Newspaper Page Text
BrigiUtv Orders.
Camden County , Alh January, I^oß.
The Aujutaiu-Gcncral being requi.’ctl by ge
neral orders *>f tlie 1 lilt ;f Dec'emWlr Last, ic
ptui.ced lo the annual convention of Ha!<i, stuff
db>r\pany, comini-slotted and noa-conomissiou
c ! < dice is in order tohistniclthem in tbe ill*
cipline by congress, as also to teacli
tin- privates in the respective regiment* and
battalions their duy in the tie id ; and lie ha\-
1 gu tthied the Bi igadicr-Gcncral,that,in com
pliance therewith, lie (imposes to attend in the
fu st brigade, first diiiston, at the following pe
riods, viz
On Monday the Uth dajrof March next en
suing, tlie review of inspection ol the third bat
talion, Effingham county.
(in Tuesday the 15th df March, the review
of inspection of the second, or county battalion-
Cha*ham county.
On Wednesday and Thursday tlie 16th and
17th of March, at Fort Wayne, the review ot
inspection of the commissioned and non-com
missioned officers of tlie first regiment ; and
on Friday the 18th of March, tlie review of in
inspeciion of the said regiment.
On Monday and Tuesday, the 21st and 22d
of March, at Riccborough, the review of in- j
Mier.iion of the commissioned and non-com
missioned officers of tlie third regiment.
On Thursday the 24th of March, there-',
view of inspection of the stli battalion, Bryan
coupty.
On Saturday the 26di of March, the review
of inspection of tlie 4ih battalion, Liberty coun
ty-
On Monday the 28 hos Man h, the review
cf inspection of the 6;li battalion, M‘lntosh
county.
On Thursday the 31st of March, and Tucs- ■
and v the li st of April, in Jefferson, the review j
of inspection of tlie commissioned and non-■
commissioned officers if the 4’h legiment.
On Saturday .he 2d of April, the review of j
inapt; lion ol nte 8 h ba't.uimi,Camden county. |
On I ttesdav the Vltol Anil, the in lew ol 1
ins auction ol the 7ill battalion, Olynn county, j
And ■
<)n 1 hnrsd ty the 7th April, the review cf
ins] cciion ol ‘.lie battalion, \V.,vitc county. |
Olli ers co itriuMliirg regiment*- t* 1 battai- I
oi s, in he fits’ Inig.-dc, aie thcrctoie hereby j
o. uniat ded to h ive the Sime under ai in*. on j
tin r usual parade grounds, on the days before ]
n r limited, re* pecuvciv. by eleven o'clock j
a m. as directe Iby law. Fite liv'd. s'alT, co i- ,
ji a., commissioned Rice;':, of the. first, thud,
and fourth regimen s will convene at the pia
cs on ilie days a-i-1 ‘tours as btfire directed,
r<- i f-t-vely, ann<' aceoii'red a'-d provided
- . , to the l'ilh section of the mifilia
Iv, to be nstntcted in the discipline prcscrib
c i- iv congress.
Brigade-major G. R. Duns will, without
delay, furnish each commanding officer of a
is in-cut or battalion, within this brigade, with
ct copy of these * ide.rs.
i’y order of hi igtxdUu -general John 1 loyd,
Archibald U. rk,
January 4—6 Jicl-de-camfi.
PI mil vi ’f liunSc.
Pursuant loan act to incorp- . tc the “ Plant
er's Hank of the State of Georgia,” the under
<‘d comiiiiusioucrs will meet at th.e EA
CH vSlrh - ., in the c.'tv of Saxaiinah, on M()N
\i VV, th%first clav nfl-V/rum next, to ri-rcn i
f. ifiscriptwns for T\V< I IIOf sANI) 1 ’ *)l ’i<
IIJNDUKI) HIIMIF.d, lit‘ng the r.nmhci
slotted to he subscribed for in the said IV,nk
in the city aforesaid. The book ot subscription
will be opened at*eleven o’clock a. m. and chase
at tme o’clock P. M. on the .lav tli-’ve st tod.—
And the C in niKsitMiers will im-cl ..t the p’aa
,a:i i hour at iresfitl, on e • ery surccedin 1 ITES-1)l TES
-1) \V, until the said ui'xscription is eompietetl
T >o ] ey cent, will be required at the time ot
‘sui/scribffig, in Goto or Silver.
