Buren, Williams-28.

On motion of Mr. MILLS, some minor amendments were adopted; and

On motion of Mr. BARBOUR, (who wished to accommodate those who objected to the clause as it stood) the limitation of salvage for recaptures, was stricken out, and the amount to be allowed, left to the discretion of the Courts.

The bill was then reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments made in committee of the whole concurred in.

an intention to offer, viz:

Mr. LLOYD, of Mass, moved the adoption of the folMr. TALBOT hoped the Senate would not go on de-lowing section, which he had some days ago intimated bating for days, motions to amend parts of the bill which were then, after all the time spent on their details, struck out; he therefore suggested to Mr. SMITH the propriety of withdrawing his motion to amend, that the question might be taken on the principle itself contained in the fourth and remaining sections of the bill. Mr. SMITH yielded to this suggestion, to save time, and withdrew his motion.

And be it further enacted, That for every pirate, who shall be captured by the officers, or crews, or any part of them, of vessels belonging to the United States, and brought into the United States; and who shall be convicted of the crime of piracy, by any competent tribunal, the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, authorized and required to pay, or cause to be paid, to Mr. TALBOT then moved to strike out the 4th, 5th, the owners, officers, and crews, of the vessels capturing 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th sections of the bill, (all re- such pirates, or to their agents, the sum of one hundred lating to armed merchant vessels,) which authorize the dollars for each and every pirate captured, and conrecapture of vessels from the pirates, taken on the coast demned as aforesaid; to be divided among the parties of Cuba, &c. allow salvage therefor of one-eighth to ore- receiving the same, in like manner as is provided in the half, apportion among the crews and owners of merchant fifth section of this act, for the distribution of the provessels, the property of captured piratical vessels, re-perty captured from pirates; and that the sum of ten quiring bond of armed merchant vessels, for lawful conduct-authorizing the President of the United States to establish instructions for them, providing for a fund out of the vessels captured from pirates, from which pensions are to be allowed to sailors disabled in action with pirates, and to their families if killed, &c. &c.

On the motion to strike out these sections, a wide debate took place, in which Messrs. TALBOT, BARBOUR, SMITH, HOLMES, of Maine, and MILLS, engaged.

The question being taken on striking out the sections, it was decided in the negative by yeas and nays, as follows:

thousand dollars, from any money in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, for the object aforesaid.

After some debate on this amendment, between Messrs. LLOYD, of Mass., HOLMES, of Maine, MILLS, VAN BUREN, and JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, and the adoption of a verbal amendment, proposed by Mr. MACON,

The question was put on the section offered by Mr. LLOYD, and negatived-16 rising in its favor, and 21 against it.

Mr. VAN BUREN then renewed the motion he had unsuccessfully made in committee of the whole, to reYEAS-Messrs. Barton, Bell, Bouligny, Branch, commit the bill to a select committee, with instructions Brown, Chandler, Clayton, Cobb, D'Wolf, Dickerson, "to report amendments thereto, giving power to the Findlay Gaillard, Lowrie, Macon, Noble, Ruggles, Tal- President, on its being satisfactorily proved to him that bot, Taylor, Tazewell, Thomas, and Van Dyke-21. any of the pirates, mentioned in the said act, find refuge NAYS-Messrs. Barbour, Benton, Eaton, Edwards, in any of the cities or ports of the said Island of Cuba, Hayne, Jackson, Johnson, of Ky., Johnston, of Lou., or other Islands mentioned in the said bill, and that the Kelly, King, of N. Y., Knight, Lloyd, of Md., Lloyd, of local governments of the said Islands, on being requestMass., M'Ilvaine, M'Lean, Mills, Palmer, Parrott, Sey-ed so to do, neglect, or refuse, to aid in the apprehenmour, Smith, Van Buren, and Williams-22.

Mr. LOWRIE then moved to strike out the second section of the bill, which is as follows:

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the commanders and crews of the armed vessels of the United States shall be, and they are hereby, authorized, under such instructions as may be given them by the President of the United States, in the fresh pursuit of pirates on the Island of Cuba, or any other of the Islands of Spain in the West Indies, to land whenever it may be necessary to secure the capture of the said pirates, and there to subdue, vanquish, and capture them, to deliver them

sion, prosecution, and conviction, of such pirates, to give authority to the crews of the armed vessels of the United States, under such instructions as may be given them, to land on the said Islands, in search of pirates, and there to subdue, vanquish, and capture them, and bring them to the United States for trial and adjudication, as the said instructions of the President of the United States may prescribe: and further, to authorize reprisals on the commerce and property of the inhabitants of the said Islands."

