Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-06-13
DEBATE
S 4 MUEL e. HASE.
C1M. Duna's Speech ca':tiauea)

luton, a member of this House, on NOV
ing it, might then have arigat to demand
an enquiry. But are the house bound to
investigate the conduct OF a particular of.
fcer, without any charge against him |?
Gentiemea have said mucn about the ge-
neral right of this house to enquire into
the conduct Of pubic officers, as if this
were the point in dispute. But who has
denied the right of enquiry as ineideat TO
the power of impeachment When any
officer is charged with an improbable Of
fence it is admitted to be. and from the
nature Of the thingit might be tie right OF
the house to enquire into the truth Of such
charge. trust, no gentleman in opposi-
ton to the present resolution can be found
so ignorant OF the true principle on which
it is opposed as to deny the responsibility
of the public officers, or the right of the
House to enquire into their conduct. But,
the right being admitted, the question is
made as to the exercise of that right, in
the manner now proposed. When this
house is called upon, TO direct the whole
force OF It's influence against particular
Judge, is it not reasonable, is it not iast,
that some charge should first be stated A.
gainst him? This is but decent respect to
judicial character. II is bat decent re-
spect to the character which becomes the
assembled representatives ola nation. The
person implicated, might then be enabled
to meet the enquiry and obviateunfounded
suspicion. Our power with respect to the
judges is the power of impeachment; but
we are not therefore justified in wantonIy
assa,ling their characters and sporting Win
their sensibiliy or reputation. The right
of enquiry relates to improbable offences.
Shall we then enquire where no offence is
stated So far is the resolution from stat
ingwhat would warrant an impeachment,
that it does not mention any offence, or re-
fer to any transaction.
The gentleman from Virginia. who NOV
cd the resolution, Mr.. J. Randolph, has
indeed declared his own conviction, that
the judicial officer in question, had done
wrong. Might not other gentlemen also
have their opinions, and exercise their own
judgments in forming thens They ask for
the reasons of his conviction, before thew
vote for his resolution. His information,
he says, was received in such a manner
that he does not choose to disclose it. If
any person has communicated any thing to
him conf lentially, he is not desired to
name his informant. The gentleman shall
not be desired by me to make any discIo-
sure which would offend against The most
delicate sentiment of honor But can il
be improper for him to state the general ma
.ture of the offence which he believes to
have been committed? Will this violate a.
ny honorary confidence? HE'S desired to
make such statement, that other members
Of the House may have an opportunity of
Judging whether thc believed offence would
warrant vote Of impeachment, In cases
of this kind, is any member 70 be deemed
infallible? When a gentleman in his place
states fact Of his own knowledge, his ve-
racity is regarded as unqncstionable: but
his ,nfallibility is not supposed to extend
to matters OF mere opinion. Upon the
principle of It's being possible for the GEN.
tleman from Virginia To- err in III opinion, /
ard It's bang equally the right Of other
members tojudge what conduct. amounts
to an impeachabie offence, it might have
bear reasonably thought thai he would at
least state to the House the nature otthe
faats on which he relies as the basis of his
resolution. If he, or.any other member,
declaring his conviction that Judge has
misdemeaued himself in Office, will exhi-
Ditto the House statement of any fact,
or series of facts which would warrant an |
impeachment, Will be ready instantly to |
vote for an enquiry. But nothing of this |
kind is exhibited; and therefore the reso- /
l,t;nn On tha taIla iS na,,r cnrccad- ID C..