1st Session.

Mr. DAVIS, of South Carolina, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which had been referred the petition of Martha Bradstreet, complaining of the official conduct of Alfred Conkling, Judge of the United States Court for the Northern District of New York, submitted the following as the views of the minority of said committee, upon the subject of said complaint.

The minority of the Committee on the Judiciary, (consisting of one only) to which committee was referred "the memorial of Martha Bradstreet, praying for the impeachment of Alfred Conkling, United States' Judge of the Northern District of New York," respectfully asks leave to report:

The dissentient, being in a minority of one, and feeling a profound respect for the judgment and opinions of his colleagues of the Judiciary Committee, with which it is now his misfortune and pain to differ, considers it due to himself, and more especially to the House, to make this his counter report.

The peculiar structure of the Federal and State Governments, having on many subjects concurrent, though not blended jurisdiction; each acting within the same territorial limits, and neither subordinate to the other; each having a right to establish judicial tribunals in these territorial limits, and these tribunals responsible only to the Governments that established them, presents not only a political anomaly, but a most delicate and trying state of things, that require of both Governments the utmost vigilance over the conduct of their respective agents and officers. This duty is more peculiarly imperative upon the Federal Government, as the action of its tribunals and officers is within the sphere of another sovereignty, and upon a people to whom they are not responsible. Whenever, therefore, charges are preferred, or complaints made, against the agents of the Federal Government, by a State, or the citizens of a State, within which they act, a prompt and frank investigation of the matter should be had. Complaints have been made and charges preferred, against a Judge of a District Court of the United States, and a prompt, frank, and full investigation has been had, and the result reported to the House by a majority of the committee to which it was referred. It only remains now to present the views of the minority.

The memorialist, Martha Bradstreet, presented thirty-three charges against Alfred Conkling, a District Judge of the United States, for misdemeanors in

office, and the majority of the committee have reported, after examination and deliberation, that there is nothing in the said charges, or in the testimony adduced in support of them, that requires the constitutional interposition of this House, and ask leave to be discharged from the further consideration of the same. The minority of the committee, sincerely believing that two of the charges, to wit: the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth, are supported by adequate and sufficient testimony, and that the said charges do amount to, and, if true, constitute a high misdemeanor, will now proceed to exhibit the same, together with the evidence given to support the said charges.

CHARGES.

Twenty-fourth. His causing the name of the said John L. Tillinghast to be struck from the rolls of the said Court, for having expressed, out of Court, his opinion of the said Judge Conkling.

Twenty-fifth. His having thereby illegally and unconstitutionally assumed to himself the power to act as Judge in his own cause. And, in pursuit of his object, violated the immemorial course and practice of Courts of Justice, and disregarded even the form of law. And this for the mere gratification of his private revenge.

A.

BVIDENCE.

At a stated District Court of the United States, held in and for the Northern district of New York, at the Capitol, in the city of Albany, on Tuesday, the 15th day of January, 1828:

Present-The Honorable Alfred Conkling, Judge of the court.

In the matter of John L. Tillinghast, one of the Attorneys, &c. of this court. It is ordered that the Clerk forthwith serve upon the said Tillinghast, a copy of an affidavit, sworn to this day, before the Judge of this court, by Richard R. Lansing, the said clerk: And it is further ordered, That the said Tillinghast show cause on Thursday morning next, at the opening of the court, why, by reason of the matters set forth in the said affidavit, he should not be struck from the rolls of this court. It is also ordered, that the clerk forthwith serve upon the said Tillinghast a copy of this rule.

R. R. LANSING, Clerk.

B.

District Court of the United States of America, for the Northern Dis trict of New York.

NORTHERN DITRICT OF NEW YORK, SS.

Richard R. Lansing, the Clerk of this court, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith: Tha, on or about the eighteenth day of May last, John L. Tillinghast called at the room then occupied by this deponent, in the public house in the city of Albany, called the Eagle; and requested a copy of the

aninutes of trial in the cause of James Jackson, ex dem. Martha Bradstreet vs. Joseph Kirkland, in which a verdict had been recently found in favor of the plaintiff.