Mr. VAN BUREN supported his motion with some remarks; and,

Sen. & H. of R.] Suppression of Piracy-The Speaker's Appeal to the House. [FEB. 4, 1825.

the Speaker any act directly criminal. As to the power of this House, he observed that the present appeal was made to it in its judicial character. The House was sometimes erected, by the constitution, into a Court of justice, before which charges were preferred, and evidence taken, which sometimes resulted in the impeachment of a public officer, as was exemplified yesterday, when the Delegate from Florida rose in his place, and made statements charging a judge with mal-practice in his office. In such cases, the House possessed an inquisitorial power, which it becomes its duty to exert. The only other case in which the House acted in a judicial capacity, was, when it punished an individual for a contempt. What were the objects of this latter power? The first was to protect the personal liberty of its members. The second was to prevent them from being overawed in exercising the privilege of free debate; and the third was to vindicate their official purity. The power of punishing contempts extends no farther than this. If the present subject was tested by this rule, it would be found not to be embraced by either of the branches of that power which he had just enumerated. Should the committee be raised, and "should it act, its acting must be wholly inoperative, because the inquiry was not supported by the subject-matter. To have any effect, the matter to be inquired into must have terminated in some act either vindicatory or punishable. In the present case, there existed no such act, and therefore the inquiry must be useless.

[H. of R.

And, if it has, is not this corruption?—And what then?
It ought to be punished. Has not the House power, not
merely to reprimand, but to expel, any one of its mem-
bers who shall have dared to be guilty of such conduct?
If, on the contrary, it shall appear that any member of
this House, governed by mere rumors, and under the in-
fluence of jealousy or mere surmises, shall have presum-
ed to hold up, as an infamous bargainer, as a contractor
for votes and influence, a member or an officer of this
House, will it be contended that we have no power to
punish him? Certainly we have the power to repri
mand, and if that is considered as insufficient, we have
the power to expel him, as unworthy of a seat in this
House. If this is denied, what is a member to do, who
is publicly charged with an offence of this nature, or
where is he to go? This is the proper and the only
place where his reputation can be vindicated. This
House, alone, is competent to examine into the charge.
Is the accused to appeal to the newspapers? For what?
to prove a negative? Such, unhappily, in this country,
is the condition of the press, (that palladium of political
liberty,) that no man can appeal to it, without a sense
of dishonor. He cannot come forward, there, and say,
I join issue in this charge, without exposing himself to
derision by entering into a competition with newspapers
which utter falsehood and truth according to the object
in view. He was ashamed to state it to the House, but
the fact was so, that, pending any great election, such
was the prostitution of the public press, that there was
no knowing what to believe; and it was sufficient to
pronounce any charge, however gravely made, an elec-
tioneering trick, to stamp it instantly with the seal of
falsehood. That press, which had been so long the
boast of liberty, was, in this country, no longer a protec-
tor of innocence; and it had long since ceased to be the
scourge even of the guilty, save as it served to excite
the sting of a guilty conscience.

