DECEMBER, 1807. Case of Mr. John Smith, Senator from Ohio. human events, no member of this body can be sure that his conduct will never be made a subject of inquiry and decision before the assembly to which he belongs. They are aware that, in the course of proceeding which the Senate may now sanction, its members are marking out a precedent which may hereafter apply to themselves. They are sensible that the principles upon which they have acted ought to have the same operation upon their own claims to privilege as upon those of Mr. Smith; the same relation to the rights of their constituents, which they have to those of the Legislature which he represents. They have deemed it their duty to advance in the progress of their inquiry with peculiar care and deliberation. They have dealt out to Mr. Smith that measure, which, under the supposition of similar circumstances, they would be content to find imparted to themselves; and they have no hesitation in declaring that, under such imputations, colored by such evidence, they should hold it a sacred obligation to themselves, to their fellow Senators, and to their country, to meet them by direct, unconditional acknowledgment or denial, without seeking a refuge from the broad face of day in the labyrinth of technical forms. SENATE. should suffer. The interest of the public that a particular crime should be punished, is but as one to ten, compared with the interest of the party, that innocence should be spared. Acquittal only restores the party to the common rights of every other citizen; it restores him to no public trust; it invests him with no public confidence; it substitutes the sentence of mercy for the doom of justice; and to the eyes of impartial reason, in the great majority of cases, must be considered rather as a pardon than a justification. But when a member of a legislative body lies under the imputation of aggravated offences, and the determination upon his cause can operate only to remove him from a station of extensive powers, and important trust, this disproportion between the interest of the public and the interest of the individual disappears; if any disproportion exists, it is of an opposite kind. It is not better that ten traitors should be members of this Senate than that one innocent man should suffer expulsion. In either case, no doubt, the evil would be great. But, in the former, it would strike at the vitals of the nation; in the latter it might, though deeply to be lamented, only be the calamity of an individual. By the letter of the Constitution, the power of expelling a member is given to each of the two Houses of Congress, without any limitation other than that which requires a concurrence of two-thirds of the votes to give it effect. In examining the question whether these forms of judicial proceedings, or the rules of judicial evidence, ought to be applied to the exercise of that censorial authority which the Senate of the United States possesses over the conduct of its members, let us assume, The spirit of the Constitution is, perhaps, in no reas the test of their application, either the dictates of spect more remarkable than in the solicitude which it unfettered reason, the letter and spirit of the Constitu- has manifested to secure the purity of the Legislature tion, or precedents, domestic or foreign, and your com- by that of the elements of its composition. A qualifimittee believe that the result will be the same; that the cation of age is made necessary for the members to in power of expelling a member must, in its nature, be sure the maturity of their judgment; a qualification of discretionary, and in its exercise always more sum-long citizenship, to insure a community of interests and mary than the tardy process of judicial tribunals. affections between them and their country; a qualificaThe power of expelling a member for misconduct re- tion of residence, to provide a sympathy between every sults, on the principles of common sense, from the in-member and the portion of the Union from which he terest of the nation, that the high trust of legislation is delegated; and to guard, as far as regulation can should be invested in pure hands. When the trust is guard, against every bias of personal interest, and every elective, it is not to be presumed that the constituent hazard of interfering duties, it has made every mem body will commit the deposite to the keeping of worth-ber of Congress ineligible to office which he contribuless characters. But when a man, whom his fellow-ted to create, and every officer of the Union incapable citizens have honored with their confidence, on the of holding a seat in Congress. Yet, in the midst of pledge of a spotless reputation, has degraded himself all this anxious providence of legislative virtue, it has by the commission of infamous crimes, which become not authorized the constituent body to recall in any suddenly and unexpectedly revealed to the world, de-case its Representative. It has not subjected him to fective indeed would be that institution which should removal by impeachment; and when the darling of the be impotent to discard from its bosom the contagion of people's choice has become their deadliest foe, can it such a member; which should have no remedy of am-enter the imagination of a reasonable man that the putation to apply until the poison had reached the heart. The question upon the trial of a criminal cause, before the courts of common law, is not between guilt and innocence, but 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 general rules in their unforeseen application to particular cases, that doubt must be decisive for acquittal, and the verdict of not guilty, perhaps, in nine cases out of ten, means no more than that the guilt of the party has not been demonstrated in the precise, specific, and narrow forms prescribed by law. The humane spirit of the laws multiplies the barriers for the protection of innocence, and freely admits that these barriers may be abused for the shelter of guilt. It avows a strong partiality favorable to the person apon trial, and acknowledges the preference that ten guilty should escape rather than that one innocent sanctuary of their legislation must remain polluted with his presence, until a court of common law, with its pace of snail, can ascertain whether his crime was committed on the right or on the left bank of a river; whether a puncture of difference can be found between the words of the charge and the words of the proof; whether the witnesses of his guilt should or should not be heard by his jury; and whether he was punishable, because present at an overt act, or intangible to public justice, because he only contrived and prepared it? Is it conceivable that a traitor to that country which has loaded him with favors, guilty to the common understanding of all mankind, should be suffered to return unquestioned to that post of honor and confidence, where, in the zenith 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 treason in the heart of SENATE. Case of Mr. John Smith, Senator from Ohio. the national councils? Must the assembled rulers of the land listen with calmness and indifference, session after session, to the voice of notorious infamy, until the sluggard step of municipal justice can overtake his enormities? Must they tamely see the lives and fortunes of millions, the safety of present and future ages, depending upon his vote, recorded with theirs, merely because the abused benignity of general maxims may have remitted to him the forfeiture of his life? Such, in very supposable cases, would be the unavoidable consequences of a principle which should offer the crutches of judicial tribunals as an apology for crippling the Congressional power of expulsion. Far different, in the opinion of your committee, is the spirit of our Constitution. They believe that the very purpose for which this power was given was to preserve the Legislature from the first approaches of infection. That it was made discretionary because it could not exist under the procrastination of general rules; that its process must be summary, because it would be rendered nugatory by delay. Passing from the Constitutional view of the subject to that which is afforded by the authority of precedent, your committee find that, since the establishment of our present National Legislature, there has been but one example of expulsion from the Senate. In that case, the member implicated was called upon, in the first instance, to answer whether he was the author of a letter, the copy of which only was produced, and the writing of which was the cause of his expulsion. He was afterwards requested to declare whether he was the author of the letter itself, and declining, in both cases, to answer, the fact of his having written it was established by a comparison of his handwriting, and by the belief of persons who had seen him write, upon inspection of the letter. In all these points the committee perceive the admission of a species of evidence, which, in courts of criminal jurisdiction, would be excluded, and, in the resolution of expulsion, the Senate declared the person inculpated guilty of a high misdemeanor, although no presentment or indictment had been found against him, and no prosecution at law was ever commenced upon the case. DECEMBER, 1807. stances of the moment, and not enough upon the numerous contingencies to which the general question might apply. Your committee state this opinion with some confidence, because of the sixteen Senators who, in March, 1796, voted for the report dismissing the memorial of the Kentucky Legislature; eleven, on the subsequent occasion, in July, 1797, voted also for that report, which concluded with a resolution for the expulsion of Mr. Blount. The other five were no longer present in the Senate. Yet, if the principles advanced in the first report had been assumed as the ground of proceeding at the latter period, the Senate would have been as impotent of jurisdiction upon the offence of Mr. Blount as they had supposed themselves upon the allegation against Mr. Marshall. Those parts of the fifth and sixth articles, amendatory to the Constitution, upon which the report in the case of Mr. Marshall appears to rely for taking away the jurisdiction of the Senate, your committee suppose can only be understood as referring to prosecutions at law; to suppose that they were intended as restrictions upon powers expressly granted by the Constitution to the Legislature, or either of its branches, would, in a manner, annihilate the power of impeachment as well as that of expulsion. It would lead to the absurd conclusion that the authority given for the purpose of removing iniquity from the seats of power, should be denied its exercise in precisely those cases which most loudly call for its energies. It would