Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-05-04
CONGRESS
OF THE
UNITED STAT e S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES..
THURSDAY, January S.
DEBATE
On lsr. Rand9lph's motion fer the a9poini-
nssat ofa committee ef enquiry int
the official conduct
SAMUEL CHASE.
DEBATE
(Gont;msfG, J


him by the gentlemen from Tennessee and
South Carolina imposed upon him the ne
cessity of stating his reasons Tor proceed
ing in. what they were pleased to term,
so precipitate manner. They ask, why
not have laid the resolution on the table by
way of notice to the house? Because, sir,
(said Mr.. R.) I.caanot in matter OF ex~
IRENE delicacy make the opinions OF other
gentlemen the standard of my own actions.
should have conceived the character lmpll
Gated in the resolution, as having just
cause of complaint against me, had | not
been ready to decide in moment OMIT,
and did not press It's immediate decision.
/ should have deemed it ali act OF cruel
Injustice to have hung the enquiry over his
head. even for day. l should have ex.
pected the reproach of setting suspicion
a1oat while ] avoided examination INTO
them-for should have deserved it, had
pursued the course which gentlemen wish
to adopt. I can see no difference be-
tween hanging up this motion for day or
wear, but the mere difference OF time
WHAT'S the object to be obtained DO
we wait for evidence or any information
which will assist us in forming correct
opinion? Not at ALT o-morrow the
question will recur upon U.s." Is 1t pro-
per from what has already appeared to n
stitute an enquiry into the conduct ofthls
officer - and this we are as competent to
decide, at this moment, as at any future
day. When however gentlemen consider
resolution to make enquiry the same IS an
enquiry already had, an not surprised at
finding myself opposed to them IN opinion.
repeatth that all their arguments are appl-
cable to motion of impeachment only
But it seems that no precedents have been
adduced and time is wanted to hunt them
up. Gentlemen should recollect that bat
two cases Of Impeachment have taken place
under this government; one OF senator
from Tennessee, the other Of district
Judge of New Hampshire. BY what pre-
cedents were the proceedings in those cas-
es regulated? How is itposslble, in 60
vernment, hardly in its teens, where new
cases must daily occur, as It's various tune-
tons are called into exercise, to tlnd pre-
cedents? 1t did SO happen, IN the case OF
the senator from Tennessee, that the in
formation, on which his impeachment was
grounded, came from the Executive. But
suppose that information had rot been
communicated by the Executive? Would
that have precluded all enquiry Suppose
too, in the case Of MIR. Pickering, that no
information had been received from the
executive, and that gentleman from New
Hampshire had risen and said, However
painful the task, deemit my dutyto state
the conduct of the Judge Of the district, i'll
which reside, has been such as renders
him unfit for the important station which
he holds, and therefore move for an en-
quiry into his conduct )" would the house
have denied the enquiry? VIII they rely
altogether on the attorney Of the district
whose interest it is to be well with the
Judge, and whose patience must be worn
out with his misconduct before he Will III"
dertahe to call the attention of government
to it. Are gentlemen aware OF the dellcate
situation in which those officers are placed!
Suppose information had been gwen to
member, Of malfeasance OF a Judge, by a
person, who should say, it is not pleasant
to originate accusations; those who come
forward in these cases undertake an indivi-
deus task, whilst, therefore, wish ny
name not to be mentioned, shall be ready,
when called upon, by proper authority, to
give my testimon,. This is hypothetical
case, butone by no means improbable
Would it not be a point of honor not to ex-
pose the name OF the informant.
But, say gentlemen, the charge is OF a
general nature. Whilst | do not admit
the force of this remark, supposing it to