The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Fourth Congress, First Session Page: 173

                                
1-73
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
174
December, 1795.]                                   Case of
The House agreed to bring in Randall immedi-
ately. In the mean time, a member observed that
there was a material omission in the Journal of
yesterday, as read this day by the Clerk. It had
stated the attempt to corrupt members, but not
that Randall had pretended thirty or forty of them
to be gained already. This the gentleman thought
the most criminal part of the charge. He there-
fore moved for an amendment of the Journal.
This motion produced a long and desultory
debate.
The Speaker had never known an instance
of this sort, after the Journal was, as in the pres-
ent case, read over and already agreed to. He did
not think that it could be done at all, unless the
House were unanimous in it.
Mr. Thatcher said, that, as there was not any
rule on the subject, he would be for adhering to
the old practice, and not be for altering the Jour-
nals.
Several gentlemen now spoke. Mr. Jeremiah
Smith saw no necessity for an amendment in the
Journals at all. The additions proposed may be
entered on the Journals of this day, and make a
part of it; and, if it is needful, additions may be
made in this way, for ten days to come. It was
not like an indictment, which must be found by
the jury all at one time.
Randall was now brought in by Mr. Wheaton,
Sergeant-at-Arms, and the City Marshal. That
part of the Journals which refers to his conduct
was read to him.
The Speaker then interrogated the prisoner,
whether these charges were true or false? Ran-
dall replied that he was not prepared to answer.
He hoped that time would be given him. The
Speaker asked what time ho wanted ? He could
not positively tell; perhaps till the day after to-
morrow.
Mr. \V. Smith was disposed to give him. the
time required.
Mr. Blount said, that he felt for his own dig-
nity as a member of the House, and for the dignity
of the House. To suffer the prisoner to go away
from the bar till he had said guilty, or not guilty,
when thirty or forty members are positively
charged with such conduct, and we suffer the cul-
prit to withdraw, without obliging him to explain,
will excite public suspicion that guilt is here.
Randall was then ordered to withdraw, till the
discussion should be over.
Mr. Rutherford was for making him say yes
or no, directly, as to the guilt. If he wants to
have time for pleading any thing in mitigation of
his punishment, that is a quite different affair.
But the honor of the House was concerned in
making him give an immediate answer to the
queries now put.
Mr. Hillhouse was for bringing Randall for-
ward directly. He ought not to be allowed time
to think of an answer.
Mr. Harper felt as much as any man for the
dignify of the House, but this would not induce
him to proceed in a hurry. Mr. H. enlarged on
the danger of indulging passion on this subject. It
would be wrong to force the prisoner to answer
and Whitney.                                         [H. of R.
unprepared. What if he refuses to answer at all?
Confession amounts, in this case, to conviction.
He was for granting indulgence.
Mr. Venable felt as much as any man for the
dignity of the House. At the same time, he felt
himself above suspicion, and the House above it.
He would not wish to trample on the rights of an
individual. He saw no danger that could arise to
the House from a short delay. He referred to
what Mr. Harper had said about the hardship of
making any man convict himself.
Mr. Claiborne was also against hurrying the
prisoner. He recommended that coolness and
moderation should distinguish the proceedings of
the House.
The question was then put, whether the pris-
oner should be obliged to answer immediately.
Ayes 42, noes 48.
It was then moved, by Mr. W. Smith, that he
should be allowed till twelve o'clock, to-morrow.
Mr. Blount proposed the yeas and nays on the
latter question. A member observed that they
should rather have been put on the one immedi-
ately preceding. The motion was supported only
by four or five members. A fifth part of the
House are requisite for calling the yeas and nays.
Mr. Blount then laid on the table a long reso-
lution. It was in substance, that before Randall
was recommitted, he should be interrogated as to
who where the thirty or forty members that had
been gained to the scheme.
Mr. Harper thought it extraordinary to bring a
culprit before the House for contempt of it, and
then encourage him to criminate members. He
should ever protest against persons being brought
to the bar for that purpose. He therefore moved
to strike out from the resolution proposed by Mr.
Blount, the words: " And if you did, who are
" the memhers whom you considered as so secured ;
" and what where your reason for thinking them so
"secured?" This was the last clause of an inter-
rogatory which Mr. Blount proposed putting to
Randall.
Mr. Blount declared that he had never meant
bringing an accuser to the bar, or propounding a
question that should bring forth an accusation.
Mr. Harper replied.
Mr. Blount then modified his resolution, by
striking out the exceptionable words; to which
Mr. Harper then agreed.
Mr. Murray called upon gentlemen by their sen-
sibility to personal dignity, and the character of the
House, to arrest the motion. Its tendency certainly
was to place the honor of the House, or of a very
great part of it, in the power of a man of whose
profligacy of principle there could now be no
doubt. Will you, he observed, permit, nay, invite
him, whom you arraign at the bar of this House,
to be a public accuser ? Will you adopt a charge
against him, which is in its nature an imputation
that, however lightly and wickedly made, will im-
plicate perhaps innocent men? These men, to
rescue their own reputations, will be obliged to
risk their characters, on the weight of their vera-
city, by denying this man's charge in the face of
a world but too prone to suspect.   By this motioD,