Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Mr. HOWARD said that he had made a motion, in the early part of the day, to reconsider the vote by which the resolution directing the Speaker to issue his warrant for the arrest of Mr. Whitney had been adopted, and he had done so under the impression that it would facilitate the action of the House on the important public business. Since that time, however, he had been induced to change his mind, and he would therefore withdraw the motion to reconsider.

[H. OF R.

the Sergeant-at-arms, be brought to the bar of this House, to answer for an alleged contempt of the House, in peremptorily refusing to appear and give evidence as a witness on a summons duly issued by a select committee, acting by the authority of this House, under a resolution of the 17th of January last, in the matter of a letter, expressing said refusal, addressed by the said R. M. Whitney to the committee, and by the committee referred to the House; and that he be forthwith furnished Mr. CALHOON, of Kentucky, submitted the follow-with a copy of the report of said committee and of the ing resolution; which was considered and adopted: letter aforesaid. Resolved, That R. M. Whitney, now in the hands of force, unless you wish to put far off all hope of the deliverance of your race from bondage. Cultivate, rather, a quiet spirit." "Be patient." "Resist not evil." "Be obedient to your own masters; not answering again; not purloining; but showing all good fidelity, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."

But why, I am asked, do you assert the right of the slave to petition, if his exercise of the right ought not to be countenanced? I answer, because the question has been forced upon me, and I must meet it. I would be the last to bring forward a resolution asserting the right for which I contend. But when I am called on, as in the present case, to say yes or no to a proposition which expressly denies that right, I must and will say no, and give my reasons for thus saying.

I will not give a vote which shall, even by the remotest implication, assert that my colored brother is property, and nothing but property; that he "he has no more right to petition than a dog or a horse," and that he possesses, in fact, "no legal or constitutional rights

whatever."

I have said that the deliverance of the slaves must arise from some other quarter than themselves. Let me not be misunderstood. The idea of an attempt by Con. gress to abolish slavery in the States of this Union bas never, that I am aware, been entertained by any. No other deliverance is contemplated than that of voluntary emancipations by individuals, or abolition by force of legislation, acting within the sphere of its admitted jurisdiction. If the abolitionists have ever been understood at the South as entertaining views different from these, they have been greatly misrepresented. They entertain, however, the opinion that Congress possesses the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and that the State Legislatures have like power in their respective States; and they seek, in the exercise of that freedom of speech and of the press which is guarantied to them by the constitution, to produce a public sentiment which shall, by its fair and legitimate influence, effect the legislation they so much desire.

The House then adjourned.

than our own, have abolished it, we, who boast of our attachment to the principles of civil liberty, and our high regard for the inalienable rights of man, should still cherish it in our very bosom.

In their strong conceptions of the character and consequences of this evil, abolitionists have sometimes indulged in the indiscriminate use of harsh and severe personal epithets, to which I have felt a deep repugnance. With me, however, it has been a subject rather of regret than of severe censure; for, if strong feeling and strong language are ever to be excused, it is when they are excited and drawn forth in the sacred cause of human freedom. Let those denounce and recriminate who never themselves transgress the bounds of prudence, when they feel strongly in what they believe to be a good cause; and especially those who have never opposed or countenanced the opposing of mob power to the progress of free discussion. Most heartily do I disapprove of the indiscriminate use of such epithets as man-stealers, robbers, and pirates, on the one side, and vile fanatics, incendiaries, and murderers, on the other. For the abolitionists, however, I can say that language of vituperation is giving place to sober arguments, addressed to the reason and conscience and enlightened self-interest of the slaveholder; and I will hope that the intellect of the South will henceforth be employed in answering those arguments, rather than indulging in harsh and indiscriminate denunciations of those who urge them.

Permit me to close this communication with the following resolutions, which I find among those adopted by the late anti-slavery convention of the State of Pennsy!vania:

"Resolved, That in Christian meekness we intend to maintain the right of exhorting those who uphold an institution so evidently unjust as that of slavery, to examine its operations upon all classes of the community, both individually and collectively, confident that, if they do so with unprejudiced minds and sincere motives, they will be convinced of its deep sinfulness, and thus be prepared to commence, immediately, the great work of freeing themselves and their country from its paralyzing influ ences.

