Chapter M: X. again called upon us. He said M. Talleyrand was (6)

The Secretary of State has prepared, as directed, and now
respectfully submits to the President of the United States,
copies of the papers which probably were contemplated by
the House of Representatives, in their resolve of the 4th
instant; although no requisition, as the resolve supposes,
has ever been received, nor any communication made to the
Judge of the District Court of South Carolina, concerning
any man by the name of Jonathan Robbins. But by the
proceedings before that Judge, as they have been published,
it appears that a seaman named Thomas Nash, the subject of
the British Minister's requisition, did assume the name of
Jonathan Robbins, and make oath "that he was a native of
the State of Connecticut, and born in Danbury, in that
State." The Secretary, therefore, besides the copy of the
requisition, and the copies of his letter to the Judge of
the District Court of South Carolina, and of the Judge's
answer, has prepared, and herewith encloses, copies of the
certificates of the selectmen and town clerk of Danbury,
and extracts of letters from Admiral Sir Hyde Parker,
satisfactorily proving that the Thomas Nash, calling
himself Jonathan Robbins, who, on the requisition of the
British Minister, was delivered by the Judge aforesaid,
with the assent of the President of the United States, was
not an American citizen, but a native Irishman, who to his
other crimes added _perjury_, in the hope, thereby, to
escape the punishment due to _piracy_ and _murder_. The
original certificates of the selectmen and townclerk of
Danbury are in the Secretary's possession; and he has
compared the extract of Admiral Parker's letter to Mr.
Liston with the original, and the extract of the Admiral's
letter to the British Consul at Charleston, with the
passage as recited in the Consul's original letter to Mr.
Liston.

All which is respectfully submitted.

TIMOTHY PICKERING.

Copy of a note from Robert Liston, Esq., Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic
Majesty, to Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State of the
United States.

PHILADELPHIA, _May 23, 1799_.

R. Liston presents his respects to Col. Pickering,
Secretary of State. A seaman of the name of Thomas Nash
having been committed to jail in Charleston, South
Carolina, at the instance of His Majesty's Consul there, on
suspicion of his having been an accomplice in the piracy
and murder committed on board His Majesty's ship Hermione,
and information of the circumstance having been transmitted
to Vice Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, a cutter was despatched to
Charleston, with an officer on board to whom the man was
well known, in order that his person might be identified,
and that he should be carried to the West Indies for trial.
But on the application of the Consul for the restoration of
Nash, in conformity to the treaty of 1794, Judge Bee and
the Federal Attorney were of opinion that he could not with
propriety be delivered up, without a previous requisition
on my part made to the Executive Government of the United
States. May I therefore request, sir, that you will be
pleased to lay this matter before the President, and
procure his orders that the said Thomas Nash be delivered
up to justice.

Letter from the Secretary of State to Judge Bee.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Philadelphia, June 3, 1799_.

SIR: Mr. Liston, the Minister of His Britannic Majesty has
requested, that Thomas Nash, who was a seaman on board the
British frigate Hermione, and who, he is informed, is now a
prisoner in the jail of Charleston, should be delivered up.
I have stated the matter to the President of the United
States. He considers an offence committed on board a public
ship of war, on the high seas, to have been committed
within the jurisdiction of the nation to whom the ship
belongs. Nash is charged, it is understood, with _piracy_
and _murder_, committed by him on board the above mentioned
British frigate, on the high seas, and consequently within
the jurisdiction of His Britannic Majesty; and therefore,
by the 27th article of the Treaty of Amity with Great
Britain, Nash ought to be delivered up, as requested by the
British Minister, provided such evidence of his criminality
be produced as, by the laws of the United States or of
South Carolina, would justify his apprehension and
commitment for trial, if the offence had been committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States. The President
has in consequence thereof authorized me to communicate to
you "his advice and request" that Thomas Nash may be
delivered up to the Consul or other agent of Great Britain,
who shall appear to receive him. I have the honor to be,
&c.

TIMOTHY PICKERING.

Hon. THOMAS BEE,

_Judge of the District of South Carolina_.

Letter from Thomas Bee, Esq., to the Secretary of State, dated Charleston, South Carolina, July 1st, 1799.

In compliance with the request of the President of the
United States as stated in your favor of the 3d. ult., I
gave notice to the British Consul that at the sitting of
the district court on this day I should order Thomas Nash,
the prisoner charged with having committed murder and
piracy on board the British frigate Hermione, on such
strong evidence of his criminality as justified his
apprehension and commitment for trial, to be brought before
me on habeas corpus, in order to his being delivered over
agreeably to the 27th article of the Treaty of Amity with
Great Britain. The Consul attended in court and requested
that the prisoner should remain in jail until he had a
convenient opportunity of sending him away. I have
therefore directed that he remain in prison, until the
Consul shall find it convenient to remove him. I have the
honor to be, with great respect, your most obedient
servant,

THOMAS BEE,
_District Judge of South Carolina_.
Hon. T. PICKERING, _Secretary of State_.

