Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-09-23
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
SPEECH OF JOHN Q. ADAMS. CONTINUED

ISef,. u ne gentleman SaiO, tt was inCiden-
ri 70 the power OF expulsion. Ii so, the
incident IS much broader than the power
Itself. The superstructure far more ex-
senSve than the base. The power oe ex.
pnlsion operates on'v upon the member.
| The stare retains all its right tn he repre-
scented, and only suffers during the time,
which 1t may require - supply the vaca-
! ted place. But when you segucsfer a mem
her from his seat, YOU also seuuester his
state from its proportion of representation.
You leave her only one member, while all
her sisters have two-and II this sequestra-
ton is to continue through all the irnpar-
laDces of a prosecution in court at law,
this suspension ofthe states representation
might last through whole Senatorial tern
of duty The same principle, in It's spp!i-
Cation TO the other house, would often Sc
lquester = district Of people from heir share
IN the national representation during The
.flli congressional period not to mention
the opportunities It would afford to perscn-
al enemies and political opponents ~ taking
an obnoxious member from his seat, by the
lmere institution of criminal process A.
Igainst him. Another obstacle to this pro-
lcedure arises from the danger of transfer.
Ting the decision upon the qualifications of
| yOnr members from vnur own body "a a
different, and perhaps distant tribuar.I.
/ u proposes to piacc the trial of the Cause
.under one jurisdiction, and the sentence to
ibe pronounced by another. Instead Of
acting upon evidence and inforo.atior ex-
hibited to your own view, YOU must take
| up0n trust the correctness of proceeding of
every county court Of criminal jurisdiction
throughout the Union, anil resign the RICH,
of ycur members In their seats INTO the
hands De every jury in a court of quarter
Is-5s.Dns. This consequence is SO obvious,
and SO Incompatible with the clearest PR
Vileges OF this body, that the counsel them
selves perceived il, and shrunk back from
/ their own conclusions. They ADMITTED that
| after the trial ar law. the verdict of the
| Jury would not be conclusive, as a ground
fcr the decision ofthe Sen ate On the oues
,ion for eXpuison-Nay, thew admitted that
even after verdict of acqui'tal, the Senate
might again entFr upon the enquiry. 1.-THE
| acqui.tal were VI fair s. honorable grounds,
| they thought the Senate would be bound 20
| abide by II, but if it should b. op,ained up :
on legal exec orinns. or BY. the exc;sssiaa of
evidence npon opiections 20 the more legal
lcempe:ency Of the testimony, we n yht re.
sumo the investigation aud proceed to ex-
pelthe acquitted member, aa such eri:fence
| excluded Oy the form Il Limitations of prac-
tee IN the Judicial coart BIT, sir, how are
the senate to know, unless it be from the
lace OF the record, upon wat grounds the
party was acquitted? dis plea to the in
idIc'ment IS, not guilty. This is the issue
upon the trial, and under this issue the per.
son accused is entitled to the benefit of e.
very exception OF legal form as we'll as of
honorable Substance. The jury are iude-
Is both of he law and the fact. The tes-
t'mony, whether admitted or excluded, sell
dom appears upon the record. The jury
on combining every point both of law and
OF testimony, find it Insufficient to convict
1 the party accused, and they return gem
eral verdict in the two words of his plea
"nOt guilty" They give no reasons for
their verdict The jury at Richmond, in =
deed, on the trial of MIR Burr for treason,
1id assign reassn-hut this was an extra
ordinary eXception-they are nos obliged TO
lS.Vc their reasons, and they scarcely ever
10 give them. How then are we 10 know
whether the acquittal was honorable or o.
iherwise, by receiving testimony? Why
then we return 10 that original foundation
OF our own sound discretion, upoR which |
Inave cnntended that our authority rests.
we send The party to a court of law for
trial, and the court sends him back to us
Tor two lone for himself, and one for the
Jury which acquitted him. We go from
discretion to law; and with an aggravated
> Jul lhS" iSlulb IRON law 10 discretion.
: Let us however, for moment suppose
that this doctrine of Mr. Smiths counsel is
correct, and that our authority TO try this
cause is appellate and not original. The
consequence is, that we ought now to do,
what they tell US we ought to have done at
frst. Their argument invites us now to
IseGuester this gentleman from his seat, and
send him to circuit court of the United
states for trial by jury, with directions to
the proper law officer to commence pro-
secuton against him, aud with the whole
mass OF evidence which has been here pro-
lduced against him that the personal at
tendance OF the witnesses may be Obtained
lat the proper time and place. If, sir, the
lobject were to deprive Mr.. Smith of his
seat, for the remainder of his term, tn s
process would answer as effectualiy as the
adoption of the resolution before YOU.
must therefore believe that il cannot be Mr.
smiths desire, that we should On this oc-
cason renounce our own course, TO follow
that iDcuicated upon US ny mis- cou isel.
Having disposed tIen OF the objections to the
Jurisdiction Of the Senate, let us pass to those
which have been urged with equal solemnity
lganst the species OF evidence winch has been
lrecelved. listened v great attention to the
comparison drawn b. .nlcmsn who insist
, ed most upon this pO .tsd in particular e
tine parallel winch he drew between the reia
merit ut ,sgI.itfat an Il