[ocr errors]

They believe that all men are created equal;" that they are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" "Resolved, That the convention recommend to the and that to the Creator alone belongs the high prerog- colored people of this State to maintain a peaceful and ative of holding property in man. Planting themselves moral deportment in all the departments in life in on the broad basis of these truths, they assert that the which they may be placed; that thus they may be inassumption and exercise of that right, by man, is among strumental in delivering their oppressed brethren from the highest wrongs which he can inflict upon his fellow-bondage, and refute the calumnies of those who say they man. Their own deep conviction of this truth they seek to communicate to the minds of others-not to slaves, with whom they hold no intercourse, and whom, if they did, they would only admonish to patience and submission-but to their masters, to those communities in whose Legislatures resides the power to put an end, within their limits, to the wrongs of slavery, and furnish relief from its complicated evils. They look at slavery with some conception of what is comprehended in that word; and are amazed that philanthropy itself should have so long slept over the existence of such an evil; that, while other nations, less free in their institutions

cannot be elevated in character in these United States." "Resolved, That we earnestly recommend the colored people, both bond and free, to endeavor to fulfil all their moral, social, and religious duties, and thus show to the world that they deserve to be free."

Here is abolitionism, sound in principle, chastened in feeling, and pure in spirit. My judgment and my heart approve it.

I am, gentlemen, very respectfully, your obedient servant, WILLIAM SLADE.

WASHINGTON, February 15, 1837.

[blocks in formation]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13. CASE OF R. M. WHITNEY. The SPEAKER announced that Reuben M. Whitney, now in custody for an alleged contempt of the authority of the House, was without the bar, waiting the further pleasure of the House.

The Chair also stated that the accused had been furnished with copies of the papers referred to in the resolution adopted on Saturday last.

Mr. PATTON moved that the Sergeant-at-arms be directed to bring the prisoner to the bar of the House; which motion prevailed.

The accused having been placed at the bar, the SPEAKER addressed him as follows:

"Reuben M. Whitney: You have been brought before the House, by its order, to answer the charge of an alleged contempt of this House, in having peremptorily refused to give evidence in obedience to a summons duly issued by a committee of this House, which committee had, by an order of the House, power to send for persons and papers.

"Before you are called upon to answer in any manner to the subject-matter of this charge, it is my duty, as the presiding officer of this House, to inform you that, by an order of the House, you will be allowed counsel, should you desire it. If you have any request to make in relation to this subject, your request will now be received and considered by the House. If, however, you are now ready to proceed in the investigation of the charge, you will state it, and the House will take order accordingly."

To which the accused replied, that he held in his hand a paper in relation to the charge, which he respectfully requested might be received and read.

The following paper was then read:

"The undersigned answers that his refusal to attend the committee, upon the summons of its chairman, was not intended or believed by him to be disrespectful to the honorable the House of Representatives, nor does he now believe that he thereby committed a contempt of

the House.

"His reasons for refusing to attend the committee are truly stated in his letter to that committee.

"He did not consider himself bound to obey a summons issued by the chairman of the committee.

"He had attended, in obedience to such a summons, before another committee, voluntarily, and without objections to the validity of the process; and would have attended in the same way before the present committee, but for the belief that he might thereby be exposed to insult and violence.

"He denies, therefore, that he has committed a contempt of the House, because

"First. The process upon him was illegal, and he was not bound to obey it. And

"Secondly. Because he could not attend without exposing himself thereby to outrage and violence.

If the House shall decide in favor of the authority of the process, and that the respondent is bound to obey it, then he respectfully asks, in such case, that, in consideration of the peculiar circumstances in which he is placed, as known to the House, the committee may be instructed to receive his testimony upon interrogatories to be answered on oath before a magistrate, as has been done in other instances in relation to other witnesses; or that the committee be instructed to prohibit the use or introduction of secret and deadly weapons in the committee room during the examination of the wit

nesses.

