H. OF R.] Alien and Sedition Laws. [FEBRUARY, 1799. Expulsion of Matthew Lyon. Mr. BAYARD proposed the following resolution to the House: hear nothing of them until the close of February. He did not know when the communication was received here; but there was at least a probability, from the date, that it was before the opening of the session; before the adoption "Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this of all the expensive measures we have under- House, having been convicted of being a notorious taken; before the loan was opened at eight per and seditious person, and of a depraved mind, and cent.; before the intemperate commentary was wicked and diabolical disposition; and of wickedly, written on Mr. Gerry's despatches, with which deceitfully, and maliciously, contriving to defame we have been favored by the Secretary of State. the Government of the United States; and having, Let gentlemen compare the language of that sin- with intent and design to defame the Government of gular State paper with these proposals made to the United States, and John Adams, the PRESIDENT Mr. Murray; let them examine the respective OF THE UNITED STATES, and to bring the said Government and PRESIDENT into contempt and disrepute, dates, and then let them talk to us of delay. Mr. SHEPARD could not think, with the gen-Government and PRESIDENT the hatred of the good and with intent and design to excite against the said tleman from New York, that France is serious in her proposals to negotiate; he believed she people of the United States, and to stir up sedition in the United States-wickedly, knowingly, and malimeant to deceive us; and sooner than be de- ciously, written and published certain scandalous and ceived by them he would fight the ungodly na-seditous writings, or libels, be therefor expelled this tion. After some other observations, he sat House." down, with hoping the question would be taken. Mr. B. said he had only to remark that this The question was put on agreeing to the re-resolution is copied from the record of the trial, port of the Committee of the Whole, and car- which he had in his possession. ried-52 to 48, as follows: Mr. NICHOLAS said, if this had been a candid YEAS.-George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, Da- statement of the business, he should have been vid Bard, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. willing to have come to an immediate vote Cabell, John Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, William upon it; but words are introduced into this Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clop-resolution (which are words of course in every ton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, indictment) which do not particularly belong to Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Find- this offence, and the truth of which is never lay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gal- inquired into upon a trial. As he wished the latin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry nature of the offence to be clearly stated, he Grove, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter hoped the motion would lie for the present. Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams. Mr. BAYARD observed he had already said the terms used are copied from the record itself, and he did not think the gentleman from Virginia had been wiser than the law. He had himself no doubt that all the charges on the record are pertinent to the subject; if not, it would be extremely improper to introduce them. They are charges upon which a jury of the country have decided. NAYS-John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, Robertment, and unconnected with the act here The second section was then amended by adding to it the usual enacting clause; but after some observations against passing it by Mr. SEWALL, since the first section had been stricken out on the motion for its going to a. third reading, it was negatived. And so the bill was rejected. FRIDAY, February 22. Alien and Sedition Laws. Mr. BARD presented several petitions and remonstrances from 1,487 inhabitants of the county of Franklin, in Pennsylvania, praying for the having been read, repeal of the alien and sedition laws; which Mr. BARD moved to have this petition referred as usual. Mr. HARPER inquired whether it would be in order to strike out a part of this petition. On being answered in the negative by the SPEAKER, Mr. H. said, he was always unwilling to object to the reference of petitions; but, on this occa sion he could not help protesting against an atrocious libel contained in these petitions against the courts and juries of this country. Some time ago a great deal had been said on the subject of courts and juries in this House, and now we find the sentiments, as many others have been, reverberated in the form of petitions. It is here said, "that the sedition law had, in its execution, been used as a means of private vengeance, personal enmity, and party resentment." A charge so unjustifiable, and so untrue, upon the courts and juries of this country, he could not suffer to be referred without his protest. : [H. OF R. man from South Carolina would permit these petitions to be referred. Mr. HARPER was not surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania should defend these petitions, for reasons which every man must know. What he has said upon the subject is no more than a repetition of some things which we have before heard. He agreed that, when grievances are complained of, they ought to be examined; and if the people were to complain of a maladministration of justice, the fact ought to be inquired into; but when the repeal of a law is prayed for, it certainly cannot be proper for petitioners to go into charges against the administration of courts and juries, by saying that prosecutions are carried on under party malice and party revenge. To do this is to strike at the vitals of our constitution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania likes this, perhaps, from party motives, but he ought to remember that it is an instrument which will cut both ways; and the use of which, if he has any respect for the laws and rights of his country, he may live to regret having countenanced. Mr. H. said, if in order, he would move to refer this part of the memorial to a select committee, with a view of inquiring into the subject-matter, and report their opinion thereon to the House. The SPEAKER declared such a motion out of order; and, after some observations from Mr. NICHOLAS, in which he said the gentleman from South Carolina had answered himself, by allowing the propriety of a reference at all; and observed, if because these petitions complained of the administration of one part of our Government (which, however, he did not allow they do) they were to be rejected, it might be expected that, hereafter, no petition would be received that complained of the maladministration of any department of the Government. Mr. GALLATIN observed, that the reference of these petitions is objected to, on account of what the gentleman from South Carolina calls a libel, which makes a part of these petitions. This, said Mr. G., is going upon the ground, which the greatest enemies of these laws have barely suggested might be taken, but which they thought scarcely possible, viz: that the right of petitioning might next be restricted, since the liberty of writing and speaking on the measures of Government was by law restricted and now, taking it for granted, that the allegation contained in these petitions is untrue, the gentleman from South Carolina wishes to refuse these petitions a reference, without examining whether it is true or not. The petitioners say that the sedition law has been carried into effect under the operation of party spirit and personal revenge. The gentleman says that this is not true; but he does not want to have the allegation examined, in order to discover whether it be true or not, but to dismiss the subject at once; to tell the people, "You shall not be permitted to lay your petitions before us, if you dare to say that laws are carried into operation to gratify party spirit or private revenge, (for nothing is said of courts and juries,) if they contain such allegations, we will reject your petitions." Mr. G. hoped, on examination of the fact, the House would be convinced that though the charge is not a libel, that it is at least a gross mistake; that no such personal enmity, party spirit, or private revenge, has taken place, either in the commencement of any prosecution under this law, or in any decision which has taken place. But thus to object to the reference of petitions, would be to say that we have the power of defining the nature of petitions; that they may apply to this and that object, but that there are certain points which the people may not touch. He wished to know whether the people have not a right to say, if they choose, that the administration of Mr. B. observed, it would not be necessary justice is corrupt? and whether, if they do say to trouble the House with many observations so, the fact ought not to be inquired into? It in support of this resolution. The facts upon certainly ought, and he was surprised to hear which the resolution is founded, are proved to such an objection made. It must have arisen, be incontrovertibly true, by the record which because these petitions are grating to the feelings had just been read. The only question, thereof gentlemen who are favorable to these laws. fore, before the House was, as to the consequence He hoped, on recollection, that the reference of of the fact, or whether the crime of which the petitions does not imply an approbation of the member in question had been convicted, is a sentiments contained in them, that the gentle-sufficient cause for expulsion. Mr. B. referred The reference was carried, there being 55 votes for it. Mr. GALLATIN presented petitions from six hundred and seventy-eight inhabitants of Chester County, praying for the repeal of the alien and sedition laws, in the same words with those presented yesterday. On expelling Matthew Lyon. Mr. BAYARD called up for consideration the following resolution, which he had laid upon the table a day or two ago: The resolution having been read, Mr. B. presented to the House a copy of the record of Mr. LYON's trial, which was read by the Clerk, after which, H. or R.1 On expelling Matthew Lyon. [FEBRUARY, 1799. the House to that clause of the constitution was well acquainted with the law; yet, with which gives the House the power of expulsion. this knowledge, he has falsely, scandalously and The power, said he, is unlimited. The House maliciously, defamed the PRESIDENT OF THE has the power to expel a member for any crime, UNITED STATES, with a view of exciting hatred, or for any cause, which, in their discretion, and stirring up sedition. These facts are rethey conceive has rendered him unfit to remain corded and incontrovertible; and he conceived a member of the body. Perhaps some gentle- it would be out of order to call them in question. men may think that it is improper for the House Mr. B. concluded with appealing to the canto take notice of acts done by its members out dor and honor which he expected to find in the of the House, but he believed the fallacy of such House, whether a member, the malice of whose a doctrine would be easily seen. It was cer- heart, and the falsehood of whose pen, stood retainly possible, and might, therefore, be imagin- corded; who had, from the worst and basest ed, that a member of this House, might be motives, violated a law which he had himself guilty of murder, treason, perjury, or other in-assisted to make, was fit to hold a seat in that famous crime, and would it be asserted that a House. Will any one say that a man who does man, defiled by crimes of this kind, ought to be not keep the laws ought to be allowed to make suffered to represent a portion of the people of them? Certainly, nothing was more repugnant the United States in the National Legislature? to principle and propriety; and, as he conceivHe trusted that no gentleman, who valued re-ed the member from Vermont was notoriously putation, would contend for such a point. The and exemplarily guilty in this respect, an obliquestion, then is, said Mr. B., whether the act gation rested on the House to expel him. Mr. in question is an act of that description, the B. said he brought forward this resolution from commission of which ought to induce the House a sense only of public duty, from a strong feelto expel the convicted member? In his opinion, ing for national character. He knew but little, the crime was of the first political magnitude. and should be happy if it were less, of the memA crime not only affecting the members of this ber who was the object of it. He could not be House, but the whole community, as its con- suspected of having been induced to the step he sequences go to the subversion of the Govern- had taken by the miserable gratification of offerment. This Government, said Mr. B., depends ing violence to the feelings of the member. He for its existence upon the good will of the peo-believed that nothing he had said, nor any thing ple. That good will is maintained by their which could be said, would awaken a single feelgood opinion. But, how is that good opinion ing. His sensations were of another sort, and to be preserved, if wicked and unprincipled men, men of inordinate and desperate ambition, are allowed to state facts to the people which are not true, which they know at the time to be false, and which are stated with the criminal intention of bringing the Government into disrepute among the people. This was falsely and Mr. NICHOLAS had hoped that the gentleman deceitfully stealing the public opinion; it was a from Delaware would rave shown to the House felony of the worst and most dangerous nature. something in this transaction which made the The member from Vermont has been convicted character of the member alluded to so infaof doing this, with a view of exciting the hatred mous as to have rendered him unfit to hold a of the people against the PRESIDENT and Senate, seat in this House. He should have thought and of stirring up sedition in the country. This, that, after a member of this House had sufin his opinion, was a crime of the greatest mag- fered so severely as the member from Vernitude, since it is all-important that the chan-mont has suffered by fine and imprisonment, nel by which information is conveyed to the it would have been thought necessary to go people should be preserved as pure as possible; into a consideration of the nature of the offence for, if men are allowed to state things as facts, of which he is said to have been guilty, and which they know to be false, what will be the to have shown that the guilt attaching to him consequence? However upright the Govern- was such as to defile the characters of the rest ment, or however correct the First Magistrate of the members to sit with him, before a vote may be, the hatred of the people may be ex- of expulsion was taken. Indeed, Mr. N. had cited against them by means of false informa- supposed that there had been but one opinion tion; and when a foreign foe, or domestic trai- on this subject, and that no attempt would have tors, join the standard of rebellion, the best con- been made to have inflicted a second punishstitution and government may be subverted. ment. The gentleman from Delaware, Mr. N. Therefore, that falsehood which deprives men said, had confined himself in his declaration about of the means of forming a true judgment of this offence, to its being an offence against one public affairs, in this country, where the Gov- of the laws of the United States, without ernment is elective, is a crime of the first mag- showing the House what the offence was, or nitude. The member from Vermont has been wishing them to form a judgment upon it. convicted, under aggravated circumstances. He was on this floor when the law, against which he has offended, was passed. He, therefore, excited in another manner. Mr. B. conceived he had done his duty, and if the House refused to purify itself by the expulsion of the member, it was a satisfaction to him to reflect that it would appear to the world that he had no share in the disgrace. Mr. N. was surprised at this second prosecution, because, if gentlemen will speak candidly according to the opinions which they formerly delivered in justification of the law, they will acknowledge that the whole of the charges brought against the member from Vermont ought not to have been inquired into under the sedition law; since two of the counts contained in the indictment are mere matters of opinion, not containing the least suggestion of fact; and the third rests so much on matter of opinion, that it is impossible, according to a sound construction of the law, for any guilt to be incurred by the act. Mr. N. wished the House to attend to the nature of the charges exhibited against the member from Vermont, and to say whether they were not of such a nature as to render it difficult to say whether they are well founded, and, if they are well founded, then they are innocent. In the record from which he had copied the charges, there are three counts; two of them are founded on extracts taken from a letter, called “Barlow's Letter;" the third is for sentiments contained in a letter of the member's own writing. The two first turn on mere matters of opinion. Mr. N. read the counts as follows: [H. OF R. The two first counts contain the opinions of the writer on public and notorious acts. No act is charged upon the PRESIDENT and Senate which is not notorious. It is not an attempt to impose upon the world a belief of facts which do not exist. He called upon gentlemen of the law and others to say whether this law was ever intended to extend to matters of opinion. He was astonished that a record of this kind should ever come from a court of the United States. The law declares that the publications which it proposes to punish, shall be false and scandalous. Do gentlemen say opinions can be false which do not contain matter of fact? Another part of the law gives to the party accused the privilege of giving the truth of the fact charged in evidence; but it is impossible that this can be done, where the matter charged consists of mere opinion; and juries could not possibly say whether an opinion be true or false. They can only determine whether or not it is their own opinion. If a man is to be subject to a prosecution for his opinions, what will be the consequence? We are, said Mr. N., sent here to form an opinion, and, when we return home, we are expected to deliver that opinion to our constituents: but, if the propriety of our opinions are not to be judged of by ourselves, but by others, what become of us? No man will be safe; for, though he may have formed his opinion as correctly as possible, if twelve men are to sit upon it, and, if it should not happen to be their opinion, or if they should not believe it to be his upon whom it is charged, he will be liable to a severe fine and imprisonment. Is it proper, Mr. N. asked, for legislators to be placed on this ground? Or, will gentlemen say it was their intention to place themselves in this situation? They certainly will not; for who would consent to sit here, or of what use would it be, under such conditions? "The misunderstanding between the two Governments has become extremely alarming, confidence is completely destroyed, mistrusts, jealousy, and a disposition to a wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action that are to come before your Executive-will I mean if your object is to avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you before the recall of Monroe, before the coming and second coming of Pinckney; had it guided the pens that wrote the bullying Speech of your President, and stupid answer of your Senate, at the opening of Congress in November last, I should probably have had no occasion to address you this letter. But we found him borrowing the language of Great Britain, and telling the world that, although he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no dependence to be placed on any of their engagements; that their religion and morality were at an end; that they had turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though they are at peace. We wondered that the answer of both Houses had not been an order to send him to a mad-house. Instead of this, the Senate had echoed the Speech with more servility than ever George III. experienced from either House of Parliament. "As to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts of that power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have my zealous and uniform support. But, when I see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, or selfish avarice; when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment; when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities, and experience, discarded on their application for office, for fear they possess that independence; and men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and advocate opinions, the consequence of which they know but little of; when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a State engine to make mankind hate and persecute one another, I shall not be their humble advocate." The third count is somewhat of a different nature. Mr. N. said, in speaking on this subject, he was not giving his own opinion. If he dation for the fact here stated. There is no were to give it, he should say he had no founmode, however, of ascertaining whether or not it was the opinion of the member from Vermont, and if it were his opinion, there being no mode of determining whether the opinion is correct or otherwise, it was impossible to act upon it. With respect to the first part of the third count, which speaks of every consideration of the public welfare being swallowed up in a continual grasp of power, &c.," he supposed it would be agreed that it was an expression of the affection of the mind-an opinion upon the disposition discovered by actions. That part of it which relates to "men of real merit being turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment, &c.," suggests a fact, but if this was his opinion, it is a matter so much connected with opinion, as to be scarcely distinguishable from it. And shall we be told, said Mr. N., that a member ought to be banish H. OF R.] On expelling Matthew Lyon. [FEBRUARY, 1799. ed from his seat for uttering a sentiment of this | ly, and that if it was proper to act upon the kind, after having been told by the gentleman subject at all, it would be proper to assign a from Delaware, and others, that it was a com- day to have a fair hearing of the business, to plete disqualification for office for a man to hold enable the House to judge of the facts. For a different political opinion from that of the Ex-gentlemen will not say, that courts and juries ecutive? He trusted gentlemen could not se- are so infallible, that there is no case in which riously think so. For, since if the fact were the decision of a court ought to be revised. If true, and the member from Vermont had ad- the member from Vermont should think it neduced (as he believed he might have done) two cessary to demand this investigation, the House or three instances of men being turned out of ought to submit to it. office merely on account of their political opinions, still the jury might have asked, "how do you know that the men displaced possessed superior talents to those who succeeded them?" This, though true, could not be proved, therefore the member from Vermont could not have availed himself of the advantage held out by the law. Gentlemen may say this is not necessary, as this law goes to many offences not capable of this proof; they may say that the British law on this subject goes to many others. But our law is not the same with the British law; there, though the libel be true, it is not less a libel, which is not the case under our law, which is an important distinction. It was clear, Mr. N. said, that such parts of the counts as went to insinuate fact, were so connected with opinion, that it was impossible to separate them. It could not be said that the jury were competent to decide upon the truth of the case. The decision of twelve honest men on a point of fact, is, perhaps, the best security that can be devised for the security of justice; but if a man is to be convicted because his opinions and those of a jury are at variance, there is an end to all security. Men's opinions are as various as their faces, and the truth or falsehood of those opinions are not fit subjects for the decision of a jury. There was something in that record, Mr. N. said, which was very singular indeed; something which requires investigation; for unless the fact is different from what his information made it, a most extraordinary circumstance was connected with the third count. It will be seen, from the showing of the record, that the letter upon which the charge is founded, was written before the passage of the law on which the offence was tried. If he was not misinformed, no evidence was adduced in court to show that Mr. LYON did any act subsequent to the writing of his letter in the publication, and that though the thing appeared in print after the law took its effect, all that was done by the writer was done before the law was passed. He thought, therefore, before the House acted upon this subject, an inquiry ought to be had upon it. He did not know what were the wishes of the member from Vermont himself on this subject; he had not put the question to him, because he thought there was no offence contained in the record of which the House ought to take notice. He would say farther, that believing most religiously that the law against which the member from Vermont is said to have offended, is a violation of the constitution of this country, he could not without a breach of his oath, do any act to punish a breach of that law. Upon what ground does the member from Mr. LYON said, he did expect that if he was Vermont stand? He is a representative of the to have had a second trial, he should have been people; and gentlemen could not shut their at liberty to have adduced the evidence upon eyes against a notorious fact, viz: that the which a jury had already decided. Gentlemen constituents of this member, with a full know-who have been able to obtain a copy of the reledge of this prosecution, have re-elected him; and if the people of Vermont choose to have a person possessing these opinions to represent them, who have a right to say they shall not? Indeed, if they are to be represented at all, they must be represented by the man whom they choose to elect. The gentleman from Delaware had said, that all the offences of Mr. LYON were greatly aggravated from his being a member of this House. Mr. N. was of a different opinion. He thought it incumbent on a Representative to disclose his opinions on public affairs to his constituents; and this disclosure will become more necessary, in proportion as such opinions may be offensive to the administrators of the Government; as, when all goes on smoothly and well, there will be no necessity for calling the attention of the people to public concerns. The gentleman has also said, that it would be out of order to contest the truth of any thing contained in this record. He thought different cord, which he, notwithstanding all his earnest desires to obtain it, had not been able to procure, might also have obtained a copy of the testimony on which this judgment was founded. Mr. L. thought he had received an unjust trial and a hard sentence. He said unjust, because he was frowned upon by the Judge in a very abrupt manner when he challenged two of the jury, which he had a right to do by a law of the State. The Judge answered me, said Mr. L., "You are unacquainted with the laws of the State." Mr. L. observed that there is a law in the State of Vermont for punishing persons who speak against the public authorities, which gives to the accused the privilege of challenging six of his jury. This privilege, said Mr. L., I was denied, exclusive of the political packing of the jury who tried me. This is the kind of treatment I have received: but I shall submit to the decision of the House without occupying their time on my account, further than my enemies are desirous of so occupying it. |