* * * * *

DANBURY, _Sept. 16, 1799_.

We, the subscribers, selectmen of the town of Danbury, in
the State of Connecticut, certify that we have always been
the inhabitants of said town, and are from forty-five to
fifty-seven years of age, and have never known an
inhabitant of this town by the name of Jonathan or Nathan
Robbins, and that there has not been, nor now is any family
known by the name of Robbins within the limits of said
town.

Certified, per

ELI MYGOT.
EBEN BENEDICT.
JUSTUS BARNUM.
BEN. HICHCOK.

* * * * *

DANBURY, _Sept 10, 1799_.

The subscriber, late town clerk for the town of Danbury, in
the State of Connecticut, certifies that he kept the town
records twenty-five years, viz: from the year 1771 until
the year 1796; that he is now fifty-six years of age, and
that he never knew any person by the name of Robbins, born
or residing in the said town of Danbury, during that term
of twenty-five years, before or since.

MAJOR TAYLOR.

* * * * *

Extract of a letter from Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, to Robert
Liston, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty to the United
States, dated

PORT ROYAL HARBOR,
"_Jamaica, Sept. 9, 1799_.

"I have had the honor of receiving duplicates of your
Excellency's letters, numbered 10, 11, 12, and, in answer
thereto, acquaint you that in consequence of Nash, one of
the ringleaders in the mutiny, murders, &c., on board the
Hermione, being delivered up by the United States to me, he
has been tried at a court martial, and sentenced to suffer
death, and afterwards hung in chains, which sentence has
been put into execution. He acknowledged himself to be an
Irishman."

* * * * *

Extract of a letter from Benjamin Moodie, Esq., Consul of
his Britannic Majesty at Charleston, South Carolina, to
Robert Liston, Esq., Envoy of his said Majesty to the
United States, dated

NOVEMBER 19, 1799.

In consequence of many obstacles I had to encounter in
obtaining the delivery of Thomas Nash, late of His
Majesty's ship Hermione, and of the numerous publications
to the northward and in this place, I wrote to Admiral Sir
Hyde Parker, requesting he would be good enough to send me
minutes of the court martial, to which he answered under
date 13th September: "I am to acquaint you that Nash has
been executed agreeably to a court martial, and that he
confessed himself to be an Irishman; and it further
appears, by the Hermione's books, that he was born at
Waterford; on the 21st December, 1792, entered a volunteer
on board the Dover, received £3 bounty money, and was
removed to the Hermione, 28th of January, 1793. And with
respect to transmitting the minutes of his trial, that is
not in my power, but rests with the Lords of the Admiralty
only."

MONDAY, February 10.

_Amy Dardin's Claim for the Horse Romulus._

The petition of Amy Dardin was called up, and after some opposition, on account of a former reference and decision, was referred to the Committee of Claims.

THURSDAY, February 13.

_Military Interference in Elections._

Mr. LEIB called up for consideration the following resolution, which he laid on the table on the 4th instant, viz:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to _bring in a
bill making_ provision for the removal of the regular
troops of the United States which may be stationed where an
election is held, and that such removal shall take place at
least two days previous to such election, and to a distance
not less than two miles.

Mr. OTIS moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words in _italic_, in the second line, and inserting "inquire into the expediency of."

A long debate ensued on this motion, in which it was conceded, on all sides, that the resolution was too definite, and left nothing in the power of the committee to act on, except merely bringing in a bill conformable to it. If excesses had been committed by the military at elections, and they were guilty of improper interference, it seemed to be the wish of every member that some provision should be made to guard against them in future; but they were unwilling to say what that provision should be, until an inquiry were made into the facts stated. The removal of the troops to the distance mentioned, was also particularly objected to, as it might leave fortifications, arsenals, and military stores, for two or three days, entirely unprotected.

Mr. LEIB at length withdrew his original proposition, and submitted the following, which was adopted without objection, viz:

"_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
report a bill, containing such legislative provisions as
may be judged expedient, either for removing any military
force of the United States, from any place of holding
elections, or for preventing their interference in such
elections."

Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. LEIB and Mr. OTIS, were appointed the committee.

_Amendment to the Constitution._

Mr. LIVINGSTON laid the following joint resolution on the table:

_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled_, That the
following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the
several States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of
said Legislatures, shall be valid as a part of the said
constitution, viz:

No Judge of any Court of the United States shall, during
his continuance in office, or within six months after he
may have resigned the same, be appointed to any other than
a judiciary office, under the United States.

MONDAY, February 17.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he had expected that some order would have been taken on the Message of the President, before this time, by the gentleman who called for it; but as he had been disappointed, he would now give notice to the honorable member from New York that he would call for some order upon the Message to-morrow.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, the gentleman had momentarily anticipated him; he meant to have moved for a reference to a Committee of the whole House this morning, with an intention to introduce certain resolutions, and he would now make that motion.

