answer such questions as shall be asked, and that the informants be sworn to the declarations just read." The words in parenthesis were an amendment suggested by Mr. GILES. The resolution and amendment were adopted by the House, and the prisoner with his counsel were again brought to the bar. The resolution above stated was read to Randall. Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. GILEE, were then sworn, standing up in their places: the oath being administered by the Judge. Mr. Tilghman then observed, on the delicate situation in which the counsel stood, with which they were strongly impressed. The high character of the gentlemen who stood forth in support of the accusation, gentlemen whom Mr. T. had known personally for many years, with the odious nature of the crime charged on the prisoner, embarrassed them considerably; as they had, however, been permitted by the House to appear in this business, they were bound in duty to do every thing consistent with a fair and honorable defence. If Mr. T were to declare his own opinion of the conduct of the prisoner, it would be thus, that his behaviour was highly improper and indelicate; but Mr. Randall denied having made any offer either of lands or money, as in fact he had none to give. The disposal of the lands depended entirely on the subsequent vote of Congress. Mr. Lewis spoke a few words. The prisoner's defence was, that he denied any proposal of a corrupt nature. The members who favored the sale of the lands, were only to have their shares on the same terms, and on paying an equal share of the expenses, as the other partners. Mr. W. SMITH was then examined upon that part of his information where he says, that those members who should be concerned with Randall, were to have shares of the lands. Mr. SMITH was asked whether the offer was that they were to be granted at an inferior rate? In reply, he understood it was to be on the same terms as other partners were to have them. Mr. GOODHUE proposed a query, whether the offer made by Mr. Randall was in order that Mr. SMITH might use his influence to forward the scheme in Congress? Mr. SMITH replied, that he certainly understood it so. The prisoner had all along referred to members of Congress, though he did not expressly name them. His phrase was, "for persons who would favor the scheme." [JANUARY, 1796. Mr. MURRAY.-He did not say, if you will do so and so, I will give you so and so; his proposal, though more delicate, was as unequivocal as a direct offer. I so understood him. Mr. HARPER asked Mr. MURRAY, whether Randall did not tell him, that if he did not like land, he should have money, and whether the money was not to be more than the value of the share of land? Mr. MURRAY said, that from this part, and indeed the general tenor of the conversation, he did infer, that a donation was intended, and when he objected to land, the prisoner then said, if he did not choose to accept of a share in land, he might have cash in hand. MURRAY, whether he did not state to Randall his Mr. Lewis, counsel for the prisoner, asked Mr. aversion to dealing in land, and whether Randall did not say that this need not be an objection, since the share might be sold, and then that he would have cash instead of land? Mr. MURRAY. I did not so understand it. Mr. HARPER wished Mr. MURRAY to relate, as nearly as possible, the words of the prisoner in this important part of the conversation. Mr. MURRAY said, that immediately after it took place, and he had communicated it to his friends, he took notes of it. It stood in this manner: "I stated objections to land speculations as troublesome: Randall then said, if I did not choose land, I might have cash in hand." Mr. Tilghman asked, whether Mr. MURRAY, did not, to get the man's whole secret from him, go beyond his views to draw him on? Mr. MURRAY said, he affected to think well of the more sound part of the plan. Mr. Tilghman asked what Mr. MURRAY expressed to Randall when it was proposed to him to engage in the land scheme? Mr. MURRAY. A strong repugnance to land speculations. Mr. Lewis. Then it was, he said, that if it was not convenient for Mr. MURRAY to be concerned in a share in land, he might have it in money? Mr. MURRAY. Yes. Mr. S. SMITH, was next sworn. Mr. Tilghman then, through the SPEAKER, ask-here a motion made for adjourning. ed Mr. MURRAY, whether he understood he was to pay for his share of land as the other associates There was Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Tilghman and himself had never seen the prisoner until yesterday in the evening. They had been ino Court until late on Saturday evening. They went yesterday to prison, and back again this morning. They had received a long written state of the case from Mr. Randall, but, from absolute want of time, they had not been able to read one third part of it. The motion to adjourn was negatived. Mr. S. SMITH was then proceeding with his evidence when Mr. SEDGWICK rose. He considered it as