"And in case he shall think it necessary, he prays to be heard by counsel, and to be allowed to offer testimony on the matters herein submitted.

"R. M. WHITNEY."

[FEB. 13, 1837.

Mr. GHOLSON offered the following resolution: Resolved, That Reuben M. Whitney be now permitted to examine witnesses before this House, in relation to his alleged contempt.

Mr. HAYNES said he understood that the prisoner denied the power of the House, and that it seemed proper to dispose of this preliminary question first.

Mr. LINCOLN then read a resolution which he intended to offer, (as below.)

Mr. GHOLSON said it appeared to him they had se lect committees enough already, for the period of the session, and the matters before the House to be acted upon. Where existed, let him ask, the necessity for raising a committee? All they could do would be to bring their report before the House; and the House would, when called upon to act on it, be in precisely the that the object of bringing Mr. Whitney to the bar was same situation they were that morning. He had supposed for him to disprove or to purge himself of an alleged con. tempt to the House. Well, he has appeared, in obedience to its order, and Mr. G. could see no objection to his setting about immediately to disprove the charge against him, if it was in his power.

Mr. MERCER did most sincerely hope that the House would so far respect its own dignity as to adhere to its old established forms of proceeding. That form had invariably been the appointment of a committee to direct the mode of proceedings.

Mr. PATTON then renewed the suggestion that the respondent ought to retire during the deliberations of the House on the preliminary proceedings. This had always been the uniform course.

The CHAIR stated that such had been the uniform course in former cases; and, believing it to be the sense of the House, he directed the Sergeant-at-arms to take Reuben M. Whitney from the bar, which was done.

Mr. BOULDIN said he wished only to make one suggestion. One proposition of the gentleman, brought before the House, was that he was willing to go before the committee, if that committee would go into the

committee room unarmed. He was sure the committee Idid not wish to go into the room armed. He wished to suggest to the committee and to the House that this would avoid all further trouble about the matter.

Mr. LINCOLN said it was very far from his intention to place himself in the attitude of a prosecutor in this case. The committee had contented themselves by detailing the circumstances of the refusal of this witness tion on the subject; and because of this course having to appear before them, without recommending any ac been pursued by the committee, he (Mr. L.) had come forward the other day, and introduced a proposition di recting the Speaker to issue his warrant for the arrest of this witness. He had not intended, after the adoption of this order, to take any further part in the matter, and should not then have arisen to bring before the House another proposition, if it had not been for the fact that attention to the course of proceeding which it would be no other person present appeared to have turned their necessary for the House to adopt on this occasion. In looking into the precedents as to the mode of proceeding in such cases, he had found that it would be necessary,

for the purpose of procuring the action of the House on the subject, that some direction should be given by the House as to the mode of proceeding; because he believed it would be impossible for the House to act on it without some preliminary measures being taken; and, for the purpose of indicating the course which he thought should be adopted, he sent to the Chair the fol lowing amendment:

Strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert, "That a committee of privileges, consisting of seven members, be appointed and instructed to report the

[blocks in formation]

mode of proceeding in relation to Reuben M. Whitney, who is now in custody, awaiting the order of this House; and that said committee have leave to execute the duty assigned them immediately."

Mr. McKAY said he had voted, on Friday last, when the subject was before the House, to require the Speaker to issue his summons to bring Reuben M. Whitney to the bar, and he had done so with a good deal of reluctance; not that he at all doubted the power of the House to punish a witness in cases of flagrant contempt. This witness has now appeared at the bar, and declared explicitly that, in refusing to appear before the committee, he did not intend to commit a contempt to the House, or to call in question its authority, and had given reasons for his refusal. Now, Mr. McE. was unwilling to consume any more of the public time, to the exclusion of all the important business of the country, in an investi. gation of the power of the House, and in hunting up precedents to sustain that power.