present the singular spectacle of a Legislature vested with powers of expelling its members, of impeaching, removing, and disqualifying public officers, for trivial transgressions beneath the cognizance of the law, yet forbidden to exert them against capital or infamous crimes. Those two articles were in substance borrowed from similar regulations contained in that justly celebrated statute, which for so many ages has been distinguished by the name of the Great Charter of England. Yet in that country, where they are recognised as the most solid foundations of the liberties of the nation, they have never been considered as interfering with the power of expelling a member, exercised at all times by the House of Commons; a power which there, however, rests only upon Parliamentary usage, and has never been bestowed, as in the Constitution of the United States, by any act of supreme legislation. From a number of precedents which have been consulted, it is found that the exercise of this authority there has always been discretionary, and its process always far otherwise than compendious in the prosecutions before the judicial courts. So far, indeed, have they been from supposing a conviction at law necessary to precede a vote of expulsion, that, in one instance, a resolution to demand a prosecution appears immediately after the adoption of the resolution to expel. In numerous cases the member submits to examination, adduces evidence in his favor, and has evidence produced against him, with or without formal authentication; and the discretion of the House is not even restricted by the necessary concurrence of more than a bare majority of the votes. This event occurred in July, 1797. About fifteen months before that time, upon an application from the Legislature of Kentucky, requesting an investigation by the Senate of a charge against one of the members from that State, of perjury, which had been made in certain newspaper publications, but for which no prosecution had been commenced, the Senate did adopt, by a majority of sixteen votes to eight, the report of a committee, purporting that the Senate had no jurisdiction to try the charge, and that the memorial of the Kentucky Legislature should be dismissed. There were, indeed, very sufficient reasons of a different kind assigned in the same report, for not pursuing the investigation, in that particular case, any further; and your committee believe that, in the reasoning of that report, some principles were assumed and some inferences drawn, which were altogether unnecessary for the determination of that case, which were adopted without a full consideration of all their consequences, The provision in our Constitution which forbids the and the inaccuracy of which was clearly proved by the expulsion of a member by an ordinary majority, and departure from them in the instance which was so soon requires for this act of rigorous and painful duty the afterwards to take place. It was the first time that a assent of two-thirds, your committee consider as a wise question of expulsion had ever been agitated in Con- and sufficient guard against the possible abuse of this gress, since the adoption of the Constitution. And the legislative discretion. In times of heat and violent subject being thus entirely new, was considered per- party spirit, the rights of the minority might not alhaps too much with reference to the particular circum-ways be duly respected, if a majority could expel their DECEMBER 1807. Case of Mr. John Smith, Senator from Ohio. members under no other control than that of their own discretion. The operation of this rule is of great efficacy, both over the proceedings of the whole body, and over the conduct of every individual member. The times when the most violent struggles of contending parties occur when the conflict of opposite passions is most prone to excess-are precisely the times when the numbers are most equally divided; when the majority amounts to the proportion of two-thirds, the security in its own strength is of itself a guard against extraordinary stretches of power; when the minority dwindles to the proportion of one-third, its consciousness of weakness dissuades from any attempts to encroach upon the rights of the majority, which might provoke retaliation. But if expulsion were admissible only as a sequel to the issue of a legal prosecution, or upon the same principles and forms of testimony which are established in the criminal courts, your committee can see no possible reason why it should be rendered still more imbecile by the requisition of two-thirds to give it effect. It is now the duty of your committee to apply the principles which they have here endeavored to settle and elucidate, to the particular case upon which the Senate have directed them to report. The bills of indictment found against Mr. Smith, at the late session of the circuit court of the United States at Richmond, (copies of which are herewith submitted,) are precisely similar to those found against Aaron Burr. From the volume of printed evidence communicated by the President of the United States to Congress, relating to the trial of Aaron Burr, it appears that a great part of the testimony which was essential to his conviction upon the indictment for treason, was withheld from the jury upon an opinion of the court, that Aaron Burr, not having been present at the overt act of treason alleged in the