Guide to Computer User Support for Help Desk and Support Specialists 5th Edition Fred Beisse Solutions Manual

Download the full version and explore a variety of test banks
or solution manuals at https://testbankdeal.com
Guide to Computer User Support for Help Desk and
Support Specialists 5th Edition Fred Beisse
Solutions Manual
_____ Follow the link below to get your download now _____
https://testbankdeal.com/product/guide-to-computer-user-
support-for-help-desk-and-support-specialists-5th-edition-
fred-beisse-solutions-manual/
Access testbankdeal.com now to download high-quality
test banks or solution manuals

We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit testbankdeal.com
for more options!.
Guide to Computer User Support for Help Desk and Support
Specialists 5th Edition Fred Beisse Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/guide-to-computer-user-support-for-
help-desk-and-support-specialists-5th-edition-fred-beisse-test-bank/
A+ Guide to IT Technical Support Hardware and Software 9th
Edition Andrews Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/a-guide-to-it-technical-support-
hardware-and-software-9th-edition-andrews-solutions-manual/
A+ Guide to IT Technical Support Hardware and Software 9th
Edition Andrews Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/a-guide-to-it-technical-support-
hardware-and-software-9th-edition-andrews-test-bank/
Understanding Business Ethics 3rd Edition Stanwick Test
Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/understanding-business-ethics-3rd-
edition-stanwick-test-bank/

Introductory Statistics 2nd Edition Gould Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/introductory-statistics-2nd-edition-
gould-solutions-manual/
Your Health Today Choices in a Changing Society 4th
Edition Teague Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/your-health-today-choices-in-a-
changing-society-4th-edition-teague-test-bank/
Introduction to Audiology Today 1st Edition Hall Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduction-to-audiology-today-1st-
edition-hall-test-bank/
Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining 9th Edition
Carrell Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/labor-relations-and-collective-
bargaining-9th-edition-carrell-test-bank/
Project Management The Managerial Process 5th Edition
Larson Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/project-management-the-managerial-
process-5th-edition-larson-solutions-manual/

Entrepreneurship 4th Edition Zacharakis Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/entrepreneurship-4th-edition-
zacharakis-test-bank/

A Guide to Computer User Support for Help Desk and Support Specialists, Fifth Edition 7-1
Chapter 7
User Support Management
At a Glance
Instructor’s Manual Table of Contents
• Overview
• Chapter Objectives
• Teaching Tips
• Quick Quizzes
• Class Discussion Topics
• Additional Projects
• Additional Resources
• Key Terms

Lecture Notes
Overview
Chapter 7 introduces students to the perspective of the manager of a help desk support
group. The first half of the chapter covers the ways that managers evaluate staff
performance, justify costs, and hire new staff. The second half of the chapter focuses on
training and certification for support staff.
Chapter Objectives
In this chapter, students will learn about:
• The mission of a support group and the features of a mission statement
• Items in a typical user support budget
• Staffing a help desk
• Support staff training programs
• Evaluations of support staff performance
• Industry certifications for support professionals
• Professional help desk and user support associations
• Ethical principles that guide the professional behavior of support workers
Teaching Tips
Managerial Concerns: Mission, Budgets, Staffing, Training, and
Performance
1. Describe the importance of the managerial role to help desk support staff.
User Support Mission
1. Define the term mission statement and review the example in Figure 7-1.
Teaching
Tip
Students can generate their own mission statements at the following Web site:
www.nightingale.com/mission_select.aspx.
Budgeting for User Support Services
1. Explain that the help desk budget is a financial plan that translates the goals of the
mission statement into a concrete strategy to meet those goals.
2. Discuss the list of factors that may be considered when developing a help desk budget,
which is shown on page 288.

3. Review the categories of revenue and expenses shown in Figure 7-2.
Staffing the Help Desk
1. Discuss how managers calculate staffing levels for the help desk. The Erlang unit is
useful in calculating how many workers are required, as are trial and error and personal
experience.
2. Describe the process of creating position descriptions for help desk support staff. Lists
of knowledge, skills, and abilities required by workers help round out the position
descriptions along with the mission statement. Qualifications for a specific position are
defined in terms of the requirements listed on page 292. Note that a manager is unlikely
to find workers who embody every part of the position description and KSA checklist.
Instead, these documents should be considered a wish list.
3. Note that after position descriptions have been created, a selection team prescreens
applications to match the applicants’ skills to the KSA checklist.
4. Describe the interview process. The following tests and types of questions may be
included in this process:
• Knowledge and skills tests
• Traditional interview questions, including directed questions and nondirected
questions
• Behavioral questions
• Scenario questions
• Stress tolerance assessments
• Illegal questions (this type of question should be avoided)
5. Review the role-playing scenario on pages 296–297.
User Support Staff Training
1. Describe the common types of support staff training for new and ongoing workers.
New staff typically receive orientation through training sessions that cover the topics
listed on page 298. Discuss the common training topics for ongoing help desk training,
and explain how managers schedule workers’ time so that they can participate in such
training.
User Support Performance Evaluation and Justification
1. Define the term performance appraisal and explain how these appraisals are carried
out.
2. Explain the use of performance statistics to evaluate help desk operation, using the
examples on page 301.
3. Define the terms wait time and abandonment rate.

4. Discuss how a user satisfaction survey can be used to measure user satisfaction.
5. Discuss the difference between a cost center operation and a profit center operation.
Explain that a chargeback is a fee charged to another department that uses support
services.
Quick Quiz 1
1. (True/False) Support groups use their mission statement as a yardstick against which to
measure their progress toward their goals.
Answer: True
2. A(n) ____ is a unit of traffic (or a user incident, in the case of support groups) processed
in a given period of time.
Answer: Erlang
3. Which of the following is NOT a tool used during the interview process?
A. directed question
B. knowledge and skills test
C. scenario question
D. position description
Answer: D
4. (True/False) Wait time is a performance measure of the average time it takes to respond
to incidents.
Answer: True
User Support Certification
1. Note that there is an increasing demand for certification of skills in many technology
fields. Several types of certification are available; they are discussed in the following
sections.
Teaching
Tip
Ask students to discuss any certifications that they currently hold. Ask them to
explain the path they took to obtain the certifications.
Formal Education Certification
1. Explain that many community colleges and vocational schools offer programs that lead
to a certificate or degree. However, this type of degree does not offer any personal
experience.

