Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-02-17
CON'GRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

ton of which he gave notice the day be-
fore yesterday, to enquire into the consti-
tutioralty of the late appointment of Cen
eral p. b. Porter, not having got to the
house in time to make it yesterday. 1t
was not his purpose, he said, to amplify
on this occasion at all. The house would
recoilect, that at the time he had submitted
notice OF this motion. he had distinctly sta
ted that it was not for him to pronounce,
whether the Office in question had or had
not been created during the time for which
! the late honorable member of this house.
from New-York, had been elected Ia
serve. Some very obliging friend had been
Kind enough to hint to him that pcr
haps he had not pondered ON the sub
Jet SO wei! as he ought to have done, be-
tore he introduced it to the house that
this Office under the authority of the United
| States, being created by the Treaty. was
called into existence, although it remained
vacant until lately, at the moment when
the exchange of the ratifcations of that
Treaty had taken place. This might or
| might not be, MIR. r. said--for. what
was The argument but to assume (he would
not say to beg) the very question concern
ing the treaty making power, which this
house had already once decided in the ne
gative, viz-Ihat treaty, without the
intervention, umentalitv-without the
aid of this house, is itSo facto the law of
the land. Mr.. r. sad, he should be ex-
tremely ashamed ever to venture SO crude
a motion IN this house this would have
been. if he had not taken into consideration
and deep and mature considerable too the
point which some were o5Liginp enough to
suppose he had overlooked, and ciun e.
nough to put him right in respect to it. If
he understood the doctrines which he had
heard, he did not say uttered, on THIS
moor, IN respect to the treaty-making
power. this Case OF the honorable member
from New Hork, who had recently vacated
his seat IN this house, came fully within the
purview ut the article in the constitution
of the United States and he would go
farther, as special pleading was the order
of the day, and say, that if it did not come
within its purvew in this view of the sub
ject, it nevertheless would in another It
did not follow, it was not logic, he sad-it
might be logic in Westminster Hall. but
it was not in Parliament, that, because the
appointment in question did not come with
IN the purview OF this section, for particular
reasons, it might not for some ether very
substantial reason, which was not disclosed
but about which he had no concealment-
as he had not, never had, and never would
have, about public men or measures.
After reading the following clause from the
9th section of the 1st article of the consti-
tuition, viz" No Senator or Representa-
tive shall, during the time for which he
was elected, be appointed TO any civil of
. flce under the authority of the u. States,
winch shall have been created, or the e.
monuments whereof shall have been in
creased during such time."-Mr. r.
moved
That committee be appointed to en-
quire whether the acceptance, by the hon.
Peter B. Porter, late member of this
house from the state of New-York, of a
civil office under the authority Of the Uni-
ted States, does contravene the provisions
of the Gin section of the 1st article of the
constitution of the United States
MIR. FORSYTH suggested that the
terms of this motion did not embrace the
question which he understood the gentle
man to desire to place before the house
the acceptance of a civil Office not being
an offence against any provision of the con-
stitution ofthe United States. He should
be pleased to see it modified so as to
place the question distinctly before the
house.
MIR. RANDOLPH said he had no oh
lection to any modification which would
attain his object. He bottomed himself, in
proposing this enquiry, on facts which are
on record, and which the house was pre-
sumed to know. Had not the gentleman
vacated his seat in this house Was he
amenable to the order Of the Speaker as a
member of this house! How did his seat
become vacated! BY his acceptance Of
civil Office under the authority of the u
| nited States, which, the gentleman from
! Georgia had said, was no offence against
the constitution. No. said Mr.. Il. it is nei-
Their an oftrnce against the constitution,
| nor contra b9nos mores, that I know-5ut
there is modification Of the proposition
which may make it Contrary to the consti-
tuiion--the committee is to try that ques
| ton. is there not an issue made up ? The
| honorable gentleman has accepted an of
\ nee IT is our duty To enquire whether the
! acc ptance of IT be eonstltu lonal or not
| because, if unconstitutional, then il is the
duty of this house TO see that the breach
| is repaired, that the wrong is redresseS.
| Mr. Il. said he was not acquainted with
! the styles and titles of the gentleman in
! questionable had had a great many
with the old one he was acquainted with
| the new one he was not. MIR. II. said he
| had 40 more doubt that this appointm mt
was a breach Of the constitution, than the
| acceptance of another Office by late mem
| Der OF this house, the Office having been
| created and the salary fixed a few days
/ before his term Of service expired, was an
| evasion, and scandalons evasion, of the
! provision of the Constitution which he lad