On Impeachment

The High Oath of Impeachment

2006-02-18T06:49:00.000-08:00

January 9, 1999

Honolulu, Hawaii

On January 8, 1999, Senator Byrd descended down the aisle of discord to sing a hymn for unity. And there, in that noble historic chamber where some time ago by eloquent dissensions weighty matters were resolutely wrought into fundamental national determinations, both left and right wings beat forcefully against thin air, defiant of the terrible gravity of the situation, and in freedom brought the august body of the United States Senate into unanimous accord with destiny.

Most fearsome is the ordeal the senatorial jurors now face, yet face it they must, just as the world humbly turns every morning to dutifully face the Sun.

Most awesome was the Oath before the Chief Justice to do Impartial Justice by the Constitution, the Oath written in the Oath Book and sworn to therein by means of personal signatures of Good Faith. No matter how much the disconsolate postmodern temper abhors the capitalization of a certain sort of words, and detests the sacrifices implied by the Ideals they stand for, the Conscience feels in the current ceremony a profound fealty to Truth, found eternally reclining on Reality's throne. It is meet therefore to take pause and speculate on the nature of the Oath that cements society in Truth.

The high oath is a formal announcement of the evolved self-conscious life whereby the real identity is rediscovered behind the personal facades of social intercourse. And it is a reaffirmation of the oft forgotten bond of matter to spirit in time and space. Once the necessity of obedience to Truth is realized as the only highway of liberation over the obstructions to its justice, the intentional violation of a voluntary oath in that highest sense is high perjury, a form of high treason. High treason is a breach of the royal peace within the royal court or on the royal highway. It differs from the petty treason inasmuch as petty treason results in forfeitures to lesser lords outside of the king's jurisdiction or by compromise with him.

Within the royal realm, the higher the office the greater the offense no matter how trivial the misdeed may seem, for the more familiar the high officer is with the ultimate authority, the greater the danger of mistakes to the entire realm. The realm itself was gradually extended by virtue of the sovereign power to bring all the land within the jurisdiction of the court; those guilty of high treason forfeited their land if not their lives under the naked sword, while others pledged allegiance and kept the peace.

Our own senators have a very high place in the vestiges of the royal scheme. Their political progenitors were the king's court or council, where law was not so much made as it was truth found out in the people's customs when suit was brought for those offenses committed within the king's peace. Likewise, our senators have an oath to find the truth in the trial of the impeached president.

Of course, we have always expected the parties to a suit and their witnesses to lie. In fact, there were times in history when no oath was expected of them. Indeed, such an oath was deemed contrary to common sense and to religious notions: people have a natural right and duty of self-defense by all possible means; the self-interested person as well as the religious person will obey the injunction to love and aid family and neighbors and not bring suit or testimony against them; the religious person has only one master, therefore an oath in court places him in double jeopardy or forces him to take the supreme being's name in vain, and so on. Hence an oath exacted by the public authority came to be considered not only against reason but as a grievous tyranny violating the sovereign's own peace, especially when used as an instrument of persecution for that authority's own self-aggrandizement; such persecution gave people ample cause to believe the king was not the sole representative of God on earth.

But order must still prevail albeit in another form, and in the evolving legal institution governing combat it was initially the juror from whom was expected a solemn oath to find the truth despite all the lies in court, and the perjurious violation of that oath was a high treason, a crime against the sovereign authority in the administration of justice under the law.

The lesser jury is by analogy a replication of the king's court; there is no court without a king, for without a king there is no execution of the law; the jurors owe absolute obedience to find the truth or suffer the consequences. Some of the old juries, a jury of twelve, for instance, suspected of bringing a false verdict, could be and were arrested and brought before another jury of twenty-four, and were convicted and imprisoned. So it was not the parties and the witnesses who were first charged with an oath but the jurors themselves who were in effect the king's sworn men.

The modern vestige of the supreme court of the king is, in Great Britain, the House of Lords as the High Court of Parliament, which is the final court of appeal. And in America, it is the United States Senate, which tries cases of impeachment; impeachment is considered obsolete in Great Britain.

Therefore, there are several good and sufficient reasons for our senators to approach the trial of an impeached president with trepidation and awe. Their duty to do impartial justice is, of course, a duty to the people of the republic who have sovereignty and not to the temporary sovereign they have elected to represent them in the singular; however, the duty must be performed in reverence for a much higher authority than the public clamor for one verdict over the other. We may recall, by way of illustration, how Friar Michael responded to the people as he was led to his fiery death on the stake. The people, wanting to save his life, pleaded with him to recant his heretical belief, that Jesus was poor and that neither He nor his disciples held property individually or in common:

"The people's voice is God's voice," the crowd entreated Friar Michael to repent.

"Nay, but it was the people's voice that crucified Christ, and slew St. Peter," he declared.

We, the people, also have much to fear and revere in this due process. What we should fear the most, for our own sakes, is that the verdict is, even before the trial is completed, a foregone conclusion in the minds of many of the senatorial jurors. It appears from the revelation of the possibility of this high perjury that we might have a mock trial, mocking by its breach the spirit of the solemn high oath. Such a mockery could only prove that by our neglect we have allowed the lion beneath the throne to sit upon it once again. If that is the case, the old gray bird will have sung in vain, much to the dishonor of those who would pretermit the truth even before it is found. We must hope otherwise for the future of the nation, and we must believe that once a great example is before us in the form of the truth, the opinions of the people will eventually follow.

-finis-

2005-11-12T17:27:00.000-08:00

Senator William Blount, the first man to be impeached by the House of Representatives, had good reason to be anti-Federalist given the arrogant treatment he had suffered at Federalist hands when he tried to take a seat in the U.S. Senate for the new state of Tennessee. Moreover, Blount was favorably disposed toward some of the republican notions of the French Revolution while the Federalists were enamoured of English traditions. Wherefore Blount's political affiliation with Jefferson's Republican (Democratic) party.

Blount, in his former capacity as Governor of the Southern District, was too beholden to the Federalists who had appointed him, hence he led a crusade to bring statehood to Tennessee in order to save himself and like-minded Tennesseans from Federalist domination. The regional demands for statehood after the Revolution, which if met would provide independence from the federal government, alarmed the Federalists - too many states would rock the Federalist boat and water down its stock.

After Blount achieved statehood for Tennessee and took his Senate seat, he was politcally a Republican (i.e. democrat) through and through. As for business, business is business, and sometimes the good of private business conflicts with publicly held political persuasions. Senator Blount the real estate speculator was facing financial ruin. That alone gave him due cause to side with the British where his own business was concerned. On the other hand, he faithfully sided with the French in the political arena.

Blount and his fellow speculative patriots had their eyes on the Spanish plums in America: Florida and Louisiana. His Majesty of Spain had allied himself with France against England. The American speculators feared that Spain would concede the plums they sorely wanted to France in return for protection; that would spell disaster for the financial plans of Blount et al.

The most convenient solution: make a deal privately with England to grab the plums from Spain. The scheme: American settlers could get together with some Indian allies; backed up by British privateers, they would occupy the coveted lands. Such an alliance with the British would be in accord with the Anglo-American proclivities of most of the Southerners involved. Not that any affection for the British would preclude an alliance with Spain if it were convenient. William Blount, Andrew Jackson, and John Sevier among others had already participated in or condoned a flirtation with the Spanish governor of Louisiana, Esteban Miro, in a previous scheme (the Daniel Smith affair) that would have separated the District of Mero - prime real estate in the middle of the Cumberland region- from North Carolina and handed it over to Spanish Louisiana, that "the West be one people." But that deal had fallen through; this was now, and the speculators were in an awful fix now that values were plummeting and notes were being called in. So to hell with Spain.

William Blount was on the hook for a million acres in 1796. He was involved in his brother John Gray Blount's deals for another million and six hundred thousand acres. Prices in 1795 were around a quarter per acre for large tracts of two or more million acres. War ensued between Britain and Spain in October of 1796 - Spain was probably about to hand Florida and Louisiana over to France. In Tennessee, it appeared that the Federalists would draw the Holston line fairly - as the Cherokees had expected to begin with. Land values out West dropped to a dime an acre when credit collapsed. The dominoes tumbled one after another. Andrew Jackson was deeply indebted. David Allison, a wealthy easterner whose I.O.U. was once as good as gold, and who was one of Blount's partners in Indian land deals, wound up in debtor's prison. Senator Blount was virtually bankrupt; fortunately, his senatorial immunity saved him from debtor's prison.

Surely something must be done or all would be lost as far as the troubled real estate speculators were concerned. Help from the federal government would not be forthcoming if asked for: the Federalists were behaving diplomatically, hoping that the fledgling United States would not be strangled in its crib by foreign entanglements. An "incriminating" letter in Senator Blount's hand came to light, and the question as to whether or not his conduct rose to a high crime or misdemeanor for which impeachment arose and was quickly answered in the affirmative.

The Wheeler Dealer

2005-11-08T14:05:00.000-08:00

"For William Blount, especially, a new era had opened. Though his interests in merchandising, trade, and politics continued, the never-ceasing pursuit of acreage, and the search for profit in every acre from town lots to imperial domains became his paramount, life-long interest." William H. Masterson

Although Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who presided over the Senate during the impeachment trial of Senator William Blount, believed that the Tennessee senator has done nothing wrong, and concluded that impeachment is a political farce, Blount had very little personal support during the expulsion and impeachment proceedings other than his attorneys and his protege, U.S. Representative Andrew Jackson - Jackson took Blount's senate seat.