Vendor-Specific Certification
1. Review the certification programs offered by hardware and software vendors in Table
7-1.
Industry-Standard Certification
1. Note that an alternative to vendor-specific certification is industry-standard
certification, such as those listed in Table 7-2.
User Support and Help Desk Certification
1. Review the certification programs listed in Table 7-3, which includes programs offered
by the Help Desk Institute (HDI) and Microsoft.
User Support Center Certification Programs
1. Note that some certification programs are offered for organizations rather than for
individuals.
The Benefits of Certification
1. Review the benefits of certification listed on pages 309–310.
Certification Exam Preparation
1. Describe the different ways that certification candidates can prepare for their exams:
• College course curriculum
• Crash courses
• E-learning tutorials
• Self-study courses
2. Explain how certification exams are administered as either traditional tests or computer
adaptive tests.
User Support as a Profession
1. Note that the user support profession is expanding in the United States and overseas.
Statistics are shown in Table 7-4.
Teaching
Tip
Discuss the current economic climate and its effect on job growth for the user
support profession. What impact do students think this will have?

2. Describe the functions of a professional association and review the associations listed
in Table 7-5. Note that professional organizations may adopt a code of ethical conduct
(see Figure 7-4 for an example).
Quick Quiz 2
1. ____ is an assessment process to measure and document worker knowledge and skills in
a specialized segment of the information technology field.
Answer: Certification
2. In addition to hardware, operating systems, and troubleshooting skills, ____
certifications cover a variety of specialized skills, such as network administration, Web
design, and project management.
Answer: industry-standard
3. (True/False) Cisco and Novell are examples of vendor-specific certifications.
Answer: True
4. An important activity of a professional association is to adopt a code of ____ to guide
its members’ professional behavior.
Answer: ethical behavior
Class Discussion Topics
1. What suggestions would you have for a manager looking to fill a help desk support
position?
2. Do you think that there are benefits in obtaining multiple types of certification rather
than specializing in one type?
Additional Projects
1. Have students research job listings for help desk support staff online, and then make a
list of the KSAs for two or three positions. How similar or different are they?
2. Ask students to find a certification study course online. How long is the course? What is
the cost? What type(s) of certification does the course prepare attendees for? Students
should provide the answers to these questions and the URL for the course in a Word
document.

Additional Resources
1. Article on mission statements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_statement
2. Chart to help determine help desk staffing levels:
http://coastaltech.com/hd-staff.htm
3. Microsoft certifications:
www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/cert-overview.aspx
4. Help Desk Institute (HDI) Web site:
www.thinkhdi.com/default.aspx
Key Terms
 Abandonment rate—The percentage of calls in which the user hangs up before support
staff respond.
 Behavioral question—An interview question that gives a job applicant an opportunity
to describe how he or she behaved in a specific work situation.
 Certification—An assessment process to measure and document a professional’s
knowledge and skills in a specialized segment of the information technology field.
 Code of ethical conduct—Principles to guide a worker’s professional behavior; a code
of conduct is often distributed by a professional association for its membership.
 Computer adaptive test—A certification testing method that asks questions that are
graded in difficulty from easy to moderate to difficult, to try to quickly estimate a test
taker’s ability.
 Cost center operation—A user support operation for which the cost of providing
services appears as an expense in an organization’s budget without an offsetting
revenue stream.
 Crash course—An intensive class, sometimes called a boot camp, designed to prepare
participants to take a certification exam in a week or less.
 Directed question—An interview question about a specific job requirement; directed
questions are intended to learn whether an applicant has specific educational or work
experiences.
 E-learning tutorial—Computer-based training (CBT) or Web-based training (WBT)
designed to prepare participants for a certification exam.
 Erlang—A unit of traffic (user incidents, in the case of a support group) processed in a
given period of time; it is used to estimate the number of support staff required to
respond to an expected volume of incidents in a given time period.
 Illegal question—An interview question that is intended to obtain information about an
applicant’s characteristics that are not specifically job related, such as age, ethnicity,
marital status, sexual orientation, religion, and some information about disabilities.
 Knowledge and skills test—A test that measures a job applicant’s knowledge and
problem-solving abilities.
 Mission statement—A list of guiding principles that communicate the goals and
objectives of a support group to its staff, users, and management.

 Nondirected question—An interview question that is open-ended and gives an
applicant an opportunity to talk in general terms about his or her qualifications for a
position.
 Performance appraisal—The process of evaluating a user support worker according to
established criteria; criteria should be related to the support group’s mission, the
worker’s position description, and the worker’s professional development objectives.
 Performance statistics—Objective data about a user support or help desk operation
often directly related to the user support mission statement.
 Professional association—A formal organization that represents the interests of a
group of professionals and provides services to its membership.
 Profit center operation—A user support operation for which the cost of providing
services is treated as an expense that is offset by revenue generated by the group.
 Scenario question—An interview question that gives a job applicant a specific problem
(or set of problems) representative of the kinds of situations user support staff actually
encounter; scenario questions are used to measure the applicant’s problem-solving skills
and ability to work under pressure.
 Self-study course—Preparatory materials, usually in book format, that readers
complete at their own pace before taking a certification exam.
 Staff training—Training designed to orient new support workers to their jobs, as well
as ongoing training to update the skills and encourage professional growth of
experienced support staff.
 Stress tolerance assessment—An interview environment designed to evaluate how
well a job applicant works under pressure.
 User satisfaction survey—A questionnaire that attempts to measure how satisfied users
are with the support services they have experienced.
 Wait time—The average time it takes a help desk to respond to calls.

Other documents randomly have
different content

again overhauled, I landed my cargo, purchased a horse, and
proceeded by land to Cincinnati. As I passed through Lexington, I
published in Stewart’s Kentucky Herald my affidavit concerning this
outrage, supported by those of the spectators of the transaction,
Welsh, White, and Sansom; preceded by a few strictures on this
military piracy, signed Impartial. And I now take this opportunity of
clearing General Wilkinson of the charge of being the author of it, as
is asserted by Bradford, of New Orleans, and declare it was written
by myself, and that excepting Captain Campbell Smith, no person
ever saw it before it was put into the hands of the printer.
“At Cincinnati I acquainted General W. with the circumstances that
had occurred, and he gave me orders to deliver the money to Mr.
Philip Nolan. These orders I punctually executed. Mr. Nolan conveyed
the barrels of sugar and coffee that contained the dollars to
Frankfort in a wagon. I there saw them opened in Mr. Montgomery
Brown’s store. The sugar and coffee I afterwards sold to Mr. Abijah
Hunt, of Cincinnati.
“I shall take no notice of Mr. McDonough’s affidavit. It does not
refer to any thing alluded to in my certificate. That part of mine that
has reference to my mission to Kentucky and Detroit in 1797, I shall
also pass over in silence, as it has no connection with the present
subject.
“I will now endeavor, in a few words, to reconcile what may
appear contradictory and inconsistent in my certificate, and the
declaration I have just laid before you.
“Was I base and dishonorable enough to descend to
tergiversation, captious logic, and sophistical evasion, I could
maintain that this contradiction does not exist, and that I never did
carry or deliver to General Wilkinson any cash, bills or property of
any species. It is true I delivered a certain sum of money, by his
order, to Mr. Nolan; but Philip Nolan is not James Wilkinson; ergo, I
may with a safe conscience swear that I never delivered James
Wilkinson any money, &c., but I scorn to make use of any such
pitiful, contemptible and degrading mode of defence, and will allow

