Chapter LXVIII: Introduction (67)

Mr. President, I do not doubt their expectations will be
fulfilled; and I am convinced that every citizen will
receive, with a pleasing emotion, this flag, elsewhere the
terror of the enemies of liberty, here the certain pledge
of faithful friendship; especially when they recollect that
it guides to combat, men who have shared their toils, and
who were prepared for liberty by aiding them to acquire
their own.

P. A. ADET.

* * * * *

The Answer of the President of the United States to the
Address of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French
Republic, on his presenting the Colors of France to the
United States:

Born, sir, in a land of liberty; having early learned its
value; having engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it;
having, in a word, devoted the best years of my life to
secure its permanent establishment in my own country; my
anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my best
wishes, are irresistibly excited, whensoever, in any
country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banner of
freedom. But, above all, the events of the French
Revolution have produced the deepest solicitude, as well as
the highest admiration. To call your nation brave, were to
pronounce but common praise. Wonderful people! Ages to come
will read with astonishment the history of your brilliant
exploits! I rejoice that the period of your toils and of
your immense sacrifices is approaching. I rejoice that the
interesting revolutionary movements of so many years have
issued in the formation of a constitution designed to give
permanency to the great object for which you have
contended. I rejoice that liberty, which you have so long
embraced with enthusiasm; liberty, of which you have been
the invincible defenders, now finds an asylum in the bosom
of a regularly organized Government; a Government, which
being formed to secure the happiness of the French people,
corresponds with the ardent wishes of my heart, while it
gratifies the pride of every citizen of the United States
by its resemblance to their own. On these glorious events,
accept, sir, my sincere congratulations.

In delivering to you these sentiments, I express not my own
feelings only, but those of my fellow-citizens, in relation
to the commencement, the progress, and the issue of the
French Revolution; and they will cordially join with me in
purest wishes to the Supreme Being, that the citizens of
our sister Republic, our magnanimous allies, may soon enjoy
in peace, that liberty which they have purchased at so
great a price, and all the happiness which liberty can
bestow.

I receive, sir, with lively sensibility, the symbol of the
triumphs and of the enfranchisement of your nation--the
Colors of France--which you have now presented to the
United States. The transaction will be announced to
Congress, and the Colors will be deposited with those
archives of the United States, which are at once the
evidences and the memorials of their freedom and
independence. May these be perpetual, and may the
friendship of the two Republics be commensurate with their
existence.

GEORGE WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, _January 1, 1796_.

When the reading of the Message and papers had been concluded--

Mr. GILES informed the House that, having been aware that the flag would be presented to the House this day, considering it as an additional testimony of the affection of France, and it having been the practice on analogous occasions for the House to express their sentiments independent of the other branch, he had prepared a resolution expressive of what he conceived would be their sense on the occasion. It was nearly in the words following:

"_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be
requested to make known to the Representatives of the
French people, that this House has received, with the most
lively sensibility, the communication of the Committee of
Public Safety, of the 21st of October, 1794, accompanied
with the Colors of the French Republic, and to assure them
that the presentation of the Colors of France to the
Congress of the United States is deemed a most honorable
testimony of the existing sympathy and affections of the
two Republics, founded upon their solid and reciprocal
interests; that the House rejoices in the opportunity of
congratulating the French Republic on the brilliant and
glorious achievements accomplished under it during the
present afflictive war, and that they hope those
achievements will be attended with a perfect attainment of
their object, the permanent establishment of the liberty
and happiness of that great and magnanimous people."

Mr. PARKER moved an amendment as follows: "That this House has received with the most _sincere and_ lively sensibility," &c. The amendment was for inserting the two words in italics, to which the House consented. The Message was then voted unanimously, and a thousand copies of the communications and resolution were ordered to be printed. A committee of two members was appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, and inform him of the resolution agreed to by the House.