It seemed to Mr. McK., he said, that the witness himself, in an alternative presented by him to the House, had opened the door to overcome any further embarrassment. He had stated several alternatives. One was, that the committee should be prohibited from the use or wearing of deadly weapons: this was an alternative Mr. McK. had no disposition to consider. Another was, his offer to give his testimony, upon interrogatories, and swearing to it before a magistrate; in other words, a private examination. Now, let him (Mr. McK.) ask, would not the witness's testimony, taken in this way, be just as valuable to the committee as if written in their presence? Surely it would. As the object of the committee must be, and as the object of the House in raising the committee itself was, to procure testimony bearing on the subject-matters to be investigated, could they do better than by pursuing the very course indicated and tendered by this witness himself? Surely the House would not consume the balance of the session in discussing the parliamentary law on the subject of contempts, and in investigating the conduct of the members of one of its committees towards a witness brought before them. Would they consume another week upon it? which they certainly would do unless his suggestions were adopted. Suppose the witness be brought to the bar, and is heard by counsel; suppose they question the power of the House, and, in vindication of their client, go into the conduct of the various members of the select committee, what would be the certain result? It would consume the balance of the session.

He would again ask if they could now punish the witness for contempt. The dignity of the House had been vindicated; the witness had been brought to the bar, and explicitly disclaimed any intention to commit a contempt, or to be guilty of disrespect towards the House. Moreever, he declares himself ready and willing to give his testimony in the way it is obtained from many other witnesses. Mr. McK. concluded by expressing a hope that the House would consume no further time in the matter, but at once instruct the committee to take the testimony of Mr. Whitney by filing interrogatories.

[ocr errors]

Mr. HOAR could not understand the question as the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McKAY] had. He had understood that gentleman as saying that the mode of avoiding this difficulty was already pointed out by the respondent. Well, what was the course which was pointed out by the respondent? Why, he had said, in the first place, that he did not intend any contempt of the House; and, in the second place, he had said that, provided the House would do certain things which he had indicated, he would be willing and ready to testify. He did not understand this as an indication of the willingness of this witness to obey the command of the Government issued by that House. Mr. H. would sub

[H. of R.

mit to the House this question: The witness had repre sented to the House that certain difficulties presented themselves to him, which prevented his appearing before the committee, one of which was that be apprehended some personal danger; but could this witness not confide in the justice of the House, that it would take measures to protect him from injury while he was before one of its committees? Shall he assert, as a right, that the House, in the first place, must adopt certain measures which he had indicated, before he could appear before this committee?

Mr. H. contended that no individual in the United States had this right, and that this in itself was a contempt of the Government of the United States; and, while this course was persisted in, it appeared to him that the House could not, in a proper sense of what was due to itself and to the Government, take any course other than to require the witness to obey the command of the Government. He should be as ready as any one to take every proper measure to protect a witness; because a witness there was properly under the protection of the House; and if any individual member of the House should undertake to do that which was a violation of its protection, the law furnished a remedy. Unquestiona bly the House was under the necessity of adopting measures to vindicate the rights of citizens; but it seemed to him that this was not the proper stage of the proceeding for the consideration of this question. It appeared to him that the only course which it was necessary for them now to pursue, to save the time of the House, was to have a committee to take testimony, if testimony was necessary. Gentlemen had asked, why the necessity of appointing a committee to make a report, when that report would have to be examined again by the House? If this objection was a proper one, it would lie against every committee which was appointed by the order of the House; your standing committees as well as your select committees. If it was proper to have committees to examine other cases, it was proper to have one to examine this case; and he could see no objection which would lie against this committee, which would not lie equally against any other committee of the House.

Mr. HUNTSMAN said: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that to adopt the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts would be acting prematurely. Why appoint another committee upon that subject, before we ascertain certainly that there may be a disputable matter for us to act upon? If I understand the nature of Mr. Whitney's plea, there are three positions assumed in it: 1st, he says that he intended no contempt to this House; 2d, that he does not believe that that summons, or precess, which was issued by the chairman of the committee, was a legal process; 3d, that if the House shall deter mine that it was, he is willing to answer in two ways: 1st, that he will answer any interrogatories submitted, if permitted to swear to them before a justice of the peace, as in other cases of a similar character; or, 2d, that he is willing to go to the committee room, provided the members thereof are restricted from wearing arms during his examination. It appears to me, sir, that, before the appointment of any committee, the House should first determine upon his first proposition, to wit: was the process legal? was he bound to answer? If the House shall thus determine, (as probably it will,) that he is bound to answer, he then professes a willingness to answer in one of the two modes. If the House shall determine to accept either of the modes, then let him answer, and the question is at an end. If the House shall determine, however, that neither of these modes of answering is acceptable to the House, then there may be a necessity for the appointment of a committee to make such rules for the government of Whitney's trial as may best comport with that object. Ile can