for a moment that I did deliver to General Wilkinson the money in
question. It is generally admitted that in politics morality is not to be
measured by the same narrow scale as that which ought to regulate
the moral conduct of men in their private concerns. The rigid stoic
would, on a long run, make but a bungling politician; and the most
austere moralist, if he has his country’s interest at heart, and is
acting in a public capacity, would not hesitate to do that which, as a
private man, and in private concerns, he would shrink and recede
from with horror and trembling precipitation.
“Let us now for a while suppose that I was a secret agent of the
Spanish Government, and that General Wilkinson was a pensioner of
said Government, or had received certain sums for co-operation with
and promoting its views, and that those views and projects were
inimical to that of the United States, should I be worthy of the trust
reposed in me by my Government, were I to refuse to give General
W. any document that might contribute to raise him in the good
opinion of the Administration of his country, blazon his integrity and
patriotism, and fortify him in their confidence, and by their means
enlarge his power of injuring them and serving us? Surely not; or if I
did, I should deserve to be hooted at as an idiot.”
Mr. Randolph then said it would be waste of time to comment on
what he had read, but he conceived it his duty to tell the House that
he had good cause to believe that there was a member of this body
who had it in his power, if the authority of the House were exercised
upon him, if he were coerced, to give the House much more full,
important, and damning evidence than that which had already
appeared. He alluded to the gentleman from the Territory of
Orleans, (Mr. Clark,) whom he had now the pleasure to see in his
seat. If the United States were in the critical situation which had
been so often represented, and in which all considered them to be
placed, in what position was the military force of the United States
at this moment? Was it not proper that this business should be
inquired into? He had been given to understand, long ago, that an

inquiry on this subject was to be courted; it had not taken place. He
had no more to say, but moved the following resolution:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to
cause an inquiry to be instituted into the conduct of Brigadier-
general James Wilkinson, Commander-in-chief of the Armies of the
United States, in relation to his having, at any time, while in the
service of the United States, corruptly received money from the
Government of Spain or its agents.
Mr. Clark said he unexpectedly heard himself named, and he
would observe that it had been long supposed, from his residence in
Louisiana, his acquaintance with military officers, and the various
means of information which he might have possessed while Consul
at New Orleans, that he was acquainted with certain transactions
which had taken place in that country. The knowledge which he had
possessed he had endeavored to impart to the Administration at
different times, both verbally and by a written correspondence, to
which a deaf ear had been turned. As this information had not been
attended to, he had refused to gratify curiosity on the subject. And,
notwithstanding the gentleman’s calling upon him, he felt himself
bound to say that he would not be influenced by fear, favor, or
affection, to give any information on the subject, except compelled
by a resolution of the House.
Mr. Thomas moved that the resolution offered by Mr. Randolph
should lie on the table; but a motion made to consider was agreed
to.
Mr. Randolph said, as it appeared by the declaration of the
gentleman from New Orleans, that he did possess information, and
as the House had a right to it, he wished the Speaker or some other
gentleman to inform him of the manner in which it might be
obtained.
[No order was taken on this point.]

Mr. Taylor moved that the resolution be committed to a Committee
of the Whole, not on to-day or to-morrow, but at a distant day, that
time might be afforded for consideration.
After debate, Mr. Taylor withdrew his motion.
Mr. Gardenier moved that it be referred to a select committee, with
power to send for persons, papers, &c.
Mr. Marion moved to strike out that part of this motion giving
power to a select committee to send for persons, papers, &c.
On the foregoing motions a very lengthy and somewhat desultory
debate ensued of about five hours. The debate turned on many
incidental questions, among which, whether Congress had a
constitutional right to request the President to cause the proposed
inquiry to be made? To this it was answered that Congress had as
much right to make this request as to request the President to lay
before them public papers—either of which requests he might
refuse. It was also said, that in making this request, the House could
not command more attention than was due to a respectable
individual.
It was doubted whether a member could be called upon to give
information in his seat, or at the bar of the House? In answer,
precedents were produced of cases in which members of the House
had been interrogated at the bar.
It was also contended, that if delivered in his place, the
communication would be liable to commentary or reply, by any
gentleman who might think proper to discuss it, in the same manner
as any other speech.
It was made a question whether this information could be more
properly received by a Committee of the Whole, or a select
committee, or by the House? It was said on this, that it had
heretofore been the course of procedure to empower chairmen of
committees in such cases to administer oaths; that in the House a
member could be compelled to give information if the House thought
fit, but in Committee of the Whole he could not be compelled; that if

information or evidence were to be received in the House, it would
perplex their proceedings by loading the table and journals with
interrogatories, &c.
It was questioned whether it were proper to decide it now, to
refer it, or to postpone it? On these points there appeared to be a
great diversity of opinion—some thinking that the evidence which
they had received was sufficient to induce them to pass the
resolution without further consideration, being a mere request to the
President to inquire; others wished further time and more evidence
previous to giving their vote on the subject, considering it of great
importance; others were in favor of a reference to a committee, to
consider all the foregoing points as well as the propriety of the main
resolution; some wished this committee to have power to send for
persons and papers, to report to the House their opinions on this
subject, together with evidence, believing that positive and
satisfactory evidence should be produced before they adopted this
resolution, and as it was impossible to understand precisely the
evidence now produced from the mere reading of it; other
gentlemen wished it referred to a committee without power to send
for persons, papers, &c., as they conceived the House did not
possess power to enforce their orders in such cases, General
Wilkinson being a military and not a civil officer, whom the President
alone had power to remove.
None of these points were decided either directly or by
implication.
In the course of this devious discussion, the succeeding
observations on the main subject were made by different gentlemen.
Mr. W. Alston had heard nothing in the documents read to-day
impeaching the character of General Wilkinson more than what the
newspapers throughout the Union had teemed with for two years,
except, indeed, a letter from Mr. Power; and who was Mr. Power, or
what credibility could be attached to any thing emanating from him?
Every person in the United States who could read knew his
character. He was opposed to coercing evidence or considering a

