all
m a-
ill
III
fell
1,!
DISGRACED SENATOR. '
Mr. A dam t, fron the corrraittec iprt
,J 19 ervqoir whether i: be compat'W
Wlli ibe honr nd rivilrgr a
,sr. thit JohnSm th, a Senator frwj
the S ite Omo, 5 ct whom b lis ci
iadcnm-in found at the Ciita t
Court of V rjlna, htU i Kichraotjrt.
in Aojnn Usi, for treisoa xwi msde
neanor. tbale prrramed any. longer
to have a seat iherem nd to enqujrr
into all the licts regittlln; the cinduc"
of M Smrth aaanJIeded anociate
of Aaron Burr, and report the same ti
the Serate, stiUnittd t&e foUowmg
YOUR Comrhittcc are of opinion
that ihe cbnspirlcy of Aaron Durr
md hiisiociatc against the peace.
Union, anu liStrrties or thee states,
is uf such a character, Ind thai its
exigence is estblhhed by such a
xnast of concun inp and mutually
corroborative testirrony, thai it is
incompatible not only Uith the ho
nor and privileges' of this Houi.
but with the deepest interest of this
r.ai'n; that any person engaged in
h should be permitted to hold a seat
in ;he Senate of the United1 Sutes
Whether the facts, of which the
commi.tee submit hcrew'uh such e
Tienre., as under the order of the
Senate they hive been able to col-1-ct.aii
sufficient to substantiate the
paniiipttion of Mr. Smith in that
conspiracy, or n t, "will remain for
the Senate l" decide.
The committee submit also to the
eonideratKn of the Senate he correspond-
ncc between Mr. Smiih Sc
thnn throush their Chaitman in the
eoune nf their meetings. Thecom
mi'tec hate nerer conceived them
sttren tnvct'td with authority t trv
M. S nith.. Their cha-ge was to
Ttp tt an opinion relating to the ho
Br and privileges of the Senate.
inJ the facts relating to the cndur.
of Mr; S'TOih. Their opinion indter:
ci'm.it be ex;resed in relation to
th pnriligesof ihtt Senate, without
rclun at the some time to Mr.
Smith's riUt of holding a seat in
thisbr; but in tht respect the.
autiomv of the committer rxend
only t prujoal. and not to decision.
Ta: a he manifested a great sr)l:ci
tu le '0 be board before them, they
obtained permission from the Senat
to admit his attendance communi
caird to bim the evidmce in their
psessioti, by uhich he was incul
pated, futnifthtrd him in writing with
t q'.estioni arising from i' which
appeared to them ma trial, and rc
ceted 'from him th informatjon 2c
cxpLnai ons herewith submitted as
pan of thefjets reported; Rut Mr.
Smith has claimed as a right to be
hird ib his defence by counsel, to
hve compulsory pr teas for wit
russti. and to be confronted with
his accusers, as if iht nrrtmittte
hat. been a circuit court of the Uni
ted S ates; hut it is before the Se
n'ei self that yourcoramittee con
ceive it juit and proper that Mr.
Smith's ' defence of himself should
be heard ; nor haxe they conceived
themselves bound in this enquiry
by any Oilier rules than those of nai
tutal justice and equity due to a
Brother Senator on the' one part,.Sc
their cotintry on the thcr.
