Mr. GOODRICH wished the resolution to em brace another object. At present, the laws of the United States are inserted, by order of the Secretary of State, in five newspapers in the Union. This he did not think sufficient. He supposed, when this was ordered, it was expected that other papers would copy the laws without being paid for their insertion; but this has not been found to be sufficiently the case, and it is necessary the provision should be extended. The SPEAKER said the present resolution would comprehend this object. THURSDAY, December 20. BANKRUPT BILL. Mr. SEWALL called for the order of the day on the bill for establishing an uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States. The House went into Committee, Mr. DENT in the Chair. Mr. HARTLEY moved to dispense with the first reading, as it was a lengthy bill; and beside, he said, several members were opposed to the passing any bill for establishing a general system on that subject; he thought it would save much time of the House if those who were opposed to it would at once come forward and move to strike out the first section, and then it would speedily be determined whether such a bill was to pass or [H. OF R. their votes on its numerous provisions, that they consult a great number of authorities, perhaps more than on any other subject which could come before the House; at the very threshold of the business, innumerable English authors must be consulted; he was not, therefore, ready to undertake the bill at present. However, he would engage that he would not make any opposition to the progress of the business, if the committee would agree to rise for the present, in order to postpone it till Monday, which he moved. As the bill contemplated so great a change in the system, and embraced such a multiplicity of objects, a few days could make no difference, and he hoped it would be granted. Mr. SEWALL was not averse to agreeing with the gentleman's desire; he agreed with him that it had not hitherto had that serious attention paid to it which it demanded. He believed the act exceedingly necessary, and, therefore, if he should give his vote for a postponement, he would not wish it to be supposed that he did it with a view pass it over as heretofore. to Mr. HARPER said, if by going through the first section, and progressing forward with the bill, could preclude the gentleman from Virginia making any amendments, or striking out any part of the bill he was averse to, he should think the postponement of it altogether reasonable; but, since making some progress could not have that effect, he could see no reason for agreeing with the motion. From the number of sections the bill contained, and the number of provisions made in it, it might readily be conceived that two or three days would be taken up in its discussion, in which time the gentleman could look into the "innumerable authorities" he spoke of. But he would take upon him to say it was not so; it required only a reference to two acts of Great Britain, which are the foundation of the bankrupt system of that nation as it now stands. No doubt but he is well acquainted with them; but if not, he can be in three or four hours as well as with any question that comes before him in his professional line. By those kind of delays, Mr. H. said, one time after another, and on various grounds, this bill had been postponed. A gentleman from North Carolina had said there was no necessity for printing, but after it had been made the order for a certain day, it was found necessary to print itthat delayed it three or four days; and yesterday, just as it was going to be called up, a gentleman who was opposed to it, at 1 o'clock, moved to adjourn; and now a farther delay till Monday was asked, in order that the mover might examine a bill which had been before the House five or six years! If this should be delayed till Monday, who could foresee what might occur to force it out, and postpone it farther? He said he could foresee that those repeated delays would operate to endanger the bill passing at all, though he did not mean to charge any gentleman with an intention to destroy it. He wished gentlemen would state their objections at once to the passing of this bill, and not delay it day after day. It would be much better to begin the bill to-day, and discuss its Mr. HARTLEY hoped that, if it was postponed, gentlemen would have the candor, if they were opposed to the bill, at that time to move to strike out the first section. It was too much the custom of the House to go into detail on a bill, and consume considerable time in its discussion, without any settled motion being made; such, he said, was the case with the militia bill, which never passed. He thought, if a general system of bankruptcy was expedient, that this contained as good provisions as could be. [DECEMBER, 1798. how many doors are open to fraud. This provision is the most infallible remedy possible to discover it; you have every opportunity to discover the truth by it. If the possessor has fairly purchased the property, he has nothing to do but show his receipt, and he is paid the purchase-money on returning the property; and thus, having his own, he is not injured; but if the property has been fraudulently conveyed, it is, by this means, easily discoverable. This practice, he said, had been the object of judicial and legislative inquiry in England for 500 years, and, upon experience, was found best to answer the purpose. Mr. OTIS said there was a considerable difficulty in this provision, as the property may have been bought and sold several times, and thus become scattered abroad; so that it would be impossible to return it; and yet, a purchaser is liable Mr. S. SMITH thought it would be advisable in to a suit from the assignees, and ordered by a jury the House to get through some business or other. to return the articles. Suppose it should be a farm The gentleman from Virginia had said that this that a man had purchased, and made considerable bill had been before the House several years. He improvements on it; the asignees would compel had made the same observation; it had been serv- the purchaser to return it, and it would be out of ed up constantly almost every session, and as con- his power to obtain satisfaction for the improve-. stantly passed by as a matter of no consequence. ments he had made. We ought to pay great reHe thought, if it was intended to be decided on in spect to the experience of a great commericial the present session, the House could spare no time country, but we ought also to avoid the errors towards it better than now. By its undergoing a which ancient practice and prejudice might have discussion at this time, gentlemen would be much established. better acquainted with it than by retiring to their chambers to read it. He said he had read the bill with some attention, and, from its general appearance, he was much pleased with it. He could not pledge himself to vote for or against it; for, when it came to be argued, he might see as much reason to vote against it as he at present did in its favor. He did not wish those delays to be made, by putting off business from day to day; he did not know what kind of an appearance it would have with their constituents. The question for postponement was taken ayes 33, noes 37. Mr. SEWALL said the difficulty intended to be obviated was one of those which most required attention, because a reasonable lenity was generally taken advantage of, mostly by a debtor, for his own benefit, to the injury of his creditors. The disadvantage to purchase was not so great under this provision as was imagined; for if the property was purchased at a fair price, it would not be to the benefit of the creditors to have it back, as it must afterwards run the chance of a vendue before the dividend could be made; it must be purchased very low, indeed, to make it worth their attention. But another part of the law so provided that it In the 10th section it is enacted, that in case a could be only during six months that such an bankrupt had sold any of his property, the assign-advantage could be taken; so that the inconveniees were empowered to demand back such property, on payment of the purchase-money. Mr. Oris moved to strike out that part of the section, as he said great inconvenience might attend a bona fide purchaser returning property which had fairly become his own, and particularly if it had been transferred into other hands. Mr. HARPER said it was an object of particular attention, in Great Britain, to guard against frauds in their bankrupt laws. He would allow that great inconvenience attended the return of property from a bona fide purchaser, but the difficulty of discovering the various means which were constantly practised by fraudulent persons to evade the law made this provision necessary. Though, in an abstract view of the subject, it did not seem reasonable that they should be deprived of property fairly paid for, yet in practice it had been found necessary. After all that is or can be done, it is too general a complaint that bankrupt laws are made use of to evade the payment of debts. After all provisions, it is impossible to discover ences could not be very great in that time. This law, he said, was vastly more moderate than in Great Britain, because there the purchaser, after a certain time, loses all the property. Mr. HARPER enforced his former arguments by saying, that in the course of his experience he had witnessed more frauds respecting bona fide sales than in all other causes put together. He hoped the gentleman who wished to suspend this, would inform the House in what manner those difficulties could be removed, but by the provision in the bill. Mr. GOODRICH said he was not prepared to vote on this question. The difficulties in it were so great, and the subject so delicate and important. that he would move a postponement of the paragraph, in order to have time to reflect on it, and also that the committee rise. Mr. OTIS hoped the committee would not rise. Rather than it should, on that account, if the member would withdraw his motion, he would also withdraw his, for the present, and the bill might go on. He proceeded to mention the inconveniences of the clause, which he particularized in certain articles of commerce, (as sugar or coffee,) which frequently experienced, in a short time, a considerable advance; which, if a purchaser had bought low, would it be right, he asked, at the advance, for the assignees to have power to demand its return, when perhaps had been transferred into many hands? Certainly not. The motions were both withdrawn, and the committee proceeded with the bill. Several sections were postponed, and a number of blanks enacting fines, &c., filled. Mr. EGGLESTON said, if gentlemen were not prepared to vote, who had had the bill before them for a number of years, it would not be wondered if new members were unprepared also. In order, therefore, to give every one an opportunity to examine the subject, he moved that the committee rise. The committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. IMPEACHMENT OF WM. BLOUNT. Mr. HARPER, from the managers appointed to conduct the impeachment against William Blount, reported that the said managers had, pursuant to a resolution of this House, attended before the Senate, to request that a further day might