Mr. DODDRIDGE, in reply, went into a full explanation of the present condition and past misfortunes of the Columbian College, and insisted upon the reasonableness of the clause in the bill for its relief. After some explanations between Messrs. WICKLIFFE and DODDRIDGE, as to the McKenney lots, &c., [APRIL 11, 12, 1852. much less could they apply a part of those proceeds to the | a member of this House, when inquiring of himself how construction of a road in Montgomery county, in Mary-shall I vote upon this subject, is, what is the object of the land. He had not examined into the conditions on which resolution? not what is the secret motive of the mover, Congress held the lots, but he had believed they were not whether he intends that it shall have a party or politi given for public purposes in Washington, and not in cal bearing; nor whether it would operate against the ele. Georgetown and Alexandria. There were in this very bill vation of one man to the chief magistracy of the United two or three proposals for giving away a part of the pub- States, or advance the prospects of another; but what oblic property; and a bill had just been read, the effect of ject has this House, in the exercise of its legitimate pow which would be, to give United States' property, worth at ers, in view-what end is to be compassed by this investi least 10,000 dollars, to the owners of lots adjoining cer- gation? I am saved from the trouble of answering this tain streets which were to be straightened. He was for question. It has already been answered by the gentleman giving the city the whole residuum at once. It would rid from Connecticut, the gentleman from Maine, the gentlethe House of a vast deal of perplexing legislation. What man from Rhode Island, and the gentleman from Ohio. did the Government want with these miserable scraps of They say that the subject is to impeach McCrate, a col soil? Why was that House to be forever huckstering city lector of the Wiscasset district, in the State of Maine. Sir, lots for revenue? The whole value, he was told, would why ought we to impeach McCrate? What good is to be not be worth more than between two and three thousand effected by impeaching him? The same gentlemen to dollars. He should prefer giving this to the corporation whom I have already alluded answered this question also. for the use of common schools, to endowing a college, They say that the object is to remove him from office, and which had already shared pretty liberally in the bounty of disqualify him from holding any other office of honor, the Government. profit, or trust, under the laws of the United States. By the fourth section of the second article of the constitution, "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on im peachment, for a conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By the third section of the first article, "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the United States." It would seem from these two sections, that removal from office is a ne cessary consequence of conviction; that the constitution makes it imperative on the Senate to remove from office when a civil officer of the United States is convicted of either of the impeachable offences specified in the const tution; but it does not follow that such officer shall be dis qualified from holding office. That part of the punish ment appears to be left to the sound discretion of the Sc nate. The Senate in its judgment may, or it may not, disqualify. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the charges against McCrate contained in the affidavit of McClintock are true, and that the offence is an impeachable offence; have those gentlemen who so warmly advo cate the prosecution of this inquiry by a committee of this House, any assurance that two-thirds of the members of the Senate would disqualify McCrate from holding office' Judging from the nature of the offence, and from the in feriority of the office held by McCrate, I should say that the Senate would not disqualify him from holding office. extend further than to the removal from office. But, say I have no idea that the judgment of the Senate would gentlemen, he would, upon conviction, at least, be remos. other mode by which he could be removed, and which ed from office: true, he would. Is there, however, no would answer precisely the same purpose as though he had been removed by the Senate of the United States? Mr. WARD moved an amendment to the amendment of Mr. WICKLIFFE, going to reserve lots for four dwellinghouses for the heads of departments. The amendment was promptly rejected. Mr. WICKLIFFE, in support of his amendment, stated that the Government was indebted to the corporation of Washington more than 5,000 dollars, for improvements made adjoining to the public property. Mr. MERCER opposed the amendment, as being of too The bills were ultimately reported; and WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11. WISCASSET COLLECTOR. The House having again taken up this subject, Mr. STORRS continued his remarks (as given entire above) until the expiration of the hour, when the House proceeded to the orders of the day. The House spent the residue of the day in discussing the bill for purchasing the property of the Washington Bridge Company in the Potomac bridge, and the erection of a free bridge over the river, and on other bills relating to the District. THURSDAY, APRIL 12, say that We who are in favor of referring these charges to the Secretary of the Treasury for his examination, there is another and better way to remove than by im peachment. That the President, or Secretary of the Treasury, by the President's consent, can remove, and