This deponent observed to the said Tillinghast, that he might spare himself the expense of a copy, or, that a copy would avail him nothing, or words to that effect, as the Judge would set the verdict aside. To which the said Tillinghast replied, "What! has he prejudged the c se already?" This deponent then explained that his remark was made solely from what had taken place on the trial of the said cause, and not from any other knowledge; and added an expression of his regret at the disposition manifested by the said Tillinghast towards the Judge of this court, while in court, as well as in the observation which he, the said Tillinghast, had just made. This deponent also observed to the said Tillinghast, that it was the opinion of some of the bar, that the unfavorable portrait which he the said Tillinghast had drawn at the close of his eulogy on the character of the late Judge Skinner, which had been introduced by him in his address to the jury on the trial of the cause heretofore referred to, in this affidavit, was aimed at, or designed for, a censorious reflection upon the present Judge of this court, or words to that effect. To which the said Tillinghast replied, "I did mean it for Conkling, and he deserved it." Whereupon, this deponent interrupted him, and observed that such admissions would subject him to punishment for a contempt of court. That he, this deponent, did not wish to draw from him any admissions, or hear any reflections upon the court, as this deponent was an officer of the court, and would, for that reason, (as he informed the said Tillinghast) feel bound in duty to communicate to the Judge of the court, any further remarks of that import; and the said deponent further observed, that, after such notice, he should consider all such remarks as made to him for the purpose of being communicated to the said Judge. The said Tillinghast then observed, that he did not fear the said Judge, or disguise his opinion of his unfairness and partiality, while on the bench, and that this deponent was at liberty to communicate the same to him. This deponent then again interrupted the said Tillinghast, and expressed his unwillingness to be the organ of such communications, or listen to any impeachment of the official conduct of the Judge of this court. The said Tillinghast, nevertheless, proceeded, and declared, that he asked no favors; that he felt himself under no restraints; that he was not to be deterred by fear from an open expression of his opinion of the said Judge, or intimidated into silence by any considerations of dread of the said Judge; that he did. not conceal his opinion of him; that he had, and should continue to express it openly, and without reserve; that he did impeach the motives and conduct of the Judge of this court while on the bench; that what he knew to be true, he would declare openly, and did not, therefore, hesitate to charge the said Judge with a wilful abuse of his office.

And the said Tillinghast further observed, that this deponent was at perfect liberty to communicate to the Judge of this court what he had said. And this deponent further saith, that the foregoing contains the substance of the conversation referred to, according to the best recollection of this deponent. R. R. LANSING, Clerk.

Sworn the fifteenth day of January, 1828, before me,

Copy.

A. CONKLING. R. R. LANSING, Clerk.

(C.)

At a stated District Court of the United States, held in and forthe Northern District of New York, at the Capitol in the City of Albany, on Wednesday, the twenty-fifth day of January, 1828.

Present-The honorable Alfred Čonkling, Judge of the Court.

Ordered, That the name of John L. Tillinghast be struck from the rolls of this court. R. R. LANSING, Clerk.

Copy.

Extract from the deposition of John L. Tillinghast, of the City of Albany, in the Northern District of New York, Counsellor at law.

"And this deponent further says, that he was present at the opening of the said Court, on the fifteenth day of January last past, which was the first day of its late session, and that no motion or proceeding was made or had against this deponent in open court; nor was this deponent's name in any way mentioned; but about an hour after the opening of the court, on the same day, while this deponent was sitting at the table writing, to see if a cause in which this deponent was employed would be called, a paper folded in the form of a letter, but unsealed, and superscribed "John L Tillinghast, Esq," was, by the said clerk, thrown down on the table before this deponent, in which this deponent, upon opening it, found a certified copy of a rule of court, a true copy whereof is hereunto annexed, marked (A.) and, also, a certified copy of an affidavit, a true copy whereof is also hereunto annexed, marked (B.)