The question on commitment was put and carried--yeas 50, nays 43; and was made the order of the day for Friday.

Mr. BAYARD then laid the following resolution on the table, which was read and referred to the above committee, viz:

_Resolved_, That the conduct of the Executive Government of
the United States, in relation to the requisition made by
his Britannic Majesty's Minister, of the delivery up to
justice of Thomas Nash, otherwise called Jonathan Robbins,
upon the charge of murder, committed on board of the
Hermione British frigate, which said Nash had sought an
asylum within the United States, was conformable to the
duty of the Government, and to the obligations of good
faith stipulated in the 27th article of the Treaty of
Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, made with Great Britain.

THURSDAY, February 20.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. LIVINGSTON proposed the following resolutions:

"_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that a person,
calling himself Jonathan Robbins, and claiming to be a
citizen of the United States, impressed on board a British
ship-of-war, was committed for trial in one of the courts
of the United States for the alleged crime of piracy and
murder, committed on the high seas, on board the British
frigate Hermione: That a requisition being, subsequent to
such commitment, made by the British Minister to the
Executive of the United States, for the delivery of the
said person (under the name of Thomas Nash) as a fugitive,
under the 27th article of the Treaty with Great Britain,
the President of the United States did, by a letter written
from the Department of State to the Judge who committed the
said person for trial, officially declare his opinion to
the said Judge that he 'considered an offence committed on
board a public ship of war on the high seas to have been
committed within the jurisdiction of the nation to whom the
ship belongs;' and, in consequence of such opinion and
instruction, did advise and request the said Judge to
deliver up the person so claimed to the agent of Great
Britain, who should appear to receive him, provided only
that the stipulated evidence of his criminality should be
produced. That in compliance with such advice and request
of the President of the United States, the said person so
committed for trial was, by the Judge of the District of
South Carolina, without any presentment or trial by jury,
or any investigation of his claim to be a citizen of the
United States, delivered up to an officer of his Britannic
Majesty, and afterwards tried by a court martial, and
executed on a charge of mutiny and murder.

"_Resolved_, That inasmuch as the Constitution of the
United States declares that the Judiciary Power shall
extend to all questions arising under the Constitution,
laws, and treaties, of the United States, and to all cases
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction: and, also, that the
trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) shall
be by jury; and that such trial shall be held in the State
where such crime shall have been committed; but when not
committed within any State, then at such place or places as
Congress may by law have directed; and inasmuch as it is
directed by law that the offence of murder committed on the
high seas shall be deemed to be piracy and murder, and that
'all crimes committed on the high seas, or in any place out
of the jurisdiction of any particular State, shall be tried
in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into
which he may be first brought:' therefore the several
questions, whether the alleged crime of piracy and murder
was committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great
Britain; whether it comes within the purview of the said
twenty-seventh article; and whether a person stating that
he was an American citizen, and had committed the act of
which he was accused in attempting to regain his liberty
from illegal imprisonment, ought to be delivered up,
without any investigation of his claims to citizenship, or
inquiry into the facts alleged in his defence, are all
matters exclusively of judicial inquiry as arising from
treaties, laws, constitutional provisions, and cases of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

"_Resolved_, That the decision of those questions by the
President of the United States, against the jurisdiction of
the courts of the United States, in a case where those
courts had already assumed and exercised jurisdiction: and
his advice and request to the Judge of the district court
that the person thus charged should be delivered up,
provided only such evidence of his criminality should be
produced as would justify his apprehension and commitment
for trial, are a dangerous interference of the Executive
with Judicial decisions; and that the compliance with such
advice and request on the part of the Judge of the District
Court of South Carolina, is a sacrifice of the
Constitutional independence of the Judicial power, and
exposes the administration thereof to suspicion and
reproach."

The question of reference to the Committee of the Whole was taken and carried--yeas 55.

The House then adjourned.

FRIDAY, February 21.

_Eulogium on the Character of Washington._

A message was received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate had this day come to the following resolution, viz:

"_Resolved_, That the Senate will to-morrow, at half past
12 o'clock, meet in the Senate Chamber, and from thence
walk in procession to the church in Race street, to hear
the eulogium to be pronounced on the character of General
Washington."

Ordered to lie on the table.

The SPEAKER said he was requested, by a member of the Catholic church, to inform the House that seats were provided for the accommodation of such members as would please to attend to hear the delivery of the oration to-morrow.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, before the receipt of the message from the Senate, he had intended to move that when the House adjourn they do adjourn till Monday; but the Senate having informed the House that they intended to walk in procession, he conceived this House ought to come to a similar resolution, and moved the following:

"_Resolved_, That the House of Representatives will meet
to-morrow, at half-past 12 o'clock, at their Chamber, and
from thence walk in procession to the church in Race
street, to hear the eulogium there to be pronounced on the
character of General Washington."