_Case of Randall and Whitney._

Pursuant to the proceedings of the House on Friday last, Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, Mr. MURRAY, of Maryland, Mr. GILES, of Virginia, and Mr. BUCK, of Vermont, delivered in at the Clerk's table their several informations in writing, subscribed with their names, respectively, in the cases of Robert Randall and Charles Whitney; which are as follow:

Mr. MURRAY declares, that, on Wednesday last, the
twenty-third instant, Mr. Smith, member of Congress, of
South Carolina, informed him that a man of the name of
Randall, of Maryland, had, the evening before, attempted to
bribe him in Western lands, on condition of his supporting
an application which Randall told him he should soon make
to Congress; the object of which application was, a grant
from Congress of from eighteen to twenty millions of acres
of land, between Erie, Huron, and Michigan. That Mr. Smith
was extremely solicitous that some other gentleman should
immediately be informed of the infamous proposal, and that
he said he would mention it to Mr. Henry, of the Senate,
and advise with him upon proper measures for the detecting
of the full extent of the scheme, and crushing it: That he
had no opportunity of talking to Mr. Henry on that day;
but early on the morning of the twenty-fourth instant,
communicated the intelligence to Mr. Henry, who recommended
that Mr. Smith should immediately inform the President:
that on the said day, Mr. Randall, of Maryland, was
introduced to him, the informant, and requested a
confidential interview at his, the informant's lodgings,
which the informant readily promised him, to be at five,
for the purpose of developing his scheme. That Randall came
at or near five, that day last named, to wit: on Thursday,
and communicated to Mr. Henry and himself, in general
terms, the outline of a plan by which he, Randall, and his
Canada friends, would extinguish the Indian title to all
the lands between Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan, as
marked on a map which Randall then showed, containing from
eighteen to twenty millions of acres. That he, the
informant, then asked Randall into his apartment, where
they were alone. That Randall expatiated at first upon the
public utility of his scheme, which was that Congress
should grant to him and his company all the lands aforesaid
mentioned, for five hundred thousand, or, at most one
million of dollars; and that he would undertake, in four
months, that the harmony of the Indians should be secured
to the Union: or, if Congress thought proper, that the
Indian tribes now on said land should be removed to the
British side, or down Lake Michigan, reserving to some aged
chiefs a few miles square; that his company and himself had
determined to divide the lands aforesaid into forty (or
forty-one) shares. That of these shares twenty-four were to
be reserved for the disposal of himself and his partner,
now in town, for such members of Congress as assisted them,
by their abilities and votes, in obtaining the grant
aforesaid. That of these twenty-four shares, his partner
had twelve under his management for the Eastern members of
Congress, and that he, Randall, had the other twelve shares
under his management for the Southern members of Congress.
That these shares were to be so divided as to accomplish
the object by securing a majority of Congress. That the
informant started an objection to land speculation as
troublesome, and that he, Randall, said, if you (meaning
the informant) do not choose to accept your share of the
land, you shall have cash in hand for your share. That the
informant appointed Randall to meet him in the lobby of the
House, on Monday, the twenty-eighth instant. That Randall
told him a memorial was to be handed in upon this subject
on said Monday; but refused to inform the informant what
member was to present it. That Randall told him, that he,
Randall, mentioned his plan to some members in the _general
way_ only--meaning thereby, as he understood him, a view of
the sounder part of the plan, as being conducive to public
utility. That, in the early part of the confidential and
secret conversation, Randall said, that the members of
Congress who would behave handsomely, should come into
their shares on the same terms upon which the company
obtained the grant; but soon after, made proposals more
openly seductive and corrupt; closing them with the offer
of cash in hand as aforesaid. That the informant, on that
evening, when Randall went away, told Mr. Henry of the
whole of Randall's offers as aforesaid; then called on the
Secretary of State, and communicated the same to him; and
the next morning, early, informed the President of the
transaction.

W. V. MURRAY.

DECEMBER 29, 1795.