Charles II; n is,
V* r . 13. Bulloch, > Ccnvn'rs.
Cicurfrc Scott, )
S/tvnnnah, January 7, ISOS and
For Saic,
Thirty thuvaml acres Vs t tuahle I .AN]),
.lift! upon the river Wat flit , in ne of the j
n/.-.t fertile jiarts of Louis-.u.:t. 1 arlicul us
v ith regard to local a . nni.-.iu-s, tit nation, titles
a- the no st favourtble urn., to t inch sets,
W he made known !>\ application to 1 flO-
M.vS J t’NM), in Chariest. or
Morris Milk r,
in Savannah.
Jnntnrv If I —B
Vann and Negroes tor sale.
F v stilt*, a small Font near Skidaway, , n
♦he Salts, about nine tilth from Savannah, cor.-
t. uig to .ert-s, more or 1 ** : fifteen of which
a e clean 1 mid under t,o. df< .e. On the farm
a; c a good I f-veHing-i lou . , K lichen, Harn, Sta
h'e, otul other conveniences. It also ln.s an
cMcllen F.ii'lutg f r hoAts . f an\ size.
Likewise will be disposed of, two likely
h'K.l.iiO 1 KLI.OM S.
For terms app.y luMr.WiM.iAtt Lkwden,
nr
P. J. \ ullotton.
December 3—335
For saU‘, a g’anp; ofXc^roes
Core'sting of six Fellow , and live Wcnche
They nee all setS’ iicu slaves, and will he wa*
Vanted hcrtlthv mil v ell dis]>osed.
Fhe owner (-Itmid the purchaser wish it
will le -c front >0 to 1 Tj acres of re.'.dt clean
t'vil l\ )N L\ N 1), whii h, with ter. litt<
t: ‘-’>lc, can be <u incomplete order for tin
cut line crop. On th- premises ire a targe an
convenient Dwe'l n • Hoe-c, and evert neccssa
v o-.t building—situated en the salts, only t.
Julies front Savannah.
One of Whitxkv’s IMPROVED GINN;
will aU 1 wW . tfi mt the Negr e
ain juire of the Primers. December 29—14.
Fi’N of S V,
For Sate st thisoJicA
Ma. SMITH, OF OHIO.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
December 31, 1807.
Mr. Adams, from tlie committee appointed
on the 27th of November last, to enquire wheth
er it l>e compatible wi.it tbe ltonor and privi
leges of thi > house, that John Smith, a senator i
from the state of Ohio, against whom bills of :
indictment were found at the circuit cou .ot
Virginia, htdd at Richmond in August last, for
treason and misdemeanor, should Iks permitted
any longer to have a seat therein, and to in
quire into all the facts legardmg the conduct
ot Mr Smith, as an alledged associate ot Aaton
Burr, and report the same to the senate—sub
mitted the louowing
REPORT :
Your committee are of opinion, that the con
spiracy ol Aaron Burr and his associates, against
the peace, union and liberties of these states,
it. ot such a character, and that its existence is
established by such a mass of concurring and
mutually corroborative testimony, that it is in- ‘
compatible, not only with the honor and privi
leges of this house, but with the deepest inter
ests of this nation, that any pci son engaged in ,
it, should be permitted to hold a scat in the
senate of the United States.
Whether the facts, which the committee
submit here, with such evidence as, under the
older of the senate, they have been able to col
lect, arc sufficient to substantiate the participa
tion of dr. Smith in that conspiracy or not, will
remain for the senate lo decide.
The committee submit, also, to the conside
ration of the senate, the correspondence between
Mr. Smith and them, through their chairman,
in the ccJinse of tlietr meetings. ‘Fite commit
tee have never conceived themselves invested
with authouty to try Mr. Smith. Their charge
was to report an opinion relative to the honor
and jmviieges of the senate, and the facts rc
iati.tg to the t onuuct of Mr. Smith. Their
opi: tun indeed, cannot be expressed in relation
lu the privileges of the senate, without rcla'ing
at the same time to ;r. Smith's right of holding
a seat in this body ; but in that respect the atr
th-.riiv id-he committee extends only to pro
posal and not to decision. But us he manifest
cj a great solicitude to be heard he-lore them,
they oh fixed permission from the senate to
ad'i/u nis attendance, communicated to him the
evidence in their possession, by which he was
inculpated, furnished him, in writing, with the
questions arising from it, which appeared to
them inateital and received from him he in
formation and explanations, herewith submit
ted, us pan of the facts reported. But Mr. b.
has cl limc-l it as a right to he heard in his de
laine by counsel ; to have compulsory process
for witnesses, and to be confronted with his ac
cusers—as if the committee had been a circuit
com .cf the Unitr IStatcr But it is before the
‘senate i-.seil'. that your committee conceived it
just at/d proper that Mr. Smith's evidence or
himself should be heard.. Nor have they con
ceived themselves bound in this inquiry liy any
other rules than those of natural justice and
equity, due to a brother senator on one part, and
to then country on the outer.
