JANUARY, 1796.] Case of Randall and Whitney. WICK said he had yesterday mentioned Col. Pepune being in Philadelphia, but he had not seen him. He has since done so. The Colonel lodges at the sign of the Drover, in Third street, and is ready, when called upon by the House, to tell every circumstance which he knows about the transaction of Randall or Whitney. [H. of R. presentatives of that State to present the memorial. That the said Whitney requested the informant to peruse his memorial, when it should be prepared, which he understood was not then the case. That he answered, according to his best recollection, that, whenever he had leisure, he should be willing to do it; or to that effect. That the whole time of the interview he believes did not exceed six, he is very confident could not The following is Mr. SEDGWICK'S written testi- exceed ten, minutes. That twice afterwards the in mony: formant's servant informed him that the said Whitney wished to see him, and that he caused himself to be denied; and the informant is very confident he never undertook either to draft or present any memorial for the said Whitney. "On the morning of the twenty-eighth of December, Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, informed the informant of what he afterwards stated in evidence to the House respecting Robert Randall. The informant advised Mr. Smith, as soon as possible, to make the same known to the House of Representatives, which Mr. Smith informed the informant he had determined to do; and the informant, having previously advised the said Whitney to apply to the Representatives of Vermont, he thought it his duty, and he accordingly took the earliest opportunity to request Mr. Smith, of that State, to avoid presenting any memorial with which he might be intrusted for a grant of land, and desired him to make the same request to Mr. Buck, the other member from the same State. "The informant further declares, that he never, to his remembrance, saw Robert Randall, till he saw him at the bar of the House. "THEODORE SEDGWICK." "The informant, Theodore Sedgwick, a member of the House of Representatives of the United States, declares, that, some time before he left the place of his residence, in Massachusetts, one Israel Jones, Esq., of Adams, in that State, waited on him and introduced to him a man whom he now knows by the name of Charles Whitney, of the State of Vermont. That Mr. Jones is a man of respectable character, a magistrate, a member of the State Legislature, (as the informant believes,) and a trustee of the Corporation of Williams College. That Mr. Jones informed the informant that he, with others, had in contemplation an application to Congress for a grant of a tract of country lying between the Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Erie. Considerations of a public nature having been stated and enlarged upon, the opinion of the informant was requested relative to the propriety and success of the proposed application. He answered, in substance, that he believed it was to be doubted whether the Legislature would undertake actually to contract for any of the vacant public lands, and that the doubt was still stronger respecting these lands, the Indian claim to which had not been previously extinguished. He stated to Mr. Jones that, by reason of sickness in his family, it was not probable he should attend the next session of Congress; at all events, how- Mr. W. SMITH submitted, whether it would be ever, he advised Mr. Jones not to make an early appli- proper to proceed any farther in the case of Rancation, as it was probable the subject of disposing of the dall, till some hearing had been given to Whitney. public lands would occupy the attention of Congress Mr. RUTHERFORD was happy to find the busiduring the then ensuing session; and that, by the de-ness drawing to a conclusion, and that the characlay, Mr. Jones could form a more correct judgment of ter of the servants of the people would come the course which it would be most eligible for him to through it pure, in the view of every unbiased pursue relative to this subject. That, while the inform- mind. The grounds of the whole matter were ant was waiting on Mr. Jones to the door, at his de- plain enough. Some British traders wanted to parture, Mr. Jones asked him if there could be any imsecure the lands between the lakes to themselves, propriety in a member of Congress being concerned in an application for a grant of lands? The informant and the traffic with the Indians. They made dupes answered, that it would depend on the circumstances of these two men ; and then the latter attempted under which the application was made: proper, if the to dupe the Representatives of the people. These application was made to a Land Office, but otherwise, circumstances were in the nature of things. They if made to the Legislature; because, in the latter case, might be traced to that immense keenness for it would be for a man to contract with himself. To this landed speculation so common in America. Rananswer Mr. Jones gave an explicit assent. That the dall had run the gauntlet very well. He had been informant never, at any time, before or afterwards, to through the hands of the civil officers. He had his remembrance, saw the said Whitney, until he saw also been in the hands of another set of gentlemen, him in this city, during the present session. That the who, as Mr. RUTHERFORD judged, had conductinformant came from his own home to New York in ed themselves with great propriety. The characcompany with Colonel Pepune, stated by the said Whit-ter of the House was fairly cleared, at which Mr. ney as one of his associates. That the informant hath been informed, and believes that the said Pepune is now in this city, but that he had never spoken to the informant on the subject of the said land speculation. That, not long after the arrival of the informant in this city, the said Whitney one morning waited on him, and stated to him an intended memorial respecting the tract of land aforesaid, and urged on the consideration of the informant the motives of a public nature for a grant thereof. That the informant inquired of the said Whit-man be set off. ney to what State he belonged? and being answered, It was then moved by a member that the case to Vermont, he recommended to him to request the Re- of Randall should be postponed. After some con R. was happy. He wished Randall to be now sent for, to receive a reprimand from the SPEAKER, and then be sent back to a short confinement, perhaps for a day or two. Then let him go, without further loss of time. Some people have thought that it was wrong to have pushed the inquiry. This opinion was erroneous; but now, since we have got honorably over with it, let the H. OF R.J Case of Randall and Whitney. versation, as to the point of order, the motion was negatived. Mr. HARPER then read two resolutions. Of the first, the following is the substance: "Resolved, That any attempt to influence the conduct of this House, or its members, on subjects appertaining to their Legislative functions, by motives other than the public advantage, is an high contempt of this House, and a breach of its privileges." The second resolution was, in substance, that Randall having committed such an offence, was guilty of such a contempt, &c. Mr. HARPER thought it proper, before deciding as to Randall, to lay down certain principles, and decide whether the offence was in itself criminal or not, before determining the conduct of the pri soner. Mr. KITCHELL thought these resolutions unnecessary. The only thing before the House was to call on the prisoner, and pronounce him either innocent or guilty. Mr. HARPER, in defence of his resolutions, said, that one misfortune attending privileges was, that they could not be exactly defined; but, as far as they could be ascertained, it was the business of the House to do so. If this offence is a breach of privilege, we are entitled to declare it such, that the people of the United States may be informed that it is so. Mr. W. SMITH could not conceive how any member would vote against this first resolution. If we refuse to say that the act itself is a crime, how can we condemn Randall as criminal? We are, in every sense of the word, bound to vote for the proposition. We have declared the attempt of Randall to be an high offence and contempt. If any member thinks it not so, then, to be sure, he will vote against it. Mr. SMITH said that Legislative bodies had frequently, while a prisoner was on trial before them, laid down rules to guide them, previous to their pronouncing sentence. A former member had suggested that it was better to make the resolution a preamble to the sentence, and introduce it with a whereas. As it stands at present, it is agreeable to what had been done already. Mr. NICHOLAS hoped that members were not to be bound by anything yet done. At the first embarking of the House in this affair, he had felt doubts. His scruples had gradually augmented, and he was now of opinion that Randall should not have been meddled with at all, in the present way. The right of privilege had been given up, unless in cases of absolute necessity. He did not think that any resolution had yet passed the House, upon due consideration, whether they had a right to proceed or not. Mr. NICHOLAS recommended lenity, rather than a parade of integrity, where there was no ground of suspicion-a parade which would not have been made it there had been any real danger. Mr. WILLIAMS thought the resolutions altogether unnecessary. The principle is already entered on the Journals. All that the House have to do is to declare Randall guilty or not. Mr. HILLHOUSE agreed with Mr. WILLIAMS, (JANUARY, 1796. but he was astonished at the doctrine held up by the gentleman from Virginia. We had been told yesterday, at the bar, that the offence is not punishable by the common law. We are not to do so by privilege. The consequence is, that an attempt to corrupt members cannot be punished at all. It would not be proper to tell this to the public. Any body may then come here