Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1838-05-29

spgieahic 10 u IN reference TO The ~suiboriiy oi tbf
resolution. The construction n the rule. and the
reference Of The peinions. u isthst the proceed
irrs Of commiiieef, ard the nature o! The results
to which they arc 10 srTiye. mus, We regulated aud
controlled By The ns,ure of the subjects committed
10 then. n The petitioners s,k for en- &C, Of leg
~,s!aiton. -, ff cStmpls = regesi of the tsrif. the
ommit proceed 10 collect isois, settle principle.
rfnbcdy them in a report, propose : eil or resolu-
ton. and sustain j, by argument. There ore no
pgyhp to be tired in the proceeding hu, there is
.ougat 10 be obisincd an &C, u general legislation
affecting The whole country.
Bot u The petitioners ak fot The expulsion Of q
member or members Of tbs. House, does not every
ono sec That tho nature of the ease calls for a DIFF
Gercul course 81 proceeding ! Expulsion Is . jH
d'oiai Get. and every part Of The proceedings lead
Jog 10 It should be regulated accordingly. The
petitioners are not supposed 20 ask US 10 Lynch
the accused, TO hang them without Judge or jury,
bot TO Try them, fairly and impattially tod 10 give
them the benefit of ell the safeguards which the
established rules of criminal proceedings have
thro~n around tris's involving severe and degtod-
ing punisbmcn,s. The moment. then, a commit
tee conc TO act on such petitions. they sss""e 'h"
-asse or a tnere inquest. The nature of the case
invests them with this character. The common
sense q The Whole world a, once percei,cs the pro
PtitiN VI ftphfulHp lHtW IN lllh lEH'.
This distinction may be TOR II has been on this
foorl s,lgmatized as q mere "technicslity." Gen
tlemen seem very well 10 understand The strength
Of The prcjudiees which cxis, against technical dis.
tinctions and technical nicelies. Bot. cir, il de-
serves no such name. II 10 founded in the sound
est principles Of justice and conmo sense, and
t5e-c is no, a farmer or mechanic in the country, OF
ordinary capacity, who cannot perceive its propiie-
" and feel it's force. You might as well cay tha,
the distinction between q grand and petit jury, or
between an examining magistrate and the court to
which he binds a supposed offender, is q technical
distinction.
have thus, Mr. Speaker, endenvored to show
that neither the resolution creating the committee,
nor the reference TO It of the petitions, authorized
tie report which it has made To this House that
The law of the resolution md the law of the case
are substantially the sane; and that both are in
perfect accordance with the standing rule adopted
by the House for its own government and that of
Ms committees, which plainly prohibits, in cases
like the present, such a report as we are now ask-
ed TO receive, and send forth 10 the country under
our sanction.
Mr. Speaker. is i, possible that, with this rule
before Us. aud a capacity to understand the princi-
pies upon which 1t is founded, We can make such
a report az tins The be sis of our future sctioD7 Have
we invested the committee with the right of tell
ing US what punishment we ought to infict upon
mn offending member of this body? Have we au-
thoflzed them TO elaborate for our use an argument
to show that he ought TO be thus punished ? Have
we asked them TO sum up the testimony IA danger
Gus process'io the hands of a skilful Law yer) 10 eu>
able Us to understand 1t 7 What place can such
a report fave on our table How is 1t to help US
TO give ito the accused a fair trial? Do we, COR
the purposes Of such a trial, want an argument
before we have heard all tic testimony ! Or is it
expected we shall come to a final Judgment upon
the testimony taken by the committee, and DENY
the accused the night Of hearing and confronting
The witnesses at our barr
Sir, this case, 10 use c homely phrase. has come
TO us wrong end foremost. The very first thing
presented TO US is a summing up of the evidence,
and an argument by the ommitt to prove that
ono OF our members has been guilty Of nm offence
and ought TO be expelled, aud that even before he
has been arraigned and put on trial at our bar
And now, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot properly
proceed to make this report the basis Of our &C.
ton' upon what ground is 1t that we are called on
10 order 1t printed What purpose is TO be an.
swered by the printing! Do we wan, it printed
Tor our use' What use What have we TO do
with 1t, except 10 shut our eyes and our cars a
gainst ITS improper and untinely attempts to bias
our judgments IN a case which We have not vet
begun to tryf DO we want ii printed for the use
OF the People For what %purpose7 To enable
them to Judge the case, and condemn the accused 2
Are they the constitutional tribunal TO Judge and
in such a case 7 But even if they were.
arc they TO do 1t upon the strength Of a report
which we are not a; liberty TO make the basis of
our own Judgment Shall we send them the case
imPeriecily developed, in a mere preliminary inq,i.
fy, Tor their judgment, while We are bound to .us-
pend our own until there can be a full hearing at
our bar! What can be more preposterous than
this ?
bot ! may be asked. are you unwilling to trust
'he People with this casel answer. no. When
We on whom is thrown the responsibility Of try
ing At shall have discharged that delicate and main
'ni duty then let the case 90 to the People lust as
we shall have had 1t, and let them. as they may
HghuGlly do, Al, IN Judgment on Us, and approve
or condemn our decision.
! have hei'd the resistance Of tie motion 10
pun' characterized as IN effort to suppress the
num- AM keep the People 10 darkness on this Sob
lee'. Bot gentlemen maj rs well spare themselves
The trouble OF msSlng such suggestions. They
VAL iil OF their intended effect. They mis,skn
49, -