SENATE.]

Trial of Judge Peck.

[JAN. 22, 1831

to relinquish any of the ground which the honorable ma- with the respondent. He admitted an equality of infirmity nagers had deemed material to their argument; and time with the honorable managers. This honorable court had probably been saved by the reading of the books would decide between them. To what other cause than which had been produced by his colleague. It would not prejudice could he impute the language in which the rebe necessary to read them again. He should content him- spondent had been held up as a judicial tyrant, a petty proself with bestowing upon them a few passing remarks vincial judge, a monster, walking over the fallen bodies of when he should come to the cases which they presented. the constitution and laws of his country? This picture of Some topics which had, he could not but presume, been wickedness and horror had been sent as far as the press introduced for effect, it would be necessary for him to no- could range; as far as the wings of genius and eloquence tice. In doing so, he begged to be understood as treating could send it. Many a father in the remote parts of the the honorable managers with every possible respect. He country had read this account with feelings of abhorrence. knew the amiable, upright, and enlightened qualities With the paper in his hand, he had probably said to his which adorned them. Whatever they had deemed of im-son-see, what a monster is now before the Senate of the portance, he could not be so presumptuous as to pass by United States! If your country should ever elevate you to unregarded. It had been stated that the House of Repre- public station, never become such a monster as this Peck. sentatives, by a large majority, in which party had no He may no doubt have had respectable parents; he may share, had voted this impeachment. What was the object once have been respectable himself; but see what a monof this remark? Why was it introduced here? Could it ster of crime, of shame, and of ignominy, he has now beenter into the consideration of this honorable court, whe-come! How long would it not be before this cruel error ther the House of Representatives had been hasty or not; could be corrected; before it would be seen, upon the teswhether party had influenced them in the vote which they timony of the most respectable gentlemen, that this mongave for this impeachment? Would it be decorous in the ster was one of the most mild, patient, kind and courteous respondent, or in those who were connected with him, to of human beings: so amiable, that, in the language of one impeach their proceedings? He knew too well his duty of the witnesses, he was dear to all who knew him. He to that honorable House, to this honorable court, and to could not help ascribing the terrible picture which had his humble self, to step so far out of his way as to question been drawn of the respondent, to some unaccountable prethe motives for this impeachment. The House of Repre- judice. He adverted to other topics, of which the honorsentatives were the grand inquest of the nation. Their able managers appeared to him to have taken a discolored article of impeachment against Judge Peck was the finding and distorted view. of the grand jury. Would it be proper, in a case before a The respondent had been represented as an enemy to petit jury, for counsel to appeal to the proceedings of the the freedom of the press; a principle sacred to all. He grand jury; to say that they had, by a large majority, un- was represented to have scoffed at it. This judicial moninfluenced by party spirit, found a bill of indictment? ster was described as having walked over the prostrate Would not the court, in that case, stop counsel, and say liberty of the press, and as having attempted to sneer and to him, sir, we have nothing to do with the grand jury, snarl it out of existence. Where had he said this of it? or its motives; we are to try this case upon its merits, Where had he uttered one sentiment of disrespect towards without reference to what passed in the grand jury on the the liberty of the press? Not here, certainly. But he subject? The finding of the grand inquest is simply the had done so in his defence before the House of Represenaccusation. The honorable House had not come here to tatives, which had been introduced as evidence here, for sacrifice a victim whom they had fore-doomed to destruc. the purpose of establishing this charge against the respontion. They had done nothing more than to declare that dent. Look at that defence, and see whether he has the offence with which the respondent had been charged, treated the liberty of the press with contempt. "It is was worthy of a trial. The respondent was not there, said, that in punishing this publication as a contempt, the before the honorable House, upon his trial. They had judge has invaded the liberty of the press." What is the sent him here to be tried. What was the fundamental liberty of the press? And in what does it consist? Does feature of a trial of that sort? It was, that the accused it consist in a right to vilify the tribunals of the country, was presumed to be innocent until he had been found and to bring them into contempt, by gross and wanton guilty. But, if the remark of which he was now complain- misrepresentations of their proceedings? Does it consist ing were to have weight, that principle would be reversed. in a right to obstruct and corrupt the streams of justice, The accused was to be presumed to be guilty until proved by poisoning the public mind with regard to causes in to be innocent. He hoped to hear no more of the majo- these tribunals, before they are heard? Is this a correct rity, or the motive by which this impeachment had been idea of the liberty of the press? If so, the defamer has a instituted by the honorable House. He considered such charter as free as the winds, provided he resort to the remarks improper. The respondent stood here unknown, press for the propagation of his slander; and, under the almost alone, a stranger from the western wilds, to breast prostituted sanction of the liberty of the press, hoary age the storm of this impeachment. He trusted to this honor- and virgin innocence lie at his mercy. This is not the idea able court for a fair trial, and relied upon the correctness, of the liberty of the press which prevails in courts of jusand innocence, and purity, of his own conduct, for an ho- tice, or which exists in any sober or well regulated mind. norable acquittal. He would be tried by the simple, na- The liberty of the press is among the greatest of blessings, ked facts and principles of the case, and not by the dramatic civil and political, so long as it is directed to its proper obexhibition of fancied analogies which they had witnessed. ject, that of disseminating correct and useful information Was the respondent to be involved in the turpitude of all among the people. But this greatest of blessings may bethe wicked judges of England; in the guilt of the unspar-come the greatest of curses, if it shall be permitted to ing Jeffreys, the tumultuous Scroggs, and the tyrant Brom- burst its proper barriers. The river Mississippi is a blessley? He trusted not: he hoped that he would be tried ing to the country through which it flows, so long as it upon his own merits alone. He admonished the honorable keeps within its banks; but it becomes a scourge and a managers, that something was continually occurring to destroyer when it breaks them. "The liberty of the remind us of the infirmity of human reason contending press has always been the favorite watchword of those who against human prejudice. This must teach charity to all. live by its licentiousness. It has been, from time immeHe apprehended the existence of some extraordinary pre-morial, is still, and ever will be, the perpetual decantantum judice which had influenced and inflamed the spirit of this on the lips of all libellers. Oswald attempted to screen prosecution. He, too, might be the victim of prejudice; himself under its ægis, in the case which has been cited of that friendship which a close intimacy had produced from the 1st Dallas. But the attempt was in vain. The