resolution proposing an inquiry, even if he were in favor of the
inquiry.
Mr. Smilie thought the debate which had already taken place on a
reference totally improper. He had heard sufficient evidence on this
subject to convince him that such an inquiry was necessary; he did
not think that there could be any further doubt on the subject. The
House could not try General Wilkinson; he must be tried by another
tribunal. They owed it to the country and to General Wilkinson
himself to request an inquiry, and he hoped there would not be a
dissenting voice on the question of agreement to the resolution. He
could not give an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of General
Wilkinson, but he thought it absolutely necessary that an inquiry
should be had.
Mr. Gardenier was satisfied of the impropriety of proceeding on the
consideration of any question of importance too hastily, more
especially in a case so materially affecting an officer of high rank in
the United States. He wished to have time to consider fully before he
could vote on a subject of as much magnitude as this; they should
not act from first impressions. If the subject were referred to a
committee with power to send for persons, papers, &c., the
testimony on the subject would come before them in a proper
shape, and not with the inaccuracy which must always attend
information given in this manner, but in a condensed form, in which
its force might be fully felt. He did not wish to be precipitated into an
inquiry too soon; neither did he wish an inquiry to be made because
it was due to General Wilkinson. If this inquiry was courted by, and
this motion intended as a favor to General Wilkinson, he was
astonished that it had not been brought forward before. There
certainly had been before ground enough shown for an inquiry into
his conduct; but if General Wilkinson’s conduct had so far evinced
his purity as not to excite in the Administration even a suspicion
against his character, if no inquiry had been made on the charges
which had resounded from every part of the Union, Mr. G. did not
wish now, merely for the sake of doing justice to that officer, to
press an inquiry which the Executive had not thought proper to

make. Neither did he wish rashly to decide on this question, because
in doing this they would add the weight of their accusation to the
cries of the whole nation; the united force of which no individual
could repel.
Mr. Chandler said this was a subject which had been long before
the nation, and with which they were all acquainted: if that officer
was innocent, it was due to himself and his friends that an inquiry
should be made; if he were guilty, it was due to the United States.
The evidence produced was sufficient on which to ground an inquiry,
and he was ready to decide without further time.
Mr. Nicholas had no doubt but an inquiry ought to be made; after
what had been heard, if General Wilkinson were the lowest officer in
the United States, he should be of opinion that an inquiry ought to
be made, but he doubted whether this was a question on which they
were now prepared to decide. For this reason he had seconded the
motion for referring the resolution to a select committee, who could
consider whether this subject came under cognizance of the House;
he considered the House as a mere legislative body, except in the
single case of impeachment. He was not prepared to say what was
proper to be done with this resolution, but his first impression was
against acting on it. It would open doors for receiving complaints of
the misconduct of any officer; he did not think this power was
lodged in the House, and he had no wish to assume powers which
did not pertain to them. As to the question whether there should be
an inquiry or not, no man could doubt. An inquiry must be made.
Would it be said that an office of this importance should be suffered
to be retained by a man who had received a pension from a foreign
Government? He thought it could not; and, therefore, he wished an
inquiry to be made into the truth of this charge.
Mr. Burwell was decidedly opposed to reference to any committee
whatever. It seemed to be the universal opinion that an inquiry
ought to be had on the conduct of the Commander-in-chief of the
Army of the United States; and it was highly important that the
subject should be acted on speedily. If the nation was (as appeared

probable) to be involved in war, it was necessary that the
Commander-in-chief should possess the confidence of the Army, the
People, and the Government.
Mr. Johnson said the good people of Kentucky were interested in
this subject. Many reports to the prejudice of General Wilkinson
existed there; nothing certain had appeared against him, but the
people entertained doubts on the subject; there were circumstances
which they wished to be investigated; if nothing could be found
against him, the sooner his innocence was known the better.
Knowing this, he should not hesitate to give his vote in such a
manner as to dispose of the subject most speedily. The investigation
was due to the people, and to the man himself.
Mr. Macon said if ever there had been a time since the year 1783,
in which it was particularly necessary that those persons in office
should have the confidence of the Government and of the people,
that time had arrived. Could it be expected after hearing the
information which had been produced that the people would have
confidence in General Wilkinson? It was as important that the
Commander-in-chief should be free from suspicion as that the
President or the House of Representatives should be unsuspected.
The Commander-in-chief during the American Revolution was
irreproachable; calumny never assailed him, and he of course
enjoyed the full confidence of the people. The evidence which had
been this day read, they were told, had neither been before the
grand jury nor the court at Richmond, and there was certainly
sufficient on which to ground an inquiry.
[An extended discussion took place, and continued, at intervals,
until the 7th of January, when Mr. Randolph withdrew his motion, to
make room for the following from Mr. Burwell of Virginia:
Resolved, That Mr. John Randolph, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia, and Mr. Daniel Clark, Delegate from the
Territory of Orleans, be requested to lay upon the Clerk’s table, all
papers or other information in their possession “in relation to the

conduct of Brigadier-general James Wilkinson, while in the service of
the United States, in corruptly receiving money from the
Government or agents of Spain.”
This resolution was adopted by a vote of 90 to 19.
In compliance with this vote, Mr. Randolph immediately laid on the
table the documents he had read on the 31st, and Mr. Clark, on
Monday the 11th, laid on the table the following statement:]
General Wilkinson.
DANIEL CLARK’S STATEMENT.
In obedience to the direction of the House of Representatives,
expressed in their resolution of Friday last, I submit the following
statement:
I arrived from Europe at New Orleans in December, 1786, having
been invited to the country by an uncle of considerable wealth and
influence, who had been long resident in that city. Shortly after my
arrival, I was employed in the office of the Secretary of the
Government—this office was the depository of all State papers. In
1787, General Wilkinson made his first visit to New Orleans, and was
introduced by my uncle to the Governor and other officers of the
Spanish Government.
In 1788, much sensation was excited by the report of his having
entered into some arrangements with the Government of Louisiana
to separate the Western country from the United States, and this
report acquired great credit upon his second visit to New Orleans in
1789. About this time I saw a letter from the General to a person in
New Orleans, giving an account of Colonel Connolly’s mission to him
from the British Government in Canada, and of proposals made to
him on the part of that Government, and mentioning his
determination of adhering to his connection with the Spaniards.