indictment, no testimony relative to his conduct or declarations elsewhere, and subsequent to the transactions on Blannerhasset's island, could be admitted. And, in consequence of this suppression of evidence, the traverse jury found a verdict "that Aaron Burr was not proved to be guilty, under that indictment, by any evidence submitted to them." It was also an opinion of the court, that none of the transactions, of which evidence was given on the trial of Aaron Burr, did amount to an overt act of levying war, and, of course, that they did not amount to treason. These decisions, forming the basis of the issue upon the trials of Burr, anticipated the event which must have awaited the trials of the bills against Mr. Smith, who, from the circumstances of his case, must have been entitled to the benefit of their application; they were the sole inducements upon which the counsel for the United States abandoned the prosecution against him. Your committee are not disposed now to question the correctness of these decisions on a case of treason before a court of criminal jurisdiction. But whether the transactions proved against Aaron Burr did or did not amount, in technical language, to an overt act of levying war, your committee have not a scruple of doubt on their minds that, but for the vigilance and energy of the Government, and of faithful citizens under its directions, in arresting their progress and in crushing his designs, they would, in a very short lapse of time, have terminated not only in a war, but in a war of the most horrible description, in a war at once foreign and domestic. As little hesitation have your committee in saying, that, if the daylight of evidence, combining one vast complicated intention, with overt SENATE. acts innumerable, be not excluded from the mind by the curtain of artificial rules, the simplest understanding cannot but see what the subtlest understanding cannot disguise, crimes before which ordinary treason whitens into virtue; crimes of which war is the mildest feature. The debauchment of our Army, the plunder and devastation of our own and foreign territories, the dissolution of our national Union, and the root of interminable civil war, were but the means of individual aggrandizement, the steps to projected usurpation. If the ingenuity of a demon were tasked to weave, into one composition, all the great moral and political evils which could be inflicted upon the people of these States, it could produce nothing more than a texture of war, dismemberment, and despotism. Of these designs, a grand jury, composed of characters as respectable as this nation can boast, have, upon the solemnity of their oaths, charged John Smith with being an accomplice. The reasons upon which the trial of this charge has not been submitted to the verdict of a jury, have been shown by your committee, and are proved by the letter from the Attorney of the United States, for the district of Virginia, herewith reported. And your committee are of opinion that the dereliction of the prosecution on these grounds cannot, in the slightest degree, remove the imputation which the accusations of the grand jury have brought to the door of Mr. Smith. Your committee will not permit themselves to comment upon the testimony which they submit herewith to the Senate; nor upon the answers which Mr. Smith has given as sufficient for his justification. Desirous as the committee have been that this justification might be complete, anxiously as they wished for an opportunity of declaring their belief of his innocence, they can neither control nor dissemble the operation of the evidence upon their minds; and, however painful to their feelings, they find themselves compelled by a sense of duty, paramount to every other consideration, to submit to the Senate, for their consideration, the following resolution : Resolved, That John Smith, a Senator from the State of Ohio, by his participation in the conspiracy of Aaron Burr against the peace, union, and liberties, of the people of the United States, has been guilty of conduct incompatible with his duty and station as a Senator of the United States. And that he be therefor, and hereby is, expelled from the Senate of the United States. The documents accompanying the report are very voluminous. Among them is the answer of Mr. JOHN SMITH, covering ninety-six manuscript pages. Mr. ADAMS also offered a further report, made in consequence of a supplementary instruction of the Senate. This report states the existence of an allegation against JOHN SMITH, that, since his election as a Senator, he had taken an oath of allegiance to the King of Spain. On inquiry, the committee consider the oath as having been taken, but previously to his election. They conclude with the opinion that it is unnecessary to take further order on this charge. the printing of Mr. SMITH's answer, a short and desultory conversation took place. A part of that answer goes to implicate the character of Judge Nimmo, and the committee being of opinion that this part of the answer was altogether irrelevant The first report was ordered to be printed.. On JANUARY, 1808. to the charges against Mr. S., it was thought by from the United States, of the quantity of fifty them unnecessary and improper uselessly to acres, or who may hold in his own right a town criminate Judge Nimmo by making the publi-lot, of the value of one hundred dollars, within cation, leaving