JAN. 22, 1831.]

Trial of Judge Peck.

[SENATE

If

court taught him the difference between the liberty of the mencement of this trial, been subjected to a commentary press and the licentiousness of the press. and, in his fur- so severe, what might not be expected in its sequel? It ther attempt to raise an impeachment against the judges had been charged upon the respondent, that he had dared for that sentence, the House of Delegates confirmed the to attempt to buy off this impeachment by an intimation wholesome lesson. If, indeed, the liberty of the press was that he was entitled to consideration and exemption, bea panoply broad enough to cover every thing done in its cause he had decided the case of Soulard in favor of the name, nothing in the form of a publication could ever have United States. It had been alleged that he had tried to been punished as a contempt of court. In all the report- buy off the House of Representatives by dirty acres. ed cases, in which those publishers have been called to he had done so, he was a vile and degraded man, and, he answer for a contempt, wherever the defence has appear- would add, one of the most consummate fools that ever ed in the report, it is the liberty of the press which is the sat upon the bench. But where had he said this? At perpetual theme. It is uniformly claimed to be the right the close of his defence, he [Judge Peck] observed, of the citizen to question the acts of all public men, and "that, in this proceeding, he was actuated by a sense the changes are continually rung on that great palladium of official duty. He considered it his duty to sustain of human rights and human happiness-the liberty of the the dignity and authority of the court over which he press; as if human rights and human happiness could be had been appointed to preside: he considered it due to promoted by the prostration and destruction of courts of the Government which he represented; due to the trijustice, or by poisoning their streams in the fountain head. bunal, and due to the suitors whose rights were comIt is unnecessary to pursue this subject. The judge has mitted to its protection, to punish this contempt as he did never pretended that his opinions are not to be questioned. punish it. He did consider himself, and does still consider He insists, however, that they are to be questioned only himself, as sustained, at every step, by the highest authoriaccording to the laws of the land. One mode of question- ty. He believed it, conscientiously, to be his solemn and ing them, under these laws, is by appeal to a superior imperious duty to make the example which he did make, court; and, after the subject-matter shall have been finally more especially in relation to the country in which he decided, another mode of questioning them is, by respect- holds his courts, and the nature of the claims which he ful discussion, either in the public prints or elsewhere. was called upon to adjudicate, and which had produced In the present case, the first mode of questioning the opi- this agitation. If, in so doing, he has erred, he has erred nion, that by appeal, had been resorted to. For the second in company with judicial characters with whom any judge mode, that of respectful discussion, the case was not ready, may be proud to associate; and he has yet to learn that because the subject-matter had not been disposed of final- such an error would be a high misdemeanor in the sense ly; and even if it had been, it has been shown that there of the constitution of the United States. Judge Peck is was no semblance of investigation in this article; no pre- perfectly aware of the purposes to be answered by his tence of discussion of any kind. It was sheer misrepre-removal, and is, therefore, not at all surprised at the persentation; and it does not follow, that, because an opinion of tinacity with which it has been sought for the last four a court may be respectfully discussed, it may, therefore, be years. Whether these purposes are such as the interests misrepresented; much less, that it may be so misrepresent- of the United States call upon them to countenance, by ed as not only to impair the confidence of the public in the ordering further proceedings in this case, is a question dignity, intelligence, and purity of the tribunal, but to ren- for others, not for Judge Peck. Confident he is, that, if der both the judge and the court objects of universal con- he had been made of more pliant materials, and could tempt, scorn, and ridicule; and least of all, that, in doing have reconciled it to himself to consult his repose, rather this, a strong prejudice shall also be infused into the pub- than his sense of duty, the House would not have been lic mind with regard to causes still pending in the court." troubled with this inquiry." Was this, sir, a proposition to Was this [demanded Mr. WIRT] a sneer at the liberty of buy off impeachment? Was this the language of a man the press? Was there here any snarl at the liberty of the crouching under the charge which had been alleged against press? Was the declaration, that it was the greatest of hu- him? There was no attempt, here, to screen himself by man blessings, confined to the dissemination of truth and a bribe; by an appeal to the interest of the honorable intelligence among the people, an attempt to bring the li- House of Representatives. It was the language of a man berty of the press into contempt? Was not the doctrine indignantly asserting his innocence, and turning upon his here laid down by the judge the sound doctrine concern-accuser. It was no attempt to buy off punishment. Let ing the liberty of the press? And would it not meet the candid and honorable men read and decide for themselves. approbation of all, except the libeller? To be useful, the There was another circumstance which he felt himself liberty of the press must be restrained. The principle of called upon to notice with unspeakable regret. He had restraint was impressed upon every part of creation. By heard of it with pain, while confined to his bed. The restraint the planets were kept in their orbits. The earth respondent, held up, as he had been, before these crowdperformed its regular evolutions by the restraint of the ed galleries, and this assembled multitude, as a judicial centrifugal force operating upon it. The vine would shoot monster; a petty provincial tyrant; thus caricatured, eminto rank luxuriance, if not under the restraint of the laws paled and crucified, before this nation, with these lacerated of nature, by which every thing was preserved within its feelings, having occasion to speak to a point of evidence, proper bounds. Was not every thing on earth impressed he had betrayed an emotion with his trembling hand; a with this principle? and was not the liberty of the press to tear had started from his eye. Was it wonderful that the be restrained to the performance of its rightful functions respondent, innocent and simple-hearted as a child, with of propagating truth for just ends? It was not always those who were loudest in their clamors for the liberty of the press, who were its best friends. There be those who, when they hear those bursts of genius and eloquence upon the liberty of the press, could say, like poor Cordelia

"Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave

his reputation at hazard; with an aged parent, whose gray hairs he did not wish to send down to the grave with sorrow, should have thus betrayed his feelings on the occasion? Yet, an honorable manager [Mr. WICKLIFFE] had represented him as shedding feigned tears, crocodile tears, before this assembly and this nation. Did the honorable manager recollect the prosecution of Sir Walter Raleigh by Sir Edward Coke? Did he remember the spirit in He thought there had been no occasion for the remarks which that prosecution had been conducted? Did he rewhich had been made on this subject. Judge Peck loved collect that Sir Edward Coke had stigmatized that gallant the liberty of the press with as much purity as those who soldier as a spider of hell? Let him ask the honorable had been so loud in its praises. If he had, in the com-manager which character he would rather bear with pos

My heart into my mouth: I love your Majesty
According to my bond; nor more, nor less."

SENATE.]

Trial of Judge Peck.

[JAN. 24 to 28, 1831.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27.

terity-that of Sir Walter Raleigh or Sir Edward Coke? | causes not pending in court, were misdemeanors, which He had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with the could only be punished by indictment and trial, and that honorable manager; he well knew that unkindness and the conduct of Judge Peck tended to break down all the barbarity were far removed from his heart. What, then, securities and guards which the law had raised for the probut some unaccountable prejudice could have induced tection of the liberties of the American people. these remarks? They had gone to the world. It would Before he concluded, the court adjourned. be a long time before this trial would go before the world, to correct the impressions which the representations of honorable managers had made. He had, therefore, been Mr. CLAYTON, from the Committee appointed to inanxious to show that the respondent was not the judicial vestigate the present condition of the Post Office Departmonster that he was charged with being; that he had not ment, offered the following resolution, observing that the violated the liberty of the press; that he had not attempt-committee were.unanimously of the opinion, that, in order ed to buy off this impeachment; that he was amiable, to prosecute that investigation with effect, it was necessapatient, and forbearing, both as a man and a judge, and ry that they should be empowered to send for persons and that the epithets applied to him had been the effect of prejudice, of heated and perverted imaginations, having no foundation in fact.

Mr. WIRT was proceeding to consider the merits of the case; when, at the suggestion of Mr. WEBSTER, the court adjourned.

MONDAY, JANUARY 24.

papers.

Resolved, That the Select Committee appointed to examine and report the present condition of the Post Office Department have power to send for persons and papers.

Mr. CLAYTON moved the second reading and adoption of the resolution at this time; but this motion requiring the unanimous assent of the Senate for its passage, and Mr. BENTON objecting to it, the resolution lies on the

The Senate having again resolved itself into a Court of table one day. Impeachment,

Mr. McDUFFIE rose and said, that in consequence of a remark of Mr. WIRT yesterday, he felt himself called upon to say, in substance, that the publication of his remarks, in opening the case against Judge Peck, had been made without his authority; that the report of these remarks must have appeared evidently imperfect, though probably as perfect as, under the circumstances, it could have been; and that, if he had been consulted, he should have advised against the publication.

Mr. LIVINGSTON submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making further provision for the support of Africans captured by vessels of the United States, and brought into the United States.

TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK.

The Senate then again resolved itself into a Court of Impeachment.

Mr. STORRS concluded his argument in support of the impeachment. Its sequel was peculiarly impressive and Mr. WIRT acceded to the correctness of these sugges- eloquent. One sentiment uttered by the honorable mantions, and appeared to do so the more readily from the ager is especially worthy of record. He said the best fact that he had seen his own remarks, made on Saturday, support of the judiciary was to be found in the affections published this morning, without his having been consulted of the people. The people would be true to the judiciary on the subject. He added, that he was sure that nothing as long as they were true to themselves. The judiciary had been said by the honorable manager in his opening would find protection with the people, and in their legisspeech, of the truth of which he had not been entirely lative halls, until they should become so debased as to be satisfied.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 25.

The Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment.

unworthy of protection. It was not by the usurpation of an unlawful and tyrannical power, nor by the exercise of an unlawful jurisdiction, that they could expect their independence to be respected or preserved; and he seemed to press this point so far as to think that the character, utility, and fate of the judicial branch of the Government depended upon the decision of this case.

The court and Senate adjourned.

FRIDAY JANUARY 28.

Mr. WIRT occupied four hours in concluding his speech for the respondent. Wit, sarcasm, searching argument, and impressive eloquence, poured forth in streams, riveted the attention and elicited the admiration of a crowded Senate-room and crowded galleries during that long space of time. Whatever might be the fate of the respondent, The resolutions submitted yesterday by Mr. CLAYTON, said the graceful orator, in subdued and almost exhausted and Mr. LIVINGSTON, were severally taken up and tones; whether convicted or acquitted, he should always adopted. be proud to take him by the hand as that noblest of God's works, AN HONEST MAN, and to call him HIS FRIEND. The ourt cand Senate then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26.

After the consideration of a number of private bills, &c. the Senate again resolved itself into a Court of Impeachment.

TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK.

The Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment.