My intimacy with the officers of the Spanish Government and my
access to official information, disclosed to me shortly afterwards
some of the plans the General had proposed to the Government for
effecting the contemplated separation. The general project was, the
severance of the Western country from the United States, and the
establishment of a separate Government in the alliance and under
the protection of Spain. In effecting this, Spain was to furnish money
and arms, and the minds of the Western people were to be seduced
and brought over to the project by liberal advantages resulting from
it, to be held out by Spain. The trade of the Mississippi was to be
rendered free, the port of New Orleans to be opened to them, and a
free commerce allowed in the productions of the new Government
with Spain and her West India Islands.
I remember about the same time to have seen a list of names of
citizens of the Western country which was in the handwriting of the
General, who were recommended for pensions, and the sums were
stated proper to be paid to each; and I then distinctly understood
that he and others were actually pensioners of the Spanish
Government.
I had no personal knowledge of money being paid to General
Wilkinson or to any agent for him, on account of his pension,
previously to the year 1793 or 1794. In one of these years, and in
which I cannot be certain, until I can consult my books, a Mr. La
Cassagne, who I understood was Postmaster at the Falls of Ohio,
came to New Orleans, and, as one of the association with General
Wilkinson, in the project of dismemberment, received a sum of
money, four thousand dollars of which, or thereabout, were
embarked by a special permission, free of duty, on board a vessel
which had been consigned to me, and which sailed for Philadelphia,
in which vessel Mr. La Cassagne went passenger. At and prior to this
period I had various opportunities of seeing the projects submitted
to the Spanish Government, and of learning many of the details from
the agents employed to carry them into execution.

In 1794, two gentlemen of the names of Owens and Collins,
friends and agents of General Wilkinson, came to New Orleans. To
the first was intrusted, as I was particularly informed by the officers
of the Spanish Government, the sum of six thousand dollars, to be
delivered to General Wilkinson on account of his own pension, and
that of others. On his way, in returning to Kentucky, Owens was
murdered by his boat’s crew, and the money it was understood was
made away with by them. This occurrence occasioned a considerable
noise in Kentucky, and contributed, with Mr. Power’s visits at a
subsequent period, to awaken the suspicion of General Wayne, who
took measures to intercept the correspondence of General Wilkinson
with the Spanish Government, which were not attended with
success.
Collins, the co-agent with Owens, first attempted to fit out a small
vessel in the port of New Orleans, in order to proceed to some port
in the Atlantic States; but she was destroyed by the hurricane of the
month of August of 1794. He then fitted out a small vessel in the
Bayou St. John, and shipped in her at least eleven thousand dollars,
which he took round to Charleston.
This shipment was made under such peculiar circumstances that it
became known to many, and the destination of it was afterwards
fully disclosed to me by the officers of the Spanish Government, by
Collins, and by General Wilkinson himself, who complained that
Collins instead of sending him the money on his arrival had
employed it in some wild speculations to the West Indies, by which
he had lost a considerable sum, and that in consequence of the
mismanagement of his agents he had derived but little advantage
from the money paid on his account by the Government.
Mr. Power was a Spanish subject, resident in Louisiana, till the
object of his visits to the Western country became known to me in
1796, when he embarked on board the brig Gayoso, at New Orleans
for Philadelphia, in company with Judge Sebastian, in which vessel,
as she had been consigned to myself, I saw embarked under a
special permission four thousand dollars or thereabout, which, I was

informed, were for Sebastian’s own account, as one of those
concerned in the scheme of dismemberment of the Western country.
Mr. Power, as he afterwards informed me, on his tour through the
Western country, saw General Wilkinson at Greenville, and was the
bearer of a letter to him for the Secretary of the Government of
Louisiana, dated the 7th or 8th March, 1796, advising that a sum of
money had been sent to Don Thomas Portell, commandant of New
Madrid, to be delivered to his order. This money Mr. Power delivered
to Mr. Nolan, by Wilkinson’s directions. What concerned Mr. Nolan’s
agency in this business I learned from himself, when he afterwards
visited New Orleans.
In 1797, Power was intrusted with another mission to Kentucky,
and had directions to propose certain plans to effect the separation
of the Western country from the United States. These plans were
proposed and rejected, as he often solemnly assured me, through
the means of a Mr. George Nicholas, to whom among others they
were communicated, who spurned the idea of receiving foreign
money. Power then proceeded to Detroit to see General Wilkinson,
and was sent back by him under guard to New Madrid, from whence
he returned to New Orleans. Power’s secret instructions were known
to me afterwards, and I am enabled to state that the plan
contemplated entirely failed.
At the period spoken of, and for some time afterwards, I was
resident in the Spanish territory, subject to the Spanish laws, without
an expectation of becoming a citizen of the United States. My
obligations were then to conceal, and not to communicate to the
Government of the United States the projects and enterprises which
I have mentioned of General Wilkinson and the Spanish
Government.
In the month of October, of 1798, I visited General Wilkinson by
his particular request at his camp at Loftus’ Heights, where he had
shortly before arrived. The General had heard of remarks made by
me on the subject of his pension, which had rendered him uneasy,
and he was desirous of making some arrangements with me on the

subject. I passed three days and nights in the General’s tent. The
chief subjects of our conversation were, the views and enterprises of
the Spanish Government in relation to the United States, and
speculations as to the result of political affairs. In the course of our
conversation, he stated that there was still a balance of ten
thousand dollars due him by the Spanish Government, for which he
would gladly take in exchange Governor Gayoso’s plantation near the
Natchez, who might reimburse himself from the treasury at New
Orleans. I asked the General whether this sum was due on the old
business of the pension. He replied that it was, and intimated a wish
that I should propose to Governor Gayoso a transfer of his plantation
for the money due him from the Spanish treasury. The whole affair
had always been odious to me, and I declined any agency in it. I
acknowledged to him that I had often spoken freely and publicly of
his Spanish pension, but told him I had communicated nothing to his
Government on the subject. I advised him to drop his Spanish
connection. He justified it heretofore from the peculiar situation of
Kentucky; the disadvantages the country labored under at the period
when he formed his connection with the Spaniards, the doubtful and
distracted state of the Union at that time, which he represented as
bound together by nothing better than a rope of sand. And he
assured me solemnly that he had terminated his connections with
the Spanish Government, and that they never should be renewed. I
gave the General to understand that as the affair stood, I should not
in future say any thing about it. From that period until the present I
have heard one report only of the former connection being renewed,
and that was in 1804, shortly after the General’s departure from New
Orleans. I had been absent for two or three months, and returned to
the city not long after General Wilkinson sailed from it. I was
informed by the late Mayor, that reports had reached the ears of the
Governor, of a sum of ten thousand dollars having been received by
the General of the Spanish Government, while he was one of the
Commissioners for taking possession of Louisiana. He wished me to
inquire into the truth of them, which I agreed to do, on condition
that I might be permitted to communicate the suspicion to the
General, if the fact alleged against him could not be better verified.