be assigned for proceeding with this business; and that Monday next, at twelve o'clock, was assigned. The report further stated that the managers, having considered the subject, conceived that it would not be consistent with propriety, or the solemnity which ought to be observed on this occasion, to proceed to the trial of the said William Blount in his absence; and that having failed in his appearance, the managers on the part of this House ought, when they next appear before the Senate, to request that further order may be taken to compel the attendance of the said William Blount. The managers, therefore, submitted a resolution to the House for adoption, to the following effect: Resolved, That the managers appointed on the part of this House for conducting the impeachment against William Blount, be instructed to request, at their next attendance before the Senate, that further order may be taken to compel the attendance of the said William Blount at the bar of the Senate." Mr. VENABLE hoped that the gentleman who made this report would suffer it to lie till to-morrow. He conceived that the question whether the Senate ought to proceed in the trial of William Blount in his absence, is a question which ought to be settled by themselves, and not by the House of Representatives. However, as this was an entirely new subject, he hoped an immediate decision upon the report would not be desired. On the question for taking up the report being put, it was negatived without a division. TREASURER'S ACCOUNTS. The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Treasurer of the United States, enclosing his specie account, and his account with the War Department-the one up to the end of June, and the other to the end of November; which were ordered to be printed. [H. of R. ALTERATION OF STAMP DUTIES. Mr. S. SMITH, from the Committee of Commerce, reported a bill to alter the stamp duty imposed upon foreign bills of exchange and bills of lading, by an act laying a duty on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper, and further to amend the same; which was committed for to-morrow. FRIDAY, December 21. Mr. MORRIS proposed to the House a resolution, to the following effect: “Resolved, That a committee be appointed to prepare and report a bill prescribing the compensations which shall be allowed to marshals, clerks, attorneys, and to repeal the present law on this subject.” jurors, and witnesses, in the Courts of the United States, The resolution was agreed to. IMPEACHMENT OF WM. BLOUNT. A message was received from the Senate, communicating to the House certain rules, which the Senate think fit to be obeyed in the trial of William Blount, impeached by the House of Representatives of high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States. They are, that, the President shall inquire whether the Managers have "At the next opening of the Court of Impeachment, any request to make, before the counsel of the defendant are called to put in his answer. counsel shall be required to put in his answer or plea "If no motion or request is made, the defendant's to the articles of impeachment. "The answer or plea shall be read by the Secretary, and communicated by him to the House of Representatives. "The President shall then inform the managers that the Senate is ready to hear any reply or motion which they may think proper to make. "All questions arising in the course of the trial shall be decided with closed doors. The decisions shall be by ayes and noes, which shall be entered upon the Judiciary Journal. When the question is decided, the doors shall be opened, the parties called in, and the result made known to them by the President. "Witnesses shall be sworn by the Secretary, and shall take the following oath : "I, A. B., do swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that the evidence I will give to this court, touching the impeachment of William Blount, now here depending, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth-So help me God. "Witnesses shall be examined by the party producing, and then cross-examined, in the usual form. If a Senator wishes any question to be asked, it shall be put by the President. "If Senators are called as witnesses, they shall be sworn, and give their testimony, standing in their places." Mr. HARPER moved to postpone the unfinished business of yesterday, in order to take up the report of the managers of this House for conducting the impeachment of William Blount, before the Senate. This would appear necessary, when gentlemen recollect that the Senate has fixed Monday next for the managers to appear again at their bar, H. OF R.] Impeachment of William Blount. as the managers do not think themselves competent to take what they think ought to be the next step in this business, until they have received the instructions of the House. The motion for postponing the unfinished business was put and carried. The report of the managers was then read, as follows: "That, pursuant to the resolution of this House, of the eighteenth instant, they did attend before the Senate of the United States, and request a further day for preparing their proceedings in the said impeachment; whereupon, a further day was granted till Monday next, at twelve o'clock. "That the managers, having carefully considered the subject, are of opinion that it is neither consistent with the solemnity which ought to attend this high Constitutional proceeding, nor with the principles, which, as far as they have been able to discover, have invariably obtained in impeachments, and all other trials of a criminal nature, to proceed to trial against the defendant, in this case, in his absence: and that