it, however, to the discretion of the said territory:" the Senate. This conversation was arrested by the reading of the whole paper, and others connected with it. A division was called for; and, on the question for striking out, it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 20, nays 11, as follow: NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Condit, Gilman, Howland, Kitchel, Parker, Pope, Reed, Robinson, and Tiffin. The motion to print Mr. SMITH's answer was YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Bradley, Crawford, Goodthen renewed and insisted upon by Mr. HILL-rich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Maclay, Mathewson, Milledge, HOUSE. It was opposed by Messrs. ADAMS, POPE, Mitchill, Moore, Pickering, Smith of Maryland, Smith BRADLEY, and CRAWFORD, on the ground that it of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter, Thruston, contained observations relative to Judge Nimmo, Turner, and White. altogether irrelevant; that these, together with accompanying letters, related to his private life while in England, and that it would be highly improper for the Senate to sanction such a publication, especially in the case of one who could not be heard before them, in vindication of his character. It was, finally, on the suggestion of Mr. GOODRICH, determined to return the answer to Mr. SMITH, that he might expunge the exceptionable matter. In this Mr. SMITH acquiesced; when the Senate adjourned about 4 o'clock. MONDAY, January 4. 1808. JAMES A. BAYARD from the State of Delaware attended. A message from the House of Representatives, informed the Senate that the House have passed a bill, entitled "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," in which they request the concurrence of the Senate. The bill was read and ordered to the second reading. The PRESIDENT communicated a letter from JOHN SMITH, a Senator from the State of Ohio; which was read. On motion to insert, at the end of the third section, the following: Provided, That the provisions of this act shall not take effect, until the assent of the Legislature of the State of Georgia shall be given thereto :" It passed in the negative-yeas 3, nays 27, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Crawford, Milledge, and Turner. NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bayard, Bradley, Condit, Gaillard, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Mathewson, Moore, Parker, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter, Thruston, Tiffin, and White. And the PRESIDENT having reported the bill, amended in the first and second sections, it was ordered to the third reading as amended. TUESDAY, January 5. Mr. BRADLEY, from the committee to whom was referred the bill, entitled "An act to incorporate the Trustees of the Baptist Church in the City of Washington," reported it with amendments; which were read; and ordered to lie for consid Mr. ADAMS laid before the Senate a letter from Mr. SMITH, directed to the chairman of the Com-eration. mittee of Inquiry, appointed 27th November; The bill, entitled "An act supplementary to the which letter Mr. S. requested might be considered act, entitled 'An act laying an embargo on all as a part of his answer; and the letter was read. ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the The bill, entitled "An act to extend certain United States," was read the second time and reprivileges, as therein mentioned, to Anthony Bou-ferred to Messrs. SMITH of Maryland, ADAMS, and cherie." was read the third time and passed. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the second reading of the bill, entitled "An act supplementary to an act, entitled 'An act for fortifying the ports and harbors of the United States, and for building gunboats;" and the President having reported the bill to the House amended, it was ordered to the third reading as amended. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the second reading of the bill, entitled "An act extending the right of suffrage in the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes;" and, on motion, to strike out of section 1, lines 6 and 7 of the bill, these words: "and having paid a county or territorial tax, assessed at least six 'months previous to such elections ;" and insert, 'and who has a legal or equitable title to a tract ' of land, by virtue of any act of Congress, or who 'may become the purchaser of any tract of land GAILLARD, to consider and report thereon. The bill, entitled "An act supplementary to an act, entitled 'An act for fortifying the ports and harbors of the United States, and for building gunboats," was read the third time and passed, with amendments. The bill entitled "An act extending the right of suffrage in the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes," was read the third time as amended; on the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined the affirmative-yeas 18, nays 8, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Condit, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Howland, Kitchel, Mathewson, Moore, Parker, Pope, Reed, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Thruston, Tiffin, and White. NAYS-Messrs. Bradley, Crawford, Maclay, Milledge, Smith of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter and Turner. JANUARY, 1808. Case of Mr. John Smith, Senator from Ohio. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, from the committee to whom was referred the bill, entitled "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," reported the bill with amendments; which were read for consideration. SENATE. merce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers," in which they request the concurrence of the Senate. The bill last brought up for concurrence was read, and ordered to the second reading. CASE OF JOHN SMITH. Conformably to the previous order of the Sen On motion, by Mr. ADAMS, the minutes of the Committee of Inquiry, appointed the 27th Novem-ate, the report of the select committee was read ber last, on the conduct of JOHN SMITH, a Senator from the State of Ohio, also, sundry papers relative to the inquiry, were read; and, on motion, by Mr. BRADLEY, it was agreed that the report of the committee be the order of the day for Thursday next. WEDNESDAY, January 6. The PRESIDENT communicated the report of the Postmaster General, in compliance with the 30th section of the act to establish the Post Office; also, his report, in obedience to the act of Congresss, passed on the 21st April, 1806, which were severally read for consideration. The Senate took into consideration the amendments reported by the select committee to the bill, entitled "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States;" and on motion, to agree to the following amendment to section 2, line 13, of the bill: after the word "cargo," insert, "and shall never there after be allowed a credit for duties on any goods, wares, or merchandise, imported by him or them, into any of the ports of the United States:" it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 25, nays 5, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bradley, Condit, Crawford, Gaillard, Gilman, Gregg, Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Milledge, Mitchill, Moore, Parker, Pope, Reed, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter, Thruston, Tiffin, and Turner. Mr. SMITH being at this time in his seat. Mr. ADAMS observed that on Monday a letter had been received from Mr. SMITH addressed to the Senate, which had been then read, and on which it was perhaps proper that some order should be taken before the report was acted upon. Several requests were made on which some determination ought to be previously had. [Mr. ADAMS here read the letter.] Mr. A. proceeded, by observing that the letter represented that all the evidence adduced by the committee, excepting the two bills of indictment, was either taken ex parte, or without allowing Mr. S. sufficient time to interrogate the witnesses; that it asked for the aid of counsel; for time; and for the means of adducing proof in his defence. It represented that a more summary procedure was recommended in the report. It admitted that there was no necessity of a legal conviction previous to the expulsion of a member of the Senate: but contended that proof of the facts charged must be first established in a legal way; and that the Senate could then only exercise this Constitutional right of expulsion. Mr. A. observed that the letter contained two distinct requests; one to be heard by counsel, the other, to have an opportunity of a trial, under the same rules of evidence as prevail in judicial tribunals. mit the requests he had to make in the form of a Mr. JOHN SMITH rose, and said he would submotion; which he accordingly did in the following terms: "That John Smith be informed specifically of the NATS-Messrs. Bayard, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Pick-charges against him; that he be allowed to make a ering, and White. defence against such charges, and have process to compel the attendance of witnesses, and the privilege of being heard by counsel." And the bill having been further amended, two additional amendments were proposed for consideration; and on motion the Senate adjourned. THURSDAY, January 7. WILLIAM B. GILES, from the State of Virginia, attended. The VICE PRESIDENT inquired whether this motion were seconded. After pausing for a reply, he said he should, without a second, consider it as an application of Mr. SMITH to the Senate.. Mr. ANDERSON intimated an opinion that it would be best to consider the requests distinctly. The VICE PRESIDENT having read the first request, The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the second reading of the bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in Mr. ADAMS said he had been looking for prethe ports and harbors of the United States ;" and cedents that bore on this case. With regard to the President reported the bill amended; and, the first and second requests, he was of the opinfurther amendments having been agreed to, on the ion that it was neither consistent with the powers question, Shall this bill be read the third time as of the Senate, nor proper, to grant them. With amended? it was determined in the affirmative.regard to the third request, there was a precedent A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have passed a bill, entitled "An act to revive and continue in force for a further time the first section of the act, entitled 'An act further to protect the com10th CoN. 1st SESS.-3 in favor of allowing counsel on one point, viz: to show cause why the report of the committee should not be adopted. [Mr. A. here cited the case of William Blount to this effect.] To the last request, therefore, he had no objection. To |