[Mr. William Smith, of S. Carolina, Mr. William B. Giles,
of Virginia, Mr. Buck, of Vermont, and afterwards, Mr.
Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, severally gave in statements
corroborating that of Mr. Vans Murray.]

It was then moved that Robert Randall should be brought to the bar of the House. He was brought in accordingly. Seats were placed for the Judge of the District of Pennsylvania, and the two counsellors for Randall, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Tilghman, jr. The informations given in by Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. GILES, were read over, and the SPEAKER asked the prisoner, what he had to say in his defence? I am not guilty. You declare yourself not guilty? Yes. Have you any proof to cite that you are not guilty? No. Are you ready to answer?

Mr. Lewis[63] then rose. He observed, that these declarations had been made in the absence of the prisoner, who, as he conceived, was entitled to have been present. His request was, that the informants might now be placed in a situation to be examined by the prisoner and his counsel, and that the information may now be given in the prisoner's hearing. The prisoner and his counsel were ordered to withdraw.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH made the following motion:

"That the prisoner be informed, that if he has any
questions to propose to the informants, or other members of
the House, he is at liberty to put them, (in the mode
already prescribed,) and that they be sworn to 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. GILES, were then sworn, standing up in their places: the oath being administered by the Judge.

Mr. Tilghman[63] 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 behavior 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."

Mr. Tilghman then, through the SPEAKER, asked Mr. MURRAY whether he understood he was to pay for his share of land as the other associates or not?

Mr. MURRAY.--I understood him as is explained in the declaration. At first I understood, that the members who should assist in getting the thing through, might then retire to their homes, and when the scheme was in activity they might come in on the same terms as the original associates. But afterwards, I understood from Randall that I might have a share if I would accept of it, and this I understood from the whole tenor of the latter part of his conversation. The shares set apart were to be for acceptance as donations. I so understood him.

Mr. Tilghman.--Did he expressly say, that they were intended as donations, or did Mr. MURRAY collect this to be the man's meaning from a variety of circumstances?

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.

Mr. Lewis, counsel for the prisoner, asked Mr. MURRAY, whether he did not state to Randall his 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. There was here a motion made for adjourning.

Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Tilghman and himself had never seen the prisoner until yesterday in the evening. They had been in 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. 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 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 business--

Robert 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. Whitney had told him that Mr. SEDGWICK recommended 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 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-four miles of Mr. SEDGWICK's house. Whitney, with Mr. Jones, came, a considerable time ago, to him one morning, while he was at breakfast. They asked his opinion; which was, that Government would not sell any lands, till the Indian claim was first extinguished. Mr. Jones endeavored to convince Mr. SEDGWICK of the benefits which would result to the United States from this sale. Mr. SEDGWICK accompanied them to the door of his house, where Mr. Jones asked him whether there would be any thing improper in a member of the Legislature being concerned in such a purchase? Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this would depend entirely 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 Whitney, 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.

Randall had, among other stories, told Mr. SAMUEL SMITH that Mr. WM. 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 story related by Randall to the member from Baltimore.

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. SEDGWICK 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.

Mr. W. SMITH submitted, whether it would be proper to proceed any farther in the case of Randall, till some hearing had been given to Whitney.

It was then moved by a member that the case of Randall should be postponed. After some conversation 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 a 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 prisoner.

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 a 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 any thing 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 if 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, 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 any thing 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.

THURSDAY, January 7.

_Case of Charles Whitney._

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 further 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.

Mr. W. SMITH regarded this resolution as premature; he wished to have the regular forms of trial gone through, as in the other case. When the trial was finished, the House could then decide on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. He thought that Mr. BUCK ought to be sworn. When the offer was made in Vermont, he was looked upon as a member of Congress, and the temptation which had been held out to him was a contempt of the House. There was not yet a sufficient 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 prosecution.

