FEB. 4, 1825.]

The Speaker's Appeal to the House.

[H. of R.

such a charge, so characterized by the writer, and avow- Notwithstanding the ingenious exposition of the ho ed on this floor by a member, with a pledge to prove it norable member from Ohio, Mr. M'D. said it was per true, could be regarded as imputing no turpitude or fectly clear, and any one who dispassionately perused crime, which, if true, would not lead to ulterior mea- the letter, would come to the same conclusion, that no sures; it is too clear to admit of doubt. But, it is said, charge was made in it against any portion of this Ilouse. the interest spoken of, means only Mr. Clay's own exer- The writer speaks in general terms of a combination, a tions. Sir, this is not the understanding of the member coalition, an unholy coalition; but, said Mr. M'D. when who penned the charge: He says, "Jackson's friends you come to have the historical, or narrative part of the did not believe the contract would be ratified by the letter, you find it is nothing more than that it is "reportmembers from the states who voted for Clay, and that it ed," and "believed," that such things are, as are recited. was his opinion that men possessing any honorable prin- For a long time, he says, the charges were not believed, ciple could not, nor would not, be transferred, like the but that now they are believed. The existence of suck planter does his negroes, or the farmer his team and combinations, &c. is stated, but as a mere matter of behorses; and that, in consideration of the transfer, Mr. lief. By whose agency does he say these combinations Clay was to be appointed Secretary of State." Who are supposed to have been produced? Is it by that of are here said to be transferred? Mr. Clay's friends in the Speaker of this House? Let any one put his finger the House. Who made the transfer, and was to receive on the passage in the letter which says that the Speakthe consideration? Mr. Clay. The presiding officer of er has made, or accepted, any proposition leading to this House is directly and positively charged, by a mem-corruption. It is his friends who are said to have thrown ber in his place, with entering into a corrupt contract, out hints, &c. If the letter contains any charge, it is by which, for the consideration of an office, dependent not against the Speaker but against his friends. His on success, he stipulates to transfer his own vote, and friends, where? He has friends out of this House, and those of the members from the states who had voted for Mr. Clay for the Presidency, to one of the three candidates presented to us to choose a President from: or, if it be not a positive charge, I have no conception what idea the gentleman attaches to a positive charge. We are told, sir, with this charge before us, that no offence is imputed-that all rests on rumors-nothing affecting, in the slightest degree, the dignity of the House!-your presiding officer corruptly selling his own vote, and that of his fellow-members, is no offence to the dignity of the House!-that no ulterior measures can grow out of such a charge, it true; and that it is beneath our dignity to notice such vague rumors! Sir, will you go to the election of a Chief Magistrate while corruption fills your Hall, and seeks to find its way into your ballot boxes? No, sir, let us go to that work with pure hands, and drive these corrupt bargainers from our presence. Let us investigate these charges; and, if they are found true, I have no hesitation in saying, your Speaker is unworthy the station he fills, or a seat on this floor; and I, for one, will vote for his expulsion, as I would any member, who would falsely make such a charge. We ought not to stop until the deed be done, and then seek to punish; but should proceed now, in time to prevent the mischief, and satisfy the nation that, when we go into the elec. tion, we are free from the imputation of corrupt influ

ence.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to trespass on the time of
the House, but felt myself impelled to make the re-
marks I have.

Mr. M'DUFFIE, of South Carolina, next rose. He
was sorry, he said, to be obliged to trespass on the at-
tention of the House on this most unpleasant business.
But, if we adopt the course suggested, said he, we must
inflict on the character of this House an injury much
greater than it has yet sustained. Before we adopt any
measure-before we determine the legitimate extent of
our power, we must ascertain that there is some lawful
act which we may do as the result and consequence of
that investigation. Sir, this House is not a mere collec-
tion of individuals, who are to constitute themselves into
a corps of compurgators. Whether a charge preferred
against a member be true or false, it is not for this House
to organize itself into a tribunal, to try its truth or false
hood, unless it has a right to do some act founded on the
truth or falsehood of that charge. In the case now be-
fore us, what are we to do? In what is this inquiry to
end? If we had any legitimate object in view, either to
expel the Speaker, or the member who has made the
charge, we might be justified in this proceeding. But
let us meet the question as it stands, and inquire whe.
ther, upon
the actual state of facts, this House has the
power to expel the Speaker or the member.

in this House. It does not appear that even any member of this House is included in the allusions of the letter. The charge, then, is one which is founded on rumors, vague and indefinite-a charge against individuals not named.

