In the cafe of a trial at law in the ordinary courts, no grand juror would be permitted to fit as a traverfe juror on the fame indictment.

In the British parliament-If any member of the house of commons, who had voted on an impeachment, were before the trial made a peer, I humbly prefume he would withdraw from the trial,

I have no concern in this cafe, but that a due regard to the adminiftration of juftice be had, and therefore refpectfully fubmit this to the Senate, and the individual members.

I am with due respect,

Your moft obedient fervant,

ALEXANDER ADDISON,

Honorable Samuel Maclay, Esquire,}

Speaker of the

MR. MACLAY, Speaker.

Shall Mr. Addison be heard in fupport of the fentiments expressed in that letter?

MR. WHITEHILL.

I do not wifh to prevent the gentleman from being heard, when it is reasonable that he should be heard, therefore if it is his requeft to be heard on this subject, I for one, fhall be in favor of granting him the liberty; and if a question is taken, 1 fhall certainly vote for it.

MR. MACLAY, Speaker.

If it be the wifh of Mr. Addifon, there ought to be a motion made for leave, on which the queftion may by put.

MR. WHITEHILL.

I therefore move, that Mr. Addison be heard in support of his letter to the Speaker.

The Senate agreed to the motion.

Mr. Speaker.

MR. ADDISON.

I imagine from what was faid by some of the members, in the Senate Chamber before they came down ftairs, that the intention of my statement was mistaken-It seemed to be understood as a perfonal objection to the members alluded, but that was not my view. The only thing I had in view was this:-that in my cafe no precedent for future profecutions fhall be fet, that I think improper, without ftating that it has my cenfure. I would not be mifunderftood-I do not ftate my objection to the gentlemen, who may be in the fituation I have alluded to, from perfonal

motives. No Sir, I addrefs it to the Senate in general, who are the proper guardians of their own honor, and protectors of their own proceedings, and to the individual Members only, as the jud ges of their own feelings..

Whether the Senate direct them to withdraw or remain, or whether they withdraw of their own accord, must be submitted as I faid before, to the Senate and themselves.

MR. STEELE.

The reason that I made any remark on the fubject of this letter when it was first read up stairs, arose from á fufpicion, that from the very circumftance of the addrefs at this time there was an implied objection in it, on the part of the defen dant, to my fitting on this trial, as I was a Member of the late Houfe of Reprefentatives which prefented the impeachment. In order to try the fenfe of the Senate, and from a with not to create in the mind of an individual, an uneafinefs that may cripple his defence on his trial, I afk permiffion to withdraw myfelf from the Senate 'till the trial is finished. MR. GAMBLE,

Seconded the motion.

MR. KEAN.

I hope the Member will not obtain leave to withdraw. ook Sir, at the effect such a precedent would produce in all proceedings on impeachment. The conftitution requires annually a new election for one fourth of the Members of the Se nate, and further that two thirds mult agree to convict on im peachment; if then by death or refignation one third of this body had been elected this year from the Members of the other House of last year, it would be impoffible to proceed, and thereby the public juftice required at our hands, would be totally de feated. I do not understand the reason why he wishes to withdraw it is true he was a Member of the Houfe which framed the impeachment; but he was not a Member of the Senate at that time, and the Senate then decided that the prefent Senate fhould try the caufe; the conftitution must be obeyed; in its language it is imperative "the Senate fhall try." If the Gen tlemans excufe is a respect for his own feelings, I fay that evéry gentleman prefent would be glad if his attendance could conftitutionally and honorably be difpenfed with on fuch unpleasant occafions; few men are inclined to fit on trials of this kind; but when they find it their duty, they must conform. I hope there fore the Senate will not permit the Member to withdraw. MR. FINDLEY.

I fhould be glad to know if there are any precedents, which

would apply to this cafe. I do not know whether the chairman of a grand jury, who had figned a bill of indictment against a criminal at one term, which was not tried, could not set as a traverfe juryman upon the trial at the next term, if a fresh presentation was made. I do not know what is the cafe of the peers in in England, whether, if they had been members of the house of commons, which had preferred an impeachment to the lords, fuch peers were excluded by the house or excluded themselves, upon the trial. I should be glad to hear what the precedents are on this subject; not that I mean to fay, precedents ought to govern us, but furely they would throw fome additional light upon the mode of proceeding.

MR. WHITEHILL.

I obferve that the managers on the part of the Houfe of Reprefentatives are prepared with counsel, gentlemen learned in the law, I fhould therefore be glad to hear from them, what can be faid on this point. It is a new cafe, and most of the member's would be glad to hear their opinion before we determine the queftion. Suppose the gentlemen who are in a fimilar fituation with the member from Lancaster, are all permitted to withdraw, the precedent may be attended with the most unhappy confequences; no person hereafter could be impeached one year and tried the next, because there, would be a great change in the Senate, fo as to defeat the object. A due confideration at this time, may prevent the establishment of a precedent, which may prove injurious hereafter. Let us therefore hear the counsel, that when we have heard them, we may come to a conclufion, which we hope, may be a happy one for the State, as well, as for the gentleman to be tried."

MR. MACLAY, Speaker.

Certainly if the mariagers on the part of the House of Reprefentatives are defirous of being heard by counsel, there can be no doubt but the Senate will indulge them.

MR. FERGUSON.

As one of the maaagers on the part of the Houfe of Reprefentatives, I have to inform the Senate, counfel is employed on their behalf, and are at prefent ready to affift them on the prefent occafion.

THE task I have undertaken in confequence of the requeft of the managers of this impeachment on the part of the House of Reprefentatives is a weighty one; but the im

portance of the occafion ought to acquit me from the fuf picion of engaging in it from motives of hoftility to the defendant. 1 have no with but that the trial may be carried on with every delicacy to the feelings of the Gentleman who is its object; and on the part of the managers I can fay fuch a mode would harmonize with their feelings. I am perfectly aware of the correct difpofition of the Houfe as to this point, all however are limited in the wifh, that the trial shall be fatis factory and fair. Whatever may be the decifion of the Senate on the final question, or the effect upon the Gentleman, who is the object of accufation, we fhall acquiefe with pleafure. We think the individual Members are fuperior to any bias whatever. If they decide from an indulgence to the feelings of the Gentlemen, who did properly give their opinion on this impeachment last year in the Houfe of Reprefentatives, that they fhall be excufed from being fworn on the trial, we fhall be juftified, because we believe that the ultimate decifion, whether made by a greater or leffer number of this body, will comport with law and juftice. Under thefe impreffions, I fhould have remained filent, because the decifion either way, would have been fatisfactory to the managers and their counsel ; but as the Members of the Senate have expreffed a wish to hear our general ideas on this point, I will detail them without any anxiety as to the issue.

The grounds in general of the common law, are that any perfon who has paffed his opinion under oath on the point in controverfy, is precluded from fitting in judgment in the case; I believe also, that where a perfon has volunteered his opinion, and decided on a cause, tho3 not on oath, it would be ground of challenge. It is only juftice to Mr. Addison's claim to make this conceffion. But here are grounds to distinguish this cafe. It will be recollected, that in the ordinary tribunals of justice, the grand jurors, the petit jurors and the judges are all confti. tuent members of the court, that they all muft concur in the refult of guilty or not, and all are bound by a special oath to discharge their duties refpectively, as they are affigned to them. This is not the cafe on impeachment; the Houfe of Reprefentatives are not called upon under an oath peculiar to the impeachment, but make the prefentation to the Senate merely as a part of their legislative duty. Certain facts are communicated to them, and they are examined without taking an oath of office; if they conclude that the perfon complained of, has misdemeaned himself in his office, they accufe him.-Here is the leading diftinction. In the cafe of a grand juryman, he is called upon to examine and prefent under the obligati

on of an oath, pointed to that particular fubject; the Houfé acts merely in its legiflative capacity; and performs a conftitutional injunction in preferring the fubject to the Senate.

The remarks of the Member from Dauphin, (Mr. Kean) must have ftruck the minds of gentlemen very forcibly; the inconvenienies he fuggefted are obvious, and the idea, if pursued in the abftract, and its confequences, will prove to our minds, that the principle contended for by the defendant, would defeat the object of impeachment altogether. If then there is no precedent, and the refult would be fo abfurd, we ought to reject fuch an opinion..

It may happen as our elections are annual, and one fourth of the Members of the Senate go out every year, that in a period of four years every Member of the Senate may have been a Member of the House of Reprefentatives, that preferred an impeachment; we know alfo from the hiftory of foreign countries, our own State and of the United States, that profecutions may be protracted for three or four years, and often are unavoidably protracted for that time; fhould this impeachment fall into that predicament, I do not helitate to fay upon the principle contended for, that the puble juftice would be altogether defeated; we must not therefore, give a conftruction that would produce fo ruinous an effect.

Mr. Addifon fuggefts, that the peers in England would not fit upon trials which had been inftituted whilft they had been Members of the Commons. It is likely that he is miftaken in the cafe. The celebrated and recent trial of Warren Hafting, lafted seven years; during that period no doubt many peers were created; fuch has been the policy of the minifter to increase his patronage, and no doubt but many of them were Members of the Houfe which exhibited the charge against Mr. Haftings; many other Members of the Commone became peers by defcent during the fame period, and tho I am not prepared to affert, that thofe peers did actually vote on the decifion of the trial, yet I think it prefumable, that they did from the number and from the mode adopted by that body, by calling over the name of each peer from the lift who is individually bound to give his verdict in his place, and from the well known confequence of that trial on acquital, however the defendant has not fhewn us any difference in that Houfe as * precedent for the Senate.

If thefe general ideas can furnish information to the minds of the Members, I fhall feel myself happy in having detailed them ;