Mr. WIRT, with permission, explained a remark which he was understood to have made towards the conclusion of his argument in favor of the respondent.

Mr. BUCHANAN then rose, and addressed the court in an able argument in support of the impeachment. He Mr. STORRS rose and addressed the Court in support declared, that the usurpation of an authority not legally of the impeachment, for upwards of three hours. He possessed by a judge, or the manifest abuse of a power maintained the position, that no free citizen could be pun- really given, was a misbehavior in the sense of the conished by the summary process of attachment for a libel or stitution, for which he should be dismissed from office. contempt against any court in a cause not pending in that He contended, that the conduct of Judge Peck, in the case court; that such a power had never been exercised, even of Mr. Lawless, was in express violation of the constituby the courts of England; that the charge against Judge [tion and the laws of the land; that the circumstances of Peck was not so much for suspending Mr. Lawless, as an that case were amply sufficient to show a criminal intenattorney, from practice in his court, but for imprisoning tion on his part in the summary punishment of Mr. Lawhim, and depriving him of his liberty as a citizen, without less; that, in order to prove the criminality of his intention, indictment and trial by jury; that libels or contempts, for it was not necessary to demonstrate an actually malicious

JAN. 29, 1831.]

Duty on Iron.

[SENATE.

action, or a lurking revenge; that the infliction upon Mr. Mr. WOODBURY admitted the fact, that the subject of Lawless of a summary and cruel punishment, for having the memorial related immediately to manufactures, and to written an article decorous in its language, was itself suf- manufactures the most important to the country; but they ficient to prove the badness of the motive; that the conse- were directly concerned with commerce, and, in the end, quences of the judge's actions were indicative of his in- were vitally interesting to it. The memorial should then tentions; that our courts had no right to punish, as for go to that distinct committee. The gentleman from New contempts, in a summary mode, libels, even in pending Jersey had made an allusion to the memorial, praying for causes; and that, if he succeeded, as he believed he should, a drawback on nails. He had and still thought that that in establishing these positions, he should consider that he memorial had been very properly referred to the Commithad a right to demand the judgment of the court against tee on Commerce; not that nails were not manufactures, the respondent. The honorable manager continued to but because the object of the memorial was for the beneaddress the court for three hours and a quarter; and find- fit of the commercial interest. Suppose, [said Mr. W.] ing that he could not conclude his argunient at this sitting, the memorial related to the manufacture of cannon and the court adjourned till to-morrow. gunpowder, would it not be more appropriately referred to the Military Committee than the Committee on Manufactures?

SATURDAY, JANUARY 29.

DUTY ON IRON.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a memorial from the mechanics and others, workers in iron, of the city and county of Philadelphia, praying for a reduction of the duties upon imported iron. It was referred to the Select Committee, to whom a former memorial on the same subject was committed.

The VICE PRESIDENT also communicated a memorial from sundry inhabitants of New Jersey, praying a drawback of the duties on iron, and other articles employed in the building of American ships.

Mr. DICKERSON moved the reference of this paper to the Committee on Manufactures.

Mr. HAYNE suggested that it more appropriately belonged to the Committee on Commerce; and he made a motion accordingly.

The question being first taken on the reference to the Committee on Manufactures, there appeared ayes 12,

noes 10.

There being no quorum voting,

Mr. WOODBURY called for the reading of the memorial; which being done,

Mr. DICKERSON said he could explain the reasons which induced him to wish this subject referred to the Committee on Manufactures. It was becoming the prac tice of late, whenever a petition was presented to the Senate praying for the repeal or reduction of duties on iron, on woollens, or almost any other article, it was immediately sent to the Committee on Commerce, thus tending to throw the weight of these interests into the hands of the merchants of the country, to the exclusion of a fair representation of the views of the manufacturers. If we take the view of the gentleman from New New Hampshire, [said Mr. D.,] the Committee on Manufactures will soon be a mere nominal committee, shorn of its influence upon the action of Congress.

Mr. KING observed, that he had been under the impression that it was the object of the Congress of the United States to give to every subject presented to them by our fellow-citizens such a consideration as would induce them to believe that the investigation had been conducted with fairness and deliberation. Now, sir, said he, if we refer this memorial to the committee on Manufactures-a committee confessedly hostile to its objects, will it be believed by the memorialists that their liberate examination? By our sending it to that commitviews and arguments had met with fair, candid, and detee, they cannot think otherwise than that we have preMr. DICKERSON said the first motion was on referring judged their case, and decided against it without giving the memorial to the Committee on Manufactures. it the slightest consideration.