unfair to examine Mr. SMITH in order to prove the information given by other gentlemen. JANUARY, 1796.] Case of Randall and Whitney. It was totally inapplicable. The offences were as distinct as any two things could be. Mr. BLOUNT moved to put this question, whether any conversation passed between Mr. S. SMITH and Randall, which had an appearance of intending to corrupt the integrity of members of this House? Mr. SEDGWICK objected, that this was deviating from the original specific motion. Mr. GILES was of an opposite opinion. Mr. MADISON thought the motion proper, in the strictest sense. The charge was general; and the answer to the question might be of a nature to corroborate that general charge. After a few words from some other members, the motion was carried. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, then on oath stated in substance as follows: That on the 9th or 10th, Randall whom he had known in Maryland, called on him and asked half an hour's conversation with him. He said he had a plan in view, that would be to the advantage of the United States, and turn to his own private emolument. Randall informed Mr. S., that he was last year at New York, that he thence went to Detroit to explore the country on lakes Erie, &c., that he contracted an acquaintance with certain influential characters with whom he had formed an association to procure the lands in question. He mentioned the outlines of the plan and dwelt on the public advantages that would arise from it. He indirectly insinuated that gentlemen in Congress who chose to be interested in the plan might have a portion of the land in contemplation. He asked Mr. S. to fix a day when he should enter more particularly into a detail of the business. Mr. S., fixed Saturday following, and then retired into the room where his fellow lodger was, and told him that some great land business was on foot and that he believed he might make his fortune. On Sunday Randall came with a map on which he explained the position of the land and expatiated on the richness of the soil. He detailed the particulars of the project which Mr. S. related as has been heretofore stated with some little variations. He enlarged upon the public advantages to the United States if the purchase was allowed. He said, he would be glad if Mr. S. would embark in the undertaking, and give the plan his countenance; but, that, if he did not choose to so do, it could be accomplished without his assistance, as a decided majority of both Houses were agreed to support it. Mr. S. asked him, whether in the Senate? he said, yes. He asked him for names, he objected to mentioning any. Randall explained, that members who were most active were to have larger shares, and such as only gave their assent, smaller; Mr. S. understood that he might have one of the larger. No money was offered as a temptation to engage, but he fully understood that every gentleman was to pay his full proportion of the price. He stated to Mr. S., that it would save the United States much in men and money to have the scheme accomplished, and added, that if Congress desired it, he could remove the Miami Indians to the other side of the lakes. Mr. S. asked [H. of R. him what he proposed should be offered for the lands. He said, that would remain in the breasts of the gentlemen in Congress. Mr. S. asked whether one dollar an acre could be afforded, he objected to that as by far too much. Mr. S. mentioned twenty-five cents, that was too much. Mr. S. then suggested that he supposed two and a half cents were contemplated. Randall answered, that if Congress fixed this price it would be well so. He offered no direct bribe to Mr. S., but proposed to take such members into the scheme at first cost as chose to embark in it. Mr. S. asked him who was to offer his memorial. He mentioned a gentleman of great weight in the House. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, asked the date of this conversation. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, answered, on the Sunday following the 10th, which must have been the 13th. Mr. Lewis, through the SPEAKER, asked Mr. S., of Maryland, whether Randall had not said, that he had actually a majority in favor of his scheme; or, that he expected to get a majority? Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, understood that he had a majority, and on this ground, he said to Mr. S. that his co-operation was not absolutely necessary. The prisoner was remanded and the House adjourned. TUESDAY, January 5. CASE OF ROBERT RANDALL. After disposing of the morning businessRobert Randall was then brought to the bar, attended by his two counsel; the Judge of the District of Pennsylvania likewise took his seat, as yesterday, at the Clerk's table. The SPEAKER then addressed the prisoner as follows: "Robert Randall, this is the day and hour, to which your farther examination was postponed; you are now at liberty to proceed with your defence." Mr. GILES then moved that Mr. CHRISTIE should be sworn. This was done. The member then stated that he had been at Philadelphia, about the month of October last. He met with Mr. Randall, who made up to him, and observed that he had this Summer been in Canada. He had missed the object for which he went; but he had met with another which he thought would prove advantageous. He at first advised Mr. Randall to apply to the Secretary of State. Mr. Randolph had just then resigned his office; and no other person was appointed in his stead. Mr. C. then advised him to lay the affair before the PRESIDENT. When he came back to town at the sitting down of Congress, Randall came again to him, and said that by good advice he had altered his plan. He complained that Mr. C. was the only member who had not been ready to assist him. A considerable majority of the House of Representatives were secured to the scheme. Mr. C. said, that he never would advise Congress to sell their lands under a dollar per acre; and as Mr. Randall wanted the lands so much cheaper, he must in the course of his duty oppose the plan. Mr. C. inquired who were his advisers. He answered, that Mr Whit timore. [JANUARY, 1796. ney had told him that Mr. SEDGWICK recommend-story related by Randall to the member from Baled this way of proceeding, and was to draw up a memorial to be laid before the House upon the subject. Mr. SEDGWICK finding his name thus unexpectedly introduced, wished to be allowed to give oath in order that he should tell all he knew. The testimony being now closed, Mr. Tilghman asked leave to make some remarks in defence of the prisoner. He recapitulated the charges. They divided into two heads. The first. was an attempt to corrupt members. The second, was his having said that thirty members of the House of Representatives had engaged to favor his scheme. If the first head was not proved in the fullest manner, then it would be entirely improper to punish the prisoner at all; for he is entitled to The oath was administered to Mr. SEDGWICK, who gave information to the following effect: He had never in his life seen Randall, till he was produced at the bar. Whitney he had seen two or three times. The Mr. Jones mentioned by Whitney, in his declaration, lives within about thirty-the strictest justice. four miles of Mr. SEDGWICK'S house. Whitney, Mr. T. began with the charge of corruption, with Mr. Jones, came, a considerable time ago, to which led him to take a view of the circumstances him one morning, while he was at breakfast. They that gave rise to this subject, the journey of Ranasked his opinion; which was, that Government dall to Canada, last Summer, the association for would not sell any lands, till the Indian claim was buying the Peninsula between Lakes Erie, Hufirst extinguished. Mr. Jones endeavored to con- ron, and Michigan, the proposal of extinguishing vince Mr. SEDGWICK of the benefits which would the Indian claim, the scheme of forty-one shares, result to the United States from this sale. Mr. with many other particulars. In the plan itself, SEDGWICK accompanied them to the door of his there was nothing exceptionable, provided that house, where Mr. Jones asked him whether there it was fairly pursued. It was at first view clear, would be anything improper in a member of the that other assistance would be wanted, besides Legislature being concerned in such a purchase? the persons subscribing the association. Five or Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this would depend entire-six private individuals were altogether unequal ly on the mode of application. If it was to the Land Office, there would be nothing wrong in it; if to Congress, then it would be a man making a bargain with himself. Whitney, since Mr. SEDGWICK came to town, had called two or three times on him. He got his servant, for more than once, to deny him, as he was busy. Once, however, he did see him; the first question of Mr. SEDGWICK was, from what State did he come? He said he resided in Vermont. He then spoke of the matter in a general way; and Mr. SEDGWICK, whose object it was to shake him off, advised his calling on Mr. Buck, a member from that State, as it would be more proper to call on him. Mr. SEDGWICK believed that he was more teazed with applications of this private kind than any member in the House. During the conference with Whit-ber of Congress, see no impropriety in being conney, he did not remember that Randall's name was ever introduced. Mr. SEDGWICK heard, with astonishment, the name of Colonel Pepune mentioned. He lived opposite to Mr. SEDGWICK'S house, in the town of Stockbridge. He rode down from that place to New York, along with Mr. SEDGWICK, and never spoke one word of the matter to him. to grasping so immense an object. Accordingly, Randall first applied to Mr. CHRISTIE. From the declaration of that gentleman, it appeared that no offer was made to him either of land or money, or any improper overture, for Mr. CHRISTIE had so little suspicion of foul play, that