It was objected to this resolution, that it had not been contemplated this House would walk in procession, no arrangement having been made for that purpose; and that as it might be the wish of several members to attend the oration at the Catholic Church in preference to the one in Race street, it ought to be left to their own option.

The question on the resolution was put and negatived--yeas 40, nays 43.

MONDAY, February 24.

_Western Lands._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report made the 18th instant, by the committee appointed to inquire whether any, and, if any, what, alterations are necessary in the laws providing for the sale of the lands of the United States north-west of the Ohio; and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported several resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That all the townships directed to be sold, either in quarter townships or in tracts of one mile square, by the act "providing for the sale of the lands of the United States, in the Territory north-west of the river Ohio, and above the mouth of Kentucky River," shall be subdivided into half sections, containing, as nearly as may be, three hundred and twenty acres each: the additional expense of surveying to be paid by the purchaser, at the rate of three dollars per tract.

_Resolved_, That all the said lands shall be offered for sale at public sale, in tracts of three hundred and twenty acres as above directed: _Provided_, That the same shall not be sold under the price of two dollars per acre, and that the sale shall be at the following places, to wit:

All the lands contained in the seven first ranges of townships, and north of the same, shall be offered for sale at Pittsburg.

All the lands contained in the eight next ranges of townships, shall be offered for sale at Marietta.

All the lands lying west of the fifteen first ranges of townships, and east of the Sciota River, shall be offered for sale at Chillicothe.

All the lands lying below the Great Miami shall be offered for sale at Cincinnati.

_Resolved_, That one or more land offices shall be opened in the North-western Territory, and that every person be permitted to locate and purchase, at the rate of two dollars per acre, one or more of the half sections that shall not have been sold at public sale.

_Resolved_, That the payments for lands purchased either at public or private sale, may be made as heretofore in public securities, and shall be made in the following manner, and under the following conditions, viz:

1st. At the time of purchase, every purchaser shall deposit one-twentieth part of the amount of purchase-money; to be forfeited, if, within three months, one-fourth of the purchase-money, including the said twentieth part, is not paid.

2d. One-fourth of the purchase-money to be paid as aforesaid, within three months, and the other three-fourths in three equal payments, within two, three, and four years, respectively, after the date of the purchase.

3d. No interest to be charged in case of punctual payment; but interest at the rate of six per cent. a year, to be charged from the date of purchase, on any part of the purchase-money which shall not have been paid at the time, respectively, when the same shall have become due.

4th. A discount at the rate of eight per cent. a year, to be allowed on any of the three last payments, which shall be paid before the same shall have become due.

5th. If any tract shall not be completely paid for within one year after the date of the last payment, the tract to be sold in such manner as shall be provided by law; and after paying the balance due to the United States, including interest, the surplus, if any, to be returned to the original purchaser.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said resolutions; and that Mr. HARRISON, Mr. BRACE, Mr. GORDON, Mr. DAVIS, Mr. LYMAN, and Mr. GALLATIN, do prepare and bring in the same.

TUESDAY, February 25.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Message of the PRESIDENT respecting Jonathan Robbins, a short debate took place whether the committee should take up the business of the resolution first proposed by Mr. BAYARD, or those subsequently offered by Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. BAYARD seemed inclined to withdraw his motion, but the committee seeming of opinion that both resolutions were within their jurisdiction, and that they might proceed on either, the question was taken whether the committee would proceed on the resolutions of Mr. LIVINGSTON and carried in the affirmative.[49] Messrs. BAYARD, RUTLEDGE, OTIS, &c., voting in favor of the question, and Messrs. LIVINGSTON, NICHOLAS, &c., against it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON then entered upon an argument in support of the resolutions which he had some days before submitted to the House, and which now were taken up. Soon after he began the discussion, he was proceeding to read a deposition of Jonathan Robbins, and certificates accompanying the same, to prove himself a citizen of the United States, in which the deponent swore, before the court of South Carolina, that he was born at Danbury in the State of Connecticut, and that he was impressed from on board the American brig Betsey, by the crew of the British frigate, about two years before, where he was detained contrary to his will until the mutiny occurred.

Mr. BAYARD opposed the reference to a fact so incompetently authenticated as the report of a case upon newspaper testimony, especially when, if it had been the desire of the gentleman to have introduced it as evidence, it was extremely easy to have procured the record of the court before he proceeded on his allegations. If such evidence as this was to be admitted, other and perhaps more important evidence might next be introduced to impose on the committee. Besides, it certainly must be looked upon as _ex parte_ evidence, which it was impossible to repel. Mr. B. submitted to the Chair whether it would be in order to admit any fresh evidence to support the resolutions, when all the documents which had been asked for, and which had come to the knowledge of the Executive, had been submitted to the House.