But, sir, I have a much stronger objection to this proposition, than any which results from the particular inquiry into the nature and character of the charge. I go on higher ground, and I deny that we can prosecute this investigation, with a view to an act by which alone it can be consummated, without violating the highest privileges of the people of the United States. We have been told of the danger of the liberty of the press, and the dangers to which the liberties of the country will be exposed by indulging it. These, sir, are the arguments by which, in all countries, that essential palladium of liberty has been assailed. This is not a new subject in this country. This is not a new inquiry, though in a new form. There was a time, some twenty or thirty years ago, of great public excitement, when the people of this country were rising up against an administration which was not acceptable to them, and this subject, regarding the powers of the Government, underwent deliberation by Congress. and an act on the subject was adopted. The question, whether this Government has a right to protect itself against investigation, by enforcing (not the common law of England, but) the common law of England with important modifications, to punish those who libel the Government, was determined in Congress by the passage of an act, which act was nothing more or less than the famous sedition law. On what argument was that law founded? On this: that the Government could not protect itself by the common law of England. But what was the proposition embraced by that act? Was it an act to authorize any branch of the Govern ment to punish by its own act a libel upon it? Was that the proposition? Was it a law to authorize a person in office to become his own avenger? No: it was a provision that, if the Congress, or any officer of this Government, was libelled, the party injured might apply to the judicial tribunals, and call upon a jury of the country for redress. It was there that the investigation was to be prosecuted, and, if the charge was false, it was there to be punished. What said the country to that law? The people rose indignant against it-the law was repealed-and no man now rises to do honor to the name or memory of it. No man rises to vindicate that law. And what are we about to do? We are not only to punish a libel alleged to have been uttered against a member of this House, but we are about to punish it in a form characteristic of tyranny. We are about to prepare the law, judge the facts, and inflict the punishment, by the same act. We are called upon to punish a

publication in relation to an ordinary act of this House, on a matter deeply interesting to the public. We are called upon to punish it by our own will, and under an excitement which every one naturally feels when an attack is made upon him.

[FEB. 4, 1825.

of contempt of this House. Mr. M'D. asked for a precedent to show that a charge made against any member, was a contempt of the House. The charge, to be a conagainst the House, or against some organized committee of the House. That was the rule in the British Parliament. If one makes a charge against either House, the English Parliament, being supreme, which I trust we are not, has the power to punish for contempt, but not in the case of a charge against any individual member. In every view of the subject, he thought the House ought to pause in its course.

ished, it is for a contempt. And, without pressing the argument, that a publication in a newspaper cannot be a contempt-without going into the argument, that that which cannot be a libel, cannot be the basis of a motion to expel a member for contempt-I could show, that, In this country, the law of libel-for that is really the according to the practice of the English Parliament, the question now to be discussed-has received very im-case now before us never could be made out to be a case portant modifications, mitigating it to a degree very far below the standard of other countries, even of the freest country next to the United States. The English law of Jibel is not that of the United States. What is the modi-tempt, must be, according to all precedent, a charge fication of it in this country, not by statutory enactment, but by the mere force of judicial decisions in conformity to the genius of the government? By the law of libel in England, a man may be punished although he tells the truth. What is your law? That charges against a public officer, in relation to his public conduct, shall not be the subject of prosecution for libel at all; that the public is so deeply interested in the investigation of its concerns, and in the exposure of faults or vices in its agents, that this power of punishing for libels shall be taken from their hands altogether. That was the principle upon which the sedition law was repealed-not because a man ought not to be punished for a libel, but because the power of punishment was so liable to abuse, that he government had better throw itself upon the intelligence and magnanimity of the country, than exercise such a power.

