Chapter M: X. again called upon us. He said M. Talleyrand was (3)

Mr. P. concluded by adding, that if the Senate went into a consideration of his motion, instead of that of the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. TRACY,) they would probably avoid that part of the discussion which would be least agreeable, as the subject would be clear from that locality and personality which attached to the first, and a decision would take place without any reference to this or that particular printer; but if the gentleman would postpone the question, Mr. P. consented to let his motion lie on the table, with a view to its being printed for the use of the members, that so both propositions might be compared and considered with more attention than could be done in any other way.

Mr. COCKE declared that the object which he had in view was nothing more nor less than to rid the House of the business altogether. He was not inclined to appoint any special time for the discussion, as the worthy gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) had requested. He had no idea that it was supposed he had the saving or exoneration of any printer in view; he had no such thing; but he wished to save the reputation of this body, which he thought was placed in jeopardy by the Connecticut motion. Here it is proposed to inquire and examine of and into this, that, and the other--to bring one printer here, and generally all persons and papers, who and whatever, just as your committee may think fit. Suppose this power is doubted? Suppose the persons deny your power--how are your committee to enforce their mandates? Suppose your courts of law claim cognizance as a case of libel, are you to have two prosecutions and two trials for the same offence? Surely, surely, your committee will have to retire from the untenable ground, and the defeat will recoil with disgrace upon those of us who attempt to assume powers neither constitutional in themselves, nor just, even if they were constitutional. You can call upon somebody--but who?--to inquire who is the editor of the Aurora. You are to inquire how he became possessed of a certain bill which he published; what kind of an inquiry is this? How he procured the sight of a bill, while it was pending in Senate. Why, is there any crime in printing a minute of our transactions? Your bills are printed by your own order, for your use, and for the information of the other House; two hundred copies or more are circulated without any injunction of secrecy; they are sent off into every State of the Union; and are you going to make inquiry how the editor of the Aurora got to see one of them? Why, are not your gallery doors open, and cannot a bill which has been read in public be possibly remembered, at least, cannot it be taken down in short-hand? and will you punish every man who shall repeat, print, or publish what is made public on this floor? Suppose the editor of the Aurora declines to inform your committee of the mode through which he obtains his information; he says it is convenient and useful to him, but his prior engagements do not permit him to divulge it to you; will you punish him for contempt? But suppose you possessed of the physical power necessary to procure the information you require by an application of the torture; while you are straining his muscles and dislocating his joints, what becomes of the grand palladium of American freedom? Where is the liberty of the press, which is secured to the citizens of the Union against Federal usurpation? The constitution declares that you shall not infringe upon the liberty of the press; and a power expressly denied to the whole Government, a single branch may not assume.

Here Mr. C. was called to order by

Mr. BINGHAM, of Pennsylvania, who inquired what the liberty of the press had to do on a question of postponement? He believed, while the motion for postponement was under consideration, all debate on the merits of the main question to be out of order.

It was contended to be in order to object on a postponement generally to the original motion, for an argument tending to defeat the original motion is reason for a general postponement.

Mr. COCKE proceeded, and said he was glad to find that the freedom of debate in this House was not to be destroyed, though it might be interrupted; and he hoped that the freedom of the press would never be subverted while the Government of the country rested upon the Republican principle of representation. He admitted there were a great many ill-natured things said by many of our American presses, but that should never induce him to run the risk of destroying the most valuable and effectual bulwark for maintaining us free and independent, by using an instrument more fit to cut down the trunk of a tree, than to prune it of its tendril luxuriances. What was the engine now brought out against this freedom--an engine possessed of all the powers necessary to ensure its success? A printer is to be charged, is to be tried, judged of, and executed, by a body he has offended. Where will you find men of nerve that will risk certain ruin? Such may arise when the press is in danger. It was under these impressions that he wished to get rid of the business altogether.