The Senate factions vigorously and sometimes eloquently debated their respective interpretations of the great fulcrum of controversy, the Constitution. There were fireworks on the side to liven the dryer patches: on one memorable day, Matthew Lyon of Vermont grabbed the fire tongs, rushed Federalist Roger Griswold, knocked him down, and tried to beat his head in over an insulting remark - they were separated, and neither were expelled. Yet, given the Blount Affair as an occassion to argue as they might over the construction of the Constitution, nary a soul in the administration or Congress would have much to do with Senator Blount himself. Federalists and Republicans alike distanced themselves from him, denounced him, sought to punish him

The impeachment was brought by the House after a mere five days on the basis of a single letter that Senator Blount had written in conspiratorial tone to Indian-interpreter James Carey, with instructions to destroy it after it was read. The representatives of both parties made haste to impeach Blount because they believed their young nation was presently endangered by a ominous conspiracy. The writing of such a letter might not have constituted an indictable offense in itself; it takes more than one person to conspire, and there was no concrete evidence that anyone else was actually involved; the conspiracy countenanced, even if were executed, might not have been a crime under current law. But all that was beside the point at the time - and whether or not impeachment requires an indictable criminal offense remains irrelevant to this day according to one interpretation of the impeachment clause. The nonpartisan point was obvious: Senator Blount was privately scheming, apparently for his personal profit, to engage in activities that might embarrass the nation and provoke a bloody war with a world power.

Certain persons who had the duty to judge Blount's conduct had framed the Constitution - they were familiar with "the intent of the framers." Blount appeared to be guilty as sin of malfeasance in office. Since his perceived misconduct seemed to pose an immediate threat to the existence of the infant nation, the congressmen did not immediately proceed to quibble over the definition of "office," but set about employing their powers to expell Blount from the Senate forthwith, then to uncover and defeat the conspiracy and to make sure Blount could not return to office - ever popular in Tennessee, Blount would have been re-elected to the Senate short of impeachment.

This was not the first time William Blount had been accused of malfeasance in office, nor was the Carey letter the sole cause for congressmen to fear so much for their nation's safety. They knew the author of the letter quite well. He was a powerful and clever man. He had cut his teeth on the mercantile business of his father in North Carolina. He had served the nation as a merchant-soldier during the Revolution. His public duties then as a paymaster gave him immediate access to crucial information and vital commercial facilities, and dovetailed with his private pursuits - to his credit after he become a U.S. Senator, he kept his business separate from politics and voted against his private interest.

The wartime economy was an unusual opportunity for shrewd, well-placed speculators: races and creeds clashed; mobs were pillaging; Tories and Whigs were making savage raids; inflation was soaring over floods of depreciated paper; finished goods were in short supply. Meanwhile, paymaster Blount, having official access to goods and warehouses, procured and disposed of supplies; issued warrants to pay the soldiers; speculated on paper and real estate; mastered currency trading and the like. He handsomely profited by his salary, private trading in goods and currencies, and paying off Loyalist debts with depreciated currency. Furthermore, in the Camden disaster of August 16, 1780, he somehow managed to lose $300,000 of the payroll. In any case, his business methods were not greatly appreciated by persons who got the short end of the stick. Thomas Hart's facetious letter to Blount, dated January 25, 1780, is a bitterly made case on point:

"I have (Once more) Sendt a waggon and two Hhds tobe your place, and what will you send me in Return, I Suppose as half Bushl Salt, or Galls of Rum for a 100wt Tobe, Something like this, I make no doubt, - What a Sett of Atheistical fellows must there be in Newbern that thinks there is Neither God nor Devil to punish them in a Nother World, for their usury to us in this, I must send down Debow Once more to preach up the Doctrine of Regeneration or the New Birth to you, for If there ever was a Sett of men on the face of this Globe, who stood more in need of being Regenerated, and Born anew, I wonder trully how many poor Sons of Bitches with tears in their Eyes have I Seen with these Six weeks past, Coming from your place. Some with 5 or 6 Bushls Salt in their waggons, Some [with?] 8 or 10 Galls of Rum, and others with Cargoes [or less?] Value, all declaring themselves Broken [miserably] but None of them without a Good Store of [curses which] they bestow (with a very Liberal hand) on the Good folks of Newbern... can you expect to thrive Under the Heavy Curses of the Rightious folks of this Country, had Not you better try to do Something that may entitle you to Our Blessing. Instead of Our Curses, come do (for Godsake) begin with me, and let us See what you can do...." (sic)

Blount entered politics after the war - in 1780 at age 31- becoming New Bern's representative to North Carolina's House of Commons. As one of several self-interested speculator-legislators, he devised and pushed through legislation to grant certain 'unclaimed' Tennessee land over the mountains to North Carolina veterans. The soldiers needed money more than the distant land. Blount and his fellow speculator-legislators were kind enough to buy the land from the veterans with an issue of brand new money they had legislated for that very purpose - the affair was dubbed The Land Grab of '83. Then Blount sponsored legislation to have the Western land ceded to the federal government, hoping that would serve to secure the land grants - the cession did not take place until 1790. At the same time, Blount was involved in an effort to secure a big chunk of the prime real estate of East Tennessee and have it recognized as the State of Franklin - Benjamin Franklin gave it his blessing but declined the invitation to move there due to reasons of advanced age.

Blount was re-elected to the North Carolina legislature in 1784. He briefly served in the Continental Congress in 1785, then returned to North Carolina. In 1790, President Washington appointed him Governor of and Superintendent of Indian Affairs of the Territory of the United States South of the Ohio. The appointment gave him ample opportunity to deal in vast tracts of land, including tracts rightfully belonging to the Indians.

Blount and his fellow schemers wanted to secure a U.S. route to the Gulf of Mexico - Spain had possession of the Mississippi and New Orleans. They figured The Bend - the great southern bend of the Tennessee River - and further on by river and land to the Gulf would serve the purpose nicely. The spectre of possible Spanish attacks was raised to scare off the competition and drum up patriotic support. The possibility of enormous profits was vaunted to obtain financing - a Mennonite company already wanted to buy some land in the Bend. It was necessary to deal, first of all, with South Carolina, and then to buy off the Georgia legislature to gain legitimate access to the vast tracts of land. A commission was set up to manage the land - the commission also had the power to grant warrants on the land. Some of the official land commissioners were, quite naturally, also members of the private Bend of Tennessee Company. We can easily guess who he mastermind was; none other than William Blount.

On May 31, 1784, Blount sent an excerpt from the Mennonite community's offer to purchase Bend lands, to his partners - North Carolina land commissioners John Donelson, Joseph Martin, and John Sevier - along with his letter stating that the North Carolina cession of lands to Congress would boost the value of the land. He further advised them as follows:

".... If you should think proper to open the .... [land office] to grant Warrants at 1/8 of a dollar per Acre enter as much as you can and make use of any Names fictitious ones will do I suppose, If not you may use the Names of Blount, WIlliam Johnson Allen, Winnan, Ogden and almost any other Name you please ading such Christian Names to them as You please and You need not fear but I can find the People to transfer their Rights to the Company.... May it not be good Policy [to] set some new Scheme on foot in Partnership with the Gentlemen of Georgia to make futher Purchases over the Tenesee or on the Missisippi in on down near the Natches for they must if possible be fixed with a thirst for back lands to effect which no Pains must be spared...."

On the same day, Blount wrote to Georgia commissioners James McIntosh, Stephen Heard, John Morrell and William Downes:

".... The Object of the Tenesee Company in purchasing the Bend and (I suppose) your's in Accepting the appointment as commissioners must have been the same, I mean private Emolument and in Order that we may both obtain our purposes it is Necessary, We should understand eath Other and that our Acts should tend to our mutual advantage.... You have power, to make the company such, compensation as may be deemed Adequate and satisfactory. No Bond nor no Oath has been required nor no Instructions, given you... and if you accede to my Proposition of our Interest being the same you will have a share of your own liberty..... Such Another oppertunity may never present itself of Making a Spec and there's an old Proverb which says "make Hay while the sun shines," of which I wish you to be mindfull.... I wish you an agreeable Journey and greate Choice and Great plenty of Cheekamagga Squaws." (sic)

William Blount soon led the fight for the admission of Tennessee to the Union. Once Tennessee became a state, Blount, the Federalist-appointed territorial governor, would no longer be beholden to the Federalists in Philadelphia, nor would other Tennesseans for that matter. Wherefore the Federalists tried to prevent Tennessee Senators Blount and Cocke from taking their Senate seats. Blount, who had once been a moderate if not a conservative, was now a confirmed Republican (democrat), and so were the rest of the conservative holdouts in liberal Tennessee - they were embittered by the Federalist obstruction to their ambitions.

Blount was not as popular in Tennessee as the famed John Sevier, his longtime ally, but he was popular enough, especially to the settlers who had due cause to appreciate his land deals and to despise the Federalist government. Blount had a reputation for getting things done by disreputable means. All of the above was not lost on his fellow senators when they expelled him and proceeded to try him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

As for crooked conduct, Blount was not the only great person to resort to deceitful business and political methods - we need not name other Names here since many several qualified academics are busy taking the shine off our historical idols as we speak. Today the name William Blount is barely known by U.S. citizens outside of Tennessee. History buffs remember him as the ignominious Senator who was impeached by the House, jumped bail and fled on horseback - the esteemed senators eventually decided that senators could not be impeached.

Blount deserves considerable credit for being the founding father of the State of Tennessee. But the state was just one of his deals. William Blount was a pioneer wheeler-dealer, perhaps one of the greatest wheeler-dealers America has ever known. I suppose somebody had to do what he did, else we would not be here, nor would the United States of America as we know it.

Peronsal Note: I utilized numerous sources for this article. The best popular source available is William Blount, by William H. Masterson, Baton Rouge: Lousiana State Press 1954. Masterson had access to the Blount papers: the letters above are quoted in his book.

Partial Justice

2004-08-11T14:33:00.000-07:00

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will you place your left hand on the Bible, and raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. I do.

At this time I will administer the oath to all Senators in the Chamber in conformance with Article I, section 3, clause 6, of the Constitution and the Senate's impeachment rules.

Will all Senators now stand and raise your right hand.

SENATORS. I do.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will call the names and record the responses.

The legislative clerk called the roll, and the Senators present answered `I do' and signed the Official Oath Book.

We might expect Senators to render impartial justice and render that justice according to some sort of uniform law during impeachment trials, even though they are not, technically speaking, jurors.

Senator Tom Harkin, during the impeachment trial of President Clinton, moved that the House Managers be barred from referring to the senators as "jurors." He argued that the senators' actions were "exculpatory." Chief Justice Rehnquist, presiding, agreed.