and bid for votes. Mr.HILLHOUSE thought that the counsel yesterday had fairly given up the point, for they admitted that improper violence without doors was a breach of privilege. Mr. H. argued that this was as great a violence as could be. He was for inflicting a punishment. Mr. LIVINGSTON thought the wording of the first clause too broad. Any member spoken to without doors might come into the House and complain of a breach of privilege on trifling grounds. Mr. GILES would not at present enter into the question whether there had been a breach of privilege or not. From anything yet seen, he was doubtful. He was against the preamble. Privilege was of an insinuating nature. Mr. LIVINGSTON had taken up a thought which occurred to Mr. GILES. Any man meeting on the street a member of this House, may say to him, "Sir, by voting for such a thing in the House, you will destroy your popularity in your district." This argument was not on motives of public good, and a member might by this resolution be warranted to come into the House and complain of it as a breach of privilege. He wished for the previous question, which was taken, and by a great majority the resolution was negatived. Mr. LIVINGSTON then read two resolutions. Their tenor was, that it appears to this House that Robert Randall has been guilty of a contempt and a breach of the privileges of this House, by attempting to corrupt the integrity of its members, in the manner laid to his charge, and that Randall should be called up to the bar, reprimanded by the SPEAKER, and recommitted to custody, till further orders from this House. On the first resolution the yeas and nays were called for-yeas 78, nays 17. After some conversation, the second resolution was likewise agreed to. Randall was then brought to the bar, and in a few words reprimanded by the SPEAKER. To call his offence indiscretion, impropriety, or indelicaCy; was too mild a name. His conduct was crime. His apparent ignorance of the nature and extent of his guilt had induced the House to be more indulgent than they otherwise would have been. The SPEAKER informed him that he was recommitted to custody till further orders from the House. Mr. CHRISTIE then asked leave to have his written declaration entered in the Journals, which was agreed to, in the words following: "The declaration of Gabriel Christie is, that some time in the month of October or November last, this informant was in Philadelphia, when he saw Robert Randall, who had, as he informed this informant, just returned from Canada, where he had been disappointed in the business he went to that country on; but he, Randall, informed this informant that, on his way home, he had called at Detroit, where he had spent some time, and had, he believed, entered into an association, to which, if he got the consent of the Government of the United States, would be a considerable advantage to him, and those who chose to associate with him, provided he liked the speculation. He then informed this informant that he had associated with a number of influential persons at Detroit for the purpose of obtaining the preemption right to a large tract of country within the territory of the United States, and produced to this informant the original association. After this informant had heard all that Randall had to communicate to him, this informant told Randall that he considered his scheme as a wild-goose one, and that this informant would not have any concern in it. Randall then requested this informant to give him his opinion in what manner he, Randall, ought to proceed. This informant told him that the most proper person to apply to was Mr. Randolph, the late Secretary of State, and if he, Randall, thought proper, this informant would inform Mr. Randolph of it, and get his advice; which Randall agreed to. This informant then went to Mr. Randolph, and gave him all the information that the informant had received from Randall. After considering the business for some time, Mr. Randolph advised that an application should be made to the President of the United States; which advice the informant gave to Randall, who seemed, at that time, fully satisfied with the proposal, and requested the informant to introduce him to the President for that purpose; but, as this informant was going out of town in a day or two, he told Randall that he would introduce him to the President on his return to Congress. When the informant came to Philadelphia, in December, he found Randall in the city; and, after asking Randall what he had done in his business, and whether he still meant to apply to the President, Randall then informed the informant that his friend and associate, Mr. Whitney, had arrived in Philadelphia, and that, upon consulting with him, they came to a determination not to apply to the President, as he heretofore had agreed, but had determined to present a memorial to the Legislature for a grant of the said land. This informant told Randall that he disapprovad of this mode, and asked Randall who had advised him to it. Randall