Mr. TRACY, of Connecticut, did not wish to press the business; indeed his conduct had manifested this intention, for the original motion had been suffered to lie on the table a longer term than usual before it was called up, but even now when it was called up he did not wish to hurry it through. He should not refuse a moderate delay, but he hoped the motion from Tennessee would not prevail, as it went to destroy the object without any further consideration. In answer to what fell from the gentleman from Tennessee, he would say, that the objections he had made did not all of them apply, and if there was any which did apply, amendments could be made so as to conform them to the sense of the Senate. He wished gentlemen would attend to the words of the resolution, and they would find that they did not carry them beyond what was prudent, mild, and proper. The committee are desired to inquire who is the editor of the Aurora; this will appear to be a proper inquiry, for the person is not publicly known; the imprint declares the paper to be published for the heirs of Benjamin Franklin Bache, but we do not know who are the heirs. The gentleman has told us it is no crime to publish the doings of this body; agreed, but is it nothing to publish untruths respecting the official conduct of the members of this body? is it no crime to publish a bill while before this House? But are printers at liberty to tell lies about our transactions? The Aurora says, that the bill which it published had passed the Senate; this every member knows to be contrary to the fact. The bill has not even to the present moment passed this body, it is still on your table liable to recommitment, amendment, or rejection. Asking the editor how he came to print this falsehood, does not go to examine into the private mode by which conveyance of intelligence is made to that office; there can be no real intelligence, it being a falsehood. But suppose we have no power over this editor, because the press is free; suppose we cannot punish him for his slander, calumny, and falsehood, perhaps the inquiry may lead us to discover some persons whom we can punish; will it be said that the constitution is an impediment in our way to punish one of our own members, if he should be found guilty of abusing the confidence of his situation? At least we can exercise the power of removing one of our officers, if we should convict him of a secret league to transmit intelligence which is confidentially intrusted to his care.

He did not mean to insinuate that any improper mode was used in conveying this intelligence; it might appear that the whole circumstance was a mere unintentional error; if so he should not go farther; but yet the printer could hardly have made the subsequent mistake in relation to the gentleman from South Carolina, in declaring that he had never been consulted by the committee on Mr. Ross's bill; there was something in this calculated to produce an effect upon the public mind. He insinuates that the business of the Senate is done in caucuses, into which the gentleman was not permitted to enter; for if he had, it is supposed he might have detected and defeated the mischiefs which are working against the public welfare. This is an abandoned slander, as is well known to every member of the House, for Mr. PINCKNEY did attend not one meeting only, as the editor of the Aurora squeezed out some days subsequent to his first licentious publication, but he did attend every meeting, as he has candidly and honorably avowed in his place.

The gentlemen had declared themselves the champions of the press; but surely gentlemen will not advocate such liberty as this--the liberty of publishing nothing but lies and falsehood. If by the liberty of the press is meant the publication of truth and just political information, it was proper to be supported; but he was desirous of maintaining, along with the liberty of the press, the liberty of the citizens, and the security of the Government; he was not for sacrificing these latter objects to the licentiousness of the press. He was not inclined to enter into a newspaper controversy to maintain the dignity and reputation of the Senate, nor did he think that gentlemen appreciated their own standing in society when they referred the individual members of this body to such a mode of defence against the shafts of calumny which a daring editor might hurl against them individually.

Mr. BLOODWORTH, of North Carolina, doubted the power of the Senate to take cognizance of the conduct of members in communicating with their constituents, much less to punish them for publishing circumstances respecting which no injunction of secrecy had been imposed. He, however, assured the Senate that he had not given the editor of the Aurora any information on the subject before them, or indeed on any other, for the editor was a stranger to him; nor did he know that he ever called, at that printing office more than once or twice in his life. He hoped that the business would be postponed for the present, and he should have no objection to its being taken up at a future day, when gentlemen might be better prepared to meet it.

Mr. PAINE, of Vermont, declared himself against the postponement, nor did he think that the motion of Mr. PINCKNEY was so inconsistent with the motion before the House as to render a postponement necessary; he thought the committee might inquire, and although the gentleman would stop, by his proposition, from proceeding in case it turned out to be a fabrication of the editor of the Aurora, yet if it should be found not a fabrication of his, but that of a member or an officer of the House, it was admitted they might progress, without infringing the sacred liberty of the press. Suppose that some person in the gallery should have furnished the spurious matter--and that may possibly be the case--will the sacred liberty of the press be violated if we order the doorkeeper to turn him out, and refuse him access in future? He thought the resolutions might be amended so as to give greater satisfaction than they do at present; for his own part he was not willing to declare all at present which they contained. He thought the business would be simplified if the committee were directed to consider and report what measures would be proper to adopt in respect to a publication containing various untruths of the proceedings of the Senate, and if the question of postponement was lost he meant to move several amendments for that purpose.

