To George Washington from Robert Randall, 14 January 1796
From Robert Randall
Prison 14th Jany 1796.
The Memorial of Robert Randall Humbly Sheweth
That Your Memorialist has been committed to close confinement in the Goal of the City of Philadelphia as well upon an Arrest agreable to an Order of the House of Representatives in Congress as upon an Arrest of the Marshall of the United States in consequence of a prosecution against Your Memorialist at suit of the said United States, & both Arrests grounded on a charge of a breach of Priviledge and contempt of the House of Representatives.
That Your Memorialist has by a resolution of the House of Representatives in Congress adopted Yesterday been discharged from the Custody of the Sargeant at Arms Upon the payment of fees And is now under confinement under the said prosecution only.
That Your Memorialist with due deference submits it to the opinion of your Excellency whether the proceedings against him in Congress do not in their operation supersede the prosecution instituted against him in the Courts of the United States, and whether the said prosecution can therefore be supported. Your Memorialist would with the same deference farther submit whether the offence charged—which in its greatest extent only implicates an attempt to corrupt—& Not an Actual corruption—is cognizable by the Courts of the United States & therefore the punishment already suffered is not the only one that by the Laws of the Country can be inflicted.
Your Memorialist would farther state that he has received the reprimand of the Honourable house of representatives in Congress, and in Virtue of their Order has suffered an imprisonment which Congress by the passage of the above mentioned resolution must have conceived an adequate punishment for the offence which in their opinion he had committed.
Your Memorialist therefore prays Your Excellency that Your E[x]cellency will in Your clemency Authorise and direct the Attorney General of the United States to enter a Noli Prosequi in the said prosecution that Your Memorialist may thereby be released intirely from his present confinement, & the linient views of the House of Representatives of the United States be compleatly and fully carried into effect. And Your Memorialist will ever pray &c.
Robert Randall
ALS, DLC:GW.
On 28 Dec. 1795 three members of Congress charged that Robert Randall (later Randal; c.1766–1834) had “communicated to them, respectively, certain overtures to obtain their several support in this House, to a memorial intended to be presented by the said Robert Randall, on behalf of himself and others, for the grant of a tract of land, containing eighteen or twenty millions of acres, bordering on lakes Erie, Michigan and Huron, and lying within the limits of the United States; for which support, the said members, respectively, were promised to receive of the said Robert Randall and his associates, a consideration or emolument in land or money.” Finding this to be “sufficient evidence of a contempt to, and breach of the privileges of this House, in an unwarrantable attempt to corrupt the integrity of its members,” the House issued warrants for the arrest of Randall and an associate, Charles Whitney of Vermont. Randall and Whitney were brought before the House the next day, but Randall requested more time to prepare his defense, and the final adjudication of his case was repeatedly postponed. Pursuant to another resolution, additional congressmen offered statements detailing Randall’s and Whitney’s offers to them, and on 6 Jan. the House voted that Randall was guilty of contempt and should be reprimanded and held in custody “until further order of the House.” Whitney was discharged the next day, and on 13 Jan. the House voted to discharge Randall “upon the payment of fees” ( 8:58, 62–68, 72–78, 80–87, 102; ASP, Miscellaneous, 1:125–33; Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the United States, in the Case of Robert Randall and Charles Whitney [Philadelphia, 1796]). By 1798 Randall was in Canada, where he engaged over the years in a number of schemes, none of which brought him financial success ( 6:628–33).