Mr. HARPER considered it as a material distinction between a member being attacked and beaten, for example, in Philadelphia, during his attendance on Congress, and the same accident occurring during the recess, in a distant part of the country. It was admitted that the doctrine of privilege violated the rights of the people, and could be justified only upon the plea of necessity: it being so liable to misapprehension and misconstruction, he wished to see as little of it as possible. He gave his hearty concurrence to the resolution of Mr. GILES. He had been desirous of seeing such a thing brought forward. He adverted to the delicate situation of the House, at once accusers, judges, and witnesses.

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?

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. The 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. 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! Injustice, Whitney ought to have been tried at first, when he declared himself ready for trial. Mr. K. was for discharging him this day.

Mr. HARPER now moved an amendment to the resolution before the House: it was in these words:

"Inasmuch as the proposals made by the said Whitney 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 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 to--ayes 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.

FRIDAY, January 8.

JEREMIAH CRABB, from Maryland, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Indian Trading Houses._

The House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair, on the bill to establish trading houses for the Indian tribes.

Mr. DAYTON objected to the bill, so far as it empowers those who are to sell the goods to the Indians, to procure or purchase the goods. He considered the uniting these powers in the same persons as highly exceptionable and liable to great abuse. He moved to strike out the words "procure or."

Mr. PARKER said that the objection was misapplied, for subsequent clauses placed the business under the special direction of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He should not, however, object to striking out the words. His view in rising was merely to justify the committee who reported the bill, as they had supposed that sufficient guards were provided.

Mr. GILES did not think the reason given for retaining the words sufficient. The PRESIDENT cannot be supposed to have such cognizance of every part of this business as will enable him to secure the public, or Indians, from imposition. He was for increasing the checks against abuse.

The motion for striking out was agreed to.

In the third section, Mr. SEDGWICK objected to the words "laying aside all view of gain by the trade." They might operate disadvantageously to the people of the United States, if Government should enter into this trade on a principle that would preclude all private adventures in the same line by citizens. The words were expunged.

Mr. PARKER presented a substitute. It relates to compensation of agents and clerks to be employed. The sum of ---- dollars was to be appropriated. The substitute was adopted by the committee.

In the seventh section, Mr. SEDGWICK moved an amendment, providing for the forfeiture of licenses in case of contravening the provisions of the law. This motion was withdrawn in order to introduce the provision elsewhere.

Mr. MILLEDGE moved to strike out the whole of this seventh section. It appeared to him to involve provisions which would be proper in another law, but in this bill blended two different subjects.

Mr. SEDGWICK considered the provisions in this section referring to certain rules for regulating the public trade with the Indians, as proper, since similar rules would be made in regulating the trade of individuals with Indians. On this ground he was for retaining the section.

It was moved to modify the section by confining the provisions to "the agents or clerks," specially employed by the United States. This amendment was agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. SEDGWICK, the last clause of the seventh section, relative to the oath or affirmation, was expunged.

The committee then rose; the Chairman reported the bill with the amendments, which were taken up, and agreed to by the House, with one verbal amendment.

Mr. SWIFT expressed his disapprobation of the bill. He thought the object unattainable to any important extent. He disapproved of public bodies being concerned in trade. It is always managed better by individuals. Great loss and dilapidation are the consequence; nor is it possible to guard against frauds and abuses. The public have no money to spare. It is the opinion of the Committee of Ways and Means, that additional taxes will be necessary for the public service. We must not tax our constituents for the sake of trading with the Indians. He hoped not. Mr. S. concluded by a motion for striking out the first section.

Mr. PARKER supported the principle of the bill; he wished a fair experiment to be made. The plan is founded on humanity and benevolence. It has been recommended by the PRESIDENT from year to year. Mr. P., on this subject, had been in sentiment with him. It was well-known he had never lightly advocated a disbursement of public money; on this occasion, it would be a saving of public money. It will cost much less to conciliate the good opinion of the Indians than to pay men for destroying them.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of an experiment. Much had been anticipated from the plan; a beginning had been made, and he thought it best to try it for such a length of time as would afford a fair experiment of what could be done.