But, the House had been told that, in this case, a precedent was to be found in the investigation which took place at the last session. Not so, Mr. McD. said. The investigation in that case was not founded on newspaper publications, but upon a memorial addressed to the House, calling upon it to institute it. How, said he, have we got this matter before us? How did it come here? Who brought it? A publication appeared in a remote newspaper. Suppose it had been by the Editor What then, sir, are we about to do? The thing con- of the paper, would we call him here, and punish him? demned by public opinion-and to do it in a form more That is not pretended. Is a member of this House deexceptionable than any ever contemplated by the old prived, by his election to this station, of the common sedition law. Let us ask ourselves, what are the pur-right of a citizen? No. If that letter merely had apposes to which a power of this description may be appeared before the public, we should not have gone into plied at a future time. What does this letter, which is this inquiry. How did that letter get here? The memthe ground of our proceeding, relate to? The election ber who brought it here issued, in a public print, the of President of the United States How is that election following Card: [Here Mr. McD. read the whole of the to be made? What remains to be done for its comple-card, till it came to the passage where it says," and if tion? The work, which commenced with the people, he (the author of the Philadelphia letter) dare unveil is to be consummated here. Where are we? In the midst himself, and avow his name, I will hold him responsible" of our constituents? No, sir, we are far removed from not, said Mr. McD. to an investigation before this the eye of those to whom we are responsible. Under House, but-"to all the laws which govern, and regulate what temptations do we act? Under temptations, by the conduct of, men of honor."] Now, sir, said Mr. M'D). which personal interest may induce us to act contrary to so far as this letter has been traced to a member of this the public will. We are not only to be excluded, possi- House, the avowal of it has been exto rted-drawn out-bly, from the public eye, but we are to choak up the by this publication. If I were to go into the question of channels, through which, alone, the people can know a breach of privilege, on this occasion, I would say, here, what is going on here. Is it not more important that in this "Card" is a breach of privilege-a public chalpublic opinion should be enlightened by the general lenge is more a breach of privilege than the writing of dissemination of a knowledge of the acts of public that letter; and yet, after the name of the writer has agents, than that, even to redress a wrong, we should es- been thus extorted, this House is called upon to intertablish an engine, which may, hereafter, be liable to the fere in the matter. So far as a change has been made most pernicious abuse? There is no subject in regard in the character of this case from that of a mere newsto which rumors may not be circulated, and the ground paper publication, it has been done in a way which gives of our proceeding is nothing more than rumor. Suppose it no title to our countenance. The name of the writer the liberties of the country were really in danger. We has been extorted by this challenge, and all that follows had a scene here, four and twenty years ago, to which it partakes of this personal character. Both as regards the may be salutary to recur, with a view to estimate what individual concerned, the circumstances of the case, and may occur hereafter. How did the people ascertain the the high public principles involved in it, I think it most inmachinations of that day? How was the loud voice of re-expedient to adopt the resolution for appointing a com probation made to sound through the country? By the mittee. I appeal to the good sense and good feeling of reports, the rumours, then in circulation. If you are the members of this House to say, if it were even proper forbidden, by a decision here, to disclose rumors, reports, to institute such an investigation, whether a more unforand speculations, on political topics, then the object of tunate period for it could be found, in the history of the the intriguer, the conspirator against the public interest, country, than this; and whether this House is to be dis is accomplished. If you hold up the arm of terror against turbed and thrown into commotion, by the introduction every man who speculates on probabilities, or gives cur- of such a matter as this, on the eve of a Presidential Elecrency to rumors, you realize the dead silence of despo- tion, when the character of the House, and the honor of tism. When you lull the sentinel to sleep, the conspi- the country, more than ever, require tranquillity and rator may fearlessly walk abroad in the dark, and the propriety in the proceedings of the House. public eye cannot detect him. A precedent more dangerous has never been set in this government, than would be by the institution of this inquiry.

A few words, said Mr. M'D. as to the analogous powers, exercised in other countries, of punishment for contempt. If the member from Pennsylvania is to be pun

Mr. FORSYTH said he had not interrupted the gen tleman from South Carolina, because he knew he should have an opportunity to explain, after he had concluded. The gentleman has, said Mr. F. very adroitly brought the old sedition law to bear upon me. But, sir, I did not say that the press was dangerous to liberty. Far

H. of R.]

The Speaker's Appeal to the House.

