Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-05-08
DEBATE
S 4 MU Ell Gil Il S e.
IEonsiuued. }

all
GERS in order 20 find whether presumptsons
AGAINST their character will afford ground for
Impeachment, was not expressly denied,
vet the manner IN which the opposition
to the present resolution was conducted
was equal to denying the right. He
trusted, however that the House would
support this right, as it was one ofthe most
important of any with which they were vest
ed. Itgrew outsof the power of impeach-
nent, and it was necessary for the exercise
of that power, and was justified ny prece-
dents. BY the rules of the House, any
member has right to have the doors shut
in order to move any resolution he thinks
proper. This has been usual in cases Of
impeachment in Britain, from which we de-
rive the form ofimpeachment. There it
has been common to shat the doors and for
membereo move for an impeachment of
apublic officer, and to procure the officer
impeaehed to be taken into custody before
there was time or opportunity to take any O.
Their testimony than the information stated
by the mea,ber who moved the resolution,
probably supported by public fame. TAX
ing the party into custody was necessary
to the circumstances of that country, and
the extent of punishment which might not
only affect the liberty and property, but
even the life Of the party found guilty. /:
was necessary because of the influence of
the powerful nobility, who might have it
in their power to stand in their defence, but
as all the penalties in the power of this so.
yernment to inAict by Impeachment only
affect the official trust and character, taking
into custody is unnecessary.
He observed, that the arguments in op-
position to the resolution turned chiefly
on the ground of expedieney and ofprese-
dent.
In his opinion it appeared not only expe-
dent but necessary, from the notoriety Of
facts on which the resolution was founded
that they were publicly known and had
impaired confidence in these Judges, could
notbe denied. That it was known to Con-
gress during the last session was acknow-
lodged. 1t was not only known but Con
gress acted on it. a bill was in progress
before this House appointing the attendance
of Judges to particular districts--the men,
bers of two respectable states in which,
by the bill Judge Chase was appointed to
attend, objected unanimously to that APP
pointment because they hadnot confidence
in him; & the facts On which the resolution
is founded were stated on the floor, upon
which the House altered the bill and ap-
pointed another Judge to That district.
This was strong testimony that Congress
believed that this open expression OF want
of confidence in that gentleman was justih-
ed by the facts that had been stated,
lie said, that though he had not at that
time seat in the House, he had expected
an enquiry to be made into the causes Of
this want of confidence at that time; per-
haps it was prevented by the shortness OF
the session.
1t is expedient for the character Of the
gentlemen and for the public good for the
gentlemen themselves, if they are innocent
or have acted en- iusti6able ground, it is
necessary that their characters NAV be vim
dictated, and confidence in their public con-
duct~restored; it is expcJent for the pub
lie good, because If the Judges are guilty
in the manner stated; if they have justly
lost the confidence of the people and Of
Congress, asst appears by the transactions
of last session, one of them has done, the
case ought to be examined and the citizens
protected, for if he was unfit for to preside
on the bench for one district, he is unfit to
preside in another it is expedient, in or
der to secure the confidence OF the citizens
In the government itself.
But precedents are called for by the gen
,leman opposed to the resolution, aud Sc
veral Of :hem contend that such special