Mr. GALLATIN, on the question of order, contended for the admission: this document, he said, was referred to as authentic, in his letter. He says, "That, by the proceedings before that judge, (Bee,) as they have been published, it appears that a seaman named Thomas Nash did assume the name of Jonathan Robbins, and make oath that he was a native of the State of Connecticut," &c. Certainly it cannot be deemed improper to refer to the identical document there mentioned. If it was proper for the Secretary of State to make the allusion, the House could take it up under the same idea. He did not think it was introduced as evidence before the committee.

Mr. DANA said he was very sorry the gentleman had been interrupted; he could not think of admitting it as evidence, but the gentleman might read it as part of his speech, which perhaps might otherwise have a chasm in it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he did wish to read this paper as part of his speech; and he believed it a very material part, because it was a justification of a point which he wished to establish; he wished to show the committee that Jonathan Robbins claimed to be an American citizen, and that he said he was impressed. This he swore to in court; and that he did so, he hoped would be admitted. He said he only introduced it with this view. Surely he could not be so far mistaken in his law knowledge as to be thought to have said that the culprit could be evidence in his own behalf. If _he did say_ he was a citizen, then the matter, upon examination, must appear more serious than gentlemen would be willing to think.

Mr. BAYARD had no doubt but it was the gentleman's intention to impress the force of the facts contained in that paper upon the minds of that committee; and to suppose it would have no impression would be absurd. It would afterwards be said that this man was admitted to be an impressed American citizen, and that he was praiseworthy in committing what would then be called the homicide. The decision of the committee would be much affected, he said, by the kind of evidence which was adduced. If this was admitted, it would be impossible to ascertain the extent of the principle. Other depositions may be produced--indeed, he had no doubt but the gentleman could get proof to any point which he might think it material to ascertain. In saying this, he did not mean to insinuate that any improper steps would be taken by that gentleman, but there were volunteers enough to be found who would step forward in order to answer a party purpose, and make oath of any thing.

Mr. LIVINGSTON supposed he should increase the astonishment of gentlemen still more when he declared that he did not believe a word of the affidavit; but he believed Nash was an Irishman, and that he entered on board and committed all the crimes charged to him. It was clear that this affidavit could not be evidence. In admitting this, he believed he did not surrender one point of the resolutions; he should prove that all which he wished to ascertain was that such _claim_ was made to the court.

Mr. BAYARD asked where could be the necessity of proving a fact which every member of the House was willing to admit. All acknowledged that Nash _claimed_ to be an American citizen; but perhaps the wish of the gentleman was to have additional light on this subject, on which account he introduced the deposition. But, Mr. B. said, he was willing only to proceed upon what the House knew from the documents before them, and not take a step on precarious ground. It must be well known what the gentleman wanted to get this admission for; he no doubt wished to prove that, upon his own mere suggestion, he was an American citizen, and that he was impressed--he was entitled to a trial by jury in this country, and on that account the act of sending him away was unconstitutional. This would lead to an extensive field of argument. If there was any necessity for more evidence, or to call witnesses to the bar of the House, let proper measures be taken to procure them, but let them not come forward in any other way.

Mr. DANA read the resolution first offered to the House for a call for papers relative to Jonathan Robbins; this was answered, he said, by the Secretary of State, that no requisition or proceedings had been had in that name; but he presumed allusion was made to the case of Thomas Nash, concerning whom proceedings were had in the District Court of South Carolina; in that way, and that only, the Secretary made reference to the printed report. In this blundering way, Mr. D. said, the business was begun. [He was called to order.] In addition to this, he said, the proceedings of gentlemen were erroneous; but, notwithstanding that, Mr. D. said, he would gratify the feelings of the gentleman, as far as his vote would go, for him to read it, but only as part of his speech. No doubt he wished to support some point of his argument by it, and in that view he had a right to read it; but that it was evidence, he denied.

The CHAIRMAN having stated his reasons, concluded with an opinion that the member could not proceed to read the affidavit.

Mr. GALLATIN appealed to the committee from the decision of the Chair; when there appeared 39 in favor of the decision, and 48 against it.

At this point the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.