Mr. MASON, of Virginia, had no objection to meet the question at the present moment, but he thought it of such importance, both to the Senate and the citizens of the United States, that it should be taken up and discussed in a solemn and serious manner; not hastily and lightly, as some gentlemen seemed to think who were opposed to the postponement for a few days; if, however, the opposition to the postponement was persisted in, he had no doubt but the subject would prove itself well worth a discussion of several days, and that the ultimate decision would not be made till a period more remote than that moved for by his friend from South Carolina. He therefore recommended to gentlemen to explore well the ground which the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut had taken, and consider seriously of the consequences to which they would be led in pursuing their object. What was to be the course of their proceeding? What were the embarrassments likely to arise therein? He called the House to view the delicacy of the situation in which they would be involved while defining their newly discovered privileges and subverting the old acknowledged privileges of the liberty of the press; he said the delicacy of their situation, because he considered it a delicate one, for he was far from believing that the privileges of the Senate were as unlimited as the gentleman from Connecticut contended they were; if so, and they proceed to touch the liberty of the press, which they may discover in the end to be secured against the invasion, they will be compelled to retrace every step they are now taking, which will neither redound to their honor nor discernment. They should be careful how they expose themselves to popular scrutiny in cases respecting their own power, for the public mind had been already considerably agitated, at what many conceived to be an unconstitutional exercise of power. If, session after session, attempts were made to fetter the freedom of the press, the people of the United States would watch with anxious regard every movement of this body. A measure which originated in the Senate, and was subsequently acceded to by the other branch of the Legislature, had been just ground of alarm. It is no wonder that they watch our bills as well as our laws, for it must be recollected by many of the gentlemen who hear me, that the bill called the Sedition Bill was first introduced here, and that, instead of being what it afterwards became, it was a bill more particularly to define treason and sedition. The good sense of the House, during the time it was upon the table and undergoing a political dissection, cut off from it many of those monstrous excrescences which at first disfigured it, and at last trimmed it into a shapely form; but after all it was removed below stairs in a condition not fit to meet the eye of our constituents--even obliged to undergo a decapitation; the head or the title of it was struck off, and instead of being a bill defining treason--which is a thing totally out of our power, the constitution having declared in what alone treason should consist--instead of being denominated a bill against sedition, it took the obnoxious head of being a bill to amend the law for punishing certain crimes against the United States.

Mr. ANDERSON, of Tennessee, did not rise with an intention of entering into the merits of the general question, as to the extent of the privileges of the Senate, which he conceived to be of great moment, but merely to remark, as gentlemen alleged that the public mind was already agitated on the subject, the postponement would tend to increase the degree of agitation, which he conceived it was the wish of gentlemen on both sides to have allayed as soon as possible. He therefore concluded that it would be better to go on with the business and come as soon as possible to a decision. One gentleman had said it ought to go to the judicial courts, and that the Attorney General should be directed to prosecute: well, then, that gentleman should give his consent to send the business to a committee, in order to inquire whether the case would warrant this interference.

Mr. READ, of South Carolina, would not oppose the motion of his honorable colleague for a postponement, if he had required it on his own account, or if its being negatived would prevent him from bringing forward the preamble and resolution he had read in his place, and at a proper time of having them discussed; but neither of these circumstances were urged; therefore, as his colleague neither required time for preparation nor would be prevented from offering and supporting the intended amendment, he should vote against the postponement.

Mr. DAYTON had the highest confidence in the honor of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. PINCKNEY,) and he never suffered himself to doubt of the truth of the declaration which had been made. He thought the resolutions might be varied so as to get rid of the idea which the gentleman objected to, in respect to the motion having been brought forward at his instance; and might be amended as suggested by the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. PAINE,) so as to reconcile it still more to the sentiments of the Senate. This being his view of the subject, he wished the business to proceed, and should therefore vote against the postponement.

The question on postponing till Tuesday next, was now put, and the yeas and nays being called, stood yeas 9, nays 19, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, Franklin,
Langdon, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Foster,
Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore,
Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, Watson and
Wells.

So the motion was lost.

Mr. NICHOLAS, of Virginia, wished to ask for information. Was it intended by this resolution to charge the committee with inquiring into a breach of privilege as it respected the majority of this body? For the resolution itself furnished no correct idea on this point. He wished also to know whether it was intended that the Senate should declare that the publication was a breach of privilege?

Mr. TRACY, of Connecticut, said that if the gentleman wished for information from him, he would endeavor to give it. He conceived it would be better to pursue the mode of inquiry in the first instance, through the intervention of a committee, and not make at once a decision whether the publication was or was not a breach of privilege; and further, that the committee should report to the Senate what other matters were the proper subjects for the Senate's inquiry. He would not undertake to say at this time whether there was a breach of privilege at all, or whether that breach was in respect to a majority of the House, or of the privilege of a single member.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, was of opinion that if the subject itself was a proper one to be inquired into, then the mode was well devised, and one liable to few or no objections; but there was another circumstance to which he begged permission to call the attention of the Senate. He observed that the resolution pointed only to one object, and that was the publications in the Aurora; he did not think this went far enough, if it was intended to be any thing more than a party manoeuvre. If gentlemen meant to defend the honor of this body, they should avoid any thing like partiality, and direct their inquiry to all breaches of privilege, by publications in newspapers, let their publishers be whom they might. Believing that the gentlemen were serious in the present undertaking, he wished them to give it the appearance of impartiality without which it would reflect disgrace on their proceedings. Gentlemen have complained of the slander and calumny thrown upon them by the publications in the Aurora, but, however detestable they might be, he held in his hand one still more vile and flagrant. He would read it, and then move to amend the resolution before the House by adding that the committee be directed to inquire who is the editor of the United States Gazette, and by what authority he published in that paper the following paragraphs.

