The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1838-05-12
DEBATE ON THE DUEL REPORTS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, April %, 1888.
(COHfinusdA

mItee TO have said-we md, on the examination
authorized by the resolution under which APP
pointed, that certain members of the House are in
volyed, and therefore report the fact TO the House
that It may take such order thereon as IL may deem
proper Il Is exceedingly to be regretted that such
course was not taken by the committee.
The elaborate analysis Of the evidence and argu-
ment of the case, presented 10 the report which we
are asked TO send forth 10 The world under the sane
non Of vote TO print, and which constitutes in my
Judgment, It's most Objectionable features Is sought
TO be justified by the authority given the committee
TO inquire whether there had not been breach Of
the privileges OF this House :" This inquiry invol-
wing questions of fact and of law il is commended
JUSTIFIED the committee in pronouncing a solemn de-
clson upon BOTH and giving reasons, at length, for
such decision.
But, Mr.. Speaker, il seems to me that consdera-
tion Of the nature OF This proceeding, TO which
shall soon more particularly advert and the obvious
design of the House in authorizing an inquiry by
committee, render II apparent that the duty OF the
committee under this branch of the resolution, en-
braced no such range as that here commended for
Nothing can be more apparent, think, than that no
such action Of the committee was within the
temptation OF the House. The case presented came
within It's criminal Jurisdiction, and might result in
the arraignment and trial OF one or more of its
members. And could il have been intended TO out
rage all the rules of criminal proceedings by author
izing committee TO elaborate, in the committee
room, an argument on the merits OF the case, Gas
though on trial Of the accused) 10 be thrown into
this House to pre-occupy the minds and bias the
Judgments OF the members, and 70 be throw n before
could be more absurd nothing more dangerous,
nothing more subversive of all the principles of
fairness and impariialiiy, which have been conse-
Grated by universal usage in criminal proceedings.
This was committee Of inquiry not OF trial. and
its duty was obviously discharged by presenting the
testimony in the language of The Witnesses together
with general finding that there had been breach
of the privileges of The House No purposes con-
nected with tar trial of the accused could have
been answered by the analysis and argument con-
tanned in this report Every just purpose OF the in
quiry would have been answered by the general find
ing for which contend. Such a finding should,
from the nature OF the case, always be understood
be the result of first impressions merely, on an e1
parte examination, and should never assume the
form OF a solemn argument and adjudicaton-a
form entirely subversive Of the purpose and design
of such proceeding. It's improperly is rendered
the more apparent in the present case from the con-
sideration that the members Of the committee are
part of the tribunal before whom the accused are
nnay TO be tried and ought not, therefore, 10 CON-
nit themselves by labored argument either Of the
facts the law of The case. This consideration, 1t
is apparent, rendered il improper TO incorporate
in the resolution, as was done by an amendment, an
authority to report whether there had been breach
of the privileges of the House; and if time had been
taken for reflection, such authority am persuaded,
would not have been given. The committee would
have been fully justified in asking the House to dis
charge them from this part of the resolution; while
the considerations which might have justified such
request would, think, plainly have suggested TO
them the propriety OF coDtnng themselves to the ge-
neral finding which have suggested.
/ am thus unable to perceive in the last clause of
the resolution any just ground Tor the proceeding OF
the committee, which il has been brought forward 10
justify.
But it has been urged that if the resolution by
which the committee was created did not authorize
the report authority has since been given, by the re-
ference TO the committee of petitions praying for the
expulsion Of the implicated members--whch refer
ence, il is maintained, conferred on the committee
authority equivalent TO the Especial au hority to in
quire concerning members" which the rule contem-
plates.
Now sir, is not apparent that this practically,
mere evasion Of the rule Who thought, when these
petitions were referred sub siieniio to the committee
that the tremendous power in question thereby
erred on it, which the rule contempates shall be
erred only by special roe Of The House 10 that effect
Nobody, The thought, venture to say, entered the
mind of no .s
But sir there are reasons why the reference OF the
petitions did not confer the power the committee
commended for, which lie deep IN The nature ofts
II should be observed that the commitment OF the petit
tons unaccompaned by any instructions to the
committee, who therefore left TO be governed by
the general principles properly applicable to such
What are those principles What the nature Of this
case .#. ~. ".
And here, Mr.. speaker,I come to distinction which
lies the foundation Of this whole subject, applicable
to in reference the authority Of the resolution, the
construction of the rule, and the reference of The petit
tons is that the proceedings OF committees, and
the Of the results to which they to arrive
must be regulated and controlled by the nature Of the
subjects committed them If the petitioners ask for
OF iep isdiiCn, for example, repeal OF the Ia
riff the committee proceed TO collect facts, settle prin
cpes embody them in report, propose bill or resou-
ton, and sustanlt by argument There parties
to be tried III The proceeding but there is sought be
obtained of general legislation affecting the whole
country.
But the petitioners ask for the expulsion Of
Der or members of this House, does not every
that the nature of the calls for different Of
proceeding Expulsion is judicial act, and every
part Of the proceedings leading should be regulated
accordingly. The petitioners not supposed 10 ask
to " Lynch the accused to hang them without
Judge Jury" but try them, fairly and impaualy,
and give them the benefit of all ,he safeguards which
the established rules OF criminal proceedings have thrown
around trials involving severe and degrading punish
ments The moment, then, committee come to act
such petitions they assume the Office OF mere IN
quest The nature Of the invests them with this
character. The common of the whole world at
once perceiyes the propety Of regarding them in this
light
The distinction may be flor it has been this Aoor)
stigmatzed a mere technically" Gentlemen
seems very well to understand the strength of the pre-
ludces which exist against technical distinctions and
technical nicees But sir, it deserves no such name
1t founded in the soundest principles of justice and
common sense, and there is not farmer or mechanic
the country Of ordinary capacity, who cannot perceive
its proprety and feel its force You might as well say
that the distinction between grand and petit jury, or
between examining magistrate and the court to
which he binds supposed offender, is technical dis
tincton "a
| have thus, Mr.. Speaker, endeavored to show
that neither the resolution creating the committee,
nor the reference to it of the petitions authorized
the report which il has made TO this House; that
the law of the resolution and Inc law Oh me case are
substantially the same; and that both are in per-
feet accordance with the startling rule adopted by
the House for its own government and that Of its
committees, which plainly prohibits, in cases like