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, à 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,

66 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

ion this presumption in favor of Mr. Marshall is not diminished by recriminating publications, which manifest strong resentment against him."

And on the question to expunge the paragraph as amended, it passed in the negative. On motion, it was agreed to amend the last clause of the report to read as follows: "And they are also 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 expunge the clause last agreed to be amended, it passed in the negativeyeas 7, nays 16; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bloodworth, Burr, Langdon, Martin, Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell. NAYS-Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Henry, Latimer, Livermore, Paine, Read, Ross, Rutherfurd, Strong, Trumbull, and Vining. Mr. Brown requested and was excused from voting on the question.

On motion, it was agreed to amend the last paragraph but two of the report, beginning with the words "if in the present case," by inserting the words "by the memorialists" after the word "alleged."

On the question to adopt the report as amended, it passed in the affirmative-yeas 16, nays 8; as follows:

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

Tazewell.

So the report was adopted, as follows:

REPORT AS ADOPTED.

The committee to whom was referred the letter of the governor and the memorial of the representatives of Kentucky, with the papers accompanying them, report: 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 docaments 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 suit, 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 the 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 on behalf of the legislature. Mr. Marshall is solicitous that a full investigation of the subject shall 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 com

mitted 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 the presumption in favor of Mr. Marshall is not diminished by the recriminating publications, which manifest strong resentment against him.

And they are also 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.

Resolved, That the Vice-President of the United States be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing report to the governor of Kentucky.

[Fourth Congress-First session.]

WILLIAM BLOUNT AND WILLIAM COCKE,

of Tennessee.

The history of the case as here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1, 1795-'96, and found within pages 83-122. The case simply shows that Messrs. Blount and Cocke were not admitted to seats in the Senate on papers presented to the Senate May 9, 1796, and purporting to be credentials of being duly elected Senators from the State of Tennessee. It does not show why they were not admitted. There is, however, an allusion to a pending "bill proposing to admit the Southwestern Territory into the Union," which bill was not approved until June 1, 1796. From this it may be inferred that Messrs. Blount and Cocke were not admitted to their seats because the papers purporting to be their credentials of election were of earlier date than that of the admission of Tennessee into the Union. Mr. Blount and Mr. Cocke were again elected August 2, 1796, by the legislature of Tennessee, after its admission as a State, and took their seats in the Senate December 6, 1796.

MONDAY, May 9, 1796.

On motion that a paper purporting to be the appointment of William Blount and William Cocke, respectively, to seats in the Senate, should be read, it was agreed that the motion be postponed till to-morrow.

TUESDAY, May 10, 1796.

Ordered, That the consideration of the paper, purporting to be the appointment of William Blount and William Cocke to a seat in the Senate, respectively, be postponed until Friday next.

SATURDAY, May 21, 1796.

A letter, signed William Cocke, purporting that he is appointed a Senator for the State of Tennessee, and claiming a seat in the Senate, was presented and read. Ordered, That it lie on the table.

MONDAY, May 23, 1796.

A letter, signed William Blount and William Cocke, was read, stating that they have been duly and legally elected Senators to represent the State of Tennessee in the Senate. On motion,

"That Mr. Blount and Mr. Cocke, who claim to be Senators of the United States, be received as spectators, and that chairs be provided for that purpose until the final decision of the Senate shall be given on the bill proposing to admit the Southwestern Territory into the Union,"

A motion was made to refer the consideration thereof to a committee; and it passed in the negative.

On motion to agree to the original motion, it passed in the affirmative-yeas 12, nays 11; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Foster, Henry, Langdon, Martin, Potts, Robinson, Tattnall, and Tazewell.

NAYS-Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Gunn, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Read, Ross, Rutherfurd, Strong, and Trumbull.

On motion by Mr. Martin that it be

WEDNESDAY, June 1, 1796.

“Resolved, That the Hon. William Blount and William Cocke, esquires, who have produced credentials of being duly elected Senators for the State of Tennessee, be admitted to take the oath necessary for their qualification, and their seats accordingly," Ordered, That a paper, purporting to be the credentials of Mr Blount and Mr. Cocke, be read.

And, on the question to agree to the resolution, it passed in the negative-yeas 10, nays 11; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Gunn, Langdon, Martin, Robinson, Tattnall, and Tazewell.

NAYS-Messrs. Bingham, Bradford Foster, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherfurd, and Trumbull.