Of course the senator meant that senators should be without formal guilt or blame even if their verdict is contrary to the evidence presented to them at trial. President Clinton was obviously guilty of lying under oath, an indictable felony under criminal law, as well as, at least according to the House of Representative, an impeachable offense that should result in removal from office if proved before the Senate.

If a man were acquitted of the charge of murder by jurors who believed that the facts proved the man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict might hold yet the presiding judge would hardly say that the misconduct was exculpatory - in fact such conduct (jury nullification) is contrary to express instructions setting forth the duties of jurors. We are left to suppose that an impeachment case is not a criminal or a quasi-criminal case but is a political case and therefore subject to the vagaries of partisan prejudice instead of the security of impartial justice according to uniform law. For if some of the senators who sat as judges/jurors in impeachment cases had been judges or jurors in criminal cases, truly bound by oath do impartial justice under the law in the sense arrived at by decades of constant judicial criticism and discipline, many of them would have been held in contempt and removed from bench or panel given their conduct.

For instance, Senator Tom Harkin, before the evidence was presented to the Senate and the arguments were made at trial, proclaimed that the charges against President Clinton to be "a pile of dung." And, among other things, Senator Harkin stepped out of a closed session during the trial and gave the media a public reading of a statement he had made before the Senate. That statement, broadcasted on several cable TV channels, denounced the Starr investigation and House impeachment vote as a "political vendetta" and called the House managers' case against Clinton "counterfeit."

Tom Harkin, to say the least, was not impartial, and he obviously did not believe he was bound to do impartial justice under law except to the extent that he interpreted impeachment law as giving him and his colleagues arbitrary power to decide the fate of impeached officers.

We have precedents dissenting from that view. Senator John Quincy Adams participated in the impeachment trial of Revolutionary hero and Federalist Judge Samuel Chase, who was acquitted because it was determined that he was not guilty of an impeachable offense, thus identifying criminal indictments with political impeachments. Judge Chase had been much too keen on prosecuting the Alien and Sedition laws according to his arbitrary intepretation of English common law; and he liked to spout off from the bench against Jefferson's 'Jacobin' faction. Senator Adams, unlike several other senators, believed that as a senator he was as ethically reponsible and as bound by customary legal procedure as a judge. He certainly would not call an undecided case before him a "pile of dung." What he did say in that case was very little: "I feel the obligation of absolute silence upon pen and tongue."

John Quincy Adams was involved in an prior impeachment trial, that of Federalist Judge John Pickering. In that trial Senator Adams dissented against something we recently observed in the impeachment of President Clinton. Senator Charles E. Schumer was a U.S. representative before becoming a senator and participating in the impeachment trial - he voted for acquittal. In fact, Schumer sat on the House impeachment committee - a sort of political grand jury - that had inquired into the Clinton affair. 'Grand Juror' Schumer opposed the impeachment; the articles were brought before the House, nevertheless, and the House voted to impeach the president. Then Schumer changed hats and sat as a judge/juror at the impeachment trial. One might think that such conduct although constitutional might be reprehensible. We can be certain that defendants in criminal trials would like their defense lawyers to be their grand jurors and judges. But let's turn to precendent:

At the outset of the impeachment trial of Judge John Pickering, certain distinguished senators actually believed that, in cases of impeachment, they were faced with a high judicial mission instead of an opportunity to participate in a partisan political farce. Thomas Jefferson's Republicans were using impeachment as a tool to remove Federalist judges from the bench. Still, President Jefferson had a good nonpartisan reason for bringing the Pickering matter to the House on February 3, 1803: the poor judge was insane. Yes, he had used profane language on the bench, he had cussed out the Republicans, he had been drunk in court, but up to the time of his mental collapse he had performed tolerably well and his character, said his friends and acquaintances, was exemplary. His attendance had been somewhat irregular while on the federal circuit court: he had an irrational phobia of crossing rivers and had isolated himself from time to time; but once on the district court he was reliable enough. After his nervous breakdown, a circuit judge filled in for him in federal district court; but when the Jefferson administration abolished the federal circuit court, Judge Pickering had to return to his duties; alas, he was incompetent to the task. The House Republicans rushed to impeachment with contumacious articles charging Pickering with "loose morals and intemperate habits" and "conduct disgraceful to his own character as judge and degrading to the honor and dignity of the United States."

Judge Pickering did not answer a summons to appear at the Senate impeachment trial. The judge was insane, someone argued, hence it would be impossible to convict him. The Republicans, however, proceeded to try the defendant on the basis of the one-sided evidence on hand. During the course of the trial, Senator John Quincy Adams brought a motion to exclude from the trial those senators who had served as representatives in the impeachment proceedings below.

"It is improper and very indelicate that judges who have given an opinion in a particular case should afterwards sit in judgement in that case," said Senator Adams. A rebuttal was offered and accepted, that the Senate is not a jury in impeachment cases. The trial proceeded, whereupon Senator White denounced the entire proceedings as a "Mock-trial."

Senator Nichols indignantly responded, "Order! Order! Order! I will not submit to our proceedings called by the degrading name of a Mock-trial."

Senator Adams then insisted that he would speak out against the proceedings "until my mouth is stopped force."

"I did say," retorted Senator White, "and I again repeat it, our proceedings upon this impeachment are not evidence of a regular trial - they are wholly unlike it - a mere mock trial. If the gentleman (Senator Nicholas) is offended... I am willing and ready to give him satisfaction at any time and place he will please to name...."

Judge John Pickering, unfairly disgraced, was removed from the bench by the Senate on March 12, 1804. He died shortly thereafter.

Exculpatory

2004-08-02T15:03:00.000-07:00

U.S. senators in cases of impeachment generally consider themselves as jacks of several legal trades: each one is at once judge, jury member, prosecutor, and defense attorney. And they would each and all be excused from being fully accountable for the exercise of the ordinary responsibilities of any particular office.

When Senator Tom Harkin objected during the impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton that the senators sitting as a High Court of Impeachment should not be referred to by the House Managers as "jurors," his intention was made clear to lawyers by his use of the term "exculpatory," which means, “Clearing or tending to clear from alleged fault or guilt; excusing.” (Black’s Law Dictionary)

The alleged fault Senator Harkin intended to excuse was jury nullification - to knowingly acquit a guilty person. “A jury in criminal case possesses de facto power of ‘nullification,’ to acquit defendant regardless of strength of evidence against him.” (Cargill v. State, 255 Ga. 616) Chief Justice William Rehnquist, presiding over the impeachment trial, ruled in favor of Senator Harkin's unusual motion.

Despite explicit instructions from judges to the contrary, ordinary juries in the United States knowingly albeit sparingly acquit guilty persons. On the prosecutorial side, grand jurors have fired prosecutors and run amok, conducting their own investigations as a "runaway grand jury." Indeed, it is a traditional practice of American jurors to occasionally defy judges, disregarding incriminating facts and taking exceptions to the law. American jurors resented the English practice, derived from the old days when juries were virtual organs of the King's court - if jurors returned a wrong or unwanted verdict, they might themselves be imprisoned for perjury - for violating their oath as jurors.

Now President Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury, an indictable offense in criminal courts, but the quasi-judicial, impeachment trial was undoubtedly a political farce. The President was acquitted because his fault was not deemed a threat to the well being of the political state. However that may be, Senator Harkin's motion was superfluous: in cases of impeachment, U.S. senators, as ultimate arbiters, enjoy prerogatives similar to those arrogated by aristocrats and legally exercised by nobles in the British House of Lords. Senators may make exceptions to rules and not be held accountable; their verdicts may not be set aside; indeed, almost anything they do under their oath as jurors before the Lord is as exculpable as the Lord’s deeds.

Of course the main fault to be exculpated during an impeachment trial occurs when the senators raise themselves above the law and the facts, and from that arbitrary position aloft fail to render impartial judgment according to law, as every juror or judge is bound to do under the rule of law instead of men. The fault is a most egregious one; for, at least in the United States of America, where it is said that the People are sovereign, and not Kings, Lords and Judges, and that all people are equal under the law, there is no higher public good in a free society than the absolutely faithful practice of the rule of law.
Notwithstanding such democratic abstractions, people are in reality governed by a few men and women who control the rule of law and its ceremonial application; nonetheless, legal impediments to the arbitrary exercise of power exist and should not be ignored lest violent consequences ensue. In cases of impeachment, it would be reasonable to expect, even though the impeachment process is widely regarded as a non-criminal, political farce, that the proceedings would be conducted according to a certain rule of law instead of the rule of senators.

Senator Harkin cited the impeachment clause - "The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury" - as the constitutional basis for his objection to the identification of senators as jurors. He further supported his motion for exculpation by citing certain clauses of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist writings, clauses he construed to imply that he and his fellow senators had authority beyond triers of fact and law; to wit, that they had the ultimate, constitutional authority to decide what is good for the 'People.' Senator Harkin was remiss in not quoting, in support of his motion, one of James Madison's letters to Jefferson, stating that he, Madison, unlike Jefferson - who favored impeachment trial by juries- had been present during the constitutional debate and therefore knew the framers did not intend impeachments to be tried by juries.

Hamilton's argument against juried impeachment trials illustrates his own intentions if not that of the Framers at large. He insisted on "the necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments," arguing that "the awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honour or infamy the most confidential and most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons." Hamilton believed a small jury would be too narrow-minded and too easily subjected to intimidation.

Hamilton did not explicitly rule out the Senate sitting as a large jury. It is safe to assume that fifty jurors might be broader-minded and less subject to intimidation that twelve jurors. Hamilton did refer to "the judicial character of the senate," and stated that the Senate is "the most fit depository of this important trust," such character being "the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of public scrutiny," which would protect them and the nation from "the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives."

And that, he wrote, is why there is an "assigning to one house [Representatives] the right of accusing, to the other [Senate] the right of judging." The Senate, which is virtually the vestige of the House of Lords and the ancient King's Court, is a much smaller body than the House of Representatives, yet it larger than a jury of twelve peers. Our personal view is that a separate, independent Grand Jury, capable of appointing its own prosecutors, should sit year round and constantly conduct inquisitions into criminal conduct in high offices and render the appropriate indictments.

