Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-01-20

house onty, cut to the people OF the united
| States, whose dearest Interests are concerned
| in il.
MIR. BALE. OF Virginia. said, il this proposi.
ton TO appoint committee had hecn made in
the FIRST Instance. he should have had 40 ohiec-
| ton 10 the proposed enquiry. Drt he was
| under the impression, that this enquiry Into
| their power ought to have been had before the
| warrant was issued. suppose this person had
| been In adiSiant part of thiS country. in the
| District ct Maine, or example; woUd this
House arrest han, bring him here, aud then
| enquire whether they had power 70 do SO or
nots Would not this be grievance OF the
| highest character, against the laws of the and
| and against the constitution itself, Supposiny
I after putting person accused Of contempt to
| ali thiS Inconvenience, aid holding him iu tlu-
| rance, Il shoOlG appear that he WAS not aneua-
4 bic 10 the authority of this House: would moi
\ this proceeding have been niaHiicsty wrong
and an oPPro sSion OF the citizens Had we no
Dstter, said MY y. safer Il thousand insults
| than ttam?le Ou the personal liberty OF the
! citizen TIE liberty OF The citizen was guard.
| eel by the 81 fess provision Ofthe constitution
and lac would not, he said, exercise any au..
thority restraining it, unless supported bv the
constitution. That was his guide lie had tn.
Ken an oath 10 support IL, and that Instrument
pfoHlied that no warrant shall issue, uaiess
supported oy oath. The warrant against John
Andersen had, therefore issued in contradic.
ton to the constitution The proper conrse
woud be 10 discharge him from the warrant
| whtch had been illegally issued 10 investigate
me SUBJECT, and, fit should De decided that
| lie as amenable to the House, then to arrest
nam and punish him, but not otherwise 10 pro.
coed further III the business
MIR. HuBbARD, OF New York, rose to src-
SeSt, that, reasoning from the context, the
provision OF the constitution which had ,een
quoted, referred OTly TO courts OF Justice. and
could not be construed to apply to warrants OF
The description now under consideration.
MIR. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, said. he had no
objection to vote for the resolution If IL ron.
tempiated merely an enquiry into the proner
mode of proceeding. Whilst on the one hard
lie sdId, he was at all times ready and willing
10 support the constitutional rights and prlYi.
iegeS Ot the house, and was wilip" witt, thar
view 10 go on with the enquiry lac was on The
ether hand bound 60 protect the citizen from
the arbitrary exercise of discretion Oh the part
OF the house. Wherever there was guilt, lie
hoped there would be no shrinking trCm ilvps-
tiga,ion. When il was proposed to bring to
The bar that individual NOW accused whom lac
hau known as a hardy warrior in his CouEtry'S
service vita the trosts of niany winters 0m his
mead (Hot that he would say any thing 10 ius
tity the late conduct of that Individually Mr. J.
SAID he had not sbruuk from the authority of
the house. MIR. J. was opposed TO this resolu-
tIon,I II was intended To examine the accused
before committee he was opposed to any
course of proceeding bat bringing The indivi-
dual before the house he wished TO see his
face; he wished 10 hear the testimony of those
VINO had known kim from his infancy, as TO his
general character. On this occasion Mr. J
said, lie felt himself to stand in the character
OF Judge: To examine and punish the accused
according 10 his guilt, but on the other hand 10
protect his rights whilst arTaigned before this
house without law to protect him. Ii was due
TO the house and to the individual that he
should be brought before them, that circum
stances OF aggravation or mitigation should be
auhuced; and If he was found guilty. with
corrupt Intention OF Offering 4 bride to a mem.
Der of this house-whose character (said Mir.
j. stands OK a basis needing no encomum from
me-lt the man should have been so far de-
PRAYED as TO commit this outrage, under no
circumstances Of mitigation, Mr.. j. said lie
would 20. a. far as the constitution would jus-
Try hiln, 10 punish him. This was ne longer d
personal question the member who had SO
.honorably brought forward this charge was no
longeT an iISulted individual any more than he
lMr.J.) Ii was the house that was imsuIted
lt was tor 10 puniSh the offender, if il had
the power.
Mr.. FoRsyTH, of Georgia, said he did not
suppose it possible for any gentleman TO mis-.
understand the object of tile motion before tie
house f; which was, not 10 examine John An
dcrsou, but 10 inquire what further steps il
wonid be proper 10 pursue in the case.
Mr JOHNSON said, he then had no sort of
objection 10 the resolution.
Mr.. BALI rose 10 say. in reply TO the suggeS
tion of the gentleman from Jew York that he
had not referred 10 the clause OF the c0nstitn
ton which he had quoted, without having first
determined, III his own mad, the true con-
SUncttOn OF II. The gentleman said that the
provision IN question, referred only TO judicial
proceedings. Is not this, Mr.. b. asked, a iu-
dical proceeding? Will any gentleman con-
tend we can legis'Gte man into prison If we
are to punish him, il is from judicial power
inherent in this body. If, in Furnishing him
we act ia judicial capacity. (which will not
be denied) an oath is necessary 10 iustify
warrant for his apprehension.
Mr.. TERRY said, that, on this occasion. il
appeared 10 him 10 use vulgar adage, gentle.
men ledpt before they came 10 the stile With
respect 10 the constitutional provision for tile
protection OF individuals, II warrant CONTRARY
TO law was before a court Of Justice where
strict law prevails, the court would not er Ofi-
clio quash IT. IL the party concerned submitted
to ~. II was proper, 3iT. +. said that Col An.
dersOn shonid have the opportunity OF object
my 10 It. Ii he did SO, Mr. y. reserved 10 him.
self the night TO decide whether the warrant
had beeu issued c0nStitutiOnal!y oF not Ia
The present state OF the proceedings he said.
the house ought not to decide { conscious
OF his offence, the individual might not think
II advisable TO object to the authority of the
house.
Mir. BEEcHER, of Ohio, again addressed the
char. "A man, he said, Is either free, or lie is
not If free, he was entitled TO exemption
from every species Of arrest not authorized by
law. contend, said Mr.. =. That it is our dutv
Is we fIud we have proceeded wrongly TO cor
rect the procedure as soon as possible Where
will this end When will yOn put a stop to IL !;
He denied the Discretionary power of this
hOuSc To punish al pleasure, according 10 the
doctrine OF the gentlemen from PENNSYLVANIA
I twas time to examine vigorously what was
thc power Of this house in that respect tor,
lie believed, according 10 tie constitution O
tue country, no man could DC punished on the
supposiuoB that he lad committed crime
but on the ground that he has infiinged some
law } he constitution provides that 10 er post
tactO law shall he passed; that no citizen shall
he deprived OF hle, liberty or property without
due process Of laws aud thar no person shall
be held to answer for capital or otherwise
iuiamous crime without rrescntment OF in
I fHssHeU ont Hoo
he not, said Mr.. -. deprived ct hi. liberty
WlLLlnul due nrOcesa Of law, is he accnsed OF