WEDNESDAY, February 26.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. DAVIS moved that the Committee of the whole House be discharged from the further consideration of the resolutions proposed by Mr. LIVINGSTON and Mr. BAYARD, on the affair of Jonathan Robbins. The small progress, Mr. D. said, which was made yesterday in the discussion, fully convinced his mind that nothing at all would be done in it; besides, were he convinced that the subject would be impartially conducted, he did not know of any possible good that could arise from the adoption of the resolutions. If there had been any error in the proceedings of the Executive, he conceived that error would correct itself. If there was an improper interference, he was certain it could not have arisen from improper motives, and therefore he sincerely hoped he should not be called upon to give an opinion on the subject. Nor, on the other hand, was he at all prepared to compliment the Executive, or any officer of the Government, for having done what he thought to be right. If he had done right, it was his duty. He did not think it of any great importance; but, most assuredly, if the argument was extended, it would be made a case of much importance. It was better, however, to let the case of Jonathan Robbins sleep in the Committee of the Whole, where it then was. He was not prepared to criminate, nor was he prepared to applaud.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, that no gentleman had a higher respect for the motives of the gentleman from Kentucky than himself; but, however disagreeable it might be, he must differ from him in his present opinion. He really hoped the gentleman would reconsider the motion he had made, and not stop the gentleman from New York in this early stage of the business. If there were any defects in the papers, and their authenticity was questionable, it must not arise from the gentleman from New York, but from those whose duty it was to furnish all the facts relative to the subject. He was obliged to read a printed paper, because those with whom the authoritative copies are, have not thought proper to furnish the House with them. He hoped, if a stop was put to the proceedings, it would not be to discharge the committee, but to call for authentic copies of all the papers within the reach of the Government. It must be acknowledged that the man whose case the House are considering did put in his claims to citizenship, and to the protection of his country on that account. If that acknowledgment is refused on account of the paper which has been produced being a newspaper, reference must be made to what is within the reach of the House--more authentic papers.

Mr. H. LEE considered the motion would have the complete effect any gentleman could wish whose desire it was to reprobate the conduct of the Administration of our Government. How could the motion be necessary--how be useful? If they were to ask more evidence, said Mr. L., I would vote for it to be produced; they have brought the subject before the House--let us see it in the purest colors which it can be placed in. We are ready to meet them here; we are willing they should have every evidence that can be obtained to elucidate their charge; but let not the Executive be hung up to reproach without a trial; let not suspicion be encouraged, which must have all the effects of a substantiated charge. I wish them to go on with the discussion, that all the truth may be disclosed, and every fair light be given which the case will bear; for now the people of the United States have their eyes fixed upon our proceedings on this important question.

Mr. MACON was in favor of the motion. If the Committee of the Whole was not to be discharged, he hoped at least the subject would be postponed till the public business of the session was over; there were many public bills, he said, that must be passed. The House was called upon to judge with almost no testimony, and yet upon this uncertain ground, perhaps a whole week might be spent of the most precious time of the House; for if the House was to rise at the time proposed, the loss of this time would certainly be felt.

As to the impression it would leave on the minds of the people, they had as many facts to judge from as the House, and they certainly would form an opinion, whether the House did so, or not. Gentlemen were very much mistaken, he said, if they undertook to lead the people; they would think, and they would show what their judgment was when a proper time came for that purpose. The time the people would take to show their approbation or disapprobation of the measures of the Administration was at elections, and then they would do it.

Mr. DANA was against the postponement of the subject, or the rising of the committee. It was to be recollected that the business had assumed its present shape only in consequence of the zeal of the gentleman from New York, and his coadjutors, to censure the Executive. On the 7th of February, it was committed to the whole House; contrary to the opinion of a number of gentlemen, who wished the facts investigated by a select committee; thirteen days then elapsed before he had prepared his resolutions--resolutions not calculated to make an inquiry into the conduct of the Executive, but expressive of the most pungent censure upon his conduct. These resolutions were produced upon the papers which, at the desire of those gentlemen, were submitted to the House. The only question then, is, Do the papers upon which those resolutions are predicated warrant the censure contained in them, or not?--It certainly would be a high reproach to the very idea of a public inquisition to admit more evidence upon those grounds. Still, however, let gentlemen go on in their heterogeneous proceedings, the House would have the wisdom justly to appreciate the various attempts made to clear themselves of a predicament in which their over-arduous attempts to censure had thrown them.

Mr. LIVINGSTON conceived it his duty to answer the observations of the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) as to the resolutions being founded upon the facts then before the House. He did not think the facts were precisely sufficient to warrant every idea contained in the resolutions. When the original call for papers was agreed to by the House, he had hoped that something more authentic than newspaper testimony would have been referred to by the Executive; and upon that he was now compelled to act, if at all. The gentleman has said that my zeal and that of my coadjutors, to censure the Executive, has brought us into this situation. Who, sir, I would ask the gentleman, are my coadjutors? That gentleman himself was my coadjutor, and every gentleman in the House, because the resolution was adopted. The House directed the inquiry, and every gentleman must therefore take the burden, in part, with me.

Mr. CRAIK said, that very early in this business he thought the House were entering into it very improperly, either having nothing at all to do with it, or else taking wrong measures, if they had; he thought then, and was yet of opinion, that if the object was to impeach the President, measures ought to have been taken accordingly. He never did look upon the House of Representatives as having either the power to censure or to approbate the conduct of the Executive, and, therefore, he equally disapproved of the resolutions of the gentlemen from New York and Delaware; and, upon that ground, he felt strongly inclined to vote with the gentleman from Kentucky for giving the whole subject the go by, and getting clear of it by any possible means.