ne morn-member of this House either doubts or denies the power. Proceeding, then, on the supposition that the charges are Mr. STORRS concluded his remarks, (as given above.) true, the only question which would present itself to my Mr. KENNON, of Ohio, followed on the other side of mind, is, which of those two modes ought to be adopted the question. He said it was not his intention to occupy by this House? Before I proceed to examine this ques much of the time of this House, nor to travel far from the tion, I must be permitted to say a few words in answer to question under consideration. What, said Mr. K., is that the argument of the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. question? It is, shall the Committee on the Judiciary be STORRS;] and I hope I will be pardoned for saying, that discharged from the further consideration of the resolution although many speeches have been made on his side of of the gentleman from Maine? and shall the charges con- the case, his, in my opinion, is the only argument which tained in that resolution be referred to the Secretary of has been made. I entertain a very high opinion of the ta the Treasury? The first thing which strikes the mind of lents of that gentleman, and, to my ear, his speech com APRIL 12, 1832.] Wiscasset Collector. [H. of R. 1st. If these charges are true, they amount to an impeachable offence. municated more of the legislator than the lawyer. If the been proposed. But, sir, his argument did not end here. positions which he has laid down are all correct, and He proceeded to lay down a connected chain of proposican be sustained, there ends this controversy, and we tions--I do not know that I am able to state them, either ought to proceed with this investigation for the purpose in the words or the order in which he stated them, but of impeachment. But, sir, in my judgment, some of they were in substance these: his positions are incorrect, and others, although correct, CT are wholly inapplicable to the case under consideration. In the first place, he undertakes to show for what pur- 2d. This body possesses the power of ascertaining the poses this body possesses the power of examining into truth of these charges for the purpose of impeachment. charges of this nature, and proceeds, by a long process 3d. When we have sufficient evidence of an impeachof reasons, to show that we possess the power, first, for able offence having been committed, we are bound to the purpose of legislation; and, secondly, for the purpose impeach. The duty is imperative, and not discretionary. of impeachment. To both these positions I agree. His Now, Mr. Speaker, any person who will take the trouargument forced me to yield my assent to their truth. It ble to look at these three points, will find that if either must be correct that this body possess the power of send- of them are incorrect, the question will resolve itself into ing for persons and papers, to ascertain facts for the pur- a matter of expediency, whether we ought to impeach, poses of legislation. Suppose, however, that that power or refer the charges to the Secretary of the Treasury, had been conferred upon us for no other purpose, and yet Or, in other words, if these three positions are not all we, under pretence of a desire to legislate upon a parti- correct, we are not necessarily bound to proceed by imcular subject, would send to Maine for persons and papers, peachment, and may refer the matter to the Secretary, for the secret purpose of creating and circulating in this and ought to do so, if that can be shown to be the better country political documents. I ask any gentleman on this mode of the two. Sir, 1 deny the accuracy of each of floor whether such an act on the part of this House would these positions, and would rather undertake to prove that not be an abuse of power. To illustrate this idea more they were all wrong, than that either of them were corclearly, I will state a case. The constitution of the United rect. At present, I shall admit the soundness of the docStates gives to Congress the power to lay and collect trines contained in the first and second points, and proceed taxes, and to make all laws necessary and proper to car- to inquire whether, when we have sufficient evidence of an ry that power into execution. The Bank of the United impeachable offence having been committed, we are imStates may have some tendency to facilitate the collection periously bound to impeach. The argument of the gentleand distribution of taxes; may be a necessary and proper man, in support of this position, is, that, in the act of means to carry into execution the power to lay and collect impeachment, we are exercising a judicial power, and are taxes; but suppose we were to renew the charter of that imperatively bound to try causes brought before us. It is bank, for the avowed purpose of collecting the taxes, when, due to the gentleman to say that this argument had much in truth and in fact, every member of both branches of the force in it, and was very ably sustained. The first reason Legislature had in view the advancement of the interests of which I have for supposing that he is in error on this imthe stockholders, and that only. All would admit that we portant point, is, that the constitution, from which alone have no power to renew the charter for that purpose, and we derive the power of impeachment, does not make it that we would have been guilty of an abuse of power-a imperative on the House of Representatives to impeach, base abuse of power-containing in it more moral turpi- when an impeachable offence is made known to that body. tude than if we had expressed upon the face of the