It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 16, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke,
Franklin, Langdon, Lloyd, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and
Pinckney.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Foster, Greene,
Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore, Paine, Read, Ross,
Schureman, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

_The Judiciary._

Agreeably to notice given yesterday, Mr. PINCKNEY had leave to bring in a bill to amend the act entitled "An act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States"; which was read and ordered to the second reading.

On introducing the above bill Mr. PINCKNEY addressed the chair as follows:

Mr. PRESIDENT: When I first had the honor of addressing you on this subject it appeared to me necessary to move an amendment to the constitution; on reflection, however, I am since convinced that the more regular and expeditious mode would be to move an amendment to the law establishing the Judicial Courts of the United States--by this means the law may be passed during the present session, and we shall the more readily obtain the limitation we contend for.

As the Judiciary is among the most important departments in our Government, as it reaches every situation in society--neither the rich, the honored, nor the humble, being without its influence or above its control--as it is the department to which not only the lives and fortunes, but the characters of our citizens are peculiarly intrusted, it becomes us to be extremely careful that the Judges should not only be able and honest men, but independent in their situation. Our constitution has in some degree secured their independence by giving them permanent salaries, and rendering them ineligible to the Legislature; but in vain will we consider them independent, in vain may we suppose their opinion beyond the control or interference of the Executive, until we have determined it shall not be in his power to give them additional offices and emoluments, while Judges; until, in short, we confine them wholly to their duties as Judges, and teach them to believe that in the execution of the laws they should consider themselves as little obliged to please the President, or to fear his disapprobation, as that of any other man in the Government. This can only be done by preventing them accepting other offices, while they continue as Judges, and thus depriving him of the power of heaping upon them additional favors and emoluments.

It is an established maxim, and I hope will for ever remain so, that the Legislature and Judiciary should be as distinct as the nature of our Government will admit; that is, that the same men shall not, in a deliberative capacity, agree to measures which they shall afterwards have a right to explain and decide upon in a judicial one. The reason is obvious; that the Judges should, in a calm and unprejudiced manner, explain what the law literally is, and not what it ought to be; that they should not be allowed to carry upon the bench those passions and prejudices which too frequently prevail in the adoption and formation of legislative acts and treaties, and which never fail to give an irresistible bias to the opinions of a Judge who has been concerned in making them. The truth of this reasoning is now so generally conceded, that there is not a man who knows any thing of government that will attempt to controvert it; the constitutions of all the States have sanctioned it, and if the opinions of the Federal Convention ought to have weight, they so strongly insisted upon it as even to refuse, after repeated trials, associating the Judges with the President in the exercise of his revisionary power; indeed a gentleman high in office, and who held both situations at the same time as Judge and Envoy, is himself decidedly of this opinion, for in his charge to the Eastern juries he has these expressions:

"Wise and virtuous men have thought and reasoned very
differently respecting Government; but in this they have at
length very unanimously agreed, viz: "that its powers
should be divided into three distinct independent
departments, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. But
how to constitute and balance them so as best to guard
against abuse and fluctuation, and preserve the
constitution from encroachments, are points on which there
continues to be a great diversity of opinions, and on which
we all have as yet much to learn. The Constitution of the
United States has therefore instituted these departments,
and much pains have been taken so to form and define them,
as that they may operate as checks one upon the other, and
keep each within its proper limits: it being universally
agreed to be of the last importance to a free people, that
those who are vested with Legislative, Executive, and
Judicial powers should rest satisfied with their respective
portions of power; and neither encroach on the provinces of
each other, nor suffer themselves or the others to
intermeddle with the rights reserved by the constitution to
the people.""

If, then, there can be no doubt of its propriety when applied to a Judge, in ordinary cases, how much more forcibly does it apply to an Envoy who concludes a treaty, which when ratified is to become the supreme law of the land; how strongly must the negotiation of so important and in many instances so difficult a business, be impressed on his mind! He will no doubt retain the journals of his proceedings and opinions, and perfectly recollect the progress and termination of every proposal which was compromised or rejected. It must be difficult for him to forget the attempts to which ministers are sometimes liable in condescending where their object is honorable; he will remember what his opinions were upon particular points; and, whether they were successful or not, his general character may be that of not very easily yielding them. In short, it is impossible for him to be that cool and unbiased interpreter of the treaty which he otherwise might have been, had he not been concerned in concluding it.