Mr. HAYNE said he still thought the Committee of Commerce to be the proper direction for this memorial. It referred to drawbacks on various articles, and this consideration would induce him to adhere to his motion, to refer it to that committee.

It

Without at

deeply involved the interests of one of the most important Mr. K. would not enlarge on this view of the subject; manufactures in the country, ship building, which, though he would only leave it to the gentleman from New Jerultimately looking to the commercial, yet was as vitally sey, whether he believed that any report of the commitinteresting to the manufacturing concerns of the country. tee, over which he presided, would be favorable to the A memorial praying for a drawback on nails, had been memorial, if, indeed, they reported at all. referred to the Committee on Commerce, although the this time entering into any argument, he would merely subject would more appropriately come under the cogni- express the hope that the memorial would be referred to zance of the Committee on Manufactures. such a committee as would satisfy the memorialists that the Senate was disposed to give to their views a fair and candid examination.

Mr. BENTON said, if he comprehended the views of the gentleman from New Jersey, he was hostile to the objects of the memorial; and, therefore, the committee over Mr. FOOT said he was somewhat surprised to hear it which he presided was not a fit tribunal to decide on its contended that this subject belonged exclusively to the merits. Under that belief, he [Mr. B.] would invoke to his Committee on Commerce. The memorial prayed for a aid a rule of the Senate, which he had successfully done drawback upon various articles, classed among the maon a former occasion, providing that no bill or memorial nufactures of the country. The practice of both Houses should be committed to a committee hostile to it. As far back as our legislation had commenced, it had been the wholesome practice, except in a few instances, to refer all subjects to committees deemed favorably disposed to them, on the principle "that a child should not be put out Mr. WOODBURY said he wished to state, in illustrato nurse to those who would strangle or destroy it, by re- tion, one or two facts that had occurred to him, in consefusing it sufficient nourishment." Under the belief, then, quence of the remarks of the gentleman from New Jerthat the Committee on Manufactures, over which the gen- sey. The memorial on the subject of a drawback on tleman from New Jersey presided, was hostile to the nails manufactured from imported iron, had first been prayer of the memorial, he hoped it would be referred to referred to the Committee on Finance, and that committhe Committee on Commerce, where it would meet with tee had been discharged from its further consideration, a more favorable consideration. and it had been sent to the Committee on Commerce; so

of Congress seemed, in any event, to forbid its being sent to the Committee on Commerce. If it were not referred to the Committee on Manufactures, it surely should rather go to the Committee on Finance.

SENATE.]

committee.