But why not try cases of impeachment in the Supreme Court? Because the accused is constitutionally subject to double jeopardy: an officer convicted in the Senate can also be indicted and tried in the criminal courts; their decisions, in turn, are subject to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be unfair for the same branch of government, the Judiciary, to try both cases. However, Hamilton speculated on a possible combination of the Senate and Supreme Court. And now there exists a partial combination - the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over impeachment trials in the Senate. Hamilton also discussed the notion of a completely independent court of impeachments, but reasoned that such a court would be impractical given the circumstances at the time.

Hamilton seems to feel that impeachment trials are criminal trials over which the Senate has jurisdiction. However, he understood very well that the crimes tried would be political crimes inasmuch as they are offenses "which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse of violation of some public trust.... The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide into parties."

Of course every crime is a "political crime", in the broadest sense that all crimes offend the public, wherefore the state responds on behalf of the public with the prosecution of the offender. Crimes committed by persons of high authority might under that definition be called high crimes; even relatively minor crimes would have effects far broader and perhaps more severe consequences on the whole than serious crimes committed by ordinary persons. Yet under criminal law all offenders should be treated equally. A better definition of "political crime” might be more suitable, a definition that would include under political crimes "high crimes and misdemeanors" that present a clear and present danger to the existence of the state. There has been considerable controversy on the definition of 'crimes', in the clause 'high crimes and misdemeanors', ever since the first impeachment, of Senator William Blount, a prototypical American wheeler-dealer whose real estate speculations landed him in murky water.

Senator Blount, we recall, skipped bond and fled back to Tennessee on horseback. He was a hero in Tennessee, but the northern public was outraged. The impeachment trial proceeded in his absence. Several parties to the sometimes-brilliant debate in Congress were framers of the constitution. The senators conveniently determined that senators are not officers subject to impeachment. In fact they were far more interested in the Federalist versus Republican (Democrat) disputes over liberal and strict construction of the Constitution than in the fate William Blount. His impeachment, for instance, raised and put to rest the question of impeachment juries, rejecting the concept impractical for the Senate and probably unconstitutional as well. But the issue of indictable criminality was not settled.

As Vice President, Jefferson was president of the Senate during the Blount Affair. He researched the laws of impeachment and determined that, at least in his opinion, in order to be impeached, a man must be charged with an indictable offense. On January 27, 1798, Jefferson wrote to Senator Tazewell, an outstanding jurist who debated the issue during the Blount impeachment: "In Law-language the term crime is in common use applied to misdemeanors, and that impeachments, even when for misdemeanors only are criminal prosecutions."

Having closely observing the proceedings, Jefferson said Senator Blount had done anything wrong, and subsequently concluded that impeachment "is a farce which will not be tried again." In a letter to James Madison dated February 15, 1798, Jefferson wrote, "I see nothing in the model of proceeding by impeachment but the most formidable weapon for the purposes of a dominant faction that was every contrived.... I know of no solid purpose of punishment which the courts of law are not equal to, and history shows, that in England, impeachment has been an engine more of passion than justice."

Yet Jefferson himself eventually resorted to the farce, having it employed against certain Federalist judges who had denounced Jefferson's "Jacobin" principles from the bench. For instance, Judge Samuel Chase, rabble-rousing hero of the Revolution, took the bench and turned into a conservative tyrant, ostensibly to protect the gains made by the Revolution. In an effort to smother the growing independence of the Supreme Court in its crib, Jefferson pulled strings and had Judge Chase impeached. Chief Justice John Marshall was intimidated by the attack on the court: he suggested that it might be better to appeal undesirable Supreme Court rulings to the U.S. Senate instead of impeaching judges. That would have, ironically, moved the nation closer to the practice of the hated British system where the House of Lords served as the highest or supreme court and as trier of impeachments. Judge Chase was not convicted because it was held that he was not guilty of crimes. Jefferson's failure to suppress the Judiciary's independence with the impeachment "farce" failed; the early debate over whether the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of impeachment cases should be indictable offenses was, in a sense, the crucible in which the independence of the third branch was forged.

Not withstanding their leader's hypocrisy, in trying to rid the bench of judges because of their political affections, Jefferson's faction generally preferred their laws in writing. They would not be subject to the English common law, over which judges, particularly Federalist judges who retained certain sympathies for British culture, had so much arbitrary power. The democratic Republicans believed that all people should know exactly what conduct is illegal before they are charged with crimes - there must be no ex post facto or retroactive laws. It would seem that not only the lowest scoundrel but also even the President of the United States should know what is prohibited, and that high officers of the United States should know in advance exactly what conduct would subject him to impeach and trial in the Senate.

Today most authorities believe impeachments of a sitting president should require the commission of an indictable offense. But majority opinion changes with the wind. If the person one wants impeached did not commit an indictable offense, one might successfully argue that no such offense is necessary, that any sort of serious malfeasance in office is sufficient for impeachment, especially misconduct that allegedly endangers the safety of the nation. That is, if it behooves a lawyer to argue a criminal offense, he will do just that; but if a political offense will serve the purpose, he will proceed accordingly. He takes his pick: the law, or politics. Therefore the issue is never laid to rest, that both criminal and political offenses as grounds for impeachment remain arguable.

We might conclude from all this that impeachment proceedings should simply be a way of firing presidents and other high officers for serious misconduct in office.

The Chisholm-Romayne Scheme

2004-07-15T05:47:00.000-07:00

The Genet Scheme to grab the Spanish Plums for the United States set the precedent for the Chisholm-Romayne Scheme, but the Blount Conspiracy was far broader in scope than its precedents.

John Chisholm was a Spanish-hating ex-British soldier who had suffered imprisonment at the hands of the Spanish at Pensacola. He soon became a Knoxville tavern owner, a free lance Indian agent, and a soldier of fortune in want of U.S. citizenship - his citizenship petition for himself and his Loyalist friends was greeted coldly by Secretary of State McHenry and turned down. Chisholm served his client, William Blount, as handyman and Indian agent while Blount was the wheeling and dealing governor of the territory south of the Ohio - Blount's main concerns as real estate speculator and governor were his land deals and Indian affairs.

Chisholm the mercenary was not about to wait for American and British statesmen to form an alliance against Spain to make his fortune - the Federalists loved England but they did not want to entangle the fledgling United States in a war with Spain. A rumor out West had it that Spain would soon return New Orleans and the territory west of the Mississippi, which France had given to Spain in 1763, to France. Of course France was not bound by the U.S. treaty with Spain. It was feared that Napoleon would then close the Mississippi river to the Americans; therefore New Orleans would be better off in British hands, because the 1783 U.S. treaty with Britain guaranteed free navigation of the Mississippi. Chisholm conceived a scheme for an assault on East Florida, and proceeded to promote it with almost anyone who cared to listen, including the Indian interpreter James Carey, his old Loyalist friends and others on the frontier; and with British minister John Liston. In fine: Chisholm and his ex-Loyalist friends would enlist Indian allies and lead the attack on Spanish Florida; the British would supply provisions and a privateer.

Senator William Blount of Tennessee, patriot of the Revolution, wheeler-dealer and real estate speculator, the first person impeached and tried by Congress, loved Chisholm's scheme for what it was worth, and that was not a lot in comparison to his own grand plan. Indeed, he called the Chisholm part of the so-called Chisholm-Romayne scheme a "petty enterprise" because the big Spanish plum, which Chisholm had relished in conference with his real-estate speculating partner up North, Dr. Nicholas Romayne, was not Spanish Florida, but was Spanish Louisiana, and that was what Blount would have.

The American real-estate bubble burst: prices tumbled; paper was presented; debtor's prison loomed. Dr. Romayne went to England and tried to dump some of the vast Western tracts on British investors; he reported back to Blount that the Western land was considered worthless in England for fear, of course, that Spain, to establish a firm barrier for her possessions further south, would cede Louisiana to France. The doctor's enthusiasm for the conspiracy to set things right would eventually wane, and he would pen a letter to Blount renouncing the plan because of France's successes in the war and the related growth of England's financial burdens.

The details of the Chisholm-Romayne Scheme were probably never worked out. Generally speaking, the British would cooperate in a three-pronged attack on the Northwest (via Canada) and on Pensacola and New Orleans. We do know that Blount discussed Chisholm's plan with Dr. Romayne. The doctor did not like Chisholm's involvement - the mercenary was too disreputable for his taste. And Chisholm was no fool: he realized that he might be shoved aside by Dr. Romayne, hence he was not very cooperative once he knew of his involvement. In fact, he sounded out Aaron Burr in hopes of enlisting him into the scheme.

We do not know if Burr bought into the Blount’s own conspiracy. Burr and Blount were friends, and Blount had been seen dining with one James Wilkerson, who was at the heart of the later Burr scheme and who had taken part in a yet earlier plot, an alternate to Genet's plot, the original plot to seize the Spanish Plums - Wilkerson would have had to ally himself with Spain given the political climate at the time. Thomas Jefferson had also been seen with the "wrong" people - Abigail Adams would wish the guillotine were applied to the likes of Jefferson and Blount. It was a small world, after all, and the Anglo-Saxons had much in common; they wanted much more; to wit, access to the Gulf, Florida, Louisiana, and so on. And the Anglo-Celts disliked not only the Spanish and Native Americans but the Brits as well. Of course the visionary Thomas Jefferson coveted the Mississippi and beyond. He pardoned Wilkerson for his, earlier plot, one far more treasonable plot than Blount's or Burr's, yet he persecuted Burr for a similar yet lesser plot than Blount's. In fact, Vice-President Jefferson would preside over the impeachment of Senator Blount - Jefferson remarked in a personal letter that he thought Blount had done nothing wrong.

The Blount Conspiracy had intrigued British Minister Liston, for Britain was at the time contemplating an attack on Spain in America. When the conspiracy came to light, Liston would admit that he had spoken to someone about some sort of scheme, but he denied that he was keen on it. He had formerly been interested enough in Chisholm's proposal, however, to provide him with passage to England: Chisholm's efforts there were for naught - he was turned down flat; thereafter a deluded Brit accused him of plotting with Spain.