The constitution contemplates an independent Judiciary. The public, therefore, will expect and have a right to demand, upon a questions, a fair and impartial trial by Judges, whose minds are open to conviction, and unprejudiced by party opinions; by men who have not been concerned in forming a law or treaty, but who are totally unfettered by the recollection of what passed at the negotiation, or what might have been wished or expected by either party, as judges, candidly and impartially to determine upon every question that may come before them.

These reasons are certainly sufficient to convince any one that this provision is necessary to the independence of the Judges, and the pure and unbiased exposition of the laws: that unless it is done, their independence is a visionary and unfounded thing. That if the President can hold out to the Judges the temptation of being Envoys, or of giving them other offices, and that he still can continue them as Judges, that on any question in which the President or his friends, or the Government may be concerned, it might have a tendency to influence them in opinion; that it was not frequently to be expected they would be unmindful from whom they received the present appointments, or so entirely indifferent to their own, or the advancement of their families as not sometimes to recollect that from the same source other and greater emoluments might in future be derived; that ingratitude was not often the vice of public officers while their patron continued in power; that on subjects where his character, his feelings, or the public opinion of his acts were in question, our Judges might reasonably be expected not to be charged with apathy or inattention; and that the true way to assert the dignity of the President and the honor and independence of the Judges, was to place it out of the power of the one to offer, and the other to accept additional favors.

That a Judge ought never to be absent from the United States, or be drawn from his official situation and leave an undue proportion of its duties to be performed by the remainder of the bench; that the number of Judges were exactly proportioned to the duties they were to perform; that to withdraw one and be incapable of supplying the vacancy, was not only to require the inexecution of the laws in some parts of the Union, but to invidiously harass the other, while a favorite or possibly too complying a Judge was sent to gratify his curiosity or indulge his taste on some agreeable or easy mission.

That no man ought to hold two offices under the same Government, particularly where they were important; that most of the States had regulations to prevent this, and that nothing more contributed to the extravagance of a Government or the corruption and immorality of its citizens, than the power to heap many lucrative and perhaps useless offices on the same person; that it had a tendency to make them servile, to render them the tools and sycophants of men in power, and to degrade the character of office.

That in case of the impeachment of the President of the United States, the Chief Justice was to preside, and there was no provision in the constitution to supply the vacancy; therefore, if an impeachment was to take place in his absence, it must remain undecided until the Chief Justice could be sent for; that this, if recollected by the Executive, should of itself have been an insuperable objection--in point of propriety, it always is so, but in point of delicacy it ought most strongly to have been so, because, here the President, is the officer, and indeed the only one, who is implicated in the possibility of its inconvenience arising from absence of the Chief Justice. It is true it is to be presumed that the man who is elected by his countrymen to administer the important office of President, will be always so wise and virtuous as to make it very unlikely an impeachment of him should take place--the thing, however, is possible. In times of difficulty where opinions run high, and where those opinions are strongly divided between numerous and powerful parties, it is impossible to foretell what may happen. No man is said to be wise at all times, and our own experience and intercourse with the world must convince us that there are moments of enthusiasm, or of heat, or surprise, when the most cautious men are not quite so prudent as others. I will therefore ask, and do it with great deference, as the President is the only officer on whose trial the Chief Justice is to preside, or on whose impeachment his absence would be a public inconvenience, is it not perhaps presuming too far on his own infallibility or incapacity to err, to send the only officer to a distant country, without whose presence, in case of an impeachment, a court could not be formed to try him? I ask it with deference, and am sure these observations must have escaped the Executive, or the Chief Justice never would have been sent.

To evince the absolute necessity of some provision being made, it is to be observed that, as the law stands now, a Judge might not only accept any other appointment from the Executive of the Union, but he may accept them from the individual States, or, what is still more dangerous, from a foreign power, and thus become the minion of the one or the tool of the other, as circumstances or his own interest may prompt him. Few men will deny the necessity of some provision here, and that the present is an unwise and degrading situation for a national Judiciary. Most of the States have carefully guarded their tribunals against a danger of this kind. The State of South Carolina, to which I belong, is remarkably express on this subject. Aware of the necessity of an independent judiciary, her constitution, in speaking of that department, has these words: "nor shall the Judges, hold any other office of profit or trust under this State, the United States, or any other power," a prohibition not more complete or full than ought to exist in the case of the Federal Judges.