[FEB. 4, 1825.

time. He had listened with attention to the present de- being more or less influenced by our act. The precebate. He had examined the nature of the charge which dent is dangerous. Mr. R. thought that it was not the gave rise to it, and the result of his deliberation was, duty of Congress to seize on a publication and take it that it was neither necessary, nor proper, to appoint any out of the ordinary course of investigation. In the present committee to investigate them. He had attended par- case he felt perfectly impartial-he knew no difference ticularly to the member from Georgia, who had introduc- between the Speaker and the gentleman from Pennsyl ed the present motion. He alleges that the House may vania; he could not sit down, however, without observ. send the communication of the Speaker to the commiting that the present was an inauspicious moment for tee, without exercising any jurisdiction in the case. --- going into such an investigation. It was practically But surely, it caught not to institute an inquiry unless af-impossible to separate the question from the great conter it has inquired is it competent to act? He depre- test which was just approaching. cated the effect of this inquiry on the community.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, said, that, in his judg. He thought it was best to leave the matter to the ment, the subject before the House was to be viewed in courts of justice. If, indeed, this were the only tribunal two aspects-the one of which regarded the reputation to which the accused member could resort, he should of the individual member accused, the other concerned feel inclined rather to stretch the powers of the House the character of the House itself. He should not hesi than not afford him the investigation he desired. But tate to say that, in the first aspect, he thought the House such was not the case. The ordinary judicial tribunals should always exercise their discretionary power to the of the country were as open to that member as to any most liberal, and, perhaps, generous extent. He should other person, and he might vindicate his character there. be ever jealous of the honor of its members, and, whenThe case of the last session, which had been brought as ever asked to interfere, officially for its protection from a precedent, had, he thought, no analogy to the case calumny, which affects them in the discharge of their now before the House. These charges had been brought | duty here as representatives, should not be scrupulous by a person appointed to act in a diplomatic character, in granting an investigation of the charges. I would, in against an officer of the Government high in place, and the first instance, said Mr. S. go so far as generally to the charges related wholly to his official acts. No such permit any gentleman here to be his own judge in a case is now presented. The charge is made against the matter which thus affected his own honor; and, if he Speaker, not as an officer of this House, but merely as a deemed an investigation necessary to his vindication, member of it, and not for official acts, but for acts of a grant him an inquiry. He would not express an opinion personal nature altogether. The Speaker possessed a on the matter now before the House, so far as any one double capacity, both as an officer of the House and as a might be concerned as an individual, for it had now asconstituent member of it. As an officer of the House, sumed a character which involved the honor and purity he was entitled to its protection. He was not now as- of the House. It is no less a question than whether sailed as its officer. There might, indeed, occur a case we shall vindicate the House itself, from the imputation in which the Speaker of this House might be accused of direct bribery. If the character of its presiding offi. of some great crime against the laws of his country, and cer is concerned, and if that seat is even suspected to the accusation might be accompanied with such strong have been tarnished with dishonor, and we deny the presumptive evidence of his guilt, that it might be the most rigid inquiry, the public confidence in us will be duty of the House to interpose at once. But, in this forfeited. It is impossible to conceal, and useless to discase, the Speaker was no more than any other member. guise the fact, that, in every thing which concerns the What would be the nature of the precedent, if it should interesting question which has devolved on us at the be set? A member is charged, in a newspaper, with present session, the public eye is upon this House. The certain political offences. He immediately appeals to People of these states look to it as they should, with the the House-(and here, said Mr. R. let me remark, that most intense interest. We may expect the severest all the members from the West have equal, if not greater scrutiny of all which transpires here. I fully accord, reason to appeal, than the Speaker,) and the House said Mr. S. to the general views expressed a day or two grants the investigation-what will be the practical ef- since on this point, by an honorable member from Pennfect? This House will be made a tribunal before which sylvania, (Mr. BUCHANAN.) The people will demand any charge, in any newspaper, in any part of this Union, that no mystery shall shelter the conduct of their repreis to be brought, that its truth may be investigated.-sentatives from the public eye-that, if corruption and Why, sir, how will our time then be occupied, or what portion of it do you suppose will be left for legislation? The gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. M'DUFFIE,) alluded, and very properly, to the sedition law. The Constitution declares that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."

