Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v3.djvu/598

582 to render it unnecessary for me to trouble this committed again on the subject.

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman means personal insinuations, or to wound my private reputation, I think this an improper place to do so. If, on the other hand, he means to go on in the discussion of the subject, he ought not to apply arguments which might tend to obstruct the discussion. As to land matters, I can tell how I came by what I have; but I think that gentleman (Mr. Nicholas) has no right to make that inquiry of me. I meant not to offend any one. I have not the most distant idea of injuring any gentleman: my object was to obtain information. If I have offended in private life, or wounded the feelings of any man, I did not intend it. I hold what I hold in right, and in a just manner. I beg pardon, sir, for having intruded thus far.

Mr. NICHOLAS. Mr. Chairman, I meant no personality in what I said, nor did I mean any resentment. If such conduct meets the contempt of that gentleman, I can only assure him it meets with an equal degree of contempt from me.

[Mr. President observed, that he hoped gentlemen would not be personal; that they would proceed to investigate the subject calmly, and in a peaceable manner.]

Mr. NICHOLAS replied, that he did not mean the honorable gentleman, (Mr. Henry;) but he meant those who had taken up large tracts of land in the western country. The reason he would not explain himself before was, that he thought some observations dropped from the honorable gentleman which ought not to have come from one gentleman to another.

Mr. MONROE. Mr. Chairman: I am satisfied of the propriety of closing this subject, sir; but I must beg leave to trouble the committee a little further. We find, sir, that two different governments are to have concurrent jurisdiction in the same object. May not this bring on a conflict in the judiciary? And if it does, will it not end in the ruin of one or the other? There will be two distinct judiciaries—one acting under the federal authority, the other the state authority. May it not also tend to oppress the people by having suits going on against them in both courts for the same debt?