An argument presented against the impeachment of Senator Blount for high crimes and misdemeanors in regards to his own land-grabbing scheme out West was that the House impeachment (political indictment) had been brought solely on the basis of Blount's letter to his Indian interpreter, James Carey. Blount had risked writing the soon-to-be notorious letter because he had been called to a special session of Congress and could not communicate his wishes directly. In that letter, Blount made references to participants in schemes broader than the customary cheating of Indians out of their land; for instance, the Chisholm-Romayne scheme to seize the Spanish plums. This time the cheating of Indians would be at Holston.

Blount's defenders argued that there cannot be a conspiracy without co-conspirators capable of carrying it out; in this case, the British, who purportedly did not actually conspire to carry out the attacks proposed. The Federalists were in fact embarrassed by the probability, no matter how slim it might be, of British involvement, for that would implicate the Federalists if not the opposing Republican fraction. Therefore President Adams was advised to keep the whole thing quiet; but he dared not do so, lest the cover up be uncovered and his party defamed by the conclusions which might then be drawn about what went on under the sheets.

The Carey letter was not the only evidence brought to light during the impeachment proceedings, but it was considered sufficient evidence for a quick impeachment. The Congressmen on all sides were rightly concerned for the future of the United States, which seemed to be presently endangered by the misconduct of one of its senators - whether that misconduct was indictable as a criminal offense was not relevant at the moment. Senator Blount had been expelled, but he might be elected again given the fact that he was extremely popular in Tennessee. Conviction at an impeachment trial would disqualify him from office; however, even that was not the chief concern at the time: an investigation must be conducted at once to address what was perceived as a clear and present danger to the United States; and the impeachment committee, the House managers, and the senators serving as inquisitors, judges and jurors for the highest court in the land - in cases of impeachment - did just that. When they realized there really was no threat, the impeachment trial was put on the back burner for the political squabbling that would eventually set precedents for future impeachments. There was no pressing need to wrangle over whether or not the British were in fact conspiring with Blount et al. Many of those involved in the debates certainly knew what "the framers intended," for they had participated in the framing. William Blount should have known, for he was one of the signers of the United States Constitution.

The Real Estate Crash

2004-07-07T10:32:00.000-07:00

Blount, in his former capacity as Governor of the Southern District, was too beholden to the Federalists who had appointed him, hence he led a crusade to bring statehood to Tennessee in order to save himself and like-minded Tennesseans from Federalist domination. The regional demands for statehood after the Revolution, which if met would provide independence from the federal government, alarmed the Federalists - too many states would rock the Federalist boat and water down its stock.

After Blount achieved statehood for Tennessee and took his Senate seat, he was politcally a Republican (i.e. democrat) through and through. As for business, business is business, and sometimes the good of private business conflicts with publicly held political persuasions. Senator Blount the real estate speculator was facing financial ruin. That alone gave him due cause to side with the British where his own business was concerned. On the other hand, he faithfully sided with the French in the political arena.

Blount and his fellow speculative patriots had their eyes on the Spanish plums in America: Florida and Louisiana. His Majesty of Spain had allied himself with France against England. The American speculators feared that Spain would concede the plums they sorely wanted to France in return for protection; that would spell disaster for the financial plans of Blount et al.

The most convenient solution: make a deal privately with England to grab the plums from Spain. The scheme: American settlers could get together with some Indian allies; backed up by British privateers, they would occupy the coveted lands. Such an alliance with the British would be in accord with the Anglo-American proclivities of most of the Southerners involved. Not that any affection for the British would preclude an alliance with Spain if it were convenient. William Blount, Andrew Jackson, and John Sevier among others had already participated in or condoned a flirtation with the Spanish governor of Louisiana, Esteban Miro, in a previous scheme (the Daniel Smith affair) that would have separated the District of Mero - prime real estate in the middle of the Cumberland region- from North Carolina and handed it over to Spanish Louisiana, that "the West be one people." But that deal had fallen through; this was now, and the speculators were in an awful fix now that values were plummeting and notes were being called in. So to hell with Spain.

William Blount was on the hook for a million acres in 1796. He was involved in his brother John Gray Blount's deals for another million and six hundred thousand acres. Prices in 1795 were around a quarter per acre for large tracts of two or more million acres. War ensued between Britain and Spain in October of 1796 - Spain was probably about to hand Florida and Louisiana over to France. In Tennessee, it appeared that the Federalists would draw the Holston line fairly - as the Cherokees had expected to begin with. Land values out West dropped to a dime an acre when credit collapsed. The dominoes tumbled one after another. Andrew Jackson was deeply indebted. David Allison, a wealthy easterner whose I.O.U. was once as good as gold, and who was one of Blount's partners in Indian land deals, wound up in debtor's prison. Senator Blount was virtually bankrupt; fortunately, his senatorial immunity saved him from debtor's prison.

Surely something must be done or all would be lost as far as the troubled real estate speculators were concerned. Help from the federal government would not be forthcoming if asked for: the Federalists were behaving diplomatically, hoping that the fledgling United States would not be strangled in its crib by foreign entanglements. An "incriminating" letter in Senator Blount's hand came to light, and the question as to whether or not his conduct rose to a high crime or misdemeanor for which impeachment arose and was quickly answered in the affirmative.

1791 Holston Treaty

2004-07-06T09:48:00.000-07:00

A Treaty of Peace and; Friendship made and concluded between the President of the United States of America, on the Part and Behalf of the said States, and the undersigned Chiefs and Warriors, of the Cherokee Nation of Indians, on the part aide Behalf of the said Nation.

The parties being desirous of establishing permanent peace and friendship between the United States and the said Cherokee Nation, and the citizens and members thereof, and to remove the causes of war, by ascertaining their limits and making other necessary, just and friendly arrangements: The President of the United States, by William Blount, Governor of the territory of the United States of America, south of the river Ohio, and Superintendant of Indian affairs for the southern district, who is vested with full powers for these purposes, by and with-the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States. And the Cherokee Nation, by the undersigned Chiefs and Warriors representing the said nation, have agreed to the following articles, namely:

ARTICLE I.

There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between all the citizens of the United States of America, and all the individuals composing the whole Cherokee nation of Indians.

ARTICLE II.

The undersigned Chiefs and Warriors, for themselves and all parts of the Cherokee nation do acknowledge themselves and the said Cherokee nation, to be under the protection of the said United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever; and they also stipulate that the said Cherokee nation will not hold any treaty with any foreign power, individual state, or with individuals of any state.

ARTICLE III.

The Cherokee nation shall deliver to the Governor of the territory of the United States of America, south of the river Ohio, on or before the first day of April next, at this place, all persons who are now prisoners, captured by them from any part of the United States: And the United States shall on or before the same day, and at the same place, restore to the Cherokees, all the prisoners now in captivity, which the citizens of the United States have captured from them.

ARTICLE IV.

The boundary between the citizens of the United States and the Cherokee nation, is and shall be as follows: Beginning at the top of the Currahee mountain, where the Creek line passes it; thence a direct line to Tugelo river; thence northeast to the Occunna mountain, and over the same along the South-Carolina Indian boundary to the North-Carolina boundary; thence north to a point from which a line is to be extended to the river Clinch, that shall pass the Holston at the ridge which divides the waters running into Little River from those running into the Tennessee; thence up the river Clinch to Campbell's line, and along the same to the top of Cumberland mountain; thence a direct line to the Cumberland river where the Kentucky road crosses it; thence down the Cumberland river to a point from which a south west line will strike the ridge which divides the waters of Cumberland from those of Duck river, forty miles above Nashville; thence down the said ridge to a point from whence a south west line will strike the mouth of Duck river.

And in order to preclude forever all disputes relative to the said boundary, the same shall be ascertained, and marked plainly by three persons appointed on the part of the United States, and three Cherokees on the part of their nation.

And in order to extinguish forever all claims of the Cherokee nation, or any part thereof, to any of the land lying to the right of the line above described. beginning as aforesaid at the Currahee mountain, it is hereby agreed, that in addition to the consideration heretofore made for the said land, the United States will cause certain valuable goods, to be immediately delivered to the undersigned Chiefs and Warriors, for the use of their nation; and the said United States will also cause the sum of one thousand dollars to be paid annually to the said Cherokee nation. And the undersigned Chiefs and Warriors, do hereby for themselves and the whole Cherokee nation, their heirs and descendants, for the considerations above-mentioned, release, quit-claim, relinquish and cede, all the land to the right of the line described, and beginning as aforesaid.

ARTICLE V.

It is stipulated and agreed, that the citizens and inhabitants of the United States, shall have a free and unmolested use of a road from Washington district to Mero district, and of the navigation of the Tennessee river.

ARTICLE VI.

It is agreed on the part of the Cherokees, that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating their trade.

ARTICLE VII.

The United States solemnly guarantee to the Cherokee nation, all their lands not hereby ceded.

ARTICLE VIII.

If any citizen of the United States, or other person not being an Indian, shall settle on any of the Cherokees' lands, such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Cherokees may punish him or not, as they please.

ARTICLE IX.

No citizen or inhabitant of the United States, shall attempt to hunt or destroy the game on the lands of the Cherokees; nor shall any citizen or inhabitant go into the Cherokee country, without a passport first obtained from the Governor of some one of the United States, or territorial districts, or such other person as the President of the United States may from time to time authorize to grant the same.

ARTICLE X.

If any Cherokee Indian or Indians, or person residing among them, or who shall take refuge in their nation, shall steal a horse from, or commit a robbery or murder, or other capital crime, on any citizens or inhabitants of the United States, the Cherokee nation shall be bound to deliver him or them up, to be punished according to the laws of the United States.

ARTICLE XI.

If any citizen or inhabitant of the United States, or of either of the territorial districts of the United States, shall go into any town, settlement or territory belonging to the Cherokees, and shall there commit any crime upon, or trespass against the person or property of any peaceable and friendly Indian or Indians, which if committed within the jurisdiction of any state, or within the jurisdiction of either of the said districts, against a citizen or white inhabitant thereof, would be punishable by the laws of such state or district, such offender or offenders, shall be subject to the same punishment, and shall be proceeded against in the same manner as if the of fence had been committed within the jurisdiction of the state or district to which he or they may belong against a citizen or white inhabitant thereof.

