The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-04-04


the interests of the public should. dictate
He had discharged his duty. But before /
SIT down, said he, permit me te observe,
that to presume the existence of a word, i'm
the official letter which the House have
proof, the letter being before them, never
was IN the letter, is one of the highest
stretches OF presumption that man ever at
tanned Il know that the werd was not in
1 the letter. pledge my reputation on the
tact and i think that the reputation of the
Attorney generalas a lawyer is sustained by
the words being omitted i'm the letter. /
have seen the letter ON file; there is no such
WORD in the letter On what ground, sir,
did rest this motion. On the ground of
oversight in the Attorney general in giving
the opinion, inasnuch as this important
word Traditional is omitted in that opini,
on. But if you put that word in the opinion,
do you not see that instead OF involving O.
yers'ght you involve deliberate perversion
OF law! Do gentlemen cali themselves
friends OF. the gentlemen and contend thxt
this word must have been Inserted /! 3 we
| nave heard of the people being their own
worst enemies; it very often happens that
mans friends are his worst enemies
ne omission OF this word ", additional
might charge no improper mo,ives-have
proceeded from hurry of business we are
all liable to ovcrsights. But it is said that
we cannot construe our own laws, except by
enacting new ones. Then, sir, hope we
shall Lot enact new laws, if, when broken
through, our only remedy. is to re enact
them. This is indeed a grand discovery
Can you expect the new law to be adhered
to, when the old one is with impunity to be
departed from !? Unquestionably you cannot.
ne law, 1t seems, must be construed by
the proper tribunal and which is the
proper tribunal TO try any thing touch
ing the malversion of public money, but this
House! Can you bring it before judicial
tribunal! You cannot. Well, sir, suppose
when Mr.. Whitbread brought forward his
motion in the House Of Commons that GER
tam uses and abuses of public money were
contrary to law, he had been met at the
threshold by such an objection We should
have heard and correctly too, of corruption
and ministerial intrigue. Mr. Pitt was then
In Office, and-Melville HIS bosom friend, his
CO. adjutor in public life !; but he had too
high reputation for his own fame, for his
own reputation, for that glory which was
the hrst. the last and only object of his life,
to make such objection. I have stated the
circumstances under which the balance is
due. Ibis matter is important to the peo-
PIE into whose bosom We are about to return
10 account for our stewardship, who are not
20 De put OFT on questionsof money by questions
1 a
matters OF money will cavil tothe eth part,of
hair. fgfsitlemen think this Course will snit
them, If they wish to attach what / calf this
foul stain to the administration, they shall not
nave my aid IN doing it. On them will rest
the responsibility. Having done nv duty I
snail submit as it behoves me to submit
do not appear here as as a partizap. 7
appear here in the legal and constitutional
exercise of my Representative duties. I
have exercised my duty; the House will
do theirs in the manner which to their wis
dom shall seem fit
Mi. Holland said, that it was with wish
TO preserve the honor and dignity of this
mouse, mat he rose to make few remarks.
lie thought that both would be compromised
by the adoption of the resolution under CON
lslderatlon A committee had been appoint
ed to examine into this subject, and the gen
Ttleman from Virginia was the chairman It
wouiu seem proper that that committee
should nave made specific report on the
SUBJECT. wherefore. had they not done it.
ana why was this motion brought forward at
or y O'Clock on the last night of the session
ana OF the existence of the present CONGRESS-
was 1t tor the purpose of forcing the Honse
INTO vote OF this kind without considerati
on! Ii that committee had done their duty.
tney would certainly have favored the House
| "iN a uStd'eu report, he committee had
not Thought proper to do so, and therefore
the gentleman from Virginia had presented
TINS resolution. MIR. II said that no person
could be prepared to decide on the proprietv
r'mpropriety ofthe opinion of the Attorney
Seherai: Fer what purpose, said he, can
this resolution he brought forwardi Suppose
tnls House were resolve, that the opinion
OF tue Attorney General was incorrect what
good purpose would it answers Would il
oring back into the treasury the money i'm
properly applied? No. Is it consistent with
the honor and dignity of the House to pass
an opinion on the subjects 1t is the duty of
TINS House to make laws. and of another tri
Dunai to decide on the laws when made and
II an incorrect decision be made, the person
making tits liable to be impeached, and this
House is the organ for that purpose. WHY
was not the matter brought forward proper
yf The Attorney General is an officer
constitutionally appointed to give his opinion,
touching any matter of doubt, in the depart
ments OF the government. But have e tn at
right No; our province is to make laws.
and 1t our officers violate Them, they NAV be
impeached in proper manner. The gen
tieman from Virginia says, that he has dis
charged his duty. | very much doubt it, sir
lie has done more than his duty; he has
Drought forward proposition when il is inn
possible to deliberate on it. He has done
what cannot be summarized hone ,Lo 80.