Mr. Smith represents himself on this inquiry
a, solitary, friendless and unskilled, contending
for rights which he intimates ate denied him;
and the dele utter of senatorial privileges which
lie seems apprehensive will he refused him by
senators, liable, so long as they hold their offices,
to have his case made their own. The com
mittee are not unaware that in the vicissitudes
of human events, no member of this body can
be sure that his conduct will never be made a
subject of enquiry and decision before the as
semby to which he belongs. They ace aware
tli.it. in the coutsc ot proceeding, which the
senate may now sanction, its members are
marking out a precedent which may hereafter
apply to themstdves. 1 bey have dealt out to
Mr. Smith, that measure, which, under the
supposition nl similar circumstance, they would
he content to find imparted to tnemselvcs ; and
they have no Ik sit-.ition in declaring, that under
sui it imputations, colored by such evidence,
lltev should hold it a sacred obligation to them
stT t:s, to h -tr fellow senators and to their
emm: rv, to meet them by direct unconditional
itr.Mii'W a tlgeineiit or denial, without seeking a
tciV.ge f om the bicad lace of day, in the laby
tit.'b iii technical lurms.
In examining tlie question, whether the
forms of j x.itci.il proceedings, or the rules of
judicial evidence ought to be applied to the ex
ercise oi that censorial authority which the sen
ate of the United States possesses over the con
duct ot its members, let us assume as the test !
of'.heir application, either the dictates of unfet
tered reason, tlie spirit of the constitution, or
precedents domestic or foreign, and your com- ‘
mittee believe that the result will he the same ;’
that tbe power of expelling a member must in
its nature be discretionary ; and in its exercise
always more summary than the tardy process
of judicial tribunals
‘l'lie power of expelling a member for mis
conduct, result, on the principles of common !
sense, from (lie interest of the nation, that the ’
high trust of legislation should be invested in
pure hands. When tlie trust is elective, it is
not to be presumed that the constituent body
will commit the deposit to the keeping of
worthless characters. But when a man, whom
his fellow-citizens have honored with confi
dence, on the pledge of a spotless reputation,
tas degraded himself by the commission of in
famous crimes, which become suddenly and
unexpectedly revealed to the world, defective
indeed would Ire that institution, which should
be impotent to discard from its bosom, the con
agion of *uch a member ; which should Rave no
emodv of amputation to apply until the poison
had reached * lie heart.
The question upon the trial of a criminal
xmse, before the courts of common law, is not
between guilt and innocence, but between
‘lilt ami the possibility of innocence. If a
•übt can possibly be raised, either bv the in
genuity of the party or ot his counsel, or by ■
the operation of general rules in il/eir itufLi e
seen 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 cf the pat
ty has not been demonstrated in tlie precise,
s|>ecific and narrow forms prescribed by law.
The humane spirit of the laws multiply a3 the
barriers for the protection of innocence, and
freely admits that these barriers may be abu
sed f/r the shelter of guilt. It avows a strong
partiality favorable to the person upon trial,
ami acknowledges theprtlerence that ten guil
ty should escape, rather than that one innocent
should suffer. The interest ot the public that
a particular crime should be punished, is but
one to ten, compared with the interest of the
party, that innocence should be spared. Ac
quittal only testores the parly to the common
tights of every other citizen ; it restores him
to no public trust ; it invests hint with no pub
lic confidence ; it substitute • the sentence of
mercy for the doom of justice ; and, to the eyes
of impartial reason, in the great majority of
cases, must be ecnsidcred rather as a pardon
than a justification.