act the The language of the constitution is, that the House of real purpose for which we had renewed the charter. In Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachthe one case, we would evade and set at defiance the ju- ment, and that certain officers shall, upon impeachment diciary of the country. Our motives could not be inquir- for, and conviction of, certain offences, be removed from ed into, otherwise than as they appeared on the face of office." The power is conferred upon us by the same the law. In the other case, the purpose being expressed, instrument, and in language similar to that in which all our the judiciary tribunals of the country might pronounce legislative powers are conferred. If the framers of the the law unconstitutional and void. I hope I am not under-constitution had intended to make impeachment an impestood as expressing an opinion upon this great bank ques-rative duty on this House, and not leave the exercise of tion, or as attributing any improper motives to gentlemen that, as they have all other powers, to the sound discretion who have participated in this debate. I intend neither the of the representatives of the people, it appears to me one nor the other. My only object is to show that the they would have said so. They have said no such thing, power which we possess of exainining into charges, of and I think, for that very reason, that they never thought sending for persons and papers, as the groundwork of of or intended to do any such thing. It may, however, legislation, must be for that purpose, or we are usurping be said that it is not the language of the constitution, but power. It appears to me that, until the gentleman from the nature of the power to be exercised, which makes the Connecticut [Mr. STORRS] shows that our object is legis. duty of exercising it imperative. Indeed, this is the lation, he has not advanced one step towards proving that ground upon which the gentleman places the argument, we ought to examine into this case. Does any member of and in this les the error. He who exercises a judicial this House contend, after this investigation shall have been power necessarily possesses the power of deciding, of completed-after these charges shall have been sustained rendering judgment; but we possess no such power; the by proof, to pass a law upon the subject? Sir, no one has utmost extent to which we can go, is to prefer charges be expressed such an opinion, and I think no one entertains fore the Senate; the Senate exercise the judicial power, such an opinion. And what is very remarkable, is, that and that, too, under the solemnity of an oath; we are litthe gentleman himself has not even intimated such an idea. tle, if any thing, more than mere informers or complainI say, then, Mr. Speaker, that although the gentleman ants. To impeach means nothing more than to accuse, has sustained this proposition with much ingenuity, yet and we are exercising the power of accusers instead of he has argued in a circle, and has arrived at the very that of judges. But, sir, unless we are acting in a judipoint at which he started. That part of his speech was cial capacity, the whole argument of the gentleman upon dehors the record, and had nothing to do with the case. that point falls to the ground. That we are not, is too If his argument had ended here, I would have found little clear to require further comment. or no difficulty in answering him. I think I could prove that no legislation is necessary on this subject; that the law s already amply sufficient to meet the case, even if any had VOL. VIIL-156 If then I am right in saying that we are not in the exercise of a judicial power in this matter, and that, therefore, we are not imperatively bound to impeach, I have H. OF R.] Wiscasset Collector. [APRIL 12, 1832 succeeded in removing out of the way the only barrier to pears to have been done under the direction of the Secrethe arguments, or rather the remarks which I intend to tary of the Treasury, upon charges of intemperance made submit to the consideration of this House. I am inclined against McClintock, and which charges, it seems, were to believe that it would not be a very difficult task to prove true. With these remarks, I am done with the argument that the other two points are equally unsustainable with of the gentleman from Connecticut upon these points. this, but that is unnecessary for my purpose. A few words more in answer to some observations of his. I will, however, say that if it be not true, as stated in He says that these charges derive additional importance the first point, that this is an impeachable offence, it fol- from the fact that many charges have lately been made lows, as a matter of course, that the second point is in-against the officers of the Government; and he states what correct also; because, if the charge does not amount to these charges are, and against whom they have been made, an impeachable offence, we have no power to inquire into He goes further than this, and says that the charges late it for the purpose of impeachment. What is an impeach-been made by those who are opposed to the administration, able offence? What are the charges against the collector? meaning the national republican gentlemen; and that the Do they, if true, come within the words or meaning of investigation has been opposed by the friends of the pre the constitution? Had I looked no further than to the sent administration. By these expressions, I suppose, be language of that instrument, I am free to confess that I intended to communicate the idea that we, the friends of should have been inclined to the opinion that this might the administration, were