he afterwards gave a letter of introduction to another member to explain the subject. Randall had next applied successively to Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, to Mr. GILES, Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, and Mr. MURRAY. From probability, independent of the proof which Mr. T. was about to examine, he argued that nobody but a madman would have attempted to bribe five gentlemen of respectable characters, and of independent fortunes. What was the language of the prisoner to Mr. SAMUEL SMITH: "If you, as a mem cerned, we shall willingly accept you; but, if you do not think it right, we do not ask your aid, for we can do without you." These were the identical words of Randall, as attested by the honorable member to whom they were addressed. There was no guilt here. It was the genuine language of innocence. Mr. SAMUEL SMITH said, that Randall had told him that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH should Randall had, among other stories, told Mr. SA-bring the matter forward. By this, Randall plainly MUEL SMITH that Mr. Wм. SMITH should bring forward this land business, in the House. He positively said so to Mr. S. SMITH on the 13th of December, and it would be proved that he had never exchanged a word with Mr. W. SMITH, nor ever seen him till the 22d of that month, viz: about nine days after. This is the substance of a short explanation which took place between some of the members, after Mr. SEDGWICK had ended his declaration. Mr. W. SMITH then asked Randall, whether it was not true, that he spoke to Mr. SaMUEL SMITH before he spoke to himself? Mr. Tilghman, in reply, said that he was authorized to answer in the affirmative. This puts to rest the signified, that he expected Mr. WILLIAM SMITH to do so, and Mr. S. SMITH had mistaken the supposition for an affirmation. The fourth gentleman, in the order of application, was Mr. WILLIAM SMITH; and there was not one of the first four gentlemen who said that any direct proposal was made to him. They only understood and inferred it. But a man is not to be convicted on the inferences, impressions, and ideas, of witnesses. It would, in a Court of Law, cost Mr. T. but a very few words, indeed, to establish this point. A witness was only to relate facts. The jury were to make inferences, and form conclusions. Every one of the four gentlemen had expressly declared JANUARY, 1796.] Case of Randall and Whitney. [H. OF R.. who happened accidentally to be in the room. Mr. MURRAY took him into a private room, for the purpose of sifting him; and there it was that he disclosed the unsound part of his scheme. that there was no explicit offer made to him. Had Randall said: "Give me your vote, and you shall have so many dollars, or so many acres for it," the accusation of bribery would have been fully established. But we find no such thing. The offer By the word accept, Mr. T. insisted that, while was improper, indelicate, and indecent in the high- Mr. MURRAY understood a donation, Randall could est degree, but no direct offer was made, and none only mean a share, as offered to other members. could be made, till the law passed. The lands Where had Randall cash in hand to have laid were, by the lowest estimate, to cost five hundred down? [Randall was not long since insolvent.] thousand dollars of purchase money, besides the Now, could he give perhaps twenty or thirty thouexpense of extinguishing the Indian claim, and sand dollars in hand, for the vote of a member? many other previous charges, before anything The word accept, as coming from Randall, only could be made of the speculation. Thus, each of meant, "you shall have a share on the same terms the forty-one shares would require, in advance, a as others; and if you do not choose to have a share, very large sum of money. There might even be we will sell your share of the lands for you, and a loss upon the business, instead of a gain. After you may get the profit made by the sale." Here adverting to the evidence of the four first gentle- Mr. T. quitted the first head of the charge, by exmen, Mr. T. came next to Mr. MURRAY. He seems pressing his hopes that no satisfactory proofs of to give the most heavy accusation against the pri- direct bribery had been offered. He was happy soner; but Mr. T. was ready to rest the cause of to live in a country whose legislators possessed his client, his good name, or his infamy, on prov- so much delicacy. The second head of the charge ing that Mr. MURRAY had mistaken his meaning. was, Randall having said that thirty members of In the first place, by the account of that gentle- the House of Representatives were to favor his man, twenty-four shares out of the forty-one, were scheme. The Counsel apprehended that this was to be at the acceptance of members, which had no breach of privilege. He turned to the laws of been conceived as if they were to be given gratu- the United States, and read over every passage itously. The donation was