the said William Blount, having failed to make personal appearance, as has been notified to the House by the above-mentioned message from the Senate, the next step, on the part of this House, ought to be a motion before the Senate that further order be taken by them for compelling his personal appearance at their bar, to answer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him by this House. "The managers, however, do not think it proper for them to take a step involving so important a principle, without the direction of the House; for the purpose of obtaining which, they beg leave to submit to its consideration the following resolution : "Resolved, That the managers appointed, on the part of this House, to conduct the impeachment against William Blount, late a Senator of the United States, be instructed to request, at their next attendance before the Senate, that further order be taken for compelling the personal appearance of the said William Blount, to answer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him on the part of this House." [December, 1798. ately proceed to trial, if the Senate are ready to try the cause. Mr. SEWALL said, the managers of the impeachment submitted it as their opinion to the House,.. almost unanimously, that it would be proper to request the Senate to take further order for compelling the attendance of William Blount, to answer to the charges brought against him, as, in all cases of impeachment and criminal proceedings, personal appearance is necessary before a trial can take place. It may be argued that, in some cases of impeachment, it would be expedient to dispense with a strict adherence to this rule, as it might, as the gentleman from Virginia has suggested, prevent judgment from being obtained against the party impeached. But, then, some substitute ought to be provided; and still the question recurs, that if it be an established principle of law that no criminal shall be tried, except he be present in person, shall this principle be dispensed with at the will of the Senate could proceed in this trial, as there is nothing in our laws to direct them; and they could not certainly go on to trial in defiance of the established rules of common law, or proceed to judgment without a trial. Is it not, then, said Mr. S., becoming the dignity of this House to make, at least, an application to the Senate, requesting that they will take further order to compel the attendance of Mr. Blount? a court? He believed not. He did not see how When the House first instituted this impeachment, they requested the Senate would take order for the personal appearance of Mr. Blount. They have summoned him to appear, and given him personal notice of the charges exhibited against him, but he has not appeared; and if, in this case, the House departs from the established rule of law, without substituting a rule in place of it, in some future case the Senate may deem less than a personal notice sufficient in similar cases, which might prove extremely injurious to the party accused. Mr. NICHOLAS hoped this resolution would not Let us not, said Mr. S., consider this question be agreed to. It was very different from his ideas merely as it has reference to William Blount, but on this subject. It was requiring a step to be as relating to all future cases of this kind. It cantaken which might altogether defeat the prosecu- not be doubted the present Senate are disposed to tion; for, if a capias was issued, Mr. Blount might do justice; but, at some future day, there may be not be taken, and the agreeing to this report would a Senate which, availing itself of a bad precedent, affirm the principle that no further proceeding may injure and oppress citizens who may be so could be had until he appeared in person; and if unfortunate as to come within their power. We he is taken, the Senate can do no more than they ought, therefore, said he, by a statute, which shall can now do. In his opinion, this kind of proceed-be known to the people, to declare what shall be ing would be the reverse of dignified, by requir- the consequence of a neglect and contempt of the ing a thing to be done, as essential, which is per- summons of a court in such a case. He must, he fectly immaterial, but which, if it fails, may put said, consider William Blount as guilty of a conthe whole business to hazard. The dignity of a tempt of court, in failing to appear before the Senproceeding of this kind depends upon its certainty. ate; and if he is to suffer no inconvenience on this The managers state, as their reason for this appli- account, it cannot be expected that any future sum cation, that all other impeachments and criminal mons will be better obeyed; for, if a person improsecutions require a personal appearance; and, peached shall be suffered to enjoy all the advanin order to this, said Mr. N., they require a person tages, by an appearance of counsel only, that he to be in custody in order to secure the due execution would have if he appeared in person, every imof the law; but where it is not necessary to secure peached person will hereafter avoid the inconve the person in order to carry into effect the judg- nience and suffering of being personally present ment of a court, the appearance of the person is at his trial, and all cases of impeachment will be not essential. As it was unnecessary, therefore. managed by attorneys, and of course be much to issue a capias, he would not do it, but immedi- diminished in their consequences, and become a mere farce or play, to be acted before the public. It is objected, however, by the gentleman from Virginia, that if the mode recommended be pursued, it will tend to defeat the