ARTICLE XII.

In case of violence on the persons or property of the individuals of either party, neither retaliation or reprisal shall be committed by the other, until satisfaction shall have been demanded of the party of which the aggressor is and shall have been refused.

ARTICLE XIII.

The Cherokees shall give notice to the citizens of the United States, of any designs which they may know, or suspect to be formed in any neighboring tribe, or by any person whatever, against the peace and interest of the United States.

ARTICLE XIV.

That the Cherokee nation may be led to a greater degree of civilization, and to become herdsmen and cultivators, instead of remaining in a state of hunters, the United States will from time to time furnish gratuitously the said nation with useful implements of husbandry, and further to assist the said nation in so desirable a pursuit, and at the same time to establish a certain mode of communication, the United States will send such, and so many persons to reside in said nation as they may judge proper, not exceeding four in number, who shall qualify themselves to act as interpreters. These persons shall have lands assigned by the Cherokees for cultivation for themselves and their successors in office; but they shall be precluded exercising any kind of traffic.

ARTICLE XV.

All animosities for past grievances shall henceforth cease, and the contracting parties will carry the foregoing treaty into full execution with all good faith and sincerity.

ARTICLE XVI.

This treaty shall take effect and be obligatory on the contracting parties as soon as the same shall have been ratified by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States. In witness of all and every thing herein determined between the

United States of America and the whole Cherokee nation, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals, at the treaty ground on the bank of the Holston, near the mouth of the French Broad, within the

United States, this second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one.

William Blount, governor in and over the territory of the United States of America south of the river Ohio, and superintendent of Indian Affairs for the southern district,
Chuleoah, or the Boots, his x mark,
Squollecuttah, or Hanging Maw, his x mark,
Oecunna,or the Badger,his x mark,
Enoleh, or Black Fox, his x mark,
Nontuaka, or the Northward, his x mark,
Tekakiska, his x mark
Chutloh, or King Fisher, his x mark,
Tuckaseh,orTerrapin,his x mark,
Kateh, his x mark
Kunnochatutloh, or the Crane, his x mark
Canquillehanah, or the Thigh, his x mark,
Chesquotteleneh, or Yellow Bird, his x mark,
Chickasawtehe, or Chickasaw Killer, his x mark,
Tuskegatehe, Tuskega Killer, his x mark,
Kulsatehe, his x mark,
Tinkshalene, his x mark
Sawntteh, or Slave Catcher, his x mark,
Auknah, his x mark
Oosenaleh, his x mark
Kenotetah, or Rising Fawn, his x mark,
Kanetetoka, or Standing Turkey, his x mark.
Yonewatleh, or Bear at Home, his x mark,
Long Will, his x mark
Kunoskeskie, or John Watts, his x mark,
Nenetooyah, or Bloody Fellow, his x mark,
Chuquilatague, or Double Head his x mark,
Koolaquah, or Big Acorn, his x mark
Too wayelloh, or Bold Hunter, his x mark
Jahleoonoyehka, or Middle Striker, his x mark,
Kinnesah, or Cabin, his x mark,
Tullotehe, or Two Killer, his x mark
Kaalouske, or Stopt Still, his x mark
Kulsatche, his x mark,
Auquotague, the Little Turkey's Son, his x mark,
Talohteske, or Upsetter, his x mark,
Cheakoneske, or Otter Lifter, his x mark
Keshukaune, or She Reigns, his x mark,
Toonaunailoh, his x mark,
Teesteke, or Common Disturber his x mark,
Robin McClemore
Skyuka
John Thompson, Interpreter.
James Cery, Interpreter.

Done in presence of-

Dan'l Smith, Secretary Territory United States south of the river Ohio
Thomas Kennedy, of Kentucky.
Jas. Robertson, of Mero District
Claiborne Watkins, of Virginia.
Jno. McWhitney, of Georgia.
Fauche, of Georgia.
Titus Ogden, North Carolina.
Jno. Chisolm, Washington District.
Robert King.
Thomas Gegg.

Additional Article To the Treaty made between the United States and the Cherokees on the second day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one.

IT is hereby mutually agreed between Henry Knox, Secretary of War, duly authorized thereto in behalf of the United States, on the one part, and the undersigned chiefs and warriors, in behalf of them selves and the Cherokee nation, on the other part, that the following article shall be added to and considered as part of the treaty made between the United States and the said Cherokee nation on the second day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; to wit:

The sum to be paid annually by the United States to the Cherokee nation of Indians, in consideration of the relinquishment of land, as stated in the treaty made with them on the second day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, shall be one thousand five hundred dollars instead of one thousand dollars, mentioned in the said treaty.

In testimony whereof, the said Henry Knox, Secretary of War, and the said chiefs and warriors of the Cherokee nation, have hereunto set their hands and seals, in the city of Philadelphia, this seventeenth day of February, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two.

H. Knox, Secretary of War,
Iskagua, or Clear Sky, his x mark (formerly Nenetooyah, or Bloody Fellow),
Nontuaka, or the Northward, his x mark,
Chutloh, or King Fisher, his x mark,
Katigoslah, or the Prince, his x mark,
Teesteke, or Common Disturber, his x mark,
Suaka, or George Miller, his x mark,

In presence of-
Thomas Grooter.
Jno. Stagg, Jr.
Leonard D. Shaw
James Cery, sworn intrepreter to the Cherokee Nation.

Source:
Indian Affairs : Laws and Treaties
Vol II (Treaties)
Compiled and Edited By Charles J. Kappler LL. M.
Clerk to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1904

Broken Trust

2004-07-06T09:11:00.000-07:00

Article III of the Articles of Impeachment against U.S. Senator William Blount mentions one Benjamin Hawkins:

"Wm. Blount, on or about the said twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, did, in the prosecution of criminal designs and of the conspiracies aforesaid, and the more effectually to accomplish his intention of exciting the Creek and Cherokee nations of Indians to commence hostilities against the subjects of His Catholic Majesty, further conspire and contrive to alienate and divert the confidence of the said Indian tribes or nations from the said Benjamin Hawkins, the principal temporary agent aforesaid, and to diminish, impair, and destroy the influence of the said Benjamin Hawkins with the said Indian tribes, and their friendly intercourse and understanding with him...."

Benjamin Hawkins, a staunch Federalist, was sympathetic to the Indian's claims in respect to the disputed boundary line, which was to be formally drawn pursuant to the old Treaty of Holston. William Blount and other real estate speculators, including Blount protege Andrew Jackson, were wheeling and dealing in large tracts of Indian land. The speculators and settlers involved in the transactions figured the Indians would eventually be run off their land - they were correct: Jackson would see to that.

William Blount effected the Treaty of Holston in 1791. The lands around Holston in East Tennessee were part of lands ceded by North Carolina to the United States some time after North Carolina had taken care of its Revolutionary War veterans and land speculators by virtue of the "Land Grab Act" of 1783 - legislation pushed through by William Blount and other speculators. About 4,000,000 acres of land were sold during the seven-month period that the land office was open, at a price of 10 pounds (about $5) per 100 acres, or a nickel an acre. Said lands were the basis of several large Tennessean fortunes.

The first cession to the federal government had been made in 1784, but it was repealed a few months later, shortly before a faction in East Tennessee had declared independence for a separate state - the State of Franklin. The Franklin delegates were not aware of the repeal when they declared independence; they insisted on their new state when they learned of it, stating that they had not deserted North Carolina, but that North Carolina had deserted them. North Carolina was somewhat divided on the issue; some protested the land grab, and said the Tennessee land over the mountains was inhabited by "fugitives from justice" and the "offscourings of the earth." Of course Blount was interested in Franklin, but he was opposed to the repeal of the first cession because he and other speculators figured that the federal government would protect the title to the lands which they had purchased pursuant to the Land Grab Act. Despite the resistance of its population, the State of Franklin soon became a "lost" state, and all was forgiven. North Carolina dubbed the region the District of Washington, and, to pacify the beasts, provided it with some autonomy. The State of Franklin's president, John Sevier, became brigadier general for the new district - he would later be governor of the State of Tennessee. The District of Washington got its own superior court judge, David Campbell; and William Blount and Richard Caswell would treat with the Cherokees; and so on.

Once the Tennessee lands were finally ceded to the federal government by North Carolina, in 1789, the chief obstacle to the realization of the vast fortunes contemplated by speculators was Indian land. North Carolina had claimed all the Tennessee land including Indian land during the Revolution, claiming that the Indians had forfeited their title to it when they cooperated with the British. But the United States government did not see it that way, and managed to set aside North Carolina's nullification of the Indian titles and provide that white men had no title to Indian lands until the Indians ceded same to the United States - as late as 1796, when Tennessee became a state, nearly three-fourths of the ceded area was still claimed by Cherokees and Chickasaws.

In 1790 William Blount became Indian Superintendent and Governor of "The Territory of the United States South of the Ohio River." The 1791 Treaty of Holston established what he would later call the "experimental line," when his greed moved him to fudge on the boundary line as originally imagined. The problem with the "experimental line" was that the Indians believed they would have possession of certain land which the State of Franklin had forced them to cede in the Treaty of Coyatee of 1786, land settled by whites, many of them Blount's tenants. Otherwise they had no objections - furthermore, the tribes confirmed the cession of the Cumberland area in the middle of Tennessee. Of course Blount wanted the experimental line to be actually drawn so that the disputed land be on the white side of the boundary. Hence he instructed James Carey, the interpreter on the scene, who had, incidentally, witnessed the original treaty, to claim that land for the whites, and to throw any blame onto President Washington in the event the Indians objected - Blount's letter to Carey, which he turned over to Blount's arch-enemy right away for forwarding to President Adams, was most incriminating, and led to Blount's expulsion from the Senate and his impeachment by the House of Representatives. Blount had feared that Bejamin Hawkins would have surveyors draw the line as the Indians expected, in which case Blount and his tenants would be at a substantial loss. Indeed, his worst fears came true, after the War Department ordered a correct line drawn in 1797. Blount urged his tenants, three-hundred families or so, to "protect" their "civil liberties" - troops were brought in and the squatters were removed forthwith.