to come out of these regarding the privileges of the House and its memthirty-six shares, reserved for Randall and White bers. Nothing was to be found which could even ney; and it was too immense, in proportion to the remotely apply to this kind of conversation. _He whole shares, to have admitted any chance of pro- then went into the subject of practice in the Engfit to these two people, on the twelve remaining lish House of Commons. There were no journals shares. For this inference, Mr. T. appealed to further back than the reign of Edward VI. Blackthe candor and judgment of every gentleman stone says, that Parliament never chose to define within his hearing. The thing being thus, in its its privileges, lest afterwards a new case might own nature, incredible, would, of course, require arise that did not come within their rules, and then the highest degree of evidence to support it. It their ground against the offender might be forehad been proved that no direct offer of this had been closed. Caution, in that respect, might be necesmade to other members. They understood that sary in England, but not in the United States, these shares were to be paid for, in proportion where the House of Representatives are the daralong with the other partners, in the sale. This ling of the people. They have nothing to fear as was another reason for thinking that the member to any undue advantage being taken of a defect in was mistaken. Messrs. WILLIAM and SAMUEL their rules. Besides, it by no means follows that, SMITH, and Mr. GILES, had unanimously declared, because the privileges of the House of Commons that they were to pay for their shares ? Upon the extend to a certain degree, this country will bear question being put to Mr. W. SMITH, he answered: the same extent of privileges in their Representa"I understood that those should pay upon the foot-tives. The idea of the Counsel was, that the ing of the original associators." Mr. GILES, on this point, had replied thus: "No direct offer was made him in land. The proposition was general, as related to members of Congress, who would favor the scheme. He considered himself as included; but, then, all were to come in on paying their proportions." Again, Mr. SAMUEL SMITH declared, that Randall offered no direct bribe to him, but proposed to take into the scheme, at first cost, such members as chose to embark in it." These three testimonies clearly established, that Randall had not thought of any gratuitous offer to these gentlemen. Mr. T. could account for the mistake of Mr. MURRAY. He had heard from Mr. W. SMITH of the man, and his proposals; and that they were supposed to be of a corrupt nature. While his mind was filled with these impressions, Randall waited on him, but had so little dread of his being upon a criminal errand, that he made no scruple to begin the subject before Mr. HENRY, a Senator House had the privilege essential to its existence to defend itself from any insult from within or from without, but not further. The Constitution says nothing of privilege, that reaches to the case of the prisoner; and one of the amendments to it, says, that the people shall be understood to have retained whatever they have not granted. It follows, then, that since what has been expressly granted reaches not to Randall, that it is retained. It is in contemplation to prosecute this man in a Court of Law. With what feelings must he be supposed to go there, if he shall be previously condemned in this House? A man would thus in fact be convicted in the public view, before his trial began. The Counsel then read a number of precedents from English books of law, to prove that, even for a direct offer of bribery to a member of Parliament, the prisoner would have been remitted to the Attorney General, and prosecuted with the usual and indispensable solemnities, in a Court of Justice. Mr. T. said, that he would next venture to ask what kind of a Court of Law is this? The members are not upon oath, while they are at once parties, judges, and witnesses. Mr. T. would have thought it more delicate for the House to leave the prisoner to a trial in the common form. He may be acquitted by a jury, after being condemned here, which may produce disagreeable feelings in the public mind. It is, in reality, trying a prisoner twice for the same offence, and making him hazard a double sentence. All this is inconsistent with every idea of justice. The offence was punishable at Common Law. What good reason can then be given for trying it here? The safety of the House is not in danger. This is not a case, wherein they ought to insist on privilege. A thousand reasons might be adduced, besides those stated by the Counsel, why it was inexpedient to bring the subject here. The privileges of an English Parliament rested on immemorial usage; those of this House, on a written Constitution, which had considerably narrowed them, in comparison with those of British Parliaments. The charge of having thirty or forty