Mr. Smith rej. resents himself on
thi enquiry as solitaryi friendless
r.J unskilled, contending for rights
bich he intimates are denied him,
and the defender of senatorial privi
leges which 'be seems apprehen
site will be refused him by Sena
tors, liable so long as they bold
tb-ir offices to have his case made
their own. The committee are not
tnware that in the vicissitudes of
fcuman events, no member of this
xly can be sure that Ms conduct
wl never be mide a subject of en
cJ'ry and decision before the assem
V7 to which he belongs. Tbcy are
fire that in tie coarse of proceed
ng. which the seriate may now aanc
ton, its members are marking out
? precedent which may breaftcr'ap
FT to themselves. They are scn
jbJe that the ptinclples upon which
"ty have acted, ought to bare the
,Jme operation upon their own
It ? l. PrTges as upon-thbse
cMr Smith, the sim relation to
ft the rights of their constituents,
which they hare tothoe of the legis
lature which he represents. They
hTe deemed 1t their dutyu6 advance
it thf progress of 4 heir enquiry with
peculiar care & deliberation. They
lave realt out to Mr, SmUh.-tnat
neasure wnich under thesuposittbn
f similar circumstances thcy'would
he content to find imparted to them
selves, and they have no hesitation
tn'declating, that under such impu
tations, colored by such evidence,
they should h'ld it a sacred obliga
tion to themselves, to f.heir fcllow
enators, and to their countryrto
meet them by direct, unconditional
acknowledgement or denial, Without
seeking a refuge from the broad face
of day, in the labyrinth of technical
forms,
In examining the question whe
ther, these forms of jurii: ill proceed
ings, or the rules of judici d evidence,
can or ouht to be applied to the cx
e.rciseof thatcensorialduthority which
the Senate of the U. States possesses .
over the conduct of its members, let
us assume, as the test of their ap
plication either the dictates of unfet
tered reason, the letter and spirit of
the constitution, or precedents do
mestic or foreign, and your commit
tee believe that the result will be the
same--That the power of expelling
a member must in its i.aurc be dis
cretionary, and in its exercise always
more summary than the tardy pro
cess of judicial tribunals.
The pjwer of erqrlling a mem
ber for misconduct results on the
principles of common sense, from
he interest ef the nation, that the
hih trust of legislation should be in
vested in pure hands. Where the
trust u elective it is not to be pre
sumed that the constituent body will
commit the deposit to the keeping
if worthless characters. Bift when
i man whom his fellow-citizens have
honored with their confidence, on the
pledge of a spotlcs reputation, has
degraded himself by the commission
f infamous crimes, which becom I
ruddc ily and unexpectedly revealed
to the world, defective indeed would
be that institution which should be
impotent t discard from its bosom ;
he contagion of such a member ;
which should hate no remedyof am
putation to apply until the pr!son
had reached the heart.
The question upon the trial of a
cnminal cause, before the courts of
common law, is not between guilt
and innocence, Uut between guilt and
the possibility of innocence If a
doubt can possibly be raised, either
by the ingenuity of the party, or of
his counsel, or by the operation of j
general rules In their unforeseen ap-1
pneauon 10 particular cases, mat,
doiuV must be decisive for acquittal,
and ihe vtrdict of not guilty, per
haps in nine cases out often, means
no more than that the guilt of the
party has noi been demonstrated in
the precise, specific & narrow forms
prescribed by law. The humaiie
spirit of the laws multiplies the bar
ntrs f jrlhe protection of innocence;
and freclv admits i hat these barriers
may be abused for xthe shelter pf
guilt. It avows a strong partiality
favorable to the person upon trial,
and acknowledges the preference
hat teq guilty should escape rather j
than one innocent should suffer. !
The interest of the public that a par
ticular crime shoQld be punished, is
but asonetoten, compared with the
interest of the party that innocence
should be spared. 'Acquittal only
restores th party to the common
rights of every other citizen It re
stores iiim to no public trust ; it ini
vests him with do public confidence;
it substitutes the sentence of rnrrry
for the doom of justice, and to the
eyes of impartial reason, in the great
majority ot cases, must be consider
ed rather as a pardon than as a jus
iiucauon;
Dut when a member of a legisla
tive body lie tinder the imputation
tf aggravated offences,, and the de
termination upon his cause can ope-
rate oniy 10 reraore Mm from a sta
tion of extensive powers, and irripor-
tantirust.this disproportion, between
the interest of the public and the in.
teres! Of the individual, disappears :
if any disprdportioh exists it is of an
opposite kind. It is n-,f better that
ten traitors should be members of
this' Seriate than that one innocent
man chmiW u fier exoulsldiri. In el-
ther case, no dOUbt, the evil will be
great. But in the'fqrmer it would
vr'iTr. at thft Vital ot tne nation : in
the latter it mitht, though deeply
to be lamented, only be'the calamity
of an individual.
Br the letter of -the' constitution
the nower of expelling a member is
given to each tf the two Hoaxes of
Congres5, without any limitation o-
ther than that which requires a con.
cdrrence of two thirds of the votes
to give it effect. The spirit of tht
constitution is perhaps in no respects
more remarkable, than m the solici
tude which it has manifested, to se
cure the purity of the legislature by
that of the elements of its composi
tion. A qualification of age is made
necessary tor ihe memoirs 10 msurt
ihn maturity of their iuderment. A
. j j j .
qualification ot long citizenship to in
sure a community ofin.eresls ami
affections between them and then
ennntrv. A aualibcation ot resi-
4
dence to provide a sympathy be
tween every member and the poruon
of the union from which he is dele
gated. And to guard, as far a re-
trulation can cuard against every
bias of personal interest,' and every
hafc.ird of interfering1 duties it has
- - - -
made every member of Congress in
eligible to office which he contribu
ted to create k and eyerv officer of
- r 9 m
the union incapable of holding a seat
in Congress. Yet m the midst
all this ahxiou providence of legis-
latifc virtue, it has not authorised
the cogstittlent body-to recal in ai
case ui representative. It has not
subiectcd him to rembval by im-
peachmcnt land when the darling
of the people's choice has become
their deadliest foe, can it enter the
imagination ot a reasonable man,
that the sanctuary of thtir legisla
tion must remain polluted with hi
presence until a court of common
law. witn its pace ot snail can as-
certain, whether his crime was
committed on the right or on the left
bank of of a rivtr whether a punc
ture of difference can be found be
tween the words of the charge and
the werds ot the proot whetiier or
not the witnessed of his guil' should
be Heard by his jiiry -and whether
he was punishable, because presen'
at an - evert act, or intangible to
public justice, because he only con
trived and prepared it. Is it con
ceivable that a traitor to that coun
try which has loaded him with fa
vour, giid'y to the commonunder
standing of all mankjnd, should be
suffered to return unquestioned o
that post of honour and confidence.
where? in the .zenitti of his good
fame; he had been placed by the
esteem of his countrymen and in
defiance of their wishes, in mockery
of their fears, surrounded by the
public indignation, but inaccessible
to its bolt; pursue the purposes of
Urbason in the heart of the national
councils ? Must the a-embled rulers
of the land listen with calmness and
indifference, session after session,
to the voice of notorious infamy, un
til the sluggard step of municipal
justice tan overtake his enormities ?
Must they tamely seethe livss and
fortunes of millions, the .jaft ty of
present and futdre ages depending'
upon his vote$i recorded with theirs,
merely becatiie the abused benigni
ty of general maxims, may have re
mitted to him the forfeiture Of his
life ?
Such, in very supposable cases,
would be the unavoidable conse
quences of a principle which should
ofter the crutches of judicial .tribu
nals,' as an apology for crippling the
Congressional power of expulsion,
far different in the opinion of your
committee, is the spirit of our con
stitution. .They believe that Che very
purpose for which this, power was
giveft; was to preserve the .legisla
ture from the. first j appfoachis of in
fection. That it vjras made discre
tionary because it cotlld hot eist
under the procrastination of general
rules that its process must.be sum
mary, because it would be rendered
nugatory by delayV .v
"sstng ,,from the constitutional
view of the subject,' to that which U
afforded by the authoritv of nrecei
dent,' yotir committee find that since"
the establishment of out preieritna-.
tiorui Icjislattire there hai hui
one earhplei Qrpalslcn.fvj
Senate. In "that caseY thVmerrtber
lmnlicated was called upon in -the
first instance, to ahswer whether he
was the author .of a letter, the 'xopf
if. which' ;6nly -was produced, d
ihe writing bfwlfich was the cause
f his expulsion. He was afterwafds
requested to .declare whether he was
'he author of the letter tselt, atid
leclining in both cases to 'answen
he fAict of his having Written it va
SWiablished by a , comparison . of ; his
land ritins', and bv the belief of
jsrsons who . had. seen him write,
ipon inspection of the JeUer. . In
all these points the committee per
ceive the admission of a species o t
vidence, which iA courts of crirhi
lal jurisdiction would be excluded-
nd in uie resolution 'of expulsion
the Senate declared the person in-
ulpatcd, guilty cf a high'misdemra
r, although no presentment or in
iictment had been found agamst
'lim, and no prosecution at law wa
. ver commenced upon the case; iS '
This event occurred in July I79f.