But when a member cf a legislative body
lies under the imputation cf aggravated ofi'eit
ccs, and the determination upon his cause can
operate only to remove him liom a station of
extensive powers, anil important trust, this dis
proportion between the interest of the indivi
dual disappears ; if any disproportion exists,
it is of an opposite kind. Is it not better that
ten traitors should be members of the senate,
than that one innocent man should suffer ex
pulsion ? In either case, no doubt, the evil
would be great. But in the lormer it would
strike at the vitals of the nation ; in tlie 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 c*'the
two houses of congress, w ithout any limitation
other than that which requires a concurrence
of two thirds ot the votes, to give it effect. I
The spirit of the constitution is perhaps in
no respect more remarkable, than in the soli
citude which it has manifested, to secure the
purity of the legislature, by that cf the ele
ments of its composition. A qualification of
long citizenship, to ensure a community cf in
terests and affections between-them and their
country—a qualification of residence, to pro
vide a sympathy between every member and
the portion cf the union ft om which he is de
legated—and to guard, as far as regulation can
guard, against every hazard of interesting du
ties ; U has made cvet'y member of congress
ineligible to office which he contributed to cre
ate, and every officer of the union incapable of
holding a seat in congress. Yet, in the midst
of all this anxious providence oflegislative vir
tue, it has not authorised the constituent body
to recal, in any case, its representative ; it has
not subjected him to removal by impeach-,
ment —and, when the darling of the people’s
choice has become their deadliest foe, can it
enter the imagination ol a reasonable man,
that the sanctuary of their legislation must re
main polluted with his presence, until a court
of common law, with its pace of snail, can as
cort'un whether his crime was committed on
the right or on the left bank of a river—whe
ther a puncture of difference can he lound be
tween the charge and tlte words of the proof—
whether the witness of his guilt should or
should not l/c heard by bis jury, atul whether
he was punishable, beemise present at an overt
act, or intangible to public justice, because he
only contrived and prepared it. Is it conceiv
able, that a traitor to that country which has j
loaded him with favors, guilty to the com- j
uvon understanding of all mankind, should be i
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 es- j
teem of his countrymen; and, in defiance of j
i.ueir wishes, in mockery of their tears, stir- I
rounded by tlie public indignation but inacces* j
sible to its bolt, pursue the purposes cf treason I
in the heart ofthe national councils ? Must the !
assembled rulers of the land listen with calm
ness and indifference, session after session, to J
the voice of notorious infamy, until tlie slug-j
gat'd step of municipal justice can overtake his j
enormities? Must they tamely see the lives
and fortunes of millions, the safety cf present
and future ages, depending upon his vote, rc- j
corded with their’s, merely because the abus- <
cd benignity of general maims may have rc- ■
rnit.cd lo him tire forfeiture of his life ?
Such, i.i very supposable cases, would be
the unavoidable consequences of a principle
which should off er the crutches of judicial tri
bunals, as an apology for crippling the con
gressional pok ci’ 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 tlie legislature from the first
approaches of infection; that it was made
discretionary because it could not exist under
tbe 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 authori
ty of precedent, your committee find, that since
the establishment of our present national le
gislature, there has been but one example of
expulsion from the senate. In the case the ‘
member implicated was called upon, in the
first instance, to answer whether he was the
author of a letter, the cofiy of which only was
produced, and the writing of which was the j
cause of his expulsion. lie was afterwards re-1
quested to declare whether he was the author j
ofthe letter itself, and declining in both cases
to answer, the fact of his having written it was
established bya comparison of his hand writing,
and by the belief of persons who had seen him
write, upon inspection of the letter. In all
these points the committee perceive the ad
mission of a species of evidence, which in
courts of criminal jurisdiction would be exclu
ded, and in the resolution of expulsion the
senate declared the person inculpated guile i of
a hgh misdemeanor, although no presentment
, cr iiidiclnicni ha.l been found ag inxt him, a: J
no prosecution at law was ever co:un.e.'/teu
upon the case.
This event Occurred in July, 1797. About
fifteen months before that lime, upon nr. app.,-
cation from the legislature of Kentucky, re
questing an investigation by tlie senate ol’ a
j Charge against one of the members fiotn tlqir
state, of perjury, which had been made in est
tain newspaper publications, but for win. It in*
prosecution had been commenced, the senate
did adopt, by a majority ol sixteen votes u*
eight, tlte report of a committee, purporting
J that trie senate had no jurisdiction lo try
, the charge, and that the memorial of the
Kentucky legislature should he dismissed,
i There were indeed very sufficient reasons of a
, different kind assigned in the same report, f./r
not pursuing the investigation in that particular*
] case any further, anti your committee believe
that, in the reasoning of that report, some prin
ciples 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 thi ir
| consequences, and the inaccuracy of which
was cle.it iy ptoved by the departure from them
in tbe instance which was so soon afterwards
to take place. It was the first lime that a
question of expulsion had ever been agitated it!
congress, since the adoption of the constitution.
