In this case it does not appear that any evidence was called for; a member of the House of Commons got up and declared his opinion of that officer, and the same session an impeachment was voted. This course of proceeding is very different from that now proposed. I will now refer to a more modern precedent which at the time does not appear to have been objected to. It occurred in the reign of George I., and will be found stated in Russel’s “Modern Europe,” vol. 4, page 398.
“A new Parliament was called in which the interest of the Whigs predominated, and a secret committee, chosen by ballot, was appointed to examine all the papers, and inquire into all the negotiations relative to the late peace, as well as the cessation of arms by which it was preceded. The Committee of Secrecy prosecuted their inquiry with the greatest eagerness, and, in consequence of their report, the Commons resolved to impeach Lord Bolingbroke, the Earl of Oxford, and the Duke of Ormond, of high treason.”
One circumstance is worthy of attention. A cause of dissatisfaction at the conduct of the judge has undoubtedly prevailed. Whether he is wrongfully accused I will not say; but the dissatisfaction is manifest; for the representatives of two respectable States lately came forward and opposed his being assigned to circuits which embraced their States. This single fact ought to make an impression on the House.
It is alleged that there is no proof before the House; but one thing is notorious--is universally known. It is this, that this man (Fries) was tried before that judge for his life, and was tried without being heard. This fact cannot be disputed. When we consider the importance of the life of a citizen, and know that such an event has taken place, is it not the duty of the only body competent to inquire into the fact? With other gentlemen, I believe that the fountains of justice ought to be kept pure; I believe also that the judges are like other men, and that like them they are subject to the common frailties of human nature; and I do believe that when the frailties of human nature produce such effects, the House cannot be justified to themselves or their country without making an inquiry. Our duty to our country calls for it; our duty to the man who is implicated also calls for it. If innocent, a proper regard to his character claims it; and his friend from Maryland informs us that he will rejoice at this opportunity of coming forward and vindicating himself. If, then, the inquiry be equally necessary for placing the character of the man upon its proper footing, and for preserving the purity of justice, how can the House resist it?