operated upon by party princ by possibility have been one of the offences contemplated ples in the exercise of our legislative powers in this by the framers of, and specified in, the fourth section of House. Mr. Speaker, I am no party man; and, if I know the second article of the constitution. I might not have my own heart, if I know the motives of my ow supposed, from reading that section, that, in order to con-actions, I never have, and I think I never will, give a party stitute an impeachable offence, it was necessary that the vote in this House. The vote which my own judgmen crime or misdemeanor should amount to a violation of offi-directs me is right, I always give. I do not intend by these cial duty. This, however, appears to be the law, settled expressions to say I am not the friend of this admin and admitted on all hands. The individual must be a istration. Sir, I am the friend of this administration. I civil officer of the United States. The act committed supported the election of General Jackson before, and must be a high crime or a high misdemeanor, and that will do so again, unless some very good reason should be crime or misdemeanor must be done under color of office; given to convince me of my error, and that reason must or, more technically speaking, it must be an act commit- be a much better one than that the collector of the Wis ted or omitted in violation of that which the individual, as casset district, in the State of Maine, a friend of the Press an officer, and not as a member of society, was bound to dent, had committed a crime. Sir, if this is a reason ca do or not to do. Now, sir, the great difficulty which gen- the one side, it must be on the other also; and I coul tlemen who have taken the other side of this question point to some men in my own section of country, who are have to encounter, is, that this charge amounts to no crime friends of other aspirants to the Presidential chair, 3 or misdemeanor known to the laws of the country, much who have committed much higher crimes. But, sir, d less to a violation of official duty. It was, in the worst it not occur to the gentleman from Connecticut, in b aspect of the case, but an attempt to commit a crime, and party allusions, that that argument had two edges to is therefore called by some gentlemen an attempt at subor- that it cuts both ways, and that rather the sharper edges nation of perjury. What are the facts of this case, as turned towards himself, and to his national republican charged by McClintock? McCrate, against whom these brethren, in making these charges? Whether the friends charges are made, is a collector of the revenue for the and enemies of his administration be divided upon pri Wiscasset district, in the State of Maine. McClintock, ciple, or whether it be mere contest between the cuts i who makes the affidavit, was an inspector in the same dis- and the ins, one thing is certain, and that is, that those trict. By the laws of the United States, it is, I believe, who opposed the election of General Jackson were beat made the duty of the inspector, at the end of each quar-en, defeated, and mortified, and that they are now us ter, to return to the Treasury Department an affidavit stat- every means to defeat his re-election. He who has any ing (if such should have been the fact) that he had knowledge of human nature must know that an enemy received all the fees allowed to him by law for his own will always go further to injure a man than his friends was use. McClintock, the inspector, makes an affidavit, and it to do him a favor, and I therefore beg the enemies of this comes, somehow or other, into the hands of the gentleman administration to recollect that such party allusions may be from Maine, [Mr. EVANS,] stating that McCrate had de- returned with redoubled force upon themselves. sired him, McClintock, to make an affidavit that he had It seems that McCrate has taken some ex parte affidars received the whole of his fees for a certain quarter, when disproving the truth of McClintock's affidavit, and has sc in fact he, McClintock, had not received the whole, but them to this House. Upon these affidavits the gentler that a part was still due; that the next morning McCrate from Connecticut has commented with much seventy turned McClintock out of office, and that he, McClintock, The burden of the complaint is that they are exp believes that he was turned out of office because he had that McClintock had no notice of the time and place refused to swear that which was untrue. The charge taking them, although the gentleman says McCrate res further states that McClintock had been inspector for some twenty rods from McClintock's. Now, sir, if it be seven quarters. If this be true to the letter, (which by the true that McCrate resides but some twenty rods from Mc bye has, by other gentlemen, been shown to be untrue,) Clintock, it is equally true that McClintock resides sure where is the impeachable offence? Where is the viola- twenty rods from McCrate; and pray why did he make a tion, not of good morals, but of official duty? Sir, if I parte affidavit, and send it here as the groundwork of 5 understand gentlemen on the other side, it is not pretended charge? why is it that he gave McCrate no notice when it by them that, by law, it is either made the duty of Mc- took his affidavit? In this, as in the other case, the ge Crate to pay McClintock, or to procure the affidavit of Mc-tleman has looked at but one side of his argument. Wh Clintock, stating that he had received the fees due to him, these remarks, I leave the gentleman from Connect c and that they were received for his own. for the present, and turn