Mr. FORSYTH, of Georgia, observed, that, having made the motion which was now the subject of debate, he wished to say a few words in explanation of its nature and object, in doing which, he premised that the gentlemen who had addressed the House this morning were rather in advance of this question. A communication had been made by the Speaker to the House, requesting the appointment of a committee for the purpose of investigating certain charges which had been brought In this state of things, Mr. F. again asked, what was against him by a member of this House. The present an accused or a calumniated member of this House to motion is simply for the purpose of referring this com- do? He must throw himself on the judgment of his munication to a committee. When it got there, he peers, that, if falsely accused, the guilt of the calumny took it for granted that the preliminary inquiry would may revert on its author. As to the power of the House, be, Are the charges to which this communication refers there could be no doubt; and as to the propriety of apof such a nature as to require the interposition of the pointing a committee, he had himself no question. It House of Representatives? If the committee shall is said, indeed, that this charge relates only to intention; think they are not, they will report accordingly, and the the crime has not been consummated, and cannot be House will either confirm or reject their decision. If until a corrupt act has been performed. But I pray the the House should confirm it, the committee will then House to consider a case which I will now present to apply to the House for further authority to act in the them. Suppose there is a claimant who has a claim. affair. This appeared to him to be the only rational mode pending before this House for a large sum of money, of treating this very unpleasant business. The House and he knows that a certain member, from his ability, was in possession of nothing in relation to it but the com- from his unblemished reputation for integrity, from his munication of the Speaker. The letter, indeed, to which long acquaintance with the rules of business, and from it referred, and which was said to have been written by general knowledge of the persons of the members, is a member of this House, might be found in certain possessed of great influence over their minds; and that newspapers, but the House had no evidence that that claimant offers this member a bribe, which the member which was published was a true copy of the letter. It accepts, and circumstances afterwards transpire to bring might have been altered or interpolated by the printer. the transaction to light, between the time of giving the The letter, as published, must be considered either as bribe, and the time of deciding on the claim; will any preferring a deliberate charge of corrupt conduct against gentleman tell me that we may not punish such a transa member or members of this House, or as admitting of action? Will any gentleman tell me that we must wait some explanation which should go to do away such a till the crime is consummated-till the vote is given? meaning. The member to whom the letter was attri- Surely not. We may punish, at once, both him who buted, if called upon, will, no doubt, answer at once, offered, and him who accepted the base coin. The and frankly declare what he meant. He will say whether charge, in this case, is, that a member of this House inhe intended to charge upon the presiding officer of tends to give his influence, and vote, in favor of a certhis House the making of a corrupt bargain. If he shall tain candidate for the Presidency, and, on that consider. answer in the affirmative, will any gentleman, asked Mr.ation, is to receive a place of profit and honor. Is there F. say that this is not an act into which the House ought any distinction between the two cases? Is not this bribto inquire, nor one which the House can punish?" It ery, to all intents and purposes? If the charge is made, was true that there was one difficulty attending the ac- the charge ought to be investigated. If the charge is cusation. It charged the accused, not with an act, but true, the member charged ought to be expelled from this only with an intention. The act has not been consum- House. And, if it is not true, the slanderer ought to be mated. The vote has not been given. But I ask, If the punished. I have, therefore, moved to refer the Speakcharge is a true one, has not the bargain been made?er's communication to a committee. If they think it

VOL. 1--30

worthy of investigation, they will ask for the requisite authority to send for persons and papers.

[FEB 4, 1825.

tion, where it is intended to operate, before we can move. When it has produced its effect, it will be of no use to take any step in relation to it.

The writer of the letter, sir, commences by stating his object, in writing, to be, to give information “ of one of the most disgraceful transactions that ever covered with infamy the republican ranks." A transaction so base, that it laid the axe at the very root of the tree of liberty. He proceeds "to give a brief account of such a bargain, as can only be equalled by the famous Burr conspiracy of 1801," and then goes on to state,

1st, That, "for some time past, the friends of Mr. Clay had hinted, that they, like the Swiss, would fight for those who would pay best.

2d, That overtures were said to have been made by the friends of Adams, of the Department of State, to Mr. Clay, for his aid to elect Mr. Adams.

