The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-01-28
CONGRESS-.

On Thursday, the first business for considera-
ton was the point Of order raised the day be-
fore BY Mr.. Adams, in relation to the jurisdic-
non of the House in his case. Mr.. Bolts re-
Quested him TO withdraw his point of order that
he might address the House on the resolution of
Mr. Marshall. Mr.. Adams refused The whole
affair was painful to him. and he wished deci-
sion to be made as soon as possible he there
fore must insist on the immediate consideration
Of the question he had proposed.
A protracted conversational, confused, and,
IN some instances, violent discussion arose on
points of order. The principal difficulty was TO
determine what was the question on which the
vote was to be taken. Even when the clerk
was employed in calling the names, many mem
bers arose to ascertain the question at issue,
and after the call was completed, many others
after asking an explanation from the Speaker,
changed their votes on the ground that they
had been led into a misconception of the subject
propounded for their vote The only point in
appearance distinctly understood was, that the
decision taken would extend no farther than the
the resolution of Mr.. Glmer. The perplexity
in which the House was involved, and from
which disentanglement appeared impossible,
arose from doubt whether a decision was to
be made on question of jurisdiction or ques-
ton Of expediency. Whether the vote deter
mined that the House had cognizance of the
subject, or merely that it was now willing to
consider it. After much confusion, the vote was
announced-1lS in the affirmative, and rs in the
negative What was decided by the vote was
left for the judgment Of each member.
Mi. Underwood, who had obtained the floor ON
the preceding day, then commenced the delive-
ny of his intended speech. Though he was a
Shareholder and lived in slavehoding State,
he did not consider himself incapacitated from
trying the case of Mr.. Adams. He did not
think the House had jurisdiction in the case
now before it, and besides he thought all action
on it would terminate as presidents showed in
result perfectly nugatory. His views on the
question of jurisdiction had been already made
known on former occasion. For the House to
assume cogniZance over treason, felony, or
breach of the peace, or any crime properly cog
nzable before the legal tribunals, is in contra
vention to the Constitution, and dangerous to
liberty. II man is said to commit crime for
which he is amenable TO the legal tribunals, the
House has no right to prejudicate the case, and
TO shield the accused from the jurisdiction Of
the criminal court. He cannot be first tried in
the House and then handed over to the jursdic-
ton of the regular tribunal The House may
be the accuser, but not the court.
If the House assumes the prerogatvc of
court what punishment will it inhict in case of
condemnation Its attempt tpunishmentw would
be worse than bathos. If man be guilty Of
treason, you punish him by censure-when ex
pulsion, fine and imprisonment would fall short
Of what his guilt deserves.
Mr.. Underwood thought the doctrines of Mr.
Adams, concerning the right ofpettion, errone
Gus. But he acted, in presenting the memorial
which had produced the debate, in accordance
with the principles which he had always pro-
fessed. The only possible exlrication from the
difficulty he conceived to be in establishing dis
tincty the meaning of the right of petition
He was opposed also to the motion of voting
any censure on the gentleman from Massachu-
sets, because it was the assumption Of the high
ground of judging motives and Furnishing mo-
tives
Mr.. Underwood was interrupted in the course
of his remarks by Mr. Adams, who explained
the case of John Smith, implicated in the guilt
of Aaron Burr. The jury inthe case, he said, Of
Burr had given special verdict, tantamount,
however, to the expression of the opinion OF his
guilt. The case of Smith was precisely the
same, and not tried, because known to be the
same The Senate, acting on the implied OPT
Mon of the jury, had adjudcated his case, after
he had been subjected to the ordeal of an lnves-
tigation by the proper tribunal Other Interrupt
tons also occurred from explanations by Mr..
Marshall and Mr.. Giddings.
Mr.. Arnold obtained the floor after Mr.. I'm
derwood, but gave way to Mr. Bolts, who wished
to speak but few minutes.
Mr.. Bolts earnestly defended Mr.. Adams
The latter had presented petition for the dis
solution of the Union, but at the same time
had moved its reference to select committee
OF which, in ordinary courtesy he would have
been appointed chairman, in order to show the
petitioners that they erred in the expression Of
such desire. This is not the first time that a
project of dissolution had been heard OLA gen
teman from South Carolina had prepared, for.
merly resolution to that effect.
Mr. Rhett said he anticipated the remark, and
had brought with him the pamphlet containing
the resolution and explaining the circumstance.
under which it had been prepared, and unde
which it would have been offered: After som,
Objection, he was permitted to read an explana
tory passage, showing that the resolution had
been written with view to offer it as an amend