my attention to some obser Where, then, I again ask, is the violation of official tions of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. EVANS,] the move duty, on the part of McCrate? No man has told us in of this resolution, the only opposer of the administrato what it consists, and no man can, for the best of all rea- from that State, and it would seem that he is the last of the sons, and that is, because it does not exist. Mohicans. He says these charges ought not to be refer As to the removal of McClintock from office, that ap-red to the Secretary of the Treasury, for one of the m APRIL 12, 1832.] Wiscasset Collector. [H. or R. singular reasons which imagination could invent. What The gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. PEARCE,] and was that reason? Why, sir, he says, new exigencies re- my colleague, [Mr. WHITTLESEY,] think that, by impeachquire new remedies; that times are changed; that he does ing McCrate, the public good would be greatly advanced. not now discover that promptness to examine into charges My colleague, in particular, is much in favor of this disthat heretofore existed. That the Secretary might not qualification to hold office as being a very salutary and remove--that he knows of charges having been made to wholesome punishment. He informed us, that when the the Postmaster General (William T. Barry) against two prosecution against an individual now incarcerated in the postmasters in his State. The one was an anti-administra-jail of this District, (Tobias Watkins,) was progressing, tion man, the other was an administration man. He says he felt no sympathy for him, that he longed to hear of his the administration man was not removed, the anti-adminis- conviction, and to know that he was suffering the punishtration man was removed. So far so good. What were ment due to his crimes. If that gentleman considers imthe charges against each of those postmasters? What peachment and disqualification to hold office so very useful was the proof advanced against each? Why, sir, the gen- and salutary a punishment, the individual to whom he tleman himself, in the very same sentence, had the polite- alludes held a very high civil office, was guilty of a high ness to tell us that he did not know. That he neither misdemeanor, committed directly in violation of his official knew what the charges were, what the evidence was, nor duty; he is still liable to impeachment, and let me beg of whether any proof at all were made; and yet, strange as my colleague to commence an impeachment against him it may appear, he offers that as a reason why this Wiscas-first. In that case there would be but little difficulty in set matter should not be referred to another officer of the procuring the evidence, and there would be no doubt as Government--the Secretary of the Treasury, (Mr. Mc-to the crime being an impeachable one. That, however, Lane.) If this is a good objection, why, be it so. He I suppose, would not advance the honor of this adminisdoes not, however, stop here--he gives another reason, tration; and, therefore, unnecessary to be done. I have the very twin sister of the one already mentioned. It one word more for my colleague, [Mr. WHITTLESEY.] By seems that his colleague [Mr. JARVIS] called at the Trea- some means or other, the name of an honorable Senator sury Department, and found there some affidavits on file, [Mr. HOLMES] has been introduced into this debate, and made by this same McClintock, some time prior to making my colleague seizes upon the opportunity, and pronounces the one now before the House, and that the latter affidavit a splendid eulogy upon Mr. HOLMES, painting in glowing directly contradicts the former. Mr. JARVIS also discovers colors his services in the field and in the councils of his there, that, instead of McClintock having been inspector country. I very much regret that the name of a member for seven quarters, as stated in his affidavit, he was inspec- of the Senate should have been used at all in this debate, tor for six only. Now these affidavits on file in the Trea- and especially the name of that gentleman. From a late sury Department are a part of the public records of the address which he published for the use of his constituents nation, and because the Secretary permitted Mr. JARVIS in Maine, I am inclined to the opinion that my colleague's to see them, furnishes, says Mr. EVANS, an additional rea- eulogy will not be very well received by that honorable son why these charges ought not to be referred to him. Senator. In that address he declines the acceptance of That the gentleman may see the force of his argument, any office from them, and says he is going to think about I will, for a moment, reverse the case. Suppose that, in- "death and eternity." The Senator must be sincere in stead of Mr. JARVIS having called to see these affidavits, the making that declaration, or he would not have put it into honorable Mr. EVANS had called, and the Secretary had the public prints: his object in declining office is to have said to him, Sir, you shall not see the records of this office. his mind composed, that he may think solemnly and inWhat would the gentleman have said then? Ah! that tensely upon these all-important subjects. The speech of would change the case, it would then be your bull that has my colleague will have a tendency to discompose his megored my ox, and we should, in all probability, have had ditations, and was, therefore, in my opinion, very unkind. another resolution from the gentleman, inquiring into the The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. PEARCE] has conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury. made