This was assented to. I made this inquiry, and satisfied myself by an
inspection of the treasury-book for 1804, that the ten thousand
dollars had not been paid. I then communicated the circumstance to
a friend of the General, (Mr. Evan Jones,) with a request that he
would inform him of it. The report was revived at the last session of
Congress, by a letter from Colonel Ferdinand Claiborne, of Natchez,
to the Delegate of the Mississippi Territory. A member of the House
informed me that the money in question was acknowledged by
General Smith to have been received at the time mentioned, but that
it was in payment for tobacco. I knew that no tobacco had been
delivered, and waited on General Smith for information as to the
receipt of the money, who disavowed all knowledge of it; and I took
the opportunity of assuring him, and as many others as mentioned
the subject, that I believed it to be false, and gave them my reasons
for the opinion.
This summary necessarily omits many details tending to
corroborate and illustrate the facts and opinions I have stated. No
allusion has been had to the public explanations of the transaction
referred to, made by General Wilkinson and his friends. So far as
they are resolved into commercial enterprises and speculations, I
had the best opportunity of being acquainted with them, as I was,
during the time referred to, the agent of the house who were
consignees of the General at New Orleans, and who had an interest
in his shipments, and whoso books are in my possession.
DANIEL CLARK.
Washington City, Jan. 11, 1808.
District of Columbia, to wit:
January 11, 1808.
Personally appeared before me, William Cranch, chief judge of the
circuit court of the District of Columbia, Daniel Clark, Esq., who
being solemnly sworn on the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God, doth
depose and say, that the foregoing statement made by him, under

the order of the House of Representatives, so far as regards matters
of his own knowledge, is true, and so far as regards the matters
whereof he was informed by others, he believes to be true.
W. CRANCH.
Mr. Rowan moved to amend the resolution under consideration by
striking out all that part after the word “Resolved,” and inserting the
following:
Resolved, That a special committee be appointed to inquire into
the conduct of Brigadier General James Wilkinson, in relation to his
having, at any time whilst in the service of the United States,
corruptly received money from the Government of Spain or its
agents, and that the said committee have the power to send for
persons and papers, and compel their attendance and production—
and that they report the result of their inquiry to this House.
The Speaker declared the amendment to be a substitute, and of
course not in order.
Mr. Randolph said he was decidedly of opinion that the gentleman
from Kentucky ought to have an opportunity of taking the sense of
the House on his motion: he therefore withdrew the resolution under
consideration: when
Mr. Rowan moved the resolution as above stated.
Mr. Bacon said, notwithstanding the evidence which had just been
read, he would give the reasons why he could not yet vote for this
House to act in any manner on this subject, more especially as
proposed by this resolution. It was not to be concealed that the
impressions made upon his mind by the statement of the gentleman
from New Orleans were very considerable; but the impressions
which that or any other statement were calculated to make, were
very different from the question of what it was their duty to do in
relation to it. He hoped that they would not be so much impressed

by it (for it contained a great deal he must confess) as to suffer it to
impel them into a path wide of their constitutional limits. He did not
mean to express a definite sentiment as to the guilt or innocence of
the officer involved.
He would not, under the privilege of his seat, on the one hand
blazon the merits of General Wilkinson to the world, nor on the
other, declare that he had sufficient evidence of his guilt. He would
leave it to the unbiased decision of the proper tribunal.
Mr. B. observed the other day, and would now repeat it, that it
was not within their power to adopt the resolution then under
consideration, or that now offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.
He then and now conceived that the offence with which General
Wilkinson was charged, might be cognizable by more than one
department—certainly by the Executive, from his being a military
officer. He could say nothing about the inquiry now instituted one
way or the other; for if the constitution did not authorize them to
complete an inquiry, they had no right to interfere with it, being the
exclusive province of the Executive. It struck him further, that if the
facts in this statement should be proven on a full examination to be
true, (and he did not call its correctness in question, for he had
heard the same things from other people,) he could not see why it
was not a case cognizable by a judicial tribunal. The constitution
expressly forbade any person holding an office under the United
States to take a pension or donation from a foreign power. The act
of receiving money from a foreign power, therefore—the charge
made against General Wilkinson—was a crime against the supreme
law of the land, and cognizable by the judicial authority. If,
therefore, we could, as proposed, instruct, request, or in any
manner interfere with the Executive with respect to that portion of
the inquiry which appertains peculiarly to the Executive, as the only
power competent to remove this officer, why may we not in the
same manner interfere with the jurisdiction or cognizance of the
Supreme Court? He could see no difference; with equal justice they
could interfere with one as with the other.

Gentlemen who were in favor of an inquiry in this form, could not
have considered the subject so maturely as they ought. This was a
Government of distributive powers. One class had been delegated to
the Representative body, one to the Executive, and another to the
Judiciary. If they once began each to invade the other’s jurisdiction,
the distributive system was destroyed. It has been said that we are
the Representatives of the people; that it is our duty to see that the
Republic take no harm. This expression was calculated perhaps to
captivate the public ear, and acquire popularity, as well as to
captivate the House. But whatever they might think of what ought to
have been provided, they ought to consider what was. I do not
think, because we may on this, or any other occasion, suppose that
we could do a great deal of good, we ought to take any steps
towards effecting an object until we contemplate our particular
powers in relation to that object. It has been said that this House is
the grand inquest of the nation. I do not know what is meant by this
expression; but if I understand the meaning of the term, it conveys
the same meaning as grand jury. Now, Mr. B. said, he could not
agree to any position that this House was legitimately, on general
subjects, the grand inquest of the nation. With respect to
impeachments, and in that case alone, were they the grand jury, for
then the two Houses acted in a judicial capacity—this House being
the grand inquest to inquire, and the Senate being the petit jury to
judge of their presentment. Now, if this House were the grand
inquest to inquire into this, or a similar case, in which an inquiry
might seem to be conducive to the interest of the nation, and were
to present a result, where was the jury to judge of the truth of their
verdict? Was it to be tried by the Senate? That was not pretended to
be the course.
On all these accounts, therefore, whatever was the impression
which the paper this morning laid on the table might be calculated to
produce on their minds, he thought they ought sedulously to attend
to the constitutional limits of their duty, and not conclude, merely
because they might in any case act beneficially, that they had the
power to act in such case.