About fifteen months .before that
cune, upon an application fromj tbe
legislature pf Kentuchy, Requesting
in investigation by. the Senate, i'q a
:harge against one of the; members
from that sate. of Deriurv, which
!tad ben made in certain neAVsp p r
publications, bui for which no pro
secu.Son had be?a commenced, the
Senate did adopt ta maioritv of 1 6
votes ko 8, the report of a commit-
lee purporting that the Senate had
no ju risdiction "d try thcharge, and
and that the memorial of the Ken
Jucky rlcgilature; should tie dismiss
ed, there were indeed very suffi
cient reasons of a different kind u
signed in the sarpe report, for no
pursuing the investigation in tha
particular rase any further, and you
commiltee believe, that in the rea
soning 'of that report some, princi
ples were assumed, and sonie ihfe
r nces drawn, which were alloge-
therunhecessary for the' determina
tion ot that case, wnich were adopted
without' a full consideration -of all
iheir consequences and the inaccu
racy of v;Iiich was clearly proved by
the departure 'from them in the in
stance which was so soon aftervvard:
to take place. It was the first time
that a question'of expulsion had evr
been agitated in Congress since the
.doptidti t)f the constitution; . And
the subject being thus entirety .newv
was considered perhaps too much
with reference to the parti cul r cir
:umstances ot the moment and not
enough upon thV nUmerous coniib!
encies to whiei the general ques
lion rhight apply; ;;- Your tommittee
State this opinion With some crJnfi-
derice, becadie. of the 16 seriatrirs.
who in March, 1 796; vo ed for tht
report dismissing the memorial of
the Kentucky legislature eleven on
he subsequent occasion in. July, '97,
voted also for that report which con
cluded with a resolution for the ex
pulsion of ' Mr; Blount; The other
five were no longer present in the
Senate j yet if the principle advan
ced in the first report had been as
sumed as the ground of proceeding
at the latter period; the Senate would
oarc uccd bs impoienT oi lunsuictiop
upon theoffehce df Mr. Blotlntras
they had so pposed t hems el ves u porv
the allegation against Mr; Marshall.
J hose parts of the 5 th 8c 6tH ar
ticles amendalory to the constitution
upon which the report in the case of
Mr. Marshall appears to relv for
taking away the jurisdiction of the
Senate your committee suppose
can only be understood as referring
to prosecutions ii law. To suppose
that 'hey were intended jaS-restric-
. . . . . . . - r -
ttons Upon powers expressly granted
by the constitution td the legislature
or either of its branches, would, 4rt a
rrianner annihilate the power f im
peachment, as -well as that of expul
sion It ttould. lead tb the absurd
conclusion, that the authority-given
for the purpose of reraoying iniquity
from the Seat ; bf powerhbtild -'b
denied Its exercise, in pr'ecidy those
cases which most lppdiyjcali fbrJtti
energiis; It woutd presentrtnevin;
gularspectadcofalegjsl
wtth pbweri'bf e
bers, of im peaching; removing and
dUquilifrihg- public tdfficjbrjjlftrt'
Yialtransgreisionsr berteath:thexogi
nizance pi toe lavr yet forbidding to
: I .Thesi tiar
aiuyc , u itu iicu iiun similar. rcgu , c
lations ctoamed irith
biltey Statute, hlc-rb may
aes-has been istiln (
riame of ieQrea
they are vrecbiqs'the'4ot so-
,tiu iooiiuauons oi ine-iiDtnies oi me ' -
4uori,; iiicy- naveeyerf;peen,consi
q expciiirtg a mem.oer Exercised jajt ' -all
times.by the rtouseofommpns ;
oer'ivhicli ':tber : r
only upon paliaroetlir 'j
has never becnbestoweds jti T;t i e
Constitution of the Sby ,anr atJ
number, vbf rcedepf shj ch ? riive? yp
been consulted IsjfeujiWf
exetise loithfs tJ
always bn;screSlro
piwyc iwiy lar jouicrwise-com- (
penmous,o than'in ,
befbreijudi I.;
indeed, haVe they been ifmm1Sm6o&:'r '.
