Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-01-07
house OF REPRESENTATIVES,.

CAV, anu MIR, G1h ant MIR. Eent, from New
York, few dayS ago.
The Speaker offered 10 the House certain
documents, transmitted to him by Edwin ew-
is. OF the Mississippi Territory. embracing
charges o.: official misconduct in Harry 'roui-
min, etie ofthe iudges otthat TERRITORY. There
accompanied the papers no memorial! or petiti-
on, asking tlse attention of Congress IL the sub
Ject; but simply letter from MIR. Lewis, TO
6hs Speaker, requesting him to lay the papers
before the House. auds.ating his ability TO sub
staHtiaie the allegations against Judge Toal-
mln--Nhich papers, the Speaker as ne wax
bound to do BY its rnleS, laid before The
House.
alr. GrospeHor objected 10 receiving the pa
pers ia the shape in which they were offered
20 the House net wishing TO give to anv'un-
known ana irresponsible individual chance
a. throwing into The House whatever caIumny
hemight choose gainsi public officer.
Bir. RGndctlIs called for the reading of the
papers offered, and proceeded - G.--Ierc his
dissent from the objection made bv Mr. Ora.
Henor. sir. X. was ignorant of the parties
the charges might he a caumny--such was the
prevalence Of SANDER. that ON the first blush
oi an accusation against the character ola
respectable citizen, Il was believed SANDER
lie reent NOT TO 3e the eXhOrter or the instrnc
tor OF the House, or to reproye its neelects:
but the relation IN which the House stood to
tue community, II had no right to disregard,
and that relation gave every citizen a right
70 be heard. This House, like the English
House of Commons, had been called the
grand inquest ct the nation. What, he ask
should receive an information of this kind
and because il was presented bv this or that
man, would have nothing 20 do with it. They
might know the accused 10 be an upright man
and the accuser TO be a madman-in that Iirh,
they might disregard it bat in this case he
knew neither the complainant nor the citizen
complained of, and he thought the interest Of
individuals rs well as the respect due TO our
courts OF justice, required that the subject
shonid be enquired into. He should be sorry
to see this House from supneness or inditier-
ence, pass by formal complaint from citizen
against public officer and should consider it
amostmauSpicionssi sign of the times. Amongst
Kings ne was considered as performing well
who never shut his ears to the complaints OF his
si'Sec;s--and ours, Mr.. r. said, should not be
closed against the meapest citizen
he papers We're then read.
Inc reading otthe papers having been finish
cd, motion was made by NIr. Grosrenoi that
slr. Lewis should have leave to Withdraw his
papers. This motion was superseded by a
notion by Dir. We5ster, 10 refer the papers TO
The COMMITTEES on the Judiciary.
On TINS question there arose desutOrv de
pate, winch occupied three honrs, the impor-
Sance ofwhich does not appear TO require its
beiog reported al length. \ brief summary of
the course Of Ike Debate, will afford sufficient
reformation OF the principal points it involv-
cd.
mr.. GroSrea0r commenced the discussion
hycondcmn lgthe serious reception of a memo
Tiai, which bore on the face oft marks of Dre-
Jhdice and passion, and neither Supported bv
me house, nor bv the avOuchment of any MEM
hert the probable trnth of its contents. or
10 me Character OF the memoriast Under
such circumstances 20 refer the papers vvouId
subject the House TO daily imposition from eve
ry yayaboEd WHO had malice and wit enough
10 string fogethcr accusations of Il criminal
nature against any officer of the government
no matter how elevated Ns station.
Mr. R0p!o,pi took widely different view of
me saDJcct lie considered the right of peti-
tioh 10 pc proposedt to he invaded by the obec-
uohS taken ny Mr.. GrOsvenor to acting on
those papers. Of the character of the Nierno-
ria'st he knew nothing, nor was il material he
contenueh, on the question of ms &tuting amen
curry INTO Inc conduct of public officer: in
support OF which doctrine, he adduced various
Illustrations, drawn from the practice before
grand Jnries OF finding bills ON er pqrte infol-
nations, and on the accusation of protested in
formers, the most deSpicabIe of the human
race. n this country, lie argued every indi-
yidual had the same rightas Mr.. Jefferson (late
Piesldent) who IN his communication to Con
gress after Burr's trial, had recommended to
congress to enquire whether the defect was in
the evidence, in the law, or in the odn,iaisfro-
ton or TIE lGir-a recommendation as regarded
the latter part which. NIr. r. said anV other
member ofsociety had the same right to make
as INC frcSSident. Mr.. Randolph opposed MIR.
Gr9svenors general view of the modification
and limitation OF the right of petition. and adj
uuced illustrations from British Parliamentary
history TO shew the sanctty Of the right of pc
luton, according 10 the practice of that holy
were OF n serious nature, and suyceptible Of |
easy proof or re'utdtiOn and he vas clearly |
IN favor OF giving due examination to the sub
ject
Mr. Wright supporte the general view IA |
ken by Mr.. Randolph, 4 urged tie reference
Oftbe papers as containing serious matter Of on
curry. IL was sufficient 10 secure attention bv |
ihe house TO . petition, that it was respectful |
IN US terms TO tue House, and decent i'm the sub-
lect matter: hr. W referred also 10 the prac- |
uce OF tue HouSe OF Commons, and as strong \
Inuslrauon, intrQducsd the case ola person, "a |
member OF the House Of Commons. indeed Inf |
that did no: change the principlej who came |
RON the Piilory to that house, and was heard |
on an accusation against the Chief Justice
MT. ~ nee was opposed 10 the reference Of |
ulesc papers on the ground that similar ar |
clsdiion preferred ~ 1870, agains Judge foul
hhl. had Deeh found 80 pe frivolous and such
hc ulvuSiit there was a presumption amOunfins.
almost TO certainty, the fact in the present
instance. ''
Mr.. Growcaor arain took the floor against
tue reference, 10 reply 80 Mr.. Randolph on the
rlht oi petition. winch lie would be the last 10
1cuy. but the right Of petition did NOT eu,-
brace an obligation on the House to examine q,
ny charge against public officers. which malice
Or petulauce might dictate. He referred 10
me various charges made and inferred from
ne lace ~ me memorial were either wholly
ie'Te, or distorted into shape the facts did not
war ant W wv
|r. johnson of ~. would have consented m
.le'aiencc % this memorial, did icnot believe
l!tl inc hig1 character OF JUDGE Toulmin
WI ~ kcntHchy, ani s0iar as he had since
rear OF 'iin, was suciias t0 forbid the BELIEF
tat mere was any ground for the accusation
%g1,.st ,nIn ~ which conviction ne was