Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-09-20

Nv &c aodhuoucu iOT tue ScUtlcmdn au-
mitted that the authority of precedent
was against him, and to that authority he
was willing for himself and his client to
submit. can subscribe neither TO the
doctrine, nor to the reason for this abap.
donment. Ii is aquestion of constitution.
al power; and as such, if the precedent
had been ever so much multiplied, they
could not avail against the constitu,ion.-
Io the conf CT between two such uneqpa
authorities, that OF precedent ought Away
to yield Besides there is but one prece-
dep,, which could in thus case call for sub
mission. have sometimes heard il said
that two presidents were equivalent to a
principle but never before understood
that one precedent could be admitted a
Of Force TO silence contradiction, NJ,
SIR, here is better reason than submis
700 To precedent. r,r rejecting this linn
tation upon the au horiiy of the Sens.e
There is no Sucn Limitation IN the letter
81 the constitution there is none such in
rs spirit; and to introduce such limi IA
TN, would involve us in the absurdIty-
10 my mind the monstrous absurdity, hat
man migh' be convicted OF he IN st in
famous crimes that Can clisg ace he hu
man character, and unless their punish
ment be capital, would be entitled perhaps
| for years to hold his seat in The supreme
councils OF the pation. This is inevitable (;
for his constituents cannot recall him !;
add II has been determined, upon the full
lest determination, and by a solemn dec
sior. that member of The sena,e is not
liable TO the process of impeachment
| There is then no remedy for expulsion (;
| or the idea that man thus blasted in
character, and thus debased in conduct
should be permitted 10 remain member
I the legislatures, is so disgracefui 10 the
reputation of this body, and so pernicious
to the interest of the whole nation, that j.
cannot for moment be admitted. will
only add the remark, that if in this OBJ.
lection there were any substance; il ought
20 be sen'ed to Us in different form
| IF any member thinks IL has weight. lac
should offer y resolution TO arrest all fur.
| her proceedings. Its argument is not
hat this resolution should be rejected bu,
Tia. the preston ought not 10 be taken -
IL is in he nature Of what we call the pre-
vious question.
Another objection, however, was taken,
and insisted on with SOM earnestness
bv bath the counsel. They took dis
tiUc'ion between ipdietable offences, and
offences not indl6iabie. AID hey conten-
did that he jurisdiclion (as they termi,)
Of the Senate is confined to the la ter /;
that for all lnd'ciable crimes, if complain,
be made 10 the Senate, agains, one of is
members, the Senate might indeed insli
tu,e AN enquiry, but that for trial they
must pass a resolution directing the POO
| per law officer TO commence prosecution,
and until its issue S6quesGer The member
| from his seat.
| / well remember, and il is well recol.
lect, d by many o'her members Of this
House. that on the Impe achmen, oil Judge
Chase, this same distinction be,wt en- M.
ldi6inbe and unind Gable ofIerces was
' made But the argument resulting from
II, was directly he reverse of that which
- now advanced. Il was then insist d.,
with great plausIbilty, though | confess
| 1oi entirely TO my cpnvictIor, that no Of
lence could be improbable, unless il were
also indiclable. And the counsel dwell
! with great force upon the tlangetous ten
dency Of The principle that pubic ofii
Ger might be removed, "for pal,ry erroi
AVID indiscretions too inSigv ificanl to have
name in the penal code" There is SO
much weight in thisr 3oning, that before
hearing the counsel of MIR Smith, did
expect il would be applied To his case
that il would be asserted that he had
done nothing indIGlaSl,, and tina, for no o.
Their kind If Offence, could he be liable
to expulsion The counsel however have
preferred to Try the o her side OF his two
edg, q sword, and to iDsis, that offepc ,
not liable TO IND elmen', are the only kinds
of misconduct for which the Senate can
remove a member on an investigation of
The facts, by themselves.
They say by The 6 h article amendatory
TO the constitution, The trial by Jury is 81.
cared to every citizen, in all criminal pro-
seculiOns. We had occasion yesterday
on the court martial bill, 10 remark that
this article must be understood o have re-
ference to the trials in courts Of common
law The soldier, under your rules and
articles Of war, IL crim,nally prosecuted,
must be tried not by jury, bur BY court
martial. The trial by jury, IS secured for
The decision OF questions arising from
what The elementary writers on govern
meat call civil rghIs--Tbe rights which
~ republican governments ore enjoyed
..itLre hu Oh "a Al.