I ing A conviction at :i w necWssorV to ?;l
one jostartce resolution: j
a presrcuJtion jBatirnn
after thekdopion oft V
to expifclV. ; ;Iriume. rotiS fiae;ftlje --: . -member
submits to'a'mlnat I
duces evidence in his fa VoQ ri aliki '. j
has evidence prod ucdalhst jif hji
with cv wnhotit fornial. amhentjea.
tiun ; and tediscretilon of therlindfs)&
sar y concurrence 'of more' than aard
1 11 a j ji ity of votes.
The provision in. our ItQrtsluitHift i
which forbids the Expulsion o h
member by. aniordinary f mapinAi !
a d requires for this act of IrornWl? ?h'
and painful duty, the assent of ipil ' '
birds, your committee con sider asi4 " V
wise and sufficient gtiard against the i
possible: abuse of this iegisjati ve is- ' ;
cretion ; In lirnqi oChetand'Vii'f
tent party, spirit; ; the! rignts; of jlii I
minority might .not waysii;'.' 1
respected if i bare majority bbtiid
expeltheir membersL under rirSolJie
v-u-uuui Lusiij, lua; oi t tneir own dis
cretion. The- operation of A15 rujel.
' of great efficacy b<f bVeS thi
proceedings, of the vrKoIe 'dyifS
over the, conduct of cjvelldividUal ; ?
member. The timelaj Wbein the ;;nios1s ,
violent struggles of contending par- -
tleHOCcur, when the cbhBici: bf op
Iwine paiuiis is oiqat prone to: ex-
cess, are precisely the times vthin !
the numbers ace most erjuajlf divide ? V
ed. .-.Wheii the ;;ma'joijr;imbuf fstci;
t worthirds, the secUrincSt -pwrt - K?
strenarth is Of itselfiamtf;..
oushess of Weakness dissuades frorri
any Attempts to encroach d-jop tb .
'S"", w- iHojuuttwiiitn III I II lit
provdke retaliation, BUtif expulsiori :
were admissiblebrilvi as & scrfuel tri
the 1ssu-offj:Je or
upotohesam e principled ind fbrrhs"
of testimony vvhlcH Mre establish'edl,
in the criminal cotiksi vnnKrnrn-
mittee'.can. te'.nbJ'issib1e -'8011
why it Should be rendered still mom
imbecile by thei feduisitidrt Of two. .
hirds ' tojjye itveitect. I '
Itis 'iibvr the dtitv1 Of Voiir ennui '
imittee ja.pp!y. ttfev'itincipW
Mcy iiayc iier& enaeavoreu to settle
and eliicdate, to thef particular case '
ilpoh vhtch the Senate hav difeciedl -thent
toreporil 1 1 biHs)ffndtpt-i
met; fodaga
the lale session oheriixUit coiirtf c
of the U. States dtRichrhond (copies 7
f hicK aa jitif evjlit h subimlteil); :
re prisely sjiHarf ig t hoiev iound
gainst Aajbirl5urf ; '' FrttBfp- ,
lume of rinteoi evldehce h
cated by the rredent of thr "pnlSjtt w!"
States to Corigressi f relating; tti tftei .
trial bfAv bhiri it 6ppettfsthat ' aV
great part of the.ejidencW wiiich vas
esseft Hal to Ahl3 cbnvjict 10H ii pon 'theV'.-
thm'ctmeiitor tt easojnf trai Withfild) 7
from thejj uy,ipon 'ui onidtef fhe
court that Antjnrr ngt i haVm
been ftretcnt at th oreit to of tra
4citionseleWJe Bc'subsequnC
b:ithyr4nsacitbr!C
itl cseencc bf th"sumiSo 1 ;
1
-ment by 'any c
(ofeyjdnthe;trae
veixiatM$ri rrs iiot': :
provedrtobe gu imHelrthaVirl
VtnenfcE
mm
1
Mt
il
S:
m
m
m
!1
I '
...
tJtX. frf "ju