that all the memorials on the subject of drawbacks were on Manufactures had pre-judged the question proposed now before the last named committee. The first appli- to be referred to it. This, as one of the members of the cation for a reduction of the duties on salt came from the committee, he felt bound to deny. He contended that agricultural interest of the country, and the subject had all the efforts of that committee had tended to the probeen referred to the Committee on Agriculture, who, motion of commerce as well as other interests. He was years since, reported the first bill for a reduction of the in favor of the reference of this memorial to the Comduties on that article. How was it at this session of Con-mittee on Manufactures, whom he believed would make gress? A bill to reduce the duty on a peculiar kind of a favorable report upon the prayer of the petitioners. blankets, manufactured for the use of the Indians, had Mr. WEBSTER said, that, if this was a mere question been referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs; be- to consider the expediency of allowing a drawback on cause the measure had been introduced for the purpose imported articles used in ship building, he should incline of relieving that branch of our trade from the burthens to the opinion of his colleague, that the most proper reunder which it labored, although, from the argument of ference would be to the Committee on Commerce. He the gentleman from New Jersey, the Committee on Ma- should incline to think, also, that, in judging of the pronufactures would have been the most proper reference. priety of the reference of a subject to any particular This memorial, then, which looked solely to the reliev-committee, the Senate ought to be influenced more by ing of our commerce from its present state of depres- the purpose for which the committee had been created sion, ought, with equal justice, to be sent to that com- than by the opinions of its members. This memorial mittee which had the subject under its peculiar care. [Mr. W. added] came from a State not much interested Mr. SILSBEE said he conceived the Committee on in ship building, and treated of matters unconnected Commerce most competent to decide upon the subject with the subject of drawback. It had something to say in question, and he hoped it would be submitted to that in relation to internal improvements, and something to say with regard to the constitutional propriety of laying Mr. HAYNE observed, that the application of the protecting duties on imported articles. Now, as he (Mr. memorialists was for the purpose of relieving the ship- W.) wished to give to these other topics embraced in ping interest of the United States from embarrassments the memorial some little consideration, and as he had no of such a character as threatened its existence. It was desire to hear from the Committee on Commerce a report now, he said, proposed to refer the memorial to the Com- on the subject of internal improvements and the Amerimittee on Manufactures, over which the gentleman from can system, he would move to lay it on the table. New Jersey presided, who was confessedly hostile to all The memorial was then laid on the table: yeas, 19— its objects. Now, he would ask, would not such a renays, 17. ference be consigning it to the tomb of all the Capulets? Report after report had been made by that committee, all showing the utmost hostility to the interests whose proThe Senate then again resolved itself into a Court of tection was prayed for by the memorial, and yet the Impeachment. chairman of that committee wished it to be consigned to of the impeachment. He took the further position, that Mr. BUCHANAN concluded his argument in support his care, for the purpose of crushing it at a blow. He would ask if it was right, reasonable, or proper, that the publication of Mr. Lawless, under the signature of this memorial should be consigned to a committee who libel, be established to be libellous, according to the con"A Citizen," could not, in a trial upon an indictment for had already predetermined to destroy it? The views of stitution and laws of the land; that the paper was, on its the gentleman in relation to iron manufactures and iron face, perfectly harmless in itself; and that, so far as it mines were well known; and, if the commerce of the country depended on him, God save the commerce! Mr. H. concluded by asking for the yeas and nays on the question.

TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK.

went, it was not an unfair representation of the opinion of Judge Peck. The honorable manager critically and legally analyzed the nine last specifications in the publication, to establish these points. He then proceeded to sum up

Mr. DICKERSON said he had entertained no idea that this memorial was to be sent to a committee who could before the Court of Impeachment, in order to show the and descant upon the testimony produced in the case make a final decision upon it. It was a new construction arbitrary and cruel conduct of Judge Peck; and, in a perto the powers of committees. If the Senate should not oration, marked by its ardent eloquence, he declared, concur in the report of a committee, they were not bound that if this man escaped, the declaration of a distinguished to accept it. A committee surely had no power to crush politician of this country, that the power of impeachment any thing to conceal any thing-to destroy any thing. was but the scarecrow of the constitution, would be fully Mr. D. said, he deemed it proper that the views of all verified; that when this trial commenced, he recoiled with parties should be fairly developed. He had no doubt horror from the idea of limiting, and rendering precarious the Committee on Commerce was fully competent to pass and dependent, the tenure of the judicial office, but that upon the memorial, but he conceived that there were the acquittal of the respondent would reconcile him to that other interests more directly involved in it. For his own evil, as one less than a hopeless and remediless submission part, he felt no ambition to have charge of this matter. to judicial usurpation and tyranny, at least so far as reMr. D. said he thanked the gentleman who last addressed spected the inferior courts. God forbid that the limitation the Senate for the allusion that delicacy should have pre-should ever be extended to the Supreme Court! Mercy vented him from asking that this subject should be re- to the respondent would be cruelty to the American peoferred to the committee of which he had the honor of ple. In the name, therefore, of the people of the United being chairman. Such a delicacy he might have felt States, whose liberties he had violated--in the name of the many years ago; but that time had long since gone by. judiciary, whose character he had injured and tarnishedHis delicacy must now yield to his duty. The respectfully asked of this honorable court the convic. tion of the respondent.

Mr. BENTON read the rule of proceedings on the subject, and argued that no bill or memorial should be referred to a committee hostile to its objects.

Mr. KNIGHT said he would not have addressed the Senate on this subject, had it not been for the remark of an honorable Senator, [Mr. HAYNE,] that the Committee

The argument being concluded on both sides, on motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the court then resolved to meet again at 12 o'clock on Monday morning next, in order to proceed further in the consideration of this impeachment.

Adjourned.