a three days' speech, with the pretence of arguing These patriotic national republican gentlemen, who this question. He might suppose himself slighted if some argue the other side of this question, almost all tell us that notice should not be taken of his long address. It might we ought to vote for this inquiry, with the intention of im- be very difficult to answer his argument; for really he peaching, removing, and disqualifying McCrate from hold-made none. If human ingenuity should be put to its uting office, for the honor of this adininistration. The honor most stretch to show a semblance of relation between his of the administration! They prosecuting this matter for speech and the subject before the House, it would wholly the honor of this administration! I will not dispute it; fail in showing the application of more than the one-tenth I will suppose we are bound to believe it. If, however, part of it. It is true that he told us a long story about they have the honor of the administration so much at Bonaparte's regard for the right of property, and about heart, why not permit the President to have the honor of the right of the people of this country to petition Coninvestigating these charges, and removing the officer him- gress; but his difficulty was, that this matter has nothing self? Why hold this matter in our own hands, and not perto do with the right of property; nor has any one petitionmit him to touch it? Is there any danger that he would not ed Congress on this subject. When he considered himremove, if the charges should turn out to have any truth self as in Committee of the Whole House on the state of in them? Have gentlemen any evidence of that sort?-- the Union, and when he had under consideration the state Has he ever been asked to remove?-Have any charges of the Union in general, the condition of each State in ever been made to him, or to the Secretary of the Trea- particular, and inore especially the popularity of General sury, against McCrate? No, sir, there is no pretence of Jackson, I was somewhat astonished at the great number any thing of that kind. I have no hesitation in saying that, of disconnected ideas which he used, and the great facility if these charges are sustained by any reasonable degree of with which he expressed them. That astonishment was, evidence, the President would remove. But, say they, we however, removed, when I discovered the place of dewant to disqualify him from holding office hereafter. If posite, or reservoir, in which his ideas were located. the President should remove upon these charges, is Whenever he seemed to be at a loss for one, he drew them there any danger that he would again appoint? Does any up in this way: [Here Mr. KENNON pressed his abdomen man believe that he who removed could reappoint? I upwards with both hands.] Mr. Speaker, I do not preWould like to see the man who could be so credulous. tend to say that I am correct in this opinion. I have heard He would make a good witness where opinions were evi- it said that certain passions were located in the bowels: dence, for he could believe any thing. the Scripture speaks of the bowels leaping for joy, and yearning with compassion; but, at all events, I and this House have as much evidence of the truth of the idea indicated, as that gentleman has that a petition was ever presented to this House in this case. [APRIL 12, 1832. we have gained, and how much of the time of this House, of the Senate, and the money of the nation, will we have expended? We would literally have gained nothing. have thrown away at least one month of the time of th Mr. Speaker, having said this much in answer to the ob- House and of the Senate, would have spent of the money servations of some gentlemen, I will return to what I con- of the people of this country not less than $100,000. Lei sider the true question before this House, and give some of me tell gentlemen who so warmly advocate the other side many reasons why I think we had better refer these of this question, that if they will but consider these matcharges to the Secretary of the Treasury, than to send to ters, they will find that the good sense of the people of Maine for persons and papers, with the intention of im- this country will not justify this proceeding on the part of peaching McCrate before the Senate. And although I this House, in the first instance. They would reprobate do not believe one word of these charges, and do believe the idea of their representatives preventing the President they are contradicted, not only by McClintock's own affi- from acting upon this subject, by holding it in their own davits, on file in the Treasury Department, but also by the hands. Sir, they would say to them, ask the President to affidavits of highly respectable men, one of whom was remove if you see proper, but do you in the mean time atpresent at the settlement between McCrate and McClin- tend to legislation, the purpose for which we sent you to tock, yet it does not lie in my mouth to say the charges Congress. I say that in all probability this prosecution, if are not true, while I am opposing this impeachment upon persevered in to judgment, would cost not less than from the supposition that they are true, and that the offence is 80 to 100,000 dollars. The proof of the truth or false an impeachable offence. To impeach an officer of Mc- hood of these charges must depend upon McClintock for Crate's grade, would, to my mind, be a bad precedent, truth and veracity, and McCrate for honesty. The charge especially when we take into consideration the time and originated in a private transaction between these two. circumstances under