members engaged to support a scheme is not a breach of privilege. Mr. T. argued that, from the very face of the charge, as worded by the House, no crime arises. Are the House to bridle conversations without doors? When a bill comes into the House, is it not common for the people to say that such a law will pass, or it will not pass? Are they not at liberty to conjecture what members will vote for it, or against it? Randall's story about thirty members comes within this description. Are the House to lock up the mouths of people? Mr. T. closed, by urging that, as Randall was to be tried by a Court of Law, as he had been taken out of the hands of an officer belonging to a Court of Law, upon what authority the Counsel did not see, the best thing which could be done, was to remit him to the ordinary form of trial. Mr. Lewis then rose. He read the charge, as adduced by the House, and agreed that this was not bribery, but a wild land-jobbing scheme. He objected to the having admitted subsequent depositions and informations in support of a charge previously made and specified. This alludes to the subsequent evidence given by some members after the prisoner had received a copy of the charge. He contended that the evidence of Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, given subsequently, had no connexion with the original charge, and should not have been admitted in corroboration of it. Mr. L. then took up the second point of the charge, that the prisoner had said thirty or forty members would favor his scheme. The saying so was no offence at all; for the thing itself, the agreeing to support a particular scheme, was consistent with perfect innocence. He trusted that the prisoner would be as safe in this House as anywhere else; that his unalienable rights would be as sacredly watched; for it would be a dreadful reflection if that House were less delicate in administering justice, than Courts of Law. He hoped that the House would adhere to these fundamental rules of [JANUARY, 1796. trial, which had stood the test of ages. He then read some of the articles of the bond between the original partners, to show the absurdity of supposing that bribery ever could have been intended. It was impossible to have ever bribed members in the way alleged by Mr. MURRAY. He stated that, out of forty-one shares, Whitney and Randall were to have thirty-six, out of which they were to give away twenty-four; a proportion in itself incredible, inasmuch as the remaining twelve shares would, so far from making their fortunes, have cost them more than they were worth. Mr. L. then argued on the offer to Mr. MURRAY, on the same ground as the former Counsel. The plain history of the affair was this: A number of people wanted the lands. They thought that it would accelerate their scheme to get members of Congress to embark in it, and offered them, for th is effect, a share in the lands, on paying an equal share of the expenses, and with a promise of concealing their names. "If the gentlemen," said Mr. L., " to whom this application was made, had kicked my client out of the room, they would have served him right; and there, I think, that the ma tter ought to have ended." The British Parliament send people attempting bribery to the Attorney General. They send people to a trial by jury. Mr. L. denied that any part of this offence came within the definition of corruption, or the reach of law. He had no conception that it could be punished upon any legal principle whatever. Besides, there was nothing in the history of privileges, like thus dragging a man from the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, by whom he had been apprehended, and whose prisoner he was. Again, there could be a breach of privilege only, if the proposal regarded a bill actually before the House. It never could arise from a thing not in existence. All the books which Mr. L. had consulted, spoke only of bribery, about a bill or a lawsuit actually on hand. It was hazardous to quote precedents from an English Parliament. Its privileges had no limits, so that some writers on law called it omnipotent. Mr. L. admitted that the House had the essential power of punishing violence, or open insult, which did not reach the case before them. He would not further intrude on the time of the House, by apologising for the time which he had taken up already. He trusted that a power of creating offences would not be assumed; and that a thing which is not illegal, will not be declared punishable. Mr. Lewis here sat down. The further defence of the prisoner was postponed till to-morrow, (Wednesday,) at twelve o'clock. And then the House adjourned. WEDNESDAY, January 6. CASE OF ROBERT RANDALL. Mr. SEDGWICK laid before the House some additions to his evidence, delivered yesterday. He gave in a written copy of the whole, and wished that it might be added to the declaration already made. The paper was read. and, on motion, ordered to be inserted in the Journals. Mr. SEDG |