And the subject, thus entirely new, was con
sidered perhaps too much with reference to the
particular circumstances cf the moment, and
not enough upon the numerous contingencies
to which the general question might apply-
Your committee state itiis opinion with some
confidence, because, ofthe six senators, who, ir*
March 1796, voted for the report dismissing 1
the memorial ofthe Kentucky legislature, 11,
/ on the subsequent occasion, in J uiy, 1797, voted
! also for that repot t, 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 te
) port had been assumed as the ground of pro
ceeding 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.
(The remainder in our ncjct.)
Tenth Congress of the United States.
nOt'SE 0? REPRESENTATIVES.
of Thursday the 31 st concluded.']
Mr. Thomas moved that the. resolution moved
by Mr. Randolph should lie on the table.
But a motion made to consider was agreed to.
Mr. Randolph said it appeared bv the declar
ation ofthe gentleman from New Orleans, that
lie did possess information, and as tlie house
had a right to it, he wished the speaker or some
other gentleman to inform him of the manner in
wtlich it might he obtained.
[Noorder was taken on this point.]
Mr. iay lor moved that tlie resolution be
committed to a committee of the whole, but at
a distant day, that time might be afforded fyr
consideration.
After a debate Mr. Taylor withdrew h’rs mo
tion.
Mr. Gardener moved that it be referred to a
select committee, withjpower to send for persons,
papers, &c.
Mr. i.lariort moved to strike out that part of
this motion giving power to a select committee
to send for persons, papers, See.
Mr. Sin .lie moved to postpone further proceed ■
I mgs on this subject till Monday ; on which i,w>
| tion che yeas being called for by Mr. Randolph,
! were C 8 to 40.
5 On the foregoing motions a verv lengthy and
j somewhat desultory debate ensued of about J
j hauls. Fhe debate turned on many inciden
| tal questions, amongst which, whether congress
| had a-constitutional right to request the Ftvs!-
I dent to cause the proposed enquiry to be made ?
(To this it was answered, that Congress had as
much right to make this request as to request
i the President to lay before them the public
( papers, either of which requests he might re
f fuse. It was also said, in making this request,
{ the house could not command move attention
1 titan was due to a respectable individual,
j it was doubted whether a member could be
1 called v.pon to-give information in liis seat, or at
| the bar ox the house ? In answer, precedent;
I were produced of cases i.i which members of
!* tbe House had been interrogated at the bar.
It was also contended, that if delivered in his
. place, the communication would be liable to
. commentary or reply by any gentleman whev
might think proper to discuss it, in the same,
manner as any other sj/eech.
It was made a question, whether this infor
• mation could be more properly received by a
committee of the whole, or a select committee,
or by the house ? It was said on this that it
had heretofore been the course of procedure to
empower chairmen of committees in such, cases
to administer oaths ; that in tlie house a mem
ber could be compelled ; that if information or
evidence were to be received in the house, it
would preplex their proceedings, by loading
the table and journals with interrogatories, <i;c.
It was questioned whether it were proper to
decide it now, to refer it, or to postpone It r* On
these points there appeared to be a great de-,
versity of opinion, some thinking that the evi
! deuce which they had received was sufficient
’ to induce them ;to pass the resolutions without
. further consideration, being a mere request t
the President to enquire ; others wished far
ther time and more evidence previous to giving
, their vote on the subject, considering it of great
/ importance ; others were in favour of a refer
; ence to a committee, to consider all the fore
going points, as well as the propriety of the.
main resolution; some wished th: J committee
j to have power to send for persons and papers,
i to report to the house their opinion cn the sub
j ject, together with evidence, believing that po
| skive and satisfactory evidence should be pro
duced before they adopted this resolution, amt
as it was impossible to understand precisely the
evidence now produced from the mere reading
of it ; other gentlemen wished it referred to a
committee without power to send for persons,
papers, fee. as they conceived the house did
not possess power to enforce their orders in suck
case, general Wilkinson being a military and
not a civil officer, whom the President alone
had power to remove.
None of these points -we'e decided either dii
rectly or by implication.