A strange doctrine has lately been circulated, which it is my duty to remark on--it is, that this bill is to be considered as a reflection on the President for nominating a Chief Justice, and the Senate for having confirmed it, and that the Senate, by agreeing to it, will join in the censure.[46] Being always ready to approve, and to praise what is meritorious, it is with great reluctance I can ever be brought to censure--I have no such intention at present. I can readily believe that many of the inconveniences I have mentioned may have escaped the President in the recent nomination. It is here I have always disliked it. I believe the general sentiment to be against it; but, be that as it may, no such reason ought ever to have weight in this House. If the thing is right, if it is now considered as proper for us to say, that the Judges must stay at home, and be confined to their judicial duties, and hold no other offices while Judges, we should do it, and not consider whether it is pleasing or otherwise to the President; he must understand public business too well to consider it in the nature of a reflection. We every day alter existing laws and regulations, without considering such changes as reflections on a preceding Legislature or President, and I should be sorry to suppose, that, while a bill was under discussion, the fear of displeasing the Executive should ever be used as a reason for its rejection. He has always a right to give his opinion in the exercise of his revisionary authority, and when he does, we will deliberately and respectfully attend to it. One remark more, and I shall no longer trespass on the patience of the House: it is, that a reason has been given for leaving the President at liberty to send a Judge on any delicate or difficult mission, which I do not conceive reputable either to the political or literary character of our country--it is said the Judges may be the most able and qualified men the President can find, and that being prevented from sending one of them, he may sometimes be obliged to send inferior and less important characters, and that the public interest might suffer. How far the present or any former supreme bench may justify the observation it is not for us to say, but never will I suppose that among a people so numerous and enlightened, so alive to their country's welfare, and hundreds, perhaps thousands of whom are so devoted to public business, can only six men be found capable of discharging any political duties that Government might require; the idea is too degrading to our national character to be entertained for a moment. For these reasons I have thought it my duty to introduce this bill, and I trust it will pass and become a law.

SATURDAY, March 8.

_Breach of Privilege._

And, on motion to agree to the original motion as amended, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 8, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Chipman, Dayton, Foster, Goodhue,
Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd,
Marshall, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, Watson, and
Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke, Franklin,
Langdon, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

So it was

_Resolved_, That the Committee of Privileges be, and they are hereby, directed to consider and report what measures it will be proper for the Senate to adopt, in relation to a publication in the newspaper, printed in the city of Philadelphia, on Wednesday morning the 19th of February, 1800, called the General Advertiser, or Aurora; in which it is asserted, that the bill prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had passed the Senate, when in fact it had not passed; in which it is also asserted, that the honorable Mr. Pinckney, a Senator from the State of South Carolina, and a member of the committee who brought before the Senate the bill aforesaid, had never been consulted on the subject; whereas, in fact, he was present at each meeting of the committee; and, generally, to report what measures ought to be adopted in relation to sundry expressions contained in said paper, respecting the Senate of the United States, and the members thereof, in their official capacity.

TUESDAY, March 18.

_Breach of Privilege._

The Senate took into consideration the report of the Committee of Privileges, on the measures that will be necessary to adopt in relation to a publication in the newspaper, printed in the city of Philadelphia, on Wednesday morning, the 19th of February last, called the General Advertiser, or Aurora; and,

On motion to adopt the first resolution reported, it was agreed to divide the motion, and that the question should be taken on the following words:

_Resolved_, That the said publication contains assertions,
and pretended information, respecting the Senate, and the
Committee of the Senate, and their proceedings, which are
false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious; tending to
defame the Senate of the United States, and to bring them
into contempt and disrepute, and to excite against them the
hatred of the good people of the United States.

And on the question, to adopt this part of the resolution, reported by the committee, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 8, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Brown, Chipman, Dayton,
Dexter, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance,
Livermore, Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and
Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke, Franklin,
Langdon, Marshall, Mason, and Nicholas.

WEDNESDAY, March 19.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Privileges, on the measures proper to adopt in relation to a publication in the newspaper called the Aurora, of the 19th of February last; and it was agreed to amend the second member of the first resolution reported, as follows: "and that the said publication is a high breach of the privileges of this House;" and, on the question to agree thereto, as amended, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dexter, Foster, Goodhue,
Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine,
Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

THURSDAY, March 20.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Privileges, on the measures proper to be adopted in relation to a publication of the 19th of February last, in the newspaper called the Aurora; and it was agreed to fill the blanks in the second resolution reported, with the words "Monday 24th, twelve o'clock," and, at the close of the resolution, with the words "twenty-second;" and,

On motion, to adopt this part of the report, as follows:

_Resolved_, That William Duane, now residing in the city of
Philadelphia, the editor of the said newspaper called the
General Advertiser, or Aurora, be, and he is hereby,
ordered to attend at the bar of this House, on Monday, the
24th day of March inst., at 12 o'clock, at which time he
will have an opportunity to make any proper defence for his
conduct, in publishing the aforesaid false, defamatory,
scandalous, and malicious assertions, and pretended
information; and the Senate will then proceed to take
further order on the subject; and a copy of this and the
foregoing resolution, under the authentication of the
Secretary of the Senate of the United States, and attested
as a true copy by James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms for the
said Senate, and left by the said Sergeant-at-Arms with the
said William Duane, or at the office of the Aurora, on or
before the twenty-second day of March instant, shall be
deemed sufficient notice for the said Duane to attend in
obedience to this resolution:

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 10, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore,
Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke,
Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

So the report of the committee was adopted, as follows:

Whereas, on the 19th day of February, now last past, the
Senate of the United States, being in session, in the city
of Philadelphia, the following publication was made in the
newspaper, printed in the said city of Philadelphia, called
the General Advertiser, or Aurora, viz:

"In our paper of the 27th ult. we noticed the introduction
of a measure into the Senate of the United States, by Mr.
Ross, calculated to influence and affect the approaching
Presidential election, and to frustrate, in a particular
manner, the wishes and interests of the people of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

"We this day lay before the public a copy of that bill as
it has passed the Senate.

"Some curious facts are connected with this measure, and
the people of the Union at large are intermediately, and
the people of this State immediately interested to consider
the movements, the mode of operation, and the effects.

"We noticed a few days ago the caucuses (or secret
consultations) held in the Senate Chamber. An attempt was
made in an evening paper to give a counteraction (for these
people are admirable at the system of intrigue) to the
development of the Aurora, and to call those meetings
jacobinical; we must cordially assent to the jacobinism of
those meetings--they were in the perfect spirit of a
jacobinical conclave.

"The plain facts we stated are, however, unquestionable;
but we have additional information to give on the subject
of those meetings. We stated, that intrigues for the
Presidential election were among the objects; we now state
it as a fact that cannot be disputed upon fair ground, that
the bill we this day present was discussed at the caucus on
Wednesday evening last.

"It is worthy of remark how this bill grew into existence.

"The opponents of independence and republican Government,
who supported Mr. Ross in the contest against Governor
McKean, are well known by the indecency, the slander, and
the falsehood of the measures they pursued--and it is well
known that they are all devoted to the Federal party, which
we dissected on Monday. Mr. Ross proposed this bill in the
Federal Senate, (how consistently with the decency of his
friends will be seen;) a committee of five was appointed to
prepare a bill on the subject: on this committee, Mr.
Pinckney, of South Carolina, was appointed. On Thursday
morning last (the caucus held the preceding evening) Mr.
Ross informed Mr. Pinckney that the committee had drawn up
a bill on the subject, when in fact Mr. Pinckney had never
been consulted on the subject, though a member of the
committee! The bill was introduced and passed as below.

"On this occasion it may not be impertinent to introduce an
anecdote which will illustrate the nature of caucuses, and
show that our popular Government may, in the hands of a
faction, be as completely abused as the French Constitution
has been, by the self-created Consuls:

"In the summer session of 1798, when Federal thunder and
violence were belched from the pestiferous lungs of more
than one despotic minion, a caucus was held at the house of
Mr. Bingham, in this city. It was composed of members of
the Senate, and there were present seventeen members. The
Senate consisting of thirty-two members, this number was of
course a majority, and the session was a full one.

"Prior to deliberation on the measures of war, navy, army,
democratic proscription, &c., it was proposed, and agreed
to, that all the members present should solemnly pledge
themselves to act firmly upon the measures to be agreed
upon by the majority of the persons present at the caucus.

"The measures were perfectly in the high tone of that
extraordinary session. But upon a division of the caucus it
was found that they were divided, nine against eight. This
majority, however, held the minority to their engagement,
and the whole seventeen voted in Senate upon all the
measures discussed at the caucus.

"Thus it is seen that a secret self-appointed meeting of
seventeen persons dictated laws to the United States, and
not only that nine of that seventeen had the full command
and power over the consciences and votes of the other
eight, but that nine possessed, by the turpitude of the
eight, actually all the power which the constitution
declares shall be vested in the majority only. In other
words, a minority of nine members of the Senate ruled the
other twenty-three members.

"It is easily conceivable, as in the recent changes in
France, that this spirit of caucusing may be conducted in
progression down to two or three persons; thus three
leading characters may agree to act upon measures approved
by any two of them; these three may add two others, and
they would be a majority of five: and those adding four
others would be a majority of nine; and this nine possess
all the power of a majority of twenty-three!

"Yet such is the way we are treated by those who call
themselves Federalists.

"The following bill is an offspring of this spirit of
faction secretly working; and it will be found to be in
perfect accord with the outrageous proceedings of the same
party in our State Legislature, who are bent on depriving
this State of its share in an election that may involve the
fate of the country and posterity."

_Resolved_, That the said publication contains assertions
and pretended information, respecting the Senate, and the
Committee of the Senate and their proceedings, which are
false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious, tending to
defame the Senate of the United States, and to bring them
into contempt and disrepute, and to excite against them the
hatred of the good people of the United States: and that
the said publication is a high breach of the privileges of
this House.