prosecution. In saying this, he anticipates what may be the views of this House and of the Senate. The Senate may refuse to grant the request proposed to be made to them. They may say the trial shall proceed. But the Senate may do something else; they may not issue a capias, but may pass a law, saying what shall be the process in similar cases in future. Or, if the Senate does not originate such a law, it may be originated in this House. He could wish a law passed, declaring that if a person impeached does not appear, when duly summoned, the facts stated against him shall be taken as true, and the court shall proceed to judgment, admitting counsel to argue only points of law. The consequences of a contempt of court being thus known, every innocent man will cheerfully attend a summons; but if a contrary course is pursued, the dread of impeachment will be greatly lessened, and it will grow into disrepute. [H. OF R. Mr. O. said he did not know what had been the rule observed in similar cases in England; he had not had leisure to examine; nor did he think we ought to be bound by British precedents in a case of this kind. It is, said he, a new case, and he saw no difficulty in determining to prosecute this man to conviction, and in obtaining for him the punishment which he deserves. There is some analogy between this process and a process (well known in common law) against a man's property, distinct from his person. Every one knows that such a prosecution is a prosecution of forfeiture. For instance, we libel a vessel, and notice is given to all the parties to defend. If they do not appear, judgment and execution are obtained. The present process is against the office of William Blount; it has nothing to do with his person; he is afterwards liable to a prosecution at common law for any crime which he may have committed. And is it for us to start difficulties on the threshold of the business, and, in arguing thus, take the same side, perhaps, with the defendant's counsel, when they come before the Senate? Public opinion, said Mr. O., requires that this man should be removed from office, and rendered incapable of holding any place under the Government in future; but if the course proposed by the managers is taken, he may be elected to office again, before judgment can be obtained against him. It had been said, by his colleague, that a law ought to be passed on the subject; but, if this was done, a question might arise whether it was not The gentleman from Virginia had endeavored retrospective as to the present case; and he saw to do away the common-law principle, by suppos- no necessity for providing for any future case. It ing the preference of the party as only necessary is our duty, said he, to be ready to appear before to insure an execution of judgment. Mr. S. pre- the Senate, and insist upon a trial. If, indeed, on sumed this was not the reason. He would mention some circumstances to show that it was not. In common law, where a man is charged with a crime, he alone is concious of the crime, and he ought, therefore, to be present. The court should at all times see him, that they may know that they are not trying a man who may not be in existence. In the case of a person standing mute upon his trial, he is called upon to answer; and if he refuses, he would ask whether any court could proceed to judgment or trial? They could not. Yet he is as liable to the penalties of the law as if he plead; but because he does not plead, no trial can take place. Mr. S. concluded, by saying he hoped the subjeet would be coolly considered-that he had no particular reference in what he had said to the present case, but he had an eye to all future simi hearing counsel, the Senate shall determine they cannot proceed to judgment without the personal appearance of the accused, we must submit; but I see no propriety in our taking that side of the question. lar cases. Mr. Oris said, the respect which he entertained for the members of the committee of managers led him to express an opinion different from theirs with some degree of diffidence; but, from the short view which he had taken of the subject, he believed the managers had propounded a question which it is not proper for this House to decide; for, said he, being prosecutors for public justice, it is our duty to present ourselves before the Senate, and there to insist upon our prosecution. If our cause should be overruled, we must submit ; but it is not for us to start difficulties. Mr. DANA said the Senate had doubtless a right to summon the party accused to attend before them. They have a right to issue process for the attendance of witnesses; and if the party chooses to appear, he has a right to require process for his witnesses, and they may be excused from all other service; but when the party accused does not choose to appear, shall he be compelled to appear? For what purpose shall he be compelled to appear? Whether an offence is committed against the public, or a man is guilty of a civil injury, it is easy to decide what is the legal inference arising from the truth of the fact. It would be idle in courts of justice to proceed in trials where judgment cannot be effectual; and, therefore, in criminal prosecutions the security of the person is necessary, and is always enforced. gentlemen who say that a person, in a case like the present, should be required to appear, answer, if a sentence can neither affect a man's person nor his property, why he should appear in person? If a man were liable to be punished with imprisonment, fine, or ransom, his person ought to be secured; and it is because courts will have security, that in such cases persons are either imprisoned Let |