Mr. HARPER agreed with the gentleman, that it would be folly for the House to spend time in useless discussion, which could lead to no decision; but, viewing this resolution as he did, he must conclude it of more importance; he thought it the direct road to an impeachment of the President of the United States, and, if so, surely it must appear important. The resolution declared, in express terms, that the Executive had exercised unconstitutional powers--one of the most dangerous crimes that he could commit. If he had so exercised his power, the inevitable consequence must be, that the President of the United States must be impeached by this House. Then, how could any gentleman say this was a trifling question, and one with which the House had nothing at all to do? Certainly no question can be more important.

Mr. RUTLEDGE regretted that he could not join with his friend from Maryland, (Mr. CRAIK,) in thinking this consideration useless; he believed the attention of the people had been called to view this subject, and they were anxiously looking for a decision in some way. Neither did he think, with his honorable friend, that the House had nothing to do with it, because no impeachment could grow out of it. It was impossible to say what the gentleman meditated in his resolutions, but one thing was certain, if the gentleman has wished to promote an impeachment, he could not have taken a more direct means for it, if the resolutions should be carried.

Mr. KITCHELL thought no good could arise from the investigation of this subject, because he did not know what was to be done in it, let the decision be what it might. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) wished to have an opportunity of showing that every part of the resolution was built on false ground. Every gentleman in the House was not so fond of speaking nor of hearing as was that gentleman, and he hoped, merely on that account, that the House would not spend time on what (in his opinion) could not possibly lead to impeachment. What effect could a discussion have, but to show the world that there were _parties_ in the House, and to raise a rancorous disposition? He did not know what there was in the resolution that could lead to an impeachment, nor did he know what the House, in their censorial capacity, had to do but to impeach. He believed it out of the power of the House to applaud. In short, he did not think they had any thing to do with it.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the discussion would proceed. Although there might not be sufficient ground on which to impeach the Executive, he could not agree that, therefore, no inquiry ought to be made into his conduct; there might be an error in his conduct, and yet no impeachment be necessary to be raised out of it; and, if so, it would be extremely wrong to suffer it to go out to the world without a decision, after the subject had once been taken up by the House. Where there might be no bad intention or wicked design, the action might be of a dangerous tendency, and proper to be inquired into, in order to express an opinion thereupon. Mr. N. said he was well pleased that his opinion, that the motion ought to be negatived, accorded with that of the gentleman from South Carolina, because it would afford him an opportunity of showing what he said he could show.

Mr. BAYARD had no doubt of the competency of the House either to impeach, to censure, or to approbate the conduct of the Executive, and of course both the resolutions were in their power.

Several gentlemen had intimated that the authentic evidence and the whole of the documents were not before the House, and that the Executive Department was to blame for the deficiency. It appeared that the gentleman himself had forgotten the import of his resolution; it called for such documents as might be in possession of the Department of State. Now, what could possibly be in possession of that Department? The President of the United States had his duties to perform, and the judge of the district his duties; each had their separate documents; and, as neither interfered with the other, therefore, it could not be expected to be in the power of the President to furnish the papers belonging to the courts of South Carolina, any further than they came within the joint duties of both. Agreeably to treaty, the British Consul made a requisition for the person; a copy of this, and the several letters and instructions, were sent to the House, but it was not in the power of the Executive to order the judge to furnish him with a record of the proceedings; he was not bound to furnish it if the President had called for it, and no doubt he had furnished the House with every paper in his possession.

Mr. OTIS said, when first the motion was made by the gentleman from Kentucky, he felt for a moment inclined to lean to it; the motives of that gentleman appeared to be so candid and liberal, that, for the moment, Mr. O. confessed, his feelings got the better of his reason. But a short reflection induced him to change an opinion thus hastily formed, and he felt satisfied that to vote with him, would be to display, in the conduct of gentlemen who wished to support the Administration of this country, worse than censure. He joined that gentleman in regret that it had gone so far, but certainly it was a subject of the most irritating nature possible: a charge the most serious; a breach of law by the Executive Magistrate, who is bound to support it and see it carried into effect. It is certainly a charge of much importance, and however disagreeable it might feel to him, Mr. O. said, he must vote that every argument should be used that could possibly tend to substantiate the charge, that nothing of truth might be hidden.

Mr. O. said he did not know to what points the evidence required by the gentleman from New York could apply, except it was to that of his being an American citizen, and of his being impressed. An affidavit was produced to prove these facts, but it would be found from an examination of the documents that nothing relating to those points was in the office of the Department of State; for the date of the affidavit of Robbins is the 25th of July, but the order of the Secretary of State bears date the 5th of June, so that no papers as to his claim can be in the possession of that department. Mr. O. thought the documents before the House contained every thing that was important to the point.

Mr. CRAIK was sorry that gentlemen who advocated this motion should be charged with an opposition to the administration of Government; he believed his conduct had heretofore evinced a different line of conduct. He still denied that the mode taken by the resolution could lead to impeachment. It certainly did contain a very great censure, and one which the House had no authority to inflict.

