_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to investigate the truth of the said allegations, and to report a statement of facts in the case aforesaid, with their opinion thereupon, whether the said Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, or either of them, have so conducted themselves on the trial aforesaid as to render necessary the interposition of the constitutional powers of this House. This amendment embraces all the facts stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, points out a specific charge as the foundation of the proceeding, and yet, when attached to the resolution, gives to the committee the power of general inquiry. We are told that the facts have been stated by a member on the floor, and there is no reason for stating them in the resolution. Will the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania appear on your journals, and how will it hereafter be known that any fact was stated as the foundation on which to erect a committee with general inquisitorial powers? Posterity will only see the resolution, and to them it will be a precedent which will justify the creation of a committee of inquiry into the official conduct of any officer, without the allegation of a single fact, whenever a member may choose to be of opinion that a vexatious and expensive proceeding shall be instituted. It was therefore that he wished to resist the principle, and for that purpose moved the amendment. Mr. HUGER said he had before stated, and he now repeated, that he was not averse to an investigation; but he did not consider himself bound to vote for a resolution so general and vague. If the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland were adopted, he should vote for the resolution. Mr. NICHOLSON moved to amend the amendment, by striking out the whole of it after the word “Whereas,” and by inserting-- “Members of this House have stated in their places that they have heard certain acts of official misconduct alleged against Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Richard Peters, judge of the district court of the district of Pennsylvania.” Mr. HUGER had no objection to the insertion of the last amendment, but he had to striking out the first. He therefore called for the yeas and nays upon striking out. The question was then taken by yeas and nays upon striking out, and carried--yeas 79, nays 41, as follows: