some doubt respecting his being qualified, but in what words the deponent does not recollect.

"That the deponent did not understand upon what the doubt was founded, though he thinks from something said by Mr. Gallatin that it related to Mr. Gallatin's citizenship, for, as the deponent conceived, the conversation proceeded from that kind of modesty which gentlemen usually feel upon having their names proposed upon such occasions, he did not pay much attention to it, and that his reason for forming this opinion was his having frequently observed gentlemen to make excuses in similar situations, and from his knowledge of Mr. Gallatin's modesty of disposition. When being asked whether he ever heard Mr. Gallatin say that he had not been a citizen of the United States nine years previous to his election, the deponent replies he never did. Upon being asked by Mr. Lewis, counsel for the petitioners, what he had ever heard Mr. Gallatin say touching his citizenship, the deponent replies that a considerable time subsequent to Mr. Gallatin's election Mr. Gallatin, in conversations with the deponent, expressed an opinion that he was qualified with respect to citizenship. What else did you ever hear Mr. Gallatin say with respect to his citizenship? The deponent answers that he recollects having heard him say something with respect to the laws of Massachusetts not requiring an oath of allegiance at the time of his giving his opinion as aforesaid. Did you ever hear Mr. Gallatin say he was born in Europe? The deponent replies that he does not recollect Mr. Gallatin's saying that he was born in Europe, but that he has heard Mr. Gallatin speak of himself as a Genevan, mention his family in Geneva, and in conversations with him hath always understood him to be of Geneva. Did you ever hear Mr. Gallatin mention the time of his coming into America? He replies that he thinks Mr. Gallatin, about a year past, mentions that he had been then thirteen years in this country, and that he was nineteen years old when he came. Did you ever hear Mr. Gallatin say when or where he took the oath of allegiance? He replies he heard Mr. Gallatin say that he took the oath of allegiance in Virginia, but as to the time the deponent cannot be precise, but he thinks, if he can recollect, that Mr. Gallatin did mention to him, though he cannot be certain; but it was not nine years before he was elected. That the deponent thinks Mr. Gallatin's doubts respecting his citizenship were founded on this ground, the witness referring in this part of his testimony to the meeting before mentioned, when these doubts were expressed; but he cannot specify the time of Mr. Gallatin's having mentioned to him the circumstance of his having taken the oath of allegiance.

"Sworn to and subscribed, January 28, 1794.”

Mr. Thomas Stokely, being sworn, deposeth and saith: "That some few days before a Senator was chosen for the State of Pennsylvania a meeting was had to fix on a proper person to represent the State in that office; sundry persons were started as candidates, among whom was Mr. Gallatin, who, upon his being named, observed that there were many other persons more proper to fill that office; and also observed that there might be doubts as to his citizenship, though the deponent, from the length of time, and not expecting to have been called upon, retains too slight an impression of what then passed to be able to recollect the words with precision. That at a subsequent meeting for the same purpose Mr. Gallatin was finally agreed to be nominated, and the deponent heard no objection stated thereto, either by Mr. Gallatin (who was present) or any other person. "Sworn to and subscribed, February 1, 1794."

The before-recited evidence being introduced and closed on the part of the petitioners, Mr. Gallatin was asked whether he had any testimony to produce on his part, to which he gave the following answer in writing, to wit:

"The committee to whom the petition of Conrad Laub, &c., was referred, having informed me that the petitioners had closed their evidence, and asked me 'whether I had any testimony to produce on my side,' I answer that it appears to me that there is not sufficient matter charged in the petition and proved by the testimony to vacate my seat; that by the resolution appointing the committee the petition is referred to them to state the facts, without prejudice as to any questions which may, upon the hearing, be raised by the sitting member as to the sufficiency of the parties and the matter Charged in the petition;' that upon the hearing, and in the present stage of the same, the question as to the sufficiency of matter, as above stated, is raised by me; that I conceive from the evident construction of the resolution I have a right to have that question decided by the Senate; that until the same shall have been decided I do not wish to be at the trouble and expense of collecting evidence at a great distance; and therefore that at present I do not mean to produce any testimony, reserving, however, to myself the right which I conceive I have to produce any testimony in my favor after the said question shall have been decided by the Senate, in case it is decided against me.

"ALBERT GALLATIN."

Which being duly read and considered, the committee came to the following resolution, to wit:

"Whereas the evidence on the part of the petitioners having been closed, and it appearing that Mr. Gallatin was an alien in the year 1780, and his answer in writing as

signing reasons why he should not adduce evidence on his part in the present stage of the inquiry not being, in the opinion of the committee, sufficient,

"Resolved, That in the opinion of the committee it is now incumbent on Mr. Gallatin to show that he has become a citizen of the United States, and when."

Which resolution being read to Mr. Gallatin, he informed the committee he should rely on the answer he had before given.

All which is respectfully submitted to the honorable Senate by the committee. And subjoined is the statement of facts exhibited by Mr. Gallatin and agreed to between him and the counsel for the petitioners, as mentioned the 20th instant:

"Albert Gallatin was born at Geneva on the 29th day of January, 1761. He left that place for the United States in April or May, 1780; arrived in Boston, Mass., on the 14th or 15th of July of the same year, and has ever since resided within the United States. In October, 1780, he removed from Boston to Machias, in the Province of Maine, in which place and its neighborhood he resided one year, and commenced a settlement on a tract of vacant land. During that time he furnished out of his own funds supplies amounting in value to more than sixty pounds Massachusetts currency to Col. John Allen, who was the commanding officer stationed there, and also superintendent of Indian affairs for the Eastern department, for the use of the American troops, and on several occasions acted as a volunteer under the same officer's command. For the said supplies he received one year after a warrant on the treasury of the State of Massachusetts, which he sold at a considerable depreciation. In October, 1781, he returned to Boston, and in the spring of 1782 was, by a vote of the corporation of the University of Cambridge, otherwise called Harvard College, chosen instructor of the French language of the said university. By the same vote he was allowed a room in the college, the privilege of the commons at the tutor's table, the use of the library, and also the right of having his pay, which depended on the voluntary subscription and attendance of the students, collected by the steward of the institution, together with the other charges against the students for board and education. Those terms he accepted and remained in that station for the term of one year. In July, 1783, he removed to Pennsylvania, and in November of the same year proceeded to Virginia, in which State he had purchased more than one thousand acres of land, and amounting to more than one hundred pounds Virginia currency in value, some time between July and November, 1783. Between this last-mentioned period and the month of October, 1785, he purchased other lands in the said State to a very large amount, and in the said last-mentioned month he took an oath of allegiance to the said State. In December, 1785, he purchased the plantation in Fayette County, in Pennsylvania, on which he has lived ever since. In October, 1789, he was elected member of the convention to amend the constitution of Pennsylvania, and in October, 1790, 1791, and 1792, he was elected member of the legislature of the same State. On the 28th of February, 1793, he was chosen Senator to represent the said State in the Senate of the United States, and took his seat in December following."

[Fourth Congress-First session.]

HUMPHREY MARSHALL,

Senator from Kentucky from March 4, 1795, to March 4, 1801.

In February, 1796, the Vice-President laid before the Senate a letter from the governor of Kentucky and a memorial from the Representatives of said State, which memorial stated that in February, 1795, a pamphlet was published by George Muter and Benjamin Sebastian (two judges of the court of appeals), in which they said that Humphrey Marshall had had a suit in chancery in said court of appeals, in which, it appearing manifest from the records and documents that he had committed a gross fraud, the court had given a decree against him; and that in the course of the investigation he had been publicly charged with perjury. The memorial further stated that the said representatives did not mean to give an opinion on the justice of the said charge, but requested that an investigation relative thereto might take place. Mr. Marshall was also solicitous that an investigation of the subject should take place in the Senate. It was determined that the memorial could not be sustained; also that as the Constitution does not give jurisdiction to the Senate the consent of the party cannot give it, and that therefore the said memorial ought to be dismissed. The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., 1st sess., 1795-'96, within pages 47–59.

FRIDAY, February 26, 1796. The Vice-President laid before the Senate a letter from the governor of the State of Kentucky, with divers papers accompanying the same.

The letter and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

On motion by Mr. Marshall,

MONDAY, February 29, 1796.

"That the letter from the governor of the State of Kentucky, with divers papers accompanying the same, communicated to the Senate on the 26th instant, be referred to a committee."

It was agreed to postpone the consideration of the motion until to-morrow.

WEDNESDAY, March 2, 1796. The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made on the 29th of February respecting the letter and papers from the governor of the State of Kentucky; and Ordered, That they be referred to Messrs. Livermore, Ross, King, Rutherfurd, and Strong to consider and report thereon to the Senate.

FRIDAY, March 11, 1796.

Mr. Livermore reported from the committee to whom was referred the letter of the governor and the memorial of the representatives of the State of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them; and the report was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

TUESDAY, March 15, 1796.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the letter of the governor and the memorial of the representatives of the State of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them; and, After debate, the Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, March 16, 1796.

Ordered, That the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the letter of the governor and the memorial of the representatives of the State of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them, be further postponed.

THURSDAY, March 17, 1796.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the letter from the governor and the memorial of the Representatives of the State of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them, which is as follows:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

[The committee consisted of Messrs. Livermore, Ross, King, Rutherford, and Strong.]

That the representatives of the freemen of Kentucky state in their memorial that in February, 1795, a pamphlet was published by George Muter and Benjamin Sebastian (who were two judges of the court of appeals), in which they say that Humphrey Marshall had a suit in chancery in the said court of appeals, in which it appearing manifest

from the oath of the complainant, from disinterested testimony, from records, from documents furnished by himself, and from the contradictions contained in his own answer, that he had committed a gross fraud, the court gave a decree against him; and that in the course of the investigation he was publicly charged with perjury. That Mr. Marshall, in a publication in the Kentucky Gazette, called for a specification of the charge; to which the said George Muter and Benjamin Sebastian, in a like publication, replied that he was guilty of perjury in his answer to the bill in chancery exhibited against him by James Wilkinson, and that they would plead justification to any suit brought against them therefor. That no such suits, as the said representatives could learn, had been brought. The said representatives further say that they do not mean to give an opinion on the justice of the said charge, but request that an investigation may immediately take place relative thereto.

Your committee observe that the said suit was tried eighteen months before Mr. Marshall was chosen a member of the Senate, and that previous to his election mutual accusations had taken place between him and the judges of the said court relating to the same suit.

The representatives of Kentucky have not furnished any copy of Mr. Marshall's answer on oath, nor have they stated any part of the testimony, or produced any of the said records or documents, or the copy of any paper in the cause, nor have they intimated a design to bring forward those or any other proofs.

Your committee are informed by the other Senator and two Representatives in Congress from Kentucky that they have not been requested by the legislature of that State to prosecute this inquiry, and that they are not possessed of any evidence in the case, and that they believe no person is authorized to appear in behalf of the legislature.

Mr. Marshall is solicitous that a full investigation of the subject should take place in the Senate, and urges the principle that consent takes away error, as applying on this occasion, to give the Senate jurisdiction; but, as no person appears to prosecute, and there is no evidence adduced to the Senate, nor even a specific charge, the committee think any further inquiry by the Senate would be improper. If there were no objections of this sort, the committee would still be of opinion that the memorial could not be sustained. They think that in a case of this kind no person can be held to answer for an infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and that in all such prosecutions the accused ought to be tried by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. If, in the present case, the party has been guilty in the manner suggested, no reason has been alleged by the memorialists why he has not long since been tried in the State and district where he committed the offense. Until he is legally convicted, the principles of the Constitution and of the common law concur in presuming that he is innocent. And the committee are compelled, by a sense of justice, to declare that in their opinion this presumption in favor of Mr. Marshall is not diminished by the recriminating publications of two men, who take no pains to conceal their personal resentment against him.

Whatever motives induced the legislature of Kentucky to call the attention of the Senate to the above-mentioned publications, the committee are of opinion that as the Constitution does not give jurisdiction to the Senate the consent of the party cannot give it, and that therefore the said memorial ought to be dismissed.

On motion to postpone the consideration of the report until to-morrow, it passed in the negative; and,

After debate, on motion to reconsider the question for postponement, it passed in the negative.

On motion to expunge all the words from "if in the present case," inclusive, to the end of the report, a motion was made to amend the part proposed to be struck out by expunging these words: "of two men who take no pains to conceal their personal resentment," and it was agreed that this motion was not in order.

A motion was made to divide the original motion for striking out, and retain the words from "if in the present case," inclusive, to the word, "innocent," at the end of the first paragraph; and,

After debate, the Senate adjourned.

FRIDAY, March 18, 1796.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the letter from the governor and the memorial of the representatives of the State of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them, together with the motion made thereon, and under debate yesterday; and a motion was made to amend the motion by expunging from the report all that follows the words, "the memorial could not be sustained;" and,

After debate, the Senate adjourned.

SATURDAY, March 19, 1796.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was

referred the letter from the governor and the memorial of the representatives of the State of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them; also the motion made thereon and under debate yesterday, together with the motion for amendment by expunging from the report all that follows the words, "the memorial could not be sustained;" and a motion was made to postpone the report and the motions made thereon, and to take into consideration the following resolution:

"Whereas the honorable the legislature of the State of Kentucky have, by their memorial transmitted by the governor of said State, informed the Senate that Humphrey Marshall, a Senator from the said State, had been publicly charged with the crime of perjury, and requested that an inquiry might be thereupon instituted, in which request the said Humphrey Marshall has united; and it being highly interesting, as well to the honor of the said State as to that of the Senate, and an act of justice due to the character of the said Humphrey Marshall that such inquiry, should be had: Therefore,

"Resolved, That the Senate will proceed to the examination of the said charge on the day of the next session of Congress; that in the opinion of the Senate a conviction or acquittal in the ordinary courts of justice of the said State would be the most satisfactory evidence on this occasion; but that if this should not be attainable by reason of any act of limitation or other legal impediment, such other evidence will be received as the nature of the case may admit and require.

"Resolved, That the Vice-President be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution to the governor of the said State." After debate, the Senate adjourned.

MONDAY, March 21, 1796.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion, made on the 19th instant, to postpone the report of the committee to whom was referred the letter from the governor and the memorial of the representatives of the State of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them, together with the motions of amendment made thereon, in order to consider the following resolution:

"Whereas the honorable legislature of the State of Kentucky have, by their memorial, transmitted by the governor of the said State, informed the Senate that Humphrey Marshall, a Senator from the said State, had been publicly charged with the crime of perjury, and requested that an inquiry might be thereupon instituted, in which request the said Humphrey Marshall has united; and it being highly interesting, as well to the honor of the said State as to that of the Senate, and an act of justice due to the character of the said Humphrey Marshall that such inquiry should be had: Therefore, "Resolved, That the Senate will proceed to the examination of the said charge on the day of the next session of Congress; that, in the opinion of the Senate, a conviction or acquittal in the ordinary courts of justice of the said State would be the most satisfactory evidence on this occasion; but that, if this should not be attainable, by reason of any act of limitation or other legal impediment, such other evidence will be received as the nature of the case may admit and require.

"Resolved, That the Vice-President be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution to the governor of the said State."

And on the question for postponement, it passed in the negative-yeas 7, nays 17; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Langdon, Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell. NAYS-Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Henry, Latimer, Livermore, Martin, Paine, Read, Ross, Rutherfurd, Strong, Trumbull, and Vining.

TUESDAY, March 22, 1796.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the letter from the governor and the memorial of the representatives of the State of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them.

On the question to expunge these words: "if there were no objections of this sort, the committee would still be of opinion that the memorial could not be sustained," it passed in the negative.

On the question to expunge the following words:

"They think that in a case of this kind no person can be held to answer for an infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and that in all such prosecutions the accused ought to be tried by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. If in the present case the party has been guilty in the manner suggested, no reason has been alleged why he has not long since been tried in the State and district where he committed the offense. Until he is legally convicted, the principles of the Constitution and of the common law concur in presuming that he is innocent"

It passed in the negative.

On motion, it was agreed to amend the next paragraph to read as follows:

"And the committee are compelled by a sense of justice to declare that in their opin