Benjamin Hawkins, a conservative, proud, Southern aristocrat, was born in North Carolina to a wealthy father of English descent. Benjamin attended the College of New Jersey where he was in his senior year when General Washington recruited him as an interpreter to his French officers. Hawkins returned to North Carolina after the Revolution. In 1784 he was elected to the Congress of the Confederation, and was elected again in 1786-87. He was one of two North Carolina senators drawn by lot when the Constitution was adopted.

Hawkins served as an Indian commissioner as early as 1785. In 1786 Washington appointed him and two others to treat with the Creek confederacy. He accepted the post of Indian agent to the Creeks over strenuous objections from his family. Hawkins ignored their pleas and forsook an aristocratic life of relative ease for the sake of rendering public service in the midst of "untutored savages." The Creek domain over which Hawkins was agent was immense, and included Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

The Creeks enjoyed sixteen years of peace when Hawkins was agent. He brought his slaves down from his Roanoke plantation and set up a model farm to serve as an agricultural college for the Indians. They appreciated his kindness over the years, bestowing on him the title, "Beloved Man of the Four Nations." When the War of 1812 split the Creeks, Hawkins headed the friendly tribes, through half-breed chief William McIntosh. General Jackson crushed the Creeks and betrayed his Indian allies - enemies and friends alike were relocated, put out of the white man's way so that he could enjoy all the land for himself without fear of Indian "depredations" and Indian alliances with hostile European powers.

Benjamin Hawkins was so embittered by the broken trust that he was said to have died shortly thereafter, of a broken heart.

Genet and the Spanish Plums

2004-07-01T09:14:00.000-07:00

Edmund Charles Genet arrived at Charleston in 1793. The French diplomat's official mission was to obtain cash or credit to purchase supplies under the auspices of the 1778 Franco-U.S. alliance. He secretly wanted to give the United States due cause to make war on England, with whom Spain was allied at the time, wherefore he conspired to arm privateers and private armies to emancipate Spanish America and open up the Mississippi for Kentuckians. To that purpose one George Clark enrolled in the plot: he was to lead American frontiersman down from the backswoods and seize New Orleans, with the assistance of the French fleet.

The United States of America found itself in a ticklish situation as a fledgling nation at the time. Two great powers, France and Britain, shared North America with the United States. Spain, although weaker than the other two powers, and therefore motivated to ally herself with either one or the other, was not a power to be mocked or attacked by American backwoodsmen and their Native American allies. Furthermore, such an offense might rub one of the greater powers the wrong way.

President Washington and his virtual prime minister, Alexander Hamilton, both Federalists, distrusted Ambassador Genet when he arrived in '93. They did not want to alienate England - her culture and trade was greatly appreciated. Furthermore, they feared not only the excesses of the French Revolution but its republican (democratic) features as well, particularly the democratic principle of equality, which they perceived as a threat to the nation's institution of slavery. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson, son of the French Enlightenment and Republican leader of revolutionary French principles within the American Revolution, smiled on Genet for awhile, for Jefferson's vision of the Liberal Land was far greater than those who calculated that the U.S. had quite enough territory to chew on and digest. In fine, Jefferson coveted Spanish-American property, presumably with only the public interest in mind - he may have participated in a private conspiracy or two himself.

Genet's designs were exposed to President Washington; he, in turn, demanded Genet's recall. Incidentally, there was no chance that Genet's plot would be executed: there was no army of backwoodsmen, nor was there a French fleet to back them up. France agreed to recall Genet; since he did not want to lose his head in France, he managed to remain in the States, where he married George Clinton's daughter.

Congress enacted the Neutrality Act of 1794, drafted to prohibit persons within the jurisdiction of the United States from outfitting private ships and armies for the purpose of attacking states with whom the United States was as peace. Spain at the time possessed the political and commercial plums badly wanted by pioneers, real estate speculators,and politicians: Florida and Louisiana - the biggest prize, New Orleans, would open up the Mississippi for navigation. The Neutrality Act was intended as a temporary measure to discourage private parties from grabbing the Spanish plums without official sanction; the statute was extended in 1800 and thereafter - it remains on the books to this very day. Although the Genet conspiracy really did not amount to much, it fired the imaginations of people on the frontiers, inspiring William Blount's revival of the scheme, not to mention that of Aaron Burr.

The Neutrality Act of 1794

2004-06-30T14:06:00.000-07:00

Only one Article of Impeachment against Senator William Blount referred to a criminal offense: a possible violation of the Neutrality Act. However, the statute provided that an actual act (actus reus) - of beginning or setting on foot or preparing means for attacking a neutral state - would be necessary for the statute to be applicable. A mere conspiracy would fall short. Whether conspiracy to violate neutrality was a criminal act under common law was problematic, especially in view of the fact that the Republican faction preferred their criminal laws to be in writing and that strictly construed.

As a matter of fact, on or about July 8, 1797, a few days after President Adams had Senator Blount's incriminating letter to James Carey delivered (July 3) to the Senate, a district court action was brought against the senator for a "misdemeanor," disturbing the peace and tranquility of the United States, and violating the Neutrality Act. District Judge Peters issued a warrant for Blount's arrest. A marshal was sent to Philadelphia, where he found the senator in the midst of expulsion proceedings and facing impeachment. Blount, who had tried to flee Philadelphia before, on a boat, was expelled by the Senate: his bail was reduced for the pending impeachment. Blount skipped bail and fled to Tennessee on horseback, where he was boomed for re-election; somehow he had also managed to slip away from the marshal sent to return him to the district court to face the misdemeanor charges. The Eastern public was outraged by the bail-reduction and subsequent escape. Pickering sent along Judge Peter's warrant and relevant papers to the U.S. attorney at Staunton, Virginia, where Blount had been sighted, warning him that, although the charge was a misdemeanor, it was "of the most dangerous and fatal tendency." It must have been, then, a "high" misdemeanor, such as actually specified in the Neutrality Act.

The Neutrality Act was approved by Congress on June 5, 1794, to be effective for a period of two years, and from thence to the end of the next Congress - it was continued by act of Congress in 1800. The Act was designed to prevent offenses against neutrality, especially on the high seas. Any aggrieved party whatsoever could file a complaint with a U.S. District Court. Section Five of the Act prohibited private parties on land from actually advancing hostilities against a neutral state.

"Sec. 5. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States begin or set on foot or provide or prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state with whom the United States are at peace, every such person so offending shall upon conviction be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor and shall suffer fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court in which the conviction shall be had so as that such fine shall not exceed three thousand dollars nor the term of imprisonment be more than three years." (Third Congress, Session I, Chapter 51)

The Neutrality Act survives in current federal statutes. It provides that the President can employ armed forces to intervene where violations occur; for instance, he can seize vessels outfitted to make war on parties at peace with the United States. Complaints may be filed by any aggrieved party in the district court. A similar phrase, "... any military expedition or enterprise is begun or set foot..." can be found in the United States Code 22, S. 461. The penalty for violation is presently a fine of $10,000, or two-years imprisonment, or both.

Incidentally, the statute was invoked in the matter of the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, in an action brought by private parties for redress of injuries sustained as a result of the administration's Nicaragua policy, and for the prosecution of the officials involved.

The Incriminating Carey Letter

2004-06-22T07:44:00.000-07:00

On April 21,1797, Senator Blount wrote a letter to Indian interpreter James Carey at the Tellico station in Tennessee, enlisting his participation in the conspiracy against Spain and certain Indians, the execution of which would be enormously profitable to himself and other real estate speculators not to mention ordinary pro-American squatters on Indian lands south of the Ohio river and pro-American settlers in Florida and Louisiana. Blount warned Carey against the discovery of the plot by pro-Federalist officials on the scene, particularly Mr. Dinsmoor, an interpreter; Mr. Byers, the storekeeper; and Benjamin Hawkins, the Indian superintendent.

Unfortunately for Senator Blount, Carey showed the letter to James Byers, the government factor at Tellico; Byers took the letter to Blount's mortal enemy, David Henley; he in turn expressed it to Secretary of War James McHenry and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering in Philadelphia. Of course Pickering turned the letter over to President Adams, who approved its disclosure to Congress. The incriminating letter was the main evidence which led to the quick expulsion and impeachment of Senator Blount.

The Carey Letter

Col. King's Iron Works, APril 21, 1797

Dear Carey:

I wished to have seen you before I returned to Philadelphia, but I am obliged to return to the session of Congress which commences on the 15th of May.

Among other things that I wished to have seen you about was the business Captain Chisholm mentioned to the British Minister last winter at Philadelphia.

I believe, but am not sure, that the plan then talked of [at a conference between Blount henchman John Chisholm and British minister John Liston] will be attempted this fall, and if it is attempted, it will be in a much larger way than then talked of, and if the Indians act their part, I have no doubt but it will succeed. A man of consequence [Dr. Nicholas Romayne] has gone to England about the business; and if he makes arrangements as he expects, I shall myself have a hand in the business; and probably shall be at the head of the business on the part of the British.

You are, however, to understand that it is not yet quite certain that the plan will be attempted, and to do so will require all your management. I say will require all your management, because you must take care in whatever you say to Rogers or anybody else, not to let the plan be discovered by Hawkins, Dinsmoor, Byers or any other person in the interest of the United States of Spain.

If I attempt this plan, I shall expect to have you and all of my Indian friends with me, but you are now in good business, I hope, and you are not to risk the loss of it by saying anything that will hurt you until you again hear from me. Where Captain Chisholm is I do not know. I left home in Philadelphia in March, and he frequently visited the Minister and spoke about the subject; but I believe he will go again into the Creek nation by way of South Carolina or Georgia. He gave out that he was going to England, but I do not believe him. Among things that you may safely do, will be to keep up my consequence with Watts and the Creeks and the Cherokees generally; and you must, by no means, say anything in favor of Hawkins, but, as often as you can with safety to yourself, you may teach the Creeks to believe he is no better than he should be. Any power or consequence he gets will be against our plan. Perhaps Rogers, who has no office to lose, is the best man to give out talks against Hawkins. Read the letter to Rogers, and if you think best to send it, put a wafer in it and forward it to him by a safe hand; or perhaps, you had best send for him to come to you, and to speak to him yourself respecting the state and prospect of things.