[blocks in formation]

then be heard by counsel. But if the House shall determine that he may answer in one of the modes proposed, then much valuable time, much expense, will be saved, that can be bestowed upon much more valuable subjects than any contest we can have with Reuben M. Whitney.

There are most of the appropriation bills yet to pass, seven or eight hundred bills upon your table, and not three weeks of your session yet remains. The Tennessee land bill, which has been here for twelve or fifteen years, waiting for the action of the House; and if this investigation shall take the range anticipated, it will occupy all the balance of the session, to the utter exclusion of all other business whatever.

Notwithstanding all this, I have voted for the inquiry, and all the subsequent proceedings to bring him before the bar of this House. Since this question was last up, I have examined some of the cases which have arisen in this House upon the subjects of contempt. The cases seem to show that this House has never prescribed any rules for the punishment of contempts, but a simple reprimand of the culprit is the extent of its powers. There are two remarkable cases: the first of Johnson Anderson, for an attempt to bribe a member of this House. That was certainly a more flagrant offence than the refusal to appear before a committee of the House to give testimony. After several weeks' discussion and examination of Anderson's case, he was found guilty; and what then? Why, sir, he was called up before the Speaker, who, with much gravity, reprimanded him. A reprimand, then, sir, is the extent of the punishment. If this is all, (as seems to be generally understood,) the punishment you can inflict for a contempt, I conceive, is not only a prodigal waste of the time and money of the people, but it is worse: it is a farce acted before the people; it lessens the dignity of the House, to be arrayed for three weeks in a controversy with Reuben M. Whitney; at the end of which, suppose we find him guilty of every thing charged, why, all the punishment we can inflict upon him is an exquisitely nice-worded reprimand from the Speaker.

The next case of contempt was the case of the honorable Samuel Houston. After three weeks' investigation, engrossing the time of the House and the money of the people, to the exclusion of all other business, he was found guilty pro forma, called to the bar of the House pro forma; and the honorable Speaker, with a degree of splendor and elegance seldom equalled, pronounced a handsome eulogy (which was merited) upon the life and transactions of the honorable culprit, and ended by saying, "I am commanded by the House to reprimand you, and you are reprimanded accordingly." This was the substance of the whole precisely like Anthony's oration over the dead body of Cæsar. After bestowing the most handsome eulogy ever delivered upon Cæsar, he says, "Yet Brutus says he (Cæsar) was ambitious; and Brutus is an honorable man." In this case, the bonorable House says Mr. Whitney has committed a contempt, and the House is composed of honorable men; and you, Mr. Whitney, are reprimanded, according to order. It is lamentable, Mr. Speaker, that this House has never passed any laws authorizing a more consummate punishment upon those who act in contempt of its authority than a simple reprimand. Let this controversy end as it may, it amounts to nothing; or, in other words, it is worse than nothing, for so I consider a reprimand. I shall, therefore, vote to dispose of this case as early as possible, so that the House can act upon something that may be beneficial to the country, and not consume the whole session in the case of the Congress of the United States against Reuben M. Whitney, or Reuben M. Whitney against the Congress of the United States. Of Mr. Whitney I know nothing; I never saw him, to my knowledge, before he was

[FEB. 13, 1837.

brought to the bar of the House. But, sir, I do not wish this House to be put in such a situation as it may lose much valuable time, expend much money, and gain nothing but a reprimand upon Reuben.

Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped that the time of the House might not be consumed in discussing this mere matter of form, as to whether this subject should go to a select committee or not, when the important appropriation bills to carry on the operations of the Government were yet unacted on. He did not think it was necessary to send this question to a committee, and he appealed to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. LINCOLN,] who had offered this resolution, to withdraw it, because that House could just as well determine on the mode of proceeding as any seven members of it could who might be appointed a committee for this purpose. Inasmuch as Mr. Whitney was now at the bar of the House, he trusted the House would not permit this question to go to a committee, but that they would decide it there, and decide it promptly. If this was not done, the wheels of Government must stop, because there was no money appropriated for any one branch of the public service. He hoped that those gentlemen who had voted to bring this individual to the bar of the House would vote to dispose of his case with all possible despatch.

Mr. MANN, of New York, said it was foreseen, before the committee presented this question to the deliberate consideration of the House, that it would ultimately roll itself into a question of greater magnitude for consideration and determination than any question that had been propounded there for a long time. And why so? It was because the decision of that House, and the course of its proceedings in regard to this question, involved the cause of free government throughout the world; and the action of that House, upon a matter like the one under consideration, was to be regarded in the history of this country as for or against free government.

Sir, (continued Mr. M.,) what spectacle are we presenting here, as the House of Representatives of the United States, to the consideration of all those nations and countries with whom we are on such terms of amity and peace as that they take cognizance of the proceed. ings of this House? Are we offering to them an exam. ple for their imitation? Or are we offering to them a spectacle for their ridicule and contempt? Sir, it be comes the dignity of this House to vindicate its character as the representatives of this, the only free nation of the earth, before a tribunal of the civilized world, in regard to this matter. I care not, therefore, sir, when the national character of this country, in all future times, is to be involved, (which, upon first view, seems not to have struck the minds of all gentlemen,) I say, sir, I care not what becomes of your pitiful appropriation bills to carry on your Government. This question involves considerations of far higher import, and more imperiously calls upon the House to vindicate its character, as the guardians of civil liberty, than all the appropriation bills you could pass here from this time to the end of time.

Now, sir, why is this all so? Why, sir, you have directed one of the committees of this House to make an investigation. That committee, in the course of the investigation, have deemed it proper to take what they deemed to be exceptions to an answer given them by a witness. What was that answer? Was there any thing in that answer, given by that witness, which ought to have disturbed the most fastidious member of that committee, in and of itself?

Mr. MASON, of Ohio, here rose and called the gen tleman from New York to order, on the ground of irrelevancy.

Mr. MANN. The gentleman will reduce the point to writing.

1

[blocks in formation]

Mr. MASON understood the question before the House to be on the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The CHAIR said it was, and pronounced the course of argument of the gentleman from New York to be within the strict limits of that subject.

Mr. MANN resumed. Sir, I will save the gentleman the necessity of calling me to order, for I will proceed in order. I am in order. I am going on to show why the character of this House and the nation demand that this House of Representatives ought immediately to per mmit this examination of this witness, in regard to the alleged contempt for which he stands now arraigned at the bar of the House, under the gaze of the American people. I am going on to show, sir, why you should examine the witness forthwith, instead of raising a committee to hunt up precedents and report forms and modes of procedure.

Mr. LINCOLN begged to explain, for he thought he had been misunderstood. The object in raising the Committee was merely to report a simple mode of proceeding, and very little delay would ensue, which would be amply made up by the saving of time afterwards. Mr. L. then read his amendment.

Mr. MANN. I do not misunderstand the gentleman, sir; but, in my judgment, his plan is paying more regard to shadows than to the substance. Now, is it not in the power of the gentleman himself to cross-examine the witnesses? Would he feel any reluctance to do it? If so, sir, I will do it; I can do it, too; having had a little experience since this session commenced, as well as formerly, in the cross-examination of witnesses before a committee.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Massachusetts does not choose to appear here as a prosecutor in this case, and that is the reason he wants this resolution adopted. Now, I ask the gentleman not to shrink from the responsibility of coming here with a resolution, and moving the arrest of this witness. I foresaw what would be the result. I foresaw, before the committee left their room with their report, that this was to become one of the most important questions, in regard to the character of the American Congress, presented for a long time. It is to be decided here, and for the approval and approbation of the civilized world, whether a witness shall be compelled to go before a committee whose members stand with arms in their hands to protect themselves for what that committee may deem wrong.