Mr. SWANWICK said he was in favor of the principles of the bill, were it merely as a change from our usual system of Indian affairs. We have hitherto pursued war at an expense of a million and a half of dollars nearly annually; let us now try the fruits of commerce, that beneficent power which cements and civilizes so many nations; barbarous till they became acquainted with its influence. To encourage us, indeed, a fact has come to our knowledge on the investigation of the case of Randall. Gentlemen will remember his assertions to them, and the deed read in the House, in which so much was stated of the influence of the Canada traders over the Indians: well, let us try to balance or countervail this influence; but it has been observed, our private citizens will do this sufficiently in the way of their private trade. In general I am friendly to let commerce take its own level without Governmental interference; but the little influence our traders have yet obtained, shows plainly enough defective capital or a defective extent of trade; both are to be apprehended. So many objects of speculation offer in this country, that individuals may not pay sufficient attention to this branch, in which they have so powerful a British interest to contend with. Government, alone, can do this in the infancy of the commerce. Let the experiment be made; we can lose little by it; we may gain a great deal. It has been observed, that this act has been rejected in three different sessions of Congress already; and this is argued as a proof of its want of merit; but this has been the fate in England of the navigation act; it was hundreds of years struggling to get into existence, but was not the less acceptable when at last it succeeded. Perhaps we may find this bill, on experience, none the worse for the difficulties, which, as an untried step, it has hitherto had to encounter: it is recommended by general reasoning; let us try it; we can only repeal it if we find it does not answer the sanguine expectations entertained of it.

Mr. MACON[64] was opposed to the bill. He thought the circumstance of the business having been so long in agitation, was a reason why it should be longer considered. The reason for delay was certainly not weakened by that. The business was highly improper for Government to embark in.

Mr. MURRAY had but one idea to suggest, as it was unnecessary to go over the general policy, which had been amply stated by other gentlemen. There appeared to him two objects; first, the securing the Indian friendship by a supply of their wants; second, the supplanting the British traders in their influence over the tribes whose hostilities might embarrass us. To the last object, therefore, the meditated mode of supply by public agency was peculiarly well adapted. The Indians are now supplied by a great company long established, very wealthy, and possessing this influence, in which we must supplant them. We are to consider whether, if private individuals are left to be the only competitors with the Canada company, this influence and this trade will be transferred agreeably to sound policy. He thought they would not. Small capitalists, and adventurers young in this trade, would certainly prove unequal to a competition with so well established and rich a company as the Canada company. It was no uncommon thing for great companies, when they were apprehensive of what they would call interlopers, to crush all competition by making a voluntary sacrifice of a few thousand pounds sterling. By underselling, on a large scale, for a time, and even a certain loss, they secured themselves in future from competition. This great company can afford to pay this price for the perpetuity of this trade and influence. In order to meet the capital of this company, we must not trust to individual small capitalists. By a sum appropriated by Government to the object, however large the capital in competition in Canada, the Government will be able to beat down the trade of this company and place it in American hands; and in a few years after the competition has ceased, the Government may then withdraw its agency, and leave it to private capitals, to which the field will then have been rendered easy.

The motion of Mr. SWIFT was negatived; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

WEDNESDAY, January 19.

_Appropriations for 1796._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill making appropriations for the support of Government in the year 1796.

Mr. WILLIAMS, agreeably to notice given on a former day, moved to strike out all that gross sum appropriated for the officers of the Mint.[65]

Mr. W. SMITH said that a great proportion of the sum was for salaries established by law. They must be paid, till the law is repealed. If the gentleman means to suspend the whole appropriation bill till an inquiry is gone through with respect to the Mint, the bill may be delayed for two months, and the consequence be the greatest embarrassment in Government.