then informed the informant that the said Whitney had informed him that he had consulted with a number of the Eastern members of Congress, and in particular with Mr. Sedgwick, who had advised this mode of proceeding. Randall also informed this informant that Mr. Sedgwick had agreed to draw up and present his memorial. This informant then informed Randall that, by this mode of proceeding, he had put it out of this informant's power to be concerned with him, if he thought ever so well of it. Randall asked the informant the reason. The informant answered, that it would be improper in any member of Congress to be concerned in anything that he was to vote on. This informant was not able to impress Randall with the propriety of his remark. The informant never understood that Mr. Sedgwick was, in any manner, concerned with Randall or his associates; but that he, Mr. Sedgwick, thought the thing a public benefit, and would support it. That Randall never informed this informant that any of the members of Congress were concerned, but that a majority of them thought favorably of the plan, and would support it. In all the conversation the informant had with Randall, this informant told him that [H. OF R. CASE OF CHARLES WHITNEY. After disposing of sundry petitionsMr. SEDGWICK called for the order of the day. viz: the farther proceeding in the hearing of Charles Whitney. This was agreed to. Mr. GILES, while Mr. Whitney was sent for, rose, and said that he was strongly impressed with the propriety of paying honorably every man to whom the United States were in arrears for military service. He should therefore lay on the table a resolution on which he did not wish immedidiately to take the sense of the House. The resolution was then read, and, in substance, proposes that the proper officers be directed to lay before this House a list of all officers and soldiers of the late Continental Army and Navy who appear, on the books of the United States, to have arrears due to them, with a statement of the respective amounts. Mr. Whitney was now brought in. The SPEAKER addressed him as follows: "Charles Whitney, the information lodged against you on the Journals of the House will now be read to you by the Clerk." This was accordingly done. Mr. Whitney was next asked at what time he would be ready to proceed with his defence? He replied that he thought he could be ready to go on just now, if he had counsel. If he could get them to-morrow, he should be glad to go on then, in order to get the thing over. If counsel could not be got, he would request a delay till Monday. He was sure Mr. Buck had mistaken his meaning. He was told that he would be called on again to-morrow, and if he had not been able to obtain counsel then, there was a probability of his being allowed a delay till Monday. Mr. BOURNE stated the hardship of obliging the prisoner to fee counsel; no probability existing of any thing farther being brought against him. There was but little in the charge, admitting it to be true. Mr. B. made a distinction of the conversation having passed in Vermont, not in Philadelphia. It was before Mr. Buck came to Congress at all. Mr. GILES had yesterday expressed but little satisfaction at the mode of conducting this business, nor had his satisfaction been since augmented by farther reflection. He read a motion, which was seconded, for dismissing Whitney immediately, Admitting all which stood charged, Mr. GILES did not consider it as containing any breach of privilege. [JANUARY, 1796. ance on Congress, and the same accident occurring during the recess, in a distant part of the Mr. W. SMITH regarded this resolution as pre- country. It was admitted that the doctrine of mature; he wished to have the regular forms of privilege violated the rights of the people, and trial gone through, as in the other case. When could be justified only upon the plea of necessity: the trial was finished, the House could then decide it being so liable to misapprehension and misconon the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. He struction, he wished to see as little of it as posthought that Mr. Buck ought to be sworn. When sible. He gave his hearty concurrence to the rethe offer was made in Vermont, he was looked solution of Mr. GILES. He had been desirous of upon as a member of Congress, and the tempta- seeing such a thing brought forward. He adverttion which had been held out to him was a con-ed to the delicate situation of the House, at once tempt of the House. There was not yet a suffi- accusers, judges, and witnesses. cient explanation to justify his discharge. Mr.HILLHOUSE Supposed corruption to be equally criminal in Vermont as in Philadelphia. It would commit the dignity of the House to say that we have kept a man in jail for a week, and then have dismissed him without a trial. It implies that we never had any right to arrest him. Mr. H. had not formed his ultimate opinion on the subject. He wished the trial to be gone through, and then, if the prisoner proved innocent, dismiss him. He had made application