Case of Randall and Whitney
[30 December 1795]
Randall had petitioned the House that he be allowed time to prepare his defense with the aid of counsel. Smith (South Carolina) moved that the petition be granted (Annals of Congress description begins Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56). description ends , 4th Cong., 1st sess., 179–80).
Mr. Madison was in favor of allowing counsel—he thought the motion would stand better if it went to allow him [Randall] to answer the interrogatories by the advice of counsel.1
Gazette of the U.S., 31 Dec. 1795 (reprinted in Claypoole’s Am. Daily Advertiser, 2 Jan. 1796).
1. After debate on whether Randall was entitled to counsel to plead his case or merely to assist his defense, Smith withdrew his motion, and Kittera (Pennsylvania) proposed that Randall be allowed counsel for his “examination and defense.” The words “examination and defense” were struck out, but JM objected to the “indefiniteness” of the motion. Kittera withdrew his motion, and Randall was told to appear before the bar of the House on 1 Jan. 1796. Whitney’s case, on the motion of JM, was sent to the Committee of Privileges to report on the proper mode of proceeding (Gazette of the U.S., 31 Dec. 1795; Annals of Congress description begins Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56). description ends , 4th Cong., 1st sess., 183).