I have advised you, in whatever you do, to take care of yourself. I have now to tell you to take care of me too, for a discovery of the plan would prevent the success, and much injure all parties concerned. It may be that the Commissioners may not run the line as the Indians expect of wish, and in that case, it is probable the Indians may be taught to blame me for making the Treaty.

To such complaints against me, if such there are, it may be said by my friends, at proper times and places, that Doublehead confirmed the treaty with the President at Philadelphia, and received as much as five thousand dollars a year to be paid to the Nation over and above the first price; indeed it may with truth be said that I was by the President instructed to purchase much more land than the Indians would agree to sell. This sort of talk will be throwing all the blame off me upon the late President, and as he is now out of office, it will be of no consequence how much the Indians blame him. And among other things, that may be said for me is, that I was not at the running of the line, and that if I had been, it would have been more to their satisfaction. In short, you understand the subject, and must take care to give out the proper talks to keep up with my consequence with the Creeks and Cherokees. Can't Rogers contrive to get the Creeks to desire the President to take Hawkins out of the nation? for, if he stays in the Creek nation, and gets the good will of the nation, he can and will do great injury to our plan.

When you have read this letter over three times, then burn it. I shall be at Knoxville in July or August, when I will send for Watts and give him the whiskey I promised him.

I am, &c.,

WM. BLOUNT

Source: Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 5th Congress, 2nd Session, 2349-2350; full letter also appears in ANDREW JACKSON and EARLY TENNESSEE HISTORY by S.G. Heiskell, Knoxville: Ambrose 1918

Articles of Impeachment Against Senator William Blount

2004-06-21T06:18:00.000-07:00

Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of themselves and of all the people of the United States, against William Blount, in maintenance of their impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE 1. That, whereas the United States, in the months of February, March, April, May, and June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and for many years then past, were at peace with his Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain; and whereas, during the months aforesaid, His said Catholic Majesty and the King of Britain were at war with each other; yet the said William Blount, on or about the months aforesaid, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, but disregarding the duties and obligations of his high station, and designing and intending to disturb the peace and tranquillity (sic) of the United States, and to violate and infringe the neutrality thereof, did conspire, and contrive to create, promote and set on foot, within the jurisdiction and territory of the United States, and to conduct and carry on from thence, a military hostile expedition against the territories and dominions of His said Catholic Majesty in the Floridas and Louisiana, or a part thereof, for the purpose of wresting the same from His Catholic Majesty, and of conquering the same for the King of Great Britain, with whom His said Catholic Majesty was then at war as aforesaid, contrary to the duty of his trust and station as a Senator of the United States, in violation of the obligations of neutrality, and against the laws of the United States, and the peace and interests thereof.

ARTICLE 2. That, whereas, on the twenty-seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, a Treaty of Friendship and Navigation, had been made and concluded between the United States and His Catholic Majesty, by the fifth article whereof it is stipulated and agreed, "that the tow high contracting parties shall, by all means in their power, maintain peace and harmony among the several Indian nations who inhabit the country adjacent to the lines and rivers, which, by the proceeding articles, form the boundaries of the two Floridas: And the better to obtain this effect, both parties oblige themselves expressly to restrain by force all hostilities on the part of the Indian nations living within their boundary; so that Spain will not suffer her Indians to attack the citizens of the United States, nor the Indians inhabiting their territory; nor will the Untied States permit these last mentioned Indians to commence hostilities against the subjects of His Catholic Majesty or his Indians, in any manner whatever." Yet, the said William Blount, on or about the months of February, March, April, May, and June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, and that the United States were then at peace with His said Catholic Majesty, and that His Catholic Majesty was at war with the King of Great Britain, but disregarding the duties of his obligations of neutrality, did conspire and contrive to excite the Creek and Cherokee nations of Indians, then inhabiting within the territorial boundary of the United States, to commence hostilities against the subjects and possessions of His Catholic Majesty, in the Floridas and Louisiana, for the purpose of reducing the same to the dominion of the King of Great Britain, with whom His Catholic Majesty was then at war as aforesaid: contrary to the duty of his trust and station as a Senator of the United States, in violation of the said Treaty of Friendship, Limits and Navigation, and of the obligations of neutrality, and against the laws of the United States, and the peace and interests thereof.

ARTICLE 3. That, whereas, by the ordinances and acts of Congress for regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and for preserving peace on the frontiers, it has been made lawful for the President of the United States, in order to secure the continuance of the friendship of the said Indian tribes, to appoint such persons, from time to time, as temporary agents, to reside among the Indians, as he shall think fit; and, whereas, in pursuance of the said authority, the President of the United States, on or about the eighth day of September, in the years of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six, did appoint Benjamin Hawkins, to be principal temporary agent for Indian affairs, within the Indian nations south of the river Ohio, and north of the territorial line of the United States; and whereas the said Benjamin Hawkins accepted the said appointment, and on the 21st day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and for a long time before and afterwards, did exercise the functions, powers and duties attached to the same; yet, the same Wm. Blount, on or about the said twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, did, in the prosecution of criminal designs and of the conspiracies aforesaid, and the more effectually to accomplish his intention of exciting the Creek and Cherokee nations of Indians to commence hostilities against the subjects of His Catholic Majestry, further conspire and contrive to alienate and divert the confidence of the said Indian tribes or nations from the said Benjamin Hawkins, the principal temporary agent aforesaid, and to diminish, impair, and destroy the influence of the said Benjamin Hawkins with the said Indian tribes, and their friendly intercourse and understanding with him, contrary to the duty of the trust and station as a Senator of the United States and against the ordinances and laws of the United States, and the peace and interests thereof.

ARTICLE 4. That, whereas, by the ordinances and acts of Congress aforesaid, it is made lawful for the President of the United States to establish trading houses at such places and posts on the western and southwestern frontiers, or in the Indian country, as he shall judge most convenient, for the purpose of carrying on a liberal trade with the several Indian nations within the limits of the United States, and to appoint an agent at each trading house established as aforesaid, with such clerks and assistants as may be necessary for the execution of said acts: And, whereas, by a treaty, made and concluded on the second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, between the United States and the Cherokee nation of Indians, inhabiting within the limits of the United States, it is stipulated and agreed, that "the United States will send such, and so many persons to reside in said nation, as they may judge proper, not exceeding four, who shall qualify themselves to act as interpreters." And whereas the President of the United States, as well in pursuance of the authorities in this article mentioned, as of the acts of Congress referred to in the third article, did appoint James Carey to be interpreter for the United States to the said Cherokee nation of Indians, and assistant at the public trading house established at the Tellico blockhouse, in the State of Tennessee: And whereas the said James Carey did accept the said appointments, and on the twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and for a long time before and afterwards, did exercise the functions, and duties attached to the same; yet the said William Blount, on or about the twenty-first day of April, in the year last aforesaid, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, did, in prosecuton of his criminal designs, and in furtherance of the conspiracies aforesaid, conspire and contrive to seduce the said James Carey from the duty and trust of said appointments, and to engage the said James Carey to assist in the promotion and execution of the said criminal intentions and conpiracies aforesaid, contrary to the duty of his trust and station as a Senator of the United States, and against the laws and treaties of the United States, and the peace and interests thereof.

ARTICLE 5. That whereas certain tribes or nations of Indians inhabit within the territorial limits of the United States, between whom, or many of them, and the settlements of the United States, certain boundary lines have, by successive treaties, been stipulated and agreed upon, to separate the lands and possessions of the said Indians from the lands and possessions of the United States, and the citizens thereof: And whereas, particularly, by the treaty in the last article mentioned to have been made with the Cherokee nation, on the second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, the boundary between the United States and the said Cherokee nation was agreed and defined; and it was further stipulated, that the same should be ascertained and marked plainly by three persons appointed on the part of the United States, and three Cherokees on the part of their nation: Aner whereas, by another treaty made with the said Cherokee nation, on the twenty-sixth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, the said herinbefore recited treaty, of the second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, was confirmed and established; and it was mutually agreed that the said boundary line should be actually ascertained and marked in the manner prescribed by the said last mentioned treaty: And whereas, in pursuance of said treaties, commissioners were duly nominated and appointed, on the part of the United States, to ascertain and mark the said boundary line; yet, the said William Blount, on or about the twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, in fruther prosecution of his said criminal designs, and of the conspiracies aforesaid, and the more effectually to accomplish his intention of exciting the Indians to commence hostilities against the subjects of His Catholic Majesty, did further conspire and contrive to diminish and impair the confidence of the said Cherokee nation in the Government of the United States, and to create and foment discontents and disaffection among the said Indians towards the Government of the United States, in relation to the ascertainment and marking of the boundary line, contrary to the duty of his trust and station as a Senator of the United States, and against the peace and interests thereof.

And the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter, any further articles, or other accusation, or impeachment, against the said William Blount, and also of replying to his answers, which he shall make unto the said articles, or any of them, and of offering proof to all and every aforesaid articles, and to all and every other articles of impeachment, or accusation, which shall be exhibited by them, as the case shall require, do demand that the said William Blount may be put to answer the said crimes and misdemeanors, and that such proceedings, examination, trials, and judgments, may thereupon had and given, as are agreeable to law and justice.

Signed by order and behalf of the House.

JONATHAN DAYTON, Speaker

Attest, JONATHAN W. CONDY, Clerk

Pertinent Constitutional Clauses

2004-06-20T12:16:00.000-07:00

ARTICLE I

Section 2, clause 5.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3, clauses 6-7.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 5, clause 2.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

ARTICLE II

Section 2, clause 1.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

ARTICLE III

Section 2, clause 3.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such Place of Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

AMENDMENT 6

In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.