to a member in this town, besides Mr. Buck in Vermont. [Mr. GOODHUE, on whom Mr. Whitney called, after he came to Philadelphia.] Mr. BUCK objected to the immediate dismission of Whitney. It struck him as an impropriety to dismiss the prisoner by an unqualified resolution. It would be better to state, as a reason, that the attempt to corrupt the integrity of a member had happened in Vermont, before the sitting down of Congress. Then let the question come forward and be tried. Mr. SEDGWICK had, more than was usual with him, avoided speaking on this question. He early entertained an idea that an application to a member of Congress, before it sat, was not a breach of privilege. It was an unfortunate circumstance when the same persons were to be both judges and parties. People were apt to get into a passion when one came to them and said, "I consider you as rascals, and I want to purchase a portion of your rascality." Mr. MADISON said, it appeared to him that the House could have no privileges, unless what arises from the necessity of the case. He differed from the opinion formed by the House, but he wished them to act in conformity to their own principle. The object at present before the House is, to keep its members free from corruption. Whether a proposal is made in town or country, if we dismiss names and circumstances, and look only to the substance of the thing, there is no distinction between the two cases. Mr. PAGE said, that if the motion for dismissing had come on a week ago, he would have voted for it. He wished to get rid of the matter as fast as possible. He alluded, though not in direct terms, to the idea of Mr. Lewis, that it would have been better to have kicked some people down stairs, than to have made them objects of pro Mr. GALLATIN spoke a few words in favor of the motion. Mr. ISAAC SMITH was persuaded that the House possesses privileges, and has a right to exert them. They are pointed out by the Constitution. Mr.S. wished to dismiss the prisoner. It had been said that dismissing him without a trial, after having apprehended and confined him, would be casting a reflection on the House. No such thing! There existed probable grounds of suspicion. We have waited full time, and no proof has come forward. Then let him go, and the sooner that we do it the better. When Mr. ISAAC SMITH sat down, Mr. GILES rose to offer a resolution, in place of his former one: "Resolved, That it appears to this House that the information lodged against Charles Whitney does not amount to a breach of the privileges of this House, and that he therefore be discharged from custody." Mr. FREEMAN voted yesterday in a minority for dismissing Randall. He would this day vote for discharging Whitney. As to the dignity of the House, even an outrage upon it could be as well punished by a Justice of the Peace as by ourselves. He stated the extreme difficulty of adopting, in practice, the doctrine laid down, that an improper offer made to a member when in the country, was to be punished as a breach of privilege. A member, suppose from Georgia, comes here, and tells a story of somebody in that State who has made him an unsuitable proposal: the Sergeant-at-Arms is instantly despatched a thousand miles to bring this person to the bar for contempt of the House. What kind of a business would this be? The Mr. HARTLEY thought the resolution last offered by Mr. GILES had too much narrowed the ground of dismissing Whitney. He had been taken up as an associate with Randall. charge had not been properly supported by evidence. Dismiss him, and let the want of proof be your reason for it. Mr. H. cordially agreed with the substance of the resolution, but he objected to the wording of it. Mr. NATHANIEL SMITH believed that the great difference in opinion on this question arose from the different grounds on which the doctrine of privilege had been placed. Some gentlemen had supposed the only ground for the privilege contended Mr. HARPER Considered it as a material distinc- for was to secure the members from actual bribery. tion between a member being attacked and beaten, Of course they supposed that equal danger might for example, in Philadelphia, during his attend-occur before or after leaving their residence in secution. JANUARY, 1796.] Case of Randall and Whitney. the country. Mr. SMITH contended that this idea placed privilege on a wrong ground. This idea would be disgraceful to the members. He would not admit that any gentleman in the House would take a bribe, that there was real danger of it, or that there could be a necessity to prevent it. Personally, he held such an imputation in the highest contempt. He imagined that the question ought to be set on a very different ground. If the opinion which he would now state was correct, it would evince the propriety of convicting Randall yesterday, and of acquitting Whitney to-day. The ground of privilege he took to be this: the indignity offered to the House, through the medium of its members. It might be asked, why members ought to be privileged from