And this deponent further says, that, having been engaged in the trial of a cause in said court which commenced the next day, and continued a number of days in succession, he, this deponent, was not called upon to show cause until after the close of the said trial; and upon being called upon by the said Judge Conkling to show cause in obedience to the said rule, he, this deponent, in answer, required to be informed of the name of the offence imputed to him; the said Judge then replied, that this deponent could learn that from the copy of the affidavit served upon him, or words to that effect. The Judge then called to the said clerk to hand up the affidavit, which being done, the said Judge read it aloud, and then required of this deponent to say what he had to offer against the rule to strike him from the rolls; this deponent then answered, that he required to be distinctly informed of the name of the offence of which he was accused, and until that should be done, he did not consider himself bound to attempt any answer; that if this were intended to be treated as a contempt of court, the proceedings must be by attachment, and interrogatories must be exhibited, and that a course, like the present, was without precedent either in this country or in England, at least since the days of the Star-Chamber. And this deponent again required to have his offence named, and stated his readiness to answer it according to law, whatever it might be. To this the said Judge made no answer whatever, but, after remaining some time silent, called upon some of the Counsel present to proceed in the argument of some other motion not connected with this transaction, and when that was concluded, the said Judge took a recess until 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, but without taking any ther notice of the proceedings against this deponent.

Immediately upon his return into court, in the afternoon, the said Judge opened a written paper, from which he read what purported to be his reasons for the course which had been taken against this deponent, and in which he, for the first time, named the offence imputed to this deponent as a contempt of court, and required that this deponent should solemnly retract what it was alleged he had uttered against the said Judge Conkling, apologize for having uttered them, and engage to abstain from all opprobrious and indecorous language and conduct toward the court in future, or that his name should be struck from the rolls. This deponent then again required that the offence imputed to him should be distinctly stated in the mode appointed by law, and that he should then be heard in his defence; upon which the said Judge Conkling immediately called out, "Clerk, strike the name of John L. Tillinghast from the roll;" which mandate was immediately obeyed, and this deponent's name was accordingly struck from the rolls of the said court. Whereupon, this deponent immediately objected against this measure as a violation of the laws of the United States, and as an act which the said Judge had no right or authority to do, in the present instance. And this deponent then requested to be allowed to take a copy of the sentence pronounced against him, or to have it entered on the minutes of the court, as it was read by the said Judge; but to this request the said Judge Conkling did not condescend to give any answer whatever. The said clerk, however, served on this deponent a copy of the rule which was entered for striking this deponent's name from the roll; a true copy of which said last mentioned rule is hereunto annexed, marked (C.)

JOHN L. TILLINGHAST.

Sworn, this 5th day of April, 1828, before me, JOHN SAVAGE, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of New York.'

Judicial opinion of Judge Conkling, published in the "Albany Argus" newspaper of—.

"We have been furnished with the following, as a correct statement of the proceedings in the District Court, at its late session in this city, in the case of John L. Tillinghast, one of the attorneys, &c. of that court:

At the opening of the court on the first day of the session, an affidavit made by R. R. Lansing, Esq. the clerk of the court, was placed on file, and a rule entered, directing the clerk to serve on Mr. Tillinghast a copy of the said affidavit, together with a copy of the rule, and requiring the said Tillinghast to shew cause on the morning of the third day of the session, why, by reason of the matters contained in the said affidavit, he should not be struck from the rolls of the court? The affidavit of Mr. Lansing, was, in substance, as follows: that, soon after the termination of the last session of the court in this city, Tillinghast called upon him at his lodgings for a copy of the minutes of trial, in the case of Jackson ex dem. Martha Bradstreet vs. Joseph Kirkland; that, in a conversation which ensued between them. Tillinghast spoke in terms of great disrespect of the court; that he (Lansing) thereupon told him that he was unwilling to listen to such aspersions upon the court, and desired him to desist; that if he persisted, he, as an officer of the court, should feel it to be his duty to communicate what he should say to the judge; that Tillinghast thereupon repeated his declarations in still strong-.