there is, in the publication, a direct charge against the presiding officer of this House, of having entered into a Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, regretted, exceedingly, corrupt bargain, in relation to his vote, and that of his the existence of such a case as now occupied the atten- friends, on a question pending, devolved upon us by the tion of the House; but, since it did exist, he thought the constitution, of the highest and most important characcourse to be pursued was a very plain one. He thought ter that can devolve upon us, and which is soon to be the House could not hesitate to grant the inquiry which decided. If I do this, sir, it will be idle to say, we can had been asked. He recollected that last year a similar take no measures to investigate such a charge, until the request had been made, by an officer of Government, intended corrupt act is consummated; because the ques and the House did appoint a committee of investigation. tian is hastening on, and we should free ourselves from He was sorry that he had not heard all that fell from his the effect of the corrupt bargain, and not suffer it to honorable colleague, (Mr. ARCHER,) for whom he enter-pollute our legislative Hall, and be carried into the elec tained very great respect; but whose argument, as he had so imperfectly heard it, he would not attempt to answer. He only hoped that the House would, in this case, act consistent with itself. He considered every member of the House as being, in some sort, the property of the nation. A member rises in his place, and informs us that charges have been made against him, which go deeply to implicate his character. Surely, the smallest boon we can grant is an inquiry The respectability of the source whence these charges have proceeded, entitles them to consideration. They are preferred by a member of this House, in all respects on a footing with ourselves; and if they are investigated, it may turn out, both that the charges are false, and that the member who brought them forward, acted innocently in so doing. Mr. GAZLAY, of Ohio, said he should not now determine as to the right or duty of the House generally to institute a committee of inquiry of a personal nature. A case might be presumed, he imagined, which would call for such a course, but he much doubted whether it could, in relation to the object, and under the circumstances with which this was brought forward. The time was one of general and national excitement. A great national question was up and about to be determined-contract would be ratified by the members from the the election of a President. At this moment, when we owe to ourselves, when the nation has a right to demand of us, a cool, unmixed, and undivided attention to this object, he thought it highly improper, he might say, dangerous, to commingle with it extraneous and personal inquiries; inquiries which must inflame, but could give no lights or balance to the mind; inquiries which might well increase our prejudices, but could certainly remove none. He thought it our duty to put down and to keep back subjects of this character. It was personal, and not national; it would have more the appearance of per-cretary of State." secution than of inquiry. He thought it inconsistent with the character of the nation, as well as that of the House, to permit the inquiry, at this moment. He felt that higher considerations than personal ones should induce us to postpone the question; during which he did not believe that the character of the gentleman would be at all impaired in the public estimation, by the postponement, and certainly not as much as that of the nation might by the inquiry. He was convinced that no good, public or private, could result from the inquiry. He would, therefore, move to lay the motion on the

table.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Ohio, said he was not certain that he understood the gentleman who opposed the proposition to raise a committee in the case under consideration; but if he did, the opposition rests on the hypothe sis that the letter aliuded to, and avowed on the floor, by a member of the House, contained no charge of any offence, or of any specific act done, which, if found true, would lead to any ulterior measure, in relation to the accused, or, if found false, to any like measure, in relation to the accuser-that there is no specific charge here, of any act done, but all rested on common rumor, of acts not yet consummated-still resting in intention, which could not properly be investigated, until ripened into act.

Sir, I have no objection to consider the matter in this point of view, and to meet gentlemen on their own ground. I will undertake to show to the House, that

Sd, That the friends of Clay informed the friends of Jackson of the overture, and hinted, that, for the some offer from Jackson's friends, they would close with them, but none of the friends of Jackson would descend to such mean barter and sale.

4th, That Jackson's friends did not believe that the

states who had voted for Clay; but that it was the writ er's opinion from the first, "that men possessing any honorable principles, could not, nor would not, be transferred like the planter does his negroes, or the farmer, his team and horses." But, he says, 66 contrary to this expectation, it is now ascertained, to a certainty, that Henry Clay has transferred bis interest to John Quincy Adams, and, in consideration of this abandonment of duty to his constituents, it is said and believed, should this unholy coalition prevail, Clay is to be appointed Se

The charges contained in this letter, against Mr. Clay's friends, among whom I am proud to acknowledge myself, I shall not now notice, as I consider those charges only incidentally before you; but the charge against him is clear and explicit-one that I think no man can mistake, as positive in its character as any one could wish. It is, "that it was ascertained to a certainty that H. Clay had, by mean bargain and sale, transferred his interest to Adams, and, in consideration of that abandon ment of duty to his constituents, if the unholy coalition succeeds, Mr. Clay is to be appointed Secretary of State." Is this no charge imputing conduct to the Speaker, in his representative character, calling for the interposition of the power of this House, or in any way affecting its dignity? Perhaps no language is so suitable to give a character to the charge as that of the letter writer himself. I will present you his own character and opinion of the charge nearly in his own words. He characterises the contract imputed, as predicated on an abandonment of duty, (by Mr. Clay,) to his constituents: as an unholy coalition: as a mean barter and sale, of the character of a transfer, by a master of his negroes, or by a planter of his team and horses: as equalled only by the famous Burr conspiracy of 1801: as the most disgraceful transaction that ever covered with infamy the republican ranks: so base as to lay the axe at the very root of the tree of liber ty: a transaction no men possessing any honorable principle would submit to. Surely, no gentleman will say that