insults while sitting as a deliberative body? He had several answers. In the first place, members ought to be able to proceed with due deliberation. They could not, as Mr. S. conceived, do so, if subject to be insulted with the offer of bribes, or with other indignities, every time that they went without the bar. Mr. S. had a second reason why members should not, while acting as a Legislative body, be liable to offensive intrusions. It was requisite for their being publicly useful, that they should enjoy public confidence, which confidence the being open to intrigues tended to destroy. These Mr. S. regarded as the true grounds on which the doctrine of privilege ought to be founded; he conceived that this doctrine could not extend to a member at his residence in the country. Hence the propositions made by Whitney to Mr. Buck in Vermont, were not a breach of the privileges of the House. For this reason he was in favor of discharging the prisoner from the bar, though in doing so, he differed from the reasons of several other gentlemen. Mr. KITCHELL pointed out the wide distinction between the cases of Randall and Whitney. It had been said that the latter must be criminal, for he was an associate with Randall. Mr. K. saw no such thing. There was no criminality in the bond. Keep a man in jail week after week upon idle suspicion! In justice, Whitney ought to have been tried at first, when he declared himself ready for trial. Mr. K. was for discharging him this day. [H. of R. attempt giving any reasons. If gentlemen are willing to agree to discharge Mr. Whitney, they ought to discharge him. They assign different reasons for the same proceedings, and will not consent to it, but each in his own particular mode. Mr. HARPER was astonished to hear so many invincible objections to telling the motives why we agree in a measure. It had been complained that privilege was undefined; that it was an assuming, creeping monster. An attempt had been made to define it, in part, and this also had been objected to. Mr. MACON said, that he would vote to discharge Whitney, for a particular reason alleged by Mr. GILES. Now, replied Mr. GILES, if the gentleman is to vote for the dismission because that is my reason, I desire him to vote against the dismission. My reason for discharging Whitney is totally different. I argue, that all which we have entered on the Journals, admitting it proved, does not amount to any breach of our privileges. That is my motive for dismissing the prisoner. An amendment was proposed to strike out of the resolution of Mr. GILES the following words: "That it appears to this House, that the information lodged against Charles Whitney, does not amount to a breach of the privileges of this House; and". The amendment was agreed toayes 43, noes 41. It was then moved to alter the remainder of the resolution, by striking out the word "he," and inserting "Charles Whitney." The amendment was adopted; and the resolution so amended, stood thus: Resolved, That Charles Whitney be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. This, also, was agreed to. Mr. WILLIAM SMITH proposed an amendment. It was, in substance, assigning as a reason for the discharge of Mr. Whitney, that the offence against Mr. BUCK had been committed in Vermont, before that gentleman took his seat in Congress. Mr. MACON objected that this amendment was only bringing the House back to the ground which they had just quitted, and making them go over the same arguments a second time. Mr. HARPER now moved an amendment to the Mr. GILES said, that the former amendment to resolution before the House: it was in these words: his resolution, viz: that suggested by Mr. HARPER went at the head of his resolution. The one "Inasmuch as the proposals made by the said Whit-now proposed by the member from South Caroney took place before the member to whom they were addressed had taken his seat in the House." Mr. GILES. If the amendment succeeded, he would vote against the whole proposition. This was a renewal of the attempt to define privilege. It was not practicable. Every case of the kind must stand upon its own merits. Mr. G. would vote against the amendment. Mr. MACON read a resolution, that Charles Whitney be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. This was, in fact, reducing the second resolution offered by Mr. GILES back into his first one. Mr. SEDGWICK thought it an awkward thing to lina went at the tail of it. This was the only difference between them. This way of making amendments was endless. Mr. BOURNE was in favor of this amendment. It would be singular to discharge the man without assigning some reason for it on the Journals. Mr. GALLATIN. Mr. Whitney was at the bar this morning, and we directed him to prepare for his defence. He is now gone, after having denied the charge laid against him. In the absence of the man himself, and without allowing him an opportunity for vindication, we are, by this amendment, to declare on the Journals, that he made an attempt on the integrity of a member, but be |