Mr. GALLATIN considered the motion to be grounded on two ideas; that there was not sufficient foundation for the House to act upon, and therefore that it was necessary to discharge the committee, or postpone the subject for want of further evidence.

It is clear, said Mr. G., that the evidence is not sufficient to impeach the District Judge of South Carolina. If an impeachment of him was the object, it would be impossible to carry it forward without an authoritative copy of the record of the court; but if there was no intention to impeach, he did not think there was any material evidence wanted in order to decide upon the resolution, since it only meant an implication of censure upon the Executive and the District Judge, and not impeachment.

Mr. G. agreed there was at first sight some weight in the sentiment expressed by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. CRAIK,) that the House had only a power to impeach but not to censure; but certainly, when it was considered that an act might be committed without any ill motive, and yet the act be injurious, it could not be the subject of impeachment, but it might be of censure. The same act committed with a criminal motive would be impeachable, which without it would be of a nature not to admit of it.

Again: Mr. G. thought that though the House might have ground whereupon to censure, they ought not, at any time; but they had exercised that power. They had in a number of cases approved of the conduct of the President, and if the act of approbation had been done, they surely had as much power to disapprove and censure.

The question was then taken on the motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration, and negatived--yeas 14, nays 76.

THURSDAY, February 27.

Another member, to wit, JOHN SMITH, from New York, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. DAVIS said, as the House had yesterday thought proper to negative a proposition to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration of the business, and as one great motive for that motion was the incompetency of evidence before the House, and as he knew it was in the power of the House to procure that evidence by a proper application, he hoped gentlemen would now indulge him in the adoption of the following, which he moved, viz:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this
House a copy of the proceedings of the court held in the
district of South Carolina, in the case of Thomas Nash,
calling himself Jonathan Robbins.

Mr. BAYARD said, if he was persuaded, or if the gentleman could convince him that there was any particular evidence in the hands of any officer that would tend to throw such light as to give the least explanation to the case, he certainly would be willing to accord with the resolution; but he believed every necessary fact was before the House, and this had been acknowledged by several gentlemen. If the object was to prove that Nash was an American citizen, and that he was impressed, that could not be necessary as it respected the resolutions of the gentleman from New York, for that gentleman himself had acknowledged that he believed no such thing, but that the whole claim was falsehood. Would the gentleman, then, inform the House what point he wished to ascertain, or in what he expected additional proof? He wished information, farther, who was the "proper officer" to whom reference was expected to be made. There are but two officers at all in view, one is the Secretary of State, the other the District Judge of South Carolina; the gentleman could not suppose that the Judge would be able to transmit the records of that court previous to the adjournment of the House; and if it could be obtained, no evidence to the point could be expected from him. If, on the other hand, it was meant to call on the Secretary of State, it was not to be expected, from the nature of the case, that any more documents were in his hands than those already furnished; he had given copies of the correspondence and requisition, which, it might be fairly inferred, from the nature of his office, was all of which he could be possessed. But if any gentleman doubted this fact, he could apply to the office of the Secretary of State, from whom he could procure whatever was in his possession.

If it was the intention of the House to close this very disagreeable business in the present session, they must negative the resolution and let the discussion go forward. The gentleman who brought forward the resolution ought to have been provided with every document that was necessary to support the charges, before he suffered them to appear. However, he did not think but the gentleman who proposed the resolutions thought his grounds were quite sufficient to support them.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he always believed that the testimony was incomplete, but when he heard a gentleman get up and mention particular testimony which he considered so important that without it he should not know how to vote, whatever, Mr. N. said, might have been his former satisfaction as to the establishment of the points, he certainly must now be inclined to grant gentlemen every point of evidence that they should think necessary, if within the reach of the House.

One particular piece of testimony had been mentioned, viz: that the man had filed an affidavit that he was an American citizen and was impressed on board a British man-of-war. Could any gentleman pretend to say that no inference might be drawn from this source and the concomitant facts? The gentleman from New York, to be sure, had declared his satisfaction with the facts that had been produced to the House, but did the gentleman from Delaware know that this was the case with any other gentleman in the House? That gentleman's conclusions and impressions were not to be taken as the opinions of others, nor were others obliged to be satisfied because he was; and therefore to couple others in a measure to which they were not privy, and to ascribe opinions to them which they had not expressed, was at least unfair.

Mr. DANA thought this a most extraordinary resolution indeed? Was the President of the United States the clerk of the court, to keep the records of it? What had the President to do with the proceedings of that court? It was certainly a total departure from all the forms of judicial proceedings to suppose a thing of the kind. The gentlemen must certainly have mistaken the situation held by the President, or they would never have made such a vast departure from order and propriety of proceeding. The President is not the public accuser; he is not to be called upon for papers with which he has nothing to do. When he found gentlemen outraging every thing that belonged to judicial propriety; when he found them stumbling into error after error, and departing totally from all jurisprudential propriety, Mr. D. said, he could not avoid rising to oppose it.