Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-05-05
DEBATE
CLontinuea.l

Mr.. Smile. When the notion no"
under consideration was made YESTERDAY,
should have felt surprised at the course
which the debate took, had not often wit
messed such things IL former times. 1t
seems to be considered as improper that a
gentleman should bring forward a motion
for an enquiry into the official condact OF q
public oAicerand expect the house tosconl-
ply wish his request unless he should at the
same time produce such evidence as shall
prove the facts charged. II this course oF
proceeding be correct, have ever been IN
error. What does the gentleman from
Virginia ask? Suppose he has taken ex-
ceptlon to the conduct Of the Judge from
someefacts which have come to his own
knowledge. Under such circumstances
it will be allowed that It is the duty of the
House to make the enquiry. When the
question shall be whether an impeachment
shall beprefered, it will be,proper that cyl
tence should be produced. But now only
a committee is asked for, to receive evil
dence, and to determine whether it be.such,
as in their opinion will afford grounds for
an impeachment. Ii is impossible for me
to conceive any way that can be pursued
which viii be more favorable to the person
whose character is implicated than that
which is proposed. 1t is merely to en-
oure whether such facts can be sustained
as VIII afford grounds for an impeachment.
Certa ally in this stage of the business il is
not necessary to produce evidence 20 the
House, as the House are not competent to
receive testimony, which a committee is.
1t is a rule Of this house that so much res
poet IS due to a member that if he states
that he possesses information proper to be
communicated to the house, but which in
his opinion ought to be done bat with
closed doors, that in such case the doors
shall be shut without any vote OF the house.
Surely then, On the request of a member
for a committee Of enquiry, that measures
ought to be adopted. This inrny opinion,
is the best course that can be pursued for
the person implicated. There is, It's true
thereby expressed an opinion Of some one
member that this Judge has done wrong.
So far his character is implicated; this is
the ONLY possible way in which it's impli-
Gated. The committee ere to enquire
whether there are. grounds for an irnpeach-
,nent or not. fthey report that there are
not grounds, the accusation will be dismiss
sed and if the report is that there are
grounds, the house will at once perceive
the necessitE of taking this step to ascertain
their existence.
Another ground of resistance is taken.
It Is said there are no precedents for this
proceeding. believesthat ali presidents
must have had an origin; and that one bo-
dyhas as good a right to establish them as
another. Our government is young, and
only two cases Of impeachment have oc-
cured under il. Efost Of our p~ecedents
respecting parliamentary proceedings are
borrowed from England, and iiprecedents
are necessary in this affair, we must resort
to that country for them. Ny opinion is
that they are not necessary; and that COM
mon sense and the reason Of the thing are
ali that are necessary to guide our decision
in this case. There is, however, in the
British annals no deficiency Of precedeht.
The first shall meRton is tobe found IN
the case OF tie Earl of STAFFORD. may be
tola that this precedent was established IL
turbulent times; / znay be also told OF the
improper mode Of proceeding. do not
pretend to vindicate the whole course Of
procedure. / think it WAS wrong. But
with regard to the first stages Of the busi-
ness, = believe them to have been correct,
It viii be seen that in that instance a more
direct mode was pursued than is proposed
in the present case.
The precedent ! allude to viii be found
in Hume's History, vol. 2, page 24g.-