The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-16

:.,S~n che ;yoclty TO Xprcss their iNpleS siCiia
~ ,ll:s subjSct; he did u9t feel nniscH Ak
Ehcitv to express his opinion. Il would pat
he, said ;hay he had any particrlar partiallty
- that officer; but ay the same time would
Z not do ;.ny th;ngto eNclude a fairani Impair
tial inve ;igation OF his Character.
ii c, dcucc on this subject were laid be-
fGre the House, they might i'll his view with
iuopricty order ,slat evidence TO be trans
Inttcd TO the l,xscu,i,e department. III do
ing this ,l,cy would do their duty and by
doing it, would sufficiently express an opini-
on. not only th,t an enquiry Was necessary,
nut that the proper department would make
IT: lie could no, conceive that it was pro
per 3rthem TO giyc III this manner specific
direction to the President; because ii would
he saving that they thought it was necessary
TO stimulate him to DO his duty. 1t was un-
derstood that the evidence which had been
attduced in this case had not been laid before
The court Or grand jury at Richmond, and
that the Executive lad not possessed it
there WAS no reason therefore to believe that
the ESscutive had neglected its duty and
1t would be going too far TO tell the President
that ne should do his duty, when he had not
neglected it. Had it appeared that he had
neglected his duty, it might have become
question whether the House should express
an opinion as the propr:ety or necessity OF
an enquiry. 1t the House should even, after
discovering that the proper department had
been Negligent OF is duty, express an opini-
On as to the necessity OF an enquiry, they
would'in his view go full rs far as iii NOT tar-
Their than) tliev could be constitutionally
warranted i'll going. He would net say "he-
Their such an opinion should or should not be
expressed: but till &ome reason we're shewn
TO justify an opinion that the proper depart
Z nent had been deficient IN it's duty, he could
not see the Propriety of the House taking any
step to stimulate it TO an enquiry.
1t had a!rcady been said that q court of
enquiry had been appointed. Were this the
case (and he did net doubt the fact) it would
seem to him altogether improper for the
House to act on this subject At present, if
they had the power. He did think ii inn
pol.tant that the House should keep strictly
within the pale of its jurisdiction, and act
within It's constitutional province; for the
constitution had provided limtsto this House
IS well IS 10 other departments Of govern
ment He conceived they had no mere right
toinfringc on the province Of the Executive
in its executive capacity, than the Executiyc
had to Interfere with the Legislature each
should keep within It's proper sphere; and
from all the consideration he had given this
motion lac. could tiat i'eroti Any authority
in the possession 81 the House to give direc
ton TO the Executive OH the subject.
send papers to the eH;ccutive,on this occasion
was, that the constitution did prohibit any
officer OF the u. s. from receiving sum Of
money from any foreign prince or power
Now as the evidentc which had been read to
them did appear calculated TO prove that a
sum OF moncv had been received by the Off
Ger who was the subject Of this resolution, he
thought it would tic perfectly proper to send
the evidence. lie would again state and
i. - II. !. l.
was ere Of the last who would prevent fuil
Investigation ON this subject; he wished it
was in his power 20 hasten it, but il WAS not.
He had always conceived that an eXamina-
tion OF this Kind was essential to establish
the character of the officer involved, and to
say that he was or was not worthy his trust !;
and he had supposed and did still believe,
that it had been hitherto withheld only from
the effects which it mi ght have upon other
trials now pending Being of this opinion, if
the gentleman fom Virginia would put the
House IN possession of the papers, lie would
move the following order: ''ordercd, that
the documents laid before this House relative
TO the conduct ct Gen. James Wilkinson be
transmitted to the Executive of the United
States"
With respect to the motion ut prcsnt under
consideration, he was certainly opposed to gil
wing the power of collecting testimony to the
committee, and to the reference to the COM
mis4ec proposed to be appointed because
such testimony could DC Of no more purpose
than if three, FIVE or seven men out of doors
had performed that duty and because it
would be going step farther than propriety
would warrant, TO give authority to commit
tee to collect Testimony of which the House
. could make 10 use whatever. Under these
impressions he should vote for striking out
these words, and trusted the modification
which he had suggested would take place.
The transmission of the papers would give to
the public and TO the executive the opinion of
the House as fully as if expressed in any o
Their way might furnish the executive with
information which it did not now possess
Mr.. Stanford said, this doctrine that mere
resolutions of rrguest to tie executive were
Unconstitutional was new, and one indeed to
which he could not subscribe He we'll re-
collected, that in the 5th Congress, perhaps
the last session of it, resolution was intro
duced, which gave rise to famous debate,
re1ueSfiHQ the President 20 institute a new
mission to Fraucc, the first having failed of
succcss-and TINT then it was not opposed on
. tie ground OF constitutional difficulty
A mere rcSoii.HoH ojreqHcsf was no exercise
Of authority &c had till now, he believed,
been the practice OF every session, and 60 his
recoilectiet had not before been soruplcd us
tots prcprjcJy In the constitution il was ej;-
pressly provided that no person holding an
Office Of profit on trust under the L. States
e1,r,.ld y.f'fb,rly me rO,1ecUf oC('DD0-rg0o ar-