He had before observed, that he would not express an opinion;
but he would say that an inquiry ought to be had; it will, it must be
had, and it should be a full and impartial inquiry. If the inquiry which
had been instituted were but the semblance of an inquiry, for one it
would not satisfy him, or the people, or the nation; it ought not to
satisfy them. Gentlemen had said that a military court of inquiry
would not be competent. Mr. B. did not know what might be their
particular power as to sending for persons; but if that court had not
sufficient power, it was in the power of the House to clothe them
with it. He thought they might, though he would not say that they
ought to do this. As a court of inquiry might have been, or could be,
clothed with this power; and, adverting to what he had before said,
that it was a case cognizable by a judicial tribunal; and if so, that a
judicial tribunal had all the power that this House could exercise in
any criminal case, and more than they had in this, he should vote
against every resolution going to express a conviction that this
House had any power or right whatever to act on a subject solely
within the constitutional right of the Executive or Judiciary.
Mr. Randolph said, if the gentleman who had just sat down had not
given his hasty impressions, but left his good understanding free to
operate, his objections to the resolution would have vanished. The
great mistake made by every gentleman who opposed this measure
on constitutional grounds, was this: that they looked upon an inquiry
made by this House, through the organ of one of its committees, as
leading to the punishment of the individual implicated, and that
where this House was not competent to inflict punishment, it was
incompetent to make inquiry; this was the great stumbling-block,
which had impeded their apprehension. But he would ask the
gentleman from Massachusetts whether this House was not
competent to make an inquiry for its own legislative guidance? Was
it not competent, as well in its capacity of supervisor of the public
peace, as to obtain a guide for its own actions, to inquire into this
matter? Was not the House clothed with the power of disbanding the
army? Now, suppose a committee of the House, upon inquiry, were
to report, perhaps, that not only the Commander-in-chief, but the

whole mass of the army, were tainted with foreign corruption, or
were abettors of domestic treason, could any man assign to himself
a stronger reason than this for breaking an army on the spot? Did
not the gentleman know, or rather did he not feel, that this House
had the right of refusing the supplies necessary for the army? And
could a stronger reason be given for a refusal to pass the military
appropriation bill than that they were nourishing an institution which
threatened our existence as a free and happy people? Let me, if it is
in order, ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to turn his attention
to the proceeding of which we have official notice in another branch
of the National Legislature, an inquiry into the conduct of one of its
own members. Did they not all know that that man’s offence was
punishable by a civil tribunal? But the inquiry was not there made
with a view to a trial, not to usurp the powers of the judiciary, but to
direct that body in the exercise of its acknowledged legislative
functions. Inasmuch as they possessed the power to expel one of
their own members, to amputate the diseased limb, they possessed
the power, and exercised it, to make an inquiry. Now, the gentleman
from Kentucky had just as much right to institute an inquiry which
might lead to the exercise of the legislative powers of this House,
which might cause the disbanding of the present army, the erection
of another, or the refusal of supplies, as to institute an inquiry into
the conduct of a member with a view to his expulsion, or of an
Executive officer, with a view to impeach him before the Senate.
Mr. R. therefore presumed that any inquiry which this House might
choose to make into the conduct of any officer, civil or military, was
not an interference with the powers of any of the co-ordinate
branches of Government; they were left free to move in their own
orbits. If a crime had been committed against the statute law of the
United States by such officer, the judiciary were as free to punish it
as it was free to punish a member of this House, into whose
conduct, upon suspicion of treason or misdemeanor, inquiry had
been made, with a view to his expulsion. The Executive likewise was
left free to exercise his discretion; he was left free to dismiss this

officer, to inquire into his conduct himself, either with his own eyes
or ears, or by a military court; to applaud, or censure.
Did they take possession of the body of this officer by an inquiry
into his conduct? Did they interfere with the court of inquiry now on
foot, but totally incompetent to the object? Gentlemen, indeed, had
said, that if that court did not possess the power of compelling the
attendance of witnesses, we might clothe it with that power. In
expressing this opinion, the gentleman from Massachusetts had not
been more considerate than in expressing his first opinion. Could any
one conceive a more dreadful or terrible instrument of persecution
than a military court, clothed with the power to coerce the evidence,
and the production of papers of private citizens? Clothe them with
this power, and there is not a man in the United States who may not
be compelled to go, at whatsoever season, to the remotest garrison,
on whatsoever trifling occasion, at the will of a court martial, or a
court of inquiry, leading to the establishment of a court martial.
In the course of the present year, Mr. R. said it had been his lot to
receive, from no dubious or suspicious source, information touching,
not, to be sure, the immediate subject on which an inquiry had been
moved by the gentleman from Kentucky, but one intimately and
closely connected with it. He meant the project, through the
instrumentality of the Army of the United States, to dismember the
Union; and he had no hesitation in saying—and it had been the
opinion of a large majority, if not of every one of those of whom he
had been a colleague—that the Army of the United States was
tainted with that disease; and that, so far from the Army of the
United States having the credit of suppressing that project, the
moment it was found that the courage of that Army had failed, the
project was abandoned by those who had undertaken it, because
the agency of the army was the whole pivot on which that plot had
turned! This was in evidence before the grand jury, who had the
subject in cognizance last spring. He said that these conspirators
were caressed at the different posts of the United States, in their
way down the river, and by officers of no small rank, that they
received arms from them, and the principal part of the arms these

men had with them was taken from the public stores; and under a
knowledge of these circumstances, was he not justified in the belief
that the whole Army of the United States was connected in the
project? He did not mean every individual, for there were some who
could not be trusted, and some who were at posts too far distant to
be reached. That those who were confidants of the Commander-in-
chief were interested in the conspiracy, no man who knew any thing
of the circumstances could doubt. He, therefore, thought that the
resolution moved by the gentleman from Kentucky was every way
reasonable. Indeed, he did not know whether the resolution should
not be so varied as to embrace not only a charge of that nature, but
all whatsoever.
Before he sat down, he should have it in his power to give to the
House something certainly very much resembling evidence in
support of the justice of his suspicions on this subject. On the 26th
of January last, the House would perceive by the Journals, a
Message was received from the President of the United States,
“transmitting further information touching an illegal combination,”
&c., printed by order of the House, and which he now held in his
hand. In this Message is contained the following affidavit:
“I, James Wilkinson, Brigadier General and Commander-in-chief of
the Army of the United States, to warrant the arrest of Samuel
Swartwout, James Alexander, Esq., and Peter V. Ogden, on a charge
of treason, misprision of treason, or such other offence against the
Government and laws of the United States, as the following facts
may legally charge them with, on the honor of a soldier, and on the
Holy Evangelists of Almighty God, do declare and swear, that in the
beginning of the month of October last, when in command at
Natchitoches, a stranger was introduced to me by Colonel Cushing,
by the name of Swartwout, who, a few minutes after the Colonel
retired from the room, slipped into my hand a letter of formal
introduction from Colonel Burr, of which the following is a correct
copy:

“‘Philadelphia, 25th July, 1806.
“‘Dear Sir: Mr. Swartwout, the brother of Colonel S., of New York,
being on his way down the Mississippi, and presuming that he may
pass you at some post on the river, has requested of me a letter of
introduction, which I give with pleasure, as he is a most amiable
young man, and highly respectable from his character and
connections. I pray you to afford him any friendly offices which his
situation may require, and beg you to pardon the trouble which this
may give you.
“‘With entire respect, your friend and obedient servant,
A. BURR.
“‘His Exc’y Gen. Wilkinson.’
“Together with a packet, which he informed me he was charged
by the same person to deliver me in private. This packet contained a
letter in cipher from Colonel Burr, of which the following is,
substantially, as fair an interpretation as I have heretofore been able
to make, the original of which I hold in my possession.”
Mr. Randolph said he should certainly have abstained from noticing
the circumstance he was about to mention, and which he had
believed to be of general notoriety, had it not been that within a very
few days past, a gentleman, (with whom Mr. R. was in habits of
intimacy, and whose means of information were as good as those of
any member of the House,) to his utter surprise, informed Mr. R. that
he was totally ignorant of the fact.
Mr. R. said he held in his hand an actual interpretation of this
ciphered letter, which was made in the grand-jury room at
Richmond, by three members of that body, for their use, and in their
presence; and it was necessary here to state, that so extremely
delicate was General Wilkinson, that he refused to leave the papers
in possession of the grand jury: whenever the jury met, they were
put into their hands, and whenever they rose, the witness was called

up, and received them back again. Here was a copy—rather a
different one from that which, “On the honor of a soldier, and on the
Holy Evangelists of Almighty God,” was as fair an interpretation as
General Wilkinson was able to make. A comparison of the two would
throw a little light on the subject. In the printed copy of the last
session might be read, “I (Aaron Burr) have actually commenced the
enterprise—detachments from different points,” &c. In the original
the words had been scratched out with a knife, so as to cut the
paper—“I have actually commenced”—not the enterprise, but “the
Eastern detachments.” Now mark; by changing the word Eastern
into enterprise, and moving the full stop so as to separate Eastern
from its substantive detachments, the important fact was lost, that,
as there were Eastern detachments under Colonel Burr, there must
have been Western detachments under somebody else! Now, with a
dictionary in his hand, could any man change “Eastern” into
“enterprise,” and move the full stop, under an exertion of the best of
his ability? Again: the printed copy says, “every thing internal and
external favors views;” the original has it “favors our views.” The
word “our” perhaps could not be found in any English dictionary!
The printed version says again, “The project [this is the best
interpretation upon his oath which a party who had never suffered
the papers to go out of his hand could make] is brought to the point
so long desired.” The real interpretation is, “the project, my dear
friend, is brought to the point so long desired.”
Mr. R. said, exclusive of other and direct evidence, tending to
show the dependence which these conspirators put on the army of
the United States, and that it was eventually their sole hope and
support, and that the moment they found they were to be deprived
of it they changed their purpose—exclusive of this, and that the
conspirators were received at Massac and the other forts below, and
of their there getting arms and stores, there was something in this
suppression of words in the letter that spoke to his mind more
forcibly than volumes of evidence, the implication of a man who, had
he been innocent, would have given all the evidence in any letter he
professed to interpret. This suppression did certainly convey to the

mind of Mr. R. an impression, which he had never attempted to
conceal, of the guilt not only of the principal but of many of the
inferior officers of the Army. But guilt is always short-sighted and
infatuated. Not content with that dubious sort of faith which it might
sometimes acquire when not brought to the trial, it had attempted
not only to occupy the middle ground of doubt and suspicion, but to
clothe itself with the reputation of the fairest character in the
country, and in so doing, had torn the last shred of concealment
from its own deformity. It stood now exposed to the whole people of
the United States; and he left the House to say whether they would
shut their eyes and ears, as they had been almost invited to do,
against conviction.
Mr. Smilie wished to know of the gentleman from Virginia whether
there was not a motion before the grand jury to find a bill against
General Wilkinson?
Mr. Randolph said he had introduced this subject in order to
suggest to the gentleman from Kentucky the propriety of modifying
or amending his resolution. He would now give the information
required by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and hoped he should
not be considered as intruding on the time of the House in so doing.
There was before the grand jury a motion to present General
Wilkinson, for misprision of treason. This motion was overruled upon
this ground: that the treasonable (overt) act having been alleged to
be committed in the State of Ohio, and General Wilkinson’s letter to
the President of the United States having been dated, although but a
short time, prior to that act, this person had the benefit of what
lawyers would call a legal exception, or a fraud. But, said Mr. R., I
will inform the gentleman, that I did not hear a single member of
the grand jury express any other opinion than that which I myself
expressed of the moral (not of the legal) guilt of the party.
Mr. Smilie said he would not detain the House on this subject; he
had the other day taken an opportunity to state his sentiments on
the subject, that in his opinion there was no power in the House to
proceed in the business. The same sentiments he yet entertained;

and when gentlemen told him that it was necessary for the public
safety that this House should exercise such powers, and at the same
time they could not point out a single expression in the constitution
vesting the House with this power, he could not consent to vote with
them: nor had a single gentleman who had spoken, attempted to
show that they did possess these powers. The gentleman from
Virginia had spoken of their power to disband the army; if the
gentleman chose to bring forward a resolution for that purpose, Mr.
S. said he would meet him. He had also told them that they had a
power to refuse supplies: Mr. S. said he agreed with the gentleman
in this: but when they stepped out of the road, and assumed a
power not vested in them, he could not go along with the
gentleman. Was it not the duty of the President alone to inquire,
who possessed full power to act on the information which might be
the result of an inquiry? Certainly it was. The officer interested in
this discussion was undoubtedly subject to trial by a court martial,
and no doubt also by a court of justice; for if he was guilty of the
crimes laid to his charge, they were of a high nature, and would
subject him to the cognizance of the civil law.
But he would ask gentlemen, if they succeeded in passing the
resolution upon the table, what was next to be done? Did the House
believe that they could remove or punish a military officer for
misconduct? If they could not do this, and he presumed no
gentleman would contend for this, Mr. S. could see no reason for an
inquiry. Were they to become mere juries for a court of justice—
mere collectors of evidence—for it was admitted that they could not
act upon it after it was collected? He believed the courts of justice
were possessed of sufficient authority without this House
volunteering their assistance.
Mr. S. remarked what would be the effect of this motion, which
was substantially the same as that proposed by the gentleman from
New York, and rejected by a large majority. It would answer the
purpose of holding up this man to suspicion for years to come, for
aught he knew, without producing any other effect. He was willing to
inquire; he had seen from the beginning of the business that an

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankdeal.com

Guide to Computer User Support for Help Desk and Support Specialists 5th Edition Fred Beisse Solutions Manual

More Related Content

Similar to Guide to Computer User Support for Help Desk and Support Specialists 5th Edition Fred Beisse Solutions Manual (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Guide to Computer User Support for Help Desk and Support Specialists 5th Edition Fred Beisse Solutions Manual