_Resolved_, That William Duane, now residing in the city of
Philadelphia, the editor of the said newspaper called the
General Advertiser, or Aurora, be, and he is hereby,
ordered to attend at the bar of this House on Monday, the
24th day of March, inst., at 12 o'clock, at which time he
will have opportunity to make any proper defence for his
conduct, in publishing the aforesaid false, defamatory,
scandalous, and malicious, assertions and pretended
information; and the Senate will then proceed to take
further order on the subject: and a copy of this and the
foregoing resolution, under the authentication of the
Secretary of the Senate of the United States, and attested
as a true copy by James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms for the
said Senate, and left by the said Sergeant-at-Arms with the
said William Duane, or at the office of the Aurora, on or
before the twenty-second day of March, instant, shall be
deemed sufficient notice for the said Duane to attend in
obedience to this resolution.

SATURDAY, March 22.

Mr. DAYTON, from the Committee of Privileges, to whom it was referred to prepare and lay before the Senate a form of proceedings in the case of William Duane, reported in part; which report was read, amended, and agreed to, as follows:

When William Duane shall present himself at the bar of the
House, in obedience to the order of the 20th inst., the
President of the Senate is to address him as follows:

1st. William Duane:

You stand charged by the Senate of the United States, as
editor of the newspaper called the General Advertiser, or
Aurora, of having published in the same, on the 19th of
February, now last past, false, scandalous, defamatory, and
malicious assertions, and pretended information, respecting
the said Senate and Committee of the Senate, and their
proceedings, tending to defame the Senate of the United
States, and to bring them into contempt and disrepute, and
to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the
United States; and therein to have been guilty of a high
breach of the privileges of this House.

Then the Secretary shall read the resolutions of the
Senate, passed the 20th instant, with the preamble; after
which the President is to proceed as follows, viz:

1st. Have you any thing to say in excuse or extenuation for
said publication?

2dly. If he shall make no answer, the Sergeant-at-Arms
shall take him into custody, and retire with him from the
Senate Chamber until the Senate shall be ready for a
decision, at which time the Sergeant-at-Arms shall again
set him at the bar of the House, and the President of the
Senate is to pronounce to him the decision.

3dly. If he shall answer, he is to continue at the bar of
the House until the testimony (if any be adduced) shall be
closed, and he shall retire while the Senate are
deliberating on the case; and when a decision is agreed
upon, the said Duane, being notified of the time by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, verbally, or by a written notice left at
his office, shall appear at the bar of the House, and the
President of the Senate is to pronounce to him the
decision.

MONDAY, March 24.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter, signed William Duane, requesting to be heard by counsel, and have process awarded to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, on the summons served on him the 22d inst., for a high breach of the privileges of the Senate; which letter was read.

A motion was made that William Duane be permitted to be heard by counsel, agreeably to his request; and, after debate, the said William Duane appeared at the bar of the House, agreeably to the summons of the 22d instant; a return thereon having been made in the words following:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, _March 21, 1800_.

Then I, the subscriber, Sergeant-at-Arms for the Senate of
the United States, left a true and attested copy of the
within at the office of the Aurora.

JAMES MATHERS.

And the charge against the said William Duane having been read, he repeated his request to be heard by counsel.

On which he was ordered to withdraw, and a motion was made as follows:

_Resolved_, That, William Duane be permitted to be heard by
counsel, he having appeared, agreeably to the order of the
Senate, and requested that he might be heard by counsel.

On which a motion was made to strike out all the motion subsequent to the word "Duane," and insert:

Having appeared at the bar of the Senate and requested to
be heard by counsel, on the charge against him for a breach
of privileges of the Senate, he be allowed the assistance
of counsel while personally attending at the bar of the
Senate; who may be heard in denial of any facts charged
against said Duane, or in excuse and extenuation of his
offence.

And it was agreed to divide the motion, and that the question be taken on striking out; which passed in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore,
Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

A motion was made to amend the amendment by striking out these words "he be allowed the assistance of counsel while personally attending the bar of the Senate; who may be heard in denial of any facts charged against said Duane, or in excuse and extenuation of his offence;" and to insert "he be permitted to have assistance of counsel for his defence;" and it was agreed to divide the motion, and that the question should be taken on striking out, which passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 18, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, and Nicholas.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore,
Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

And, on the question to agree to the original amendment, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 21, nays 8, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bingham, Bloodworth, Chipman,
Dayton, Dexter, Foster, Franklin, Goodhue, Greene,
Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine,
Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Cocke, Langdon, Marshall,
Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

And the question being taken on the motion as amended, it was