which we make it. Since the adop- There is but one other who knows any thing about this tion of our constitution, down to this time, no officer of this matter, and he denies the truth of McClintock's stategrade has been impeached. Heretofore, impeachment ment. In this state of the case, it may be necessary to was considered (as was well said by an honorable Senator bring, all the way from the State of Maine, twenty, thirty, [Mr. BARTON] at the last session of Congress) as the very or forty witnesses, at the rate of four dollars per day arsenic of the constitution, never to be applied except in They must attend before a committee of this House, a extreme cases, when all other remedies failed. Who is before the Senate. The question in this House would McCrate, and what office does he hold? He is a collector again arise, whether the charges were sustained, and of the revenue in a collection district in the State of Maine, whether this amounted to an impeachable offence; whe called the Wiscasset district, in which, according to the ther this was the proper officer or the proper time to in statement of the gentleman from South Carolina, there is peach. Recollecting an impeachment which took place not money enough collected to pay the collecting officers. one year since, can any man say that less than a month of A postmaster, in some thinly settled part of the country, the time of this House would be occupied before we agreed receiving from three to ten dollars per annum for open-upon articles of impeachment? In that length of time ing the mail, &c., is as much a civil officer of the Govern- the pay of the members of this House, without calculating ment as McCrate, and equally liable to be impeached for the pay of its officers or the witnesses, would amount o a violation of his official duty. They are both removable more than $50,000. The same length of time in the Seat the pleasure of their superior officers. I know it may nate would make the expense not much, if any thing, less be said that some collectors receive for their compensa- than $100,000, besides the loss of that time which ought tion a large sum of money; but it may also be said, with to be occupied in settling important questions--questions equal truth, that some postmasters are in the same situation. now agitating a large portion of our fellow-citizens in a If we once set the precedent of impeaching such infe- rious parts of the United States, and pressing themselves rior officers, where will it end? It is an easy matter to upon the patriotism and good sense of the members of make a charge, and the person making the charge is no Congress for a speedy and impartial decision. What e way responsible, if the person charged should be acquit cuse would these national republican gentlemen render ted. He receives something like four dollars per day, to their constituents for such a waste of time and money while attending here as a witness, and certain expenses of Would they say to them, as they say to this House, that t travelling. If we commence impeaching such officers, was all for the honor of the administration, for the hor the whole time of the Legislature of the nation may be oc- of General Jackson? Sir, if I were on the other side of cupied in removing and disqualifying petty postmasters this question, and belonged to a certain class of politicians and collectors from holding office, when they could be who are opposed to the re-election of the present Co removed without any difficulty, and at little expense, by Magistrate, I would say to my constituents that I had the Executive, who is responsible to the nation for retain the honor, but the disgrace, of the administration in vic, ing (when he knows it) dishonest men in office. But, that I care but little whether McCrate was removed, dis sir, if we must set the precedent of impeachment, this is not qualified from holding, or remained in office; that my the proper time to do it. This, sir, is a time of high political main object was to make speeches in this House, with of excitement, and he must be blind, indeed, who has not without audience, circulate them in the country, and seen it even in this Hall. It is possible that those who are thereby, if possible, injure the prospects of General Jack favorable to this administration might be influenced in son's re-election. I do not say that other gentlemen wi their vote upon this very question; and it is equally pos- or in truth ought to render such an excuse to their const sible that those who are opposed to it might, for a differ- tuents, but that is the excuse which I would make, and ent reason, both bring charges against the officers appoint- that would be my motive. ed by the heads of departments under this Executive, or If gentlemen are so very anxious to advance the good by the Executive himself, and might vote for the prosecu- morals of the people of this country, and if McCrate tion of these charges now, when they would not do so af- been guilty of an attempt at subornation of perjury, ter the Presidential election was gone by, and when they may he not be punished by the courts of common law were under the influence of less political excitement. Maine? The statutes of Maine provide not only agains Suppose we now proceed with this impeachment, send to subornation of perjury, but every attempt at subornatil the State of Maine for witnesses, and ultimately succeed, The witnesses are there; there the character of the by the judgment of two-thirds of the Senate, in removing tics are known, and there justice might be done. But and disqualifying McCrate from holding office, what will the people in McCrate's neighborhood are destitut |