What, asked Mr. R. was the intention of the framers of the Constitution, when they inserted this article? Not, surely, that a man may publish what he pleases and not be responsible-but only that he should be amenable to the laws, and if called to an account, should be entitled to the judgment of his peers. I cannot see how this differs from ordinary cases of libel, or why it should not go to the ordinary tribunal, unless, indeed, the Constitution has said that this House shall constitute a court, expressly for the trial of questions of honor. Sir, the People of this Nation are not prepared for such a measure as is now proposed. They are not prepared to see a man punished for laying open what he conceives to be a corrupt conspiracy; they have been accustomed to let every man publish what he will, and be held liable to the laws for so doing. Look at the effect; some member makes a charge against his fellow-member; Congress takes up the affair, and acquits or condemns. No jury can afterwards pass upon the case, in any court, without

intrigue should be suspected to exist, it shall be dragged from its lurking places-that, if light is demanded by our constituents, inquiry shall be had-full, perfect, and severe inquiry.

What, then, is the true character of the matter to which it is now proposed to extend the interposition of the House? It was stated in a public print that a base and corrupt bargain had been made for the transfer of the votes of certain members of this body, to one of the persons from whom the selection for the next President must constitutionally be made. It is not alleged to have been done out of doors. The publication express ly charges that this corruption exists within these walls that it was the opinion of the writer that men of honorable principles would not consent to be "transfer. red" in that way; and, in a subsequent part of the let ter, it is directly asserted that it is now ascertained to a certainty, that the member of the House who presides over its deliberations has transferred his interest. The charge is unequivocal and direct. The consideration is stated to have been paid, and believed to have been the acquirement of an office of high trust in the Government.

No essential part of this letter is stated to be founded on hearsay or rumor, except the last paragraph. It

FEB. 4, 1825.]

The Speaker's Appeal to the House.

[H. of R.

boldly announces to the Nation, that, however strange, and if we now deny the inquiry, the nation itself will inbase, or disgraceful, the transaction may be, it is never- quire, and pass their judgment on him and us, without theless true. It is stigmatised-and, if true, justly-proof. Mr. S. concluded by saying, that, if the inquiry with the most odious and offensive epithets, and con- should be had, and any charge substantiated which afcludes with an appeal to public opinion, to stay the con- fected its presiding officer, if not with crime, even with summation of the profligate contract. This paper was dishonor in a literal sense; he should consider the laid before the House, by the member whose name was House bound to proceed another step, and he would, for thus publicly given, as the party to this foul bribery. I one, proceed to the last resort, if one of his own kindred am not prepared, said Mr. S. to give an opinion, wheth- occupied the place. er, if this were all which we had before us, the House, considering other circumstances, which are well known to have been intimately connected with the subject, would not have found some extrinsic difficulties in the path of its interposition. But, when the communication was made, a member from Pennsylvania, who is entitled to our respect, rose in his place, and avowed substantially to the House, his readiness to meet the inquiry which was asked, and to prove the truth of the charges. After such an avowal, in the presence of the House, and from a member of the House, Mr. S. said, that he felt bound to proceed, and vindicate the House from the charge, or punish the guilty partakers of this corrupt conspiracy. The honorable member from South Carolina, (Mr. M'DUFFIE,) expressed an objection to the inquiry, because no constitutional act of this House could result from the investigation. Mr. S. said, that, if the charge should be proved, the duty of the House was, in his opinion, clear and plain.

