Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-04-30
DEBATE
(Gaatinued.)

1f. II. I5riSSQld. Srentienen Will aC-
knowledge that this is a subject Of great
importance and delicacy. No oae will
doubs but chat We ought to execute our du-
| ty so as to preserve the Fountains OF Justice
pure, and that we ought at the same time
to treat the important character Of a judge,
or of any other nigh officer, with respect.
| do not know but that this mode of pro-
cedure is warranted by precedent. But if
it Is, its unknown to ne. As the resolu-
ton now stands, donot think it perfecrly
correct. The honorable gentleman from
Virginia says he is acquainted with facts
that warrant the proposed enquiry. the
question is whether the house ought 70 be
governed BY the opinions ofany enc mem
Der. We know not what those facts are !;
the gentleman declines stating them. ] do
think, as the subject now strikes me, that
the conviction of any one member Of the
propfiety of this measure, cannot warrant
the interposltion of the House. Instead of
taking the individual opinion of amember,
it ought to be stated that certain facts exist,
which, if proved, viii justify an impeach-
ment. do not know whether these ideas
are rot incorrect, having never before con-
templated, or had a suspicion that such a
motion would be made.
As to the remarks of the gentleman from
PENNSYLVANIA, / do not. consider them as
entitled TO much weight. If the facts stat
ed by him were OF his personal knowledge,
they woald undoubtedly merit attention.
But he merely states that which he has re-
ceived from others, and which amounts to
nothing more than that the judge refused
liberty to the counselt to argue point flaw
after it was decided, and confined their
argument to facts. In so doing, the Judge
may have erred butitwas an error Of jadg-
ment, tor which he cannot be impeached,
No lawyer will, perhaps, say that il was
not the province OF the judge to decide the
law, and that he has not the right TO pre-
vent counsel from arguing it after his mind
is made up. But this information is not of
the knowledge of the gentleman. Are we
then to institute an enquiry into the con-
duet of high officer of the government
merely on hearsay? This has never been.
done under our government. In the late
case Of Judge Pickering, proof was fur
nished by The ahidavits Of witnesses testify
ing certain facts. / do not therefore con-
slider correct to proceed to enquire or the
opinion OF any gentleman. The proper
course is first TO. have proofs which will JUS
tify ourselves to our own consciences il.
making heenquiry. For wrought MOTTO
touch the character of Judge, unless We
are satisfied from facts that there is good
reasonf for an investigation into his conduct.
Gentlemen will say that making an enqui~
ny into the official conduct of a Judge does.
not touch his character.
Gentlemen say if this committee find
the conduct of the Judge to have been cor.
rect, they viii make report to that effect;
but it does not follow that the report will
contain all the evidence adduced, and sus-
| plcion may. still rest on the character OF the
/ Judge, and that some facts may not bestat-
(, ed, which, if stated would shew his mis-
conduct. Whereas If the business be bro't
| generally before the house, on the exhlbl-
ton Of certain facts, tie public will be ena-
bled to decide whether they warrant I'M
parchment or even suspicion. With this
view. Of the subject, | am Of opinion, that
| It will be best to delay acting in this affair,
until facts shall be disclosed which will JUS
tify the step now proposed to be taken. I
have as high a respect for the opinion of
the gentleman from Virginia as for that Of
any other member on this floor; but I
| doubt whether we can justly our votes on
rhe opinion of any single member; facts
alone ought to govern our opinions. I,
therefore, for the purpose of considering
{ the course most proper to be pursued, move