[ocr errors]

Sir, (continued Mr. M.,) bring the person accused to your bar, and give him an opportunity of placing his vindication before this House, and in the hearing of each member of it. If there ever was an occasion, if there ever will be another occasion, for demanding, at the hands of this House, and at the expense of every moment of its time from this to the end of the session, more than the present, then I cannot conceive one. will, however, promise to relieve the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] from the office he seems unwilling to assume upon himself. If he does not choose to assume the responsibility of coming here in favor of that resolution, as well as myself, for I agreed to the resolution of calling the witness here, then I will assume the duties alternately, and in vindication of what I deem to be just to the character of this House, that of instituting the most scrutinizing and most careful crossexamination of these witnesses in regard to what the acCused has intimated here. Let it be determined by this House, let it be determined before the eyes not only of this country but of every civilized country of the earth, whether the proceedings of this House are to be vindicated, and asserted, and maintained; and in what manDer those proceedings are to be asserted, vindicated,

VOL. XIII.-119

[H. OF R.

[blocks in formation]

In conclusion, Mr. M. said he would not spend one single moment in instituting an inquiry into forms of proceeding, but he was for calling upon the accused at once to enter upon his defence, give him his counsel, and let that counsel cross-examine the witnesses.

Mr. VANDERPOEL said that the question before us was, what were the relative merits of the two propositions?-the one made by the gentleman from Massachusetss [Mr. LINCOLN] and the other by the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. GHOLSON.] He had no hesitation in saying that, unless a better plan was suggested than that which was presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts, he would vote for the resolution of the gen. tleman from Mississippi. Expedition in this matter was certainly an object. We might talk as much as we pleased about the vast importance of this subject; about its connexion with the cause of free government throughout the world. For his (Mr. V's) part, he could not regard it as being of sufficient importance to justify us in such a consumption of time with it as to put in jeopardy the general appropriation bills.

The wheels of Government must be kept in motion. Our days here were almost numbered; and if there was not a general disposition here to despatch this matter, your appropriation bills were most assuredly in danger. Why, then, instead of proceeding immediately with the case, refer the matter back to a select committee, for the purpose of reporting to us the form of proceeding we should pursue? The Chair could appoint a commit. tee to examine witnesses on the part of this House. The gentleman from Mississippi would, no doubt, so modify his amendment as to authorize the Speaker to appoint such catechists or prosecutors, and then we could proceed immediately with the trial. The gentleman from Massachusetts had told us that he had looked into the precedents, and he had doubtless concocted some plan of proceeding. Let the gentleman now suggest it to us; and if he (Mr. V.) approved of it he would probably vote for it; but he could not, and would not, contribute to the delay that would be consequent upon the passage of his resolution. Mr. Whitney had already been under arrest for two days; and it was due to him, and to the regard that we all cherished for the liberty of the citizen, that we should proceed in the matter with the least practicable delay.

Mr. LANE said, to his mind, the question presented to the House is a plain one, so far as it regarded the course to be adopted in relation to the case as it now stands. The defendant has been brought to the bar of the House, to answer for an alleged contempt in not giving evidence before one of its committees. To which he answers, that he intended no contempt to this House, and manifested his perfect willingness to give evidence before the committee, provided they shall appear unarmed, or that he will appear and answer interrogatories submitted before a justice of the peace.

The defendant, Mr. Whitney, stands before this House purged of all contempt; and the only remaining question is to examine witnesses for the purpose of informing the House whether the reasons alleged are or are not true, in order to enable the House, as judges in this case, to come to a correct conclusion whether the defendant ought to be protected or not.

This would be the proceeding in a court of law, when brought up before the court. If he disclaimed all contempt, and gave his reasons for not obeying the process of the court, witnesses would be called upon and ex

« ПретходнаНастави »