Mr. M'DUFFIE said, that the very strong and imposing statement of the gentleman from New York, had not affected his first view of this question. The House ought not, said Mr. M'D. according to my argument, to institute proceedings in this case, unless their proceedings were to lead to some act: and I say, again, that these proceedings can lead to no result or act which this House is adequate to perform. But I am answered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and again by the gentleman from New York, that a result can take place: that we may dethrone the Speaker. Sir, my maxim is, never to profess to do one thing, when I mean another Does any gentleman believe that the object is to dethrone the Speaker? Does the gentleman from New York mean to dethrone the Speaker? Has he said that he does? He has not, and he does not mean to do it. The object is, under a shew of doing one thing to do another. The gentleman had said that those who oppose the inquiry believe the Speaker innocent. What, said Mr. M'DUFFIE, is the converse of this proposition? That those who advocate the inquiry, believe him guilty. Was this the fact? The gentleman had said, that rumors are abroad, and that the House would lose the confidence of the nation. Sir, said Mr. M'D. you are taking the course calculated to dean investigation into a newspaper publication? It is degrading to the House. As far as I am concerned, I feel it so. Suppose that my constituents were to assail my conduct in a newspaper, or hold public meetings and send me instructions how to act: would I have a right to send the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring them here to an swer for their conduct? If they have rights in this respect, their Representatives here have the same. We do not lose the rights of citizens by coming here. What said the gentleman from New-York? Why, that, in a N. York paper it was reported there was a new coalitionin a Virginia paper I have seen a rumor of another. Sir, shall I move an investigation on that ground? Rumor, with her ten thousand tongues, is busy on the subject, and if we give ourselves up to the investigation of rumors, we shall render ourselves pitiful and degraded. If the honor of the House is not to be preserved but by a course which will destroy the freedom of opinion and investigation, that honor is not worth preserving.

The power of electing its own presiding officer involved, as an insuperable incident, the power to displace him. He holds that exalted station by the will of the House, and during its own pleasure. Its power may be directly exercised to degrade him from that honora ble place; and, under another power expressly granted by the constitution, to expel him from the House, as un-stroy it. Are we to gain public confidence by instituting fit to be associated with the public councils of the nation. Will any one undertake to convince the House,that, if its presiding officer should be convicted of theft, (if, said Mr. S. I may suppose a case so offensive,) we have not the power to dethrone him from the seat which he had thus dishonored! If he is charged with bribery and the mean barter and sale of his vote as a member, is it an offence less involving the purity of the place? If the charge was proved, is there any among us who would not feel degraded in the occupation of one of these seats?

Sir, said Mr. S. the place of a Representative here is one of the most transcendent trusts in the gift of the free people of these States. The charge preferred against our presiding officer strikes at the foundation of all public confidence in the purity of the House. If we refuse inquiry, especially at a moment and on a subject peculiar as the present, what will be the suspicions, just or unjust, of a people generously jealous of the honor of their rulers, and who must feel in some degree the degra- Mr. STORRS said he perfectly concurred with the dation of their Government, in the scandal of their public gentleman from South Carolina, that this House was councils? If these charges can be proved, I would not sit not, on mere rumor, to institute an investigation. If the here for a moment, if I thought that we must patiently gentleman so understood me to say, said Mr. S. he bear the humiliation of such a place. Our situation is at wholly misunderstood me. The doctrine I urge is this: this moment peculiarly delicate. Rumor has been bu- that, when a matter comes before this House in any way sily employed in sapping the foundation of all confidence that affects the official purity of any member, and anoth in our proceedings. The public prints have disseminat-er member has risen in his place, and pronounced that ed far and wide the basest insinuations against the honor he has proof to offer of that matter, then it is proper for of this House. It is scarcely a day since I read in anoth- us to inquire into it. er print, from New York, a charge of another coalition here for power. I know it to be false, and we all know it to be so. But, sir, the public mind may be poisoned by this inveterate perseverance of the press. It becomes us, in my judgment, to act firmly and promptly-to bring, if necessary, every member of the House to the scrutiny. If the honor of our Speaker is implicated by the inquiry, it is our solemn duty to purify the House from the dishonor. If calumniated, we not only vindicate him, but ourselves, from the suspicion The charge is too palpably made to be evaded. The proof is offered,

Mr. FULLER, of Massachusetts, said that the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. M'DUFFIE,) had adverted to his former remark, that those who opposed the investigation of the charges, disbelieved the existence of any corruption, or any ground whatever for the accusation, and the gentleman, (Mr. M'DUFFIE,) had thence interred, that those who are in favor of the investigation, believed in its existence. A more palpable non sequitur Mr. F. said, could hardly be conceived. It goes upon the supposition, that the only inducement for inquiry is to prove guilt. So far from that, my hope and firm be