Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1831-03-23
ate adjourned. When the subject was
resumed, Mr.. HOLMES continued.


/ MIR. President; confess that since our
last adjournment, my surprise has been
increased, rather than diminished, at the
objection to the inquiry What possible
reason can there be why the Senate
should not have an answer TO this ques-
tion-"ior what cause or causes were
you removed from officei" 1t cannot "a
rise from a sympathy for the witness. If
the answer would criminate him, he has a
right to withhold it. The question is new
ertheless, proper, whether he can excul-
pate or is willing to criminate himself, or
refuses to answer at all. In every Judi
cial tribunal, a question which may pos
sibly, or will probably, criminate the wit
ness, is always proper, but the obligation
to answer is another affair.
But here the witness does not object,
but is willing to answer. Every obsta-
Gle in regard to the witness is, therefore,
removed. Why then is this merely pre-
liminary question to be refused'
Is the Postmaster General afraid ofthe
answer? Has he been consulted, and
does he think it most prudent to object?
If so, there is strong ground to suspect
him. What high minded, honorable, and
honest man would fear an answer TO such
a question: Is he afraid or ashamed
that the people of the United States
should know the principles by which he
acts?
/ Is this objection without his consent'--
If 50, it is surely using him unfairly; and
If 1t came from 4 political foe, might be
just ground of complaint. But public o.
pinion will, at any rate, ascribe this re-
luctance at inquiry to him. The resolu-
tion to trammel the inquiry comes from
his personal and political friends, and it
will be believed that it is by his consent,
and his request Why, it will be inquir-
ed, do you suppress an answer to such a
question:? If this officer removed does
not, in his answer, give the true cause,
cannot you' Do you fear his peUury?-
You have the means to answer and de-
tect him. Do you fear his truth? That
is Just what we want A witness who
has been assistant Postmaster General
thirty years, and against whom no oilic-
ial misconduct has been alleged, is not to
be lightly esteemed His testimony
would be believed, quite as soon as that
of the Postmaster General himself
/ remember that an officer friend Of
mine, of high respectability, was accus-
ed of misconduct, and the charges were
grave and serious. They were made to
President Monroe at the close of his ad-
ministratlon, and he left them to his sue
cessor. ! expressed to Mr.. Adams IA
strong belief Of the innocence Of my
friend, and insisted that at least he ought
to be heard in his own defence. To this
request III his behalf the President as
sent ed-a commission was instituted to
hear the parties and evidence. On my
return home, | informed my friend that
an inquiry was directed at my request, at
which he seemed dissatisfied, and to think
it was unnecessary. From that time
began to suspect, and to regret that had
spoken so confidently to the President of
his innocence. A full examination was
had, the guilt proved, and the officer re-
moved. | state this case, sir, to show
that any apparent reluctance Of the Post
master General to submit to- this eXamina-
tion, or any disposition to limit or restrict
it, will be ground Of suspicion against him
before the American people.
But, say gentlemen, we are prejudging
case which we may be called to try as
a High Court of Impeachment We an
swer-our duties are legislative, execu-
tive, and judicial; and shall we refuse to
perform one class ofthese duties, because
it may conflict with the others' If we
are never to perform Legislation lest by
possibility we should meet with impeach-
able matter, there are few cases where
we can act at all. In all this, however,
our course is very plain one. The fra
mers of the Constitution supposed the ca
ses of impeachment would rarely occur,
and they Judged correctly. 1t was new
er expected or intended that this power
should in the least control or restrain our
legislative duties. In the course of in
quiry into facts or conduct as basis Of
Legislation, we are never to anticipate
high misdemeanors or impeachable mat
ter; and it is the same with our executive
duties. Suppose district Judge, while
under impeachment in the other House,
should be nominated to the Senate for a
Justice of the Supreme Court-nust we
not inquire into his qualifications, and
consequently into the offence ofwhich he
stands chargcd' Or are we to translate
him to the Supreme Bench, without no
ticing the fact that he stands charged
with official tyranny or corruption by the
grand inquest of the nation' Sir, it ap-
pears to me there is in this an affectation
Of delicacy--a morbid sensibility-it is
altogether new the Senate has never hes
itated to inquire into official misconduct,
81. In, q L. H.. r.. l.