Speech of Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, on the resolution to expunge a part of the journal for the session of 1833-1834, delivered in the Senate of the United States, January, 1837

t

SPEECH

or

MR. CLAY, OFKENTUOKY,

ON THE

RESOLUTION TO EXPUNGE A PART OF THE JOURNAL
FOR THE SESSION OF 1833-1834.

DELIVERED IN

THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

January, 1837.

WASHINGTON :

PlilNTED BY WILLIAM W, MOORE.

1837.

^v

.'7

%

SPEECH OF MR. CLAY, OF KENTUCKY,

EXPUNGING RESOLUTION.

Senate, Monday, January 16, 1S37.

Mr. Clay rose and said that, considerina, that he was the mover of the re-
solution of March, 1834, and the consequent relation in which he stood to
the majority of the Senate by whose vote it was adopted, he had felt it to be
his duty to say something on this expunging resolution; and he had always
intended to do so when he should be persuaded that there existed a settled
purpose of pressing it to a final decision. But it had been so taken up and
put down at the last session — taken up one day, when a speech was pre-
pared for delivery, and put down when it was pronounced, that he had really
doubted whether there existed any serious intention of ever putting it to the
vote. At the very close of the last session, it will be recollected that the
resolution came up, and in several quarters of the Senate a disposition was
manifested to come to a definite decision. On that occasion he had offered
to waive his right to address the Senate, and silently to vote upon the re-
solution; but it was again laid upon the table, and laid there forever, as the
country supposed, and as he believed. It is, however, now revived; and,
■iundry changes having taken place in the members of this body, it would
seem that the present design is to bring the resolution to an absolute con-
clusion.

1 have not risen (continued Mr. Clay) to repeat, at full length, the argu-
ment by which the friends of the resolution of March, 1834, sustained it.
That argument is before the world, was unanswered at the time, and is un-
answerable. And I here, in my place, in the presence of my country and of
my God, after the fullest consideration and deliberation of which my mind
is capable, re-assert my solemn conviction of the truth of every proposition,
contained in that resolution. But, whilst it is not my intention to commit
such an infliction upon the Senate as that would be of retracing the whole
ground of argument formerly occupied, I desire to lay before it, at this
time, a brief and true state of the case. Before the fatal step is taken of
giving to the exjpunging resolution the sanction of the American Senate, I
wish, by presenting a faithful outline of the real questions involved in the
resolution of 1834, to make a last, even if it is to be an inefiectual, appeal ^

to the sober judgments of^^T Senators. I begin by re-asserting the truth
of that resolution. ^^

Our British ancestors understood perfectly well the immense importance
of the money-f)Ower in a representative Government. It is the great lever
by which the Crown is touched, arid made to conform its administration to
the interests of the kingdom and the will of the people. Deprive Parlia-
ment of the power of freely granting or withholding supplies, and surrender
to the King the purse of the nation, he instantl}' becomes an absolute mon-
arch. Whatever may be the form of government, elective or hereditary,
democratic or despotic, that person who commands the force of the nation,
and at the same time has uncontrolled possession of the purse of the nation,
has absolute power, whatever may be iheofificial name by which he is called.

Our immediate ancestors, profiting by the lessons on civil liberty which
had been taught in the country from which we sprung, endeavored to encir-
cle around the public purse, in the hands of Congress, every j)ossible securi-
ty against the intrusion of the Executive. With this view, Congress alone
is invested, by the Constitution, with the power to la}'^ and collect the taxes.
When collected, not a cent is to be drawn from the public Treasury, but in
virtue of an act of Congress. And, among the first acts of this Government,
was the passage of a law establishing the Treasury Department, for the safe-
keeping and the legal and regular disbursement of the money so collected.
By that act a Secretary of the Treasury is placed at the head of the Depart-
ment; and, varying in this respect from all the other Departments, he is to
report, not to the President, but directly to Congress, and is liable to be call-
ed to give information in person before Congress. It is impossible to ex-
amine dispassionately that act, without coming to the conclusion that he is
emphatically the agent of Congress in performing the duties assigned by the
Constitution to Congress. The act further provides that a Treasurer shall be
appointed to receive and keep the public money, and none can be drawn
from his custody but under the authority of a law, and in virtue of a war-
rant drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury, countersigned by the Comp-
troller, and recorded by the Register. Only when such a warrant is pre-
sented can the Treasurer lawfully pay one dollar from the public purse.
Why was the concurrence of these four officers required in disbursements
of the public money? Was it not for greater security? Was it not intended
that each, exercising a separate and independent will, should be a check upon
every other? Was it not the purpose of tlie law to consider each of these
four officers, acting in his proper sphere, not as a mere automaton, but as an
intellectual, intelligent, and responsible person, bound to observe the law,
and to stop the warrant, or stop the money, if the authority of the law were
wanting?

Thus stood the Treasury from 1789 to 1S16. During that long time no
President had ever attempted to interfere with the custody of the public'
purse. It remained where the law placed it, undisturbed, and every Chief
Magistrate, including the Father of his Country, respected the law.

In 1816 an act passed to establish the late Bank of the United States for
the term of twenty years; and, by tlie 16th section of the act, it is enacted
<<that the depositcs of the money of the United States in places in which
thei?aid bank and the branches thereof may be established, shall be made in
said bank or branches thereof, unless the ^Secretary of the. Treasury shall
at any time otherwise order and direct; in which case, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall immediately lay before Congress, if in session, and, if not,

6 ^-

immediately aOer the commencement of *he next session, the reasons of
such order or direction.'"

Thus it is perfectly manifesf, from the express words of the lau-, that the
power to make any order or direction for the removal of the public deposites
is confined to the "Secretary alone, to the absolute exclusion of the President,
and all the world besides.' And the law, proceeding upon the established
principle that the Secretary of the Treasury, in all that concerns the public
purse, acts as the direct agent of Congress, requires, in the event of his or-
dering or directing a removal of the deposites, that he shall immediately lay
his reasons therefor before whom? The President? No; before Congress-

So stood the public Treasury and the public deposites from the year 1816
to September, 1833. In all that period of seventeen years, running tlirough
or into four several Administrations of the Government, the law had its un-
interrupted operation, — no Chief Magistrate having assumed upon himself
the power of diverting the public purse from its lawful custody, or of sub-
stituting his will for that of the officer to whose care it was exclusively en-
irusted.

In the session of Congress of lS32-'3 an inquiry had be':n instituted by
the House of Representatives into the condition of tiie Bank of the United
States. It resulted in a conviction of its entire safety, and a declaration oy
the House, made only a short time before the adjournment of Congress on
the 4th of March, lvS33, that the public deposites were perfectly secure.
This declaration was probably made in consequence of suspicions then afloat
of a design on the part of the Executive to remove the deposites. These
suspicions were denied by the press friendly to the Administration. Never-
theless, the members had scarcely reached their respective iiomes before
measures were commenced by the Executive to effect a removal of the de-
posites from that very place of satety u-hich it was among the last acts of
the House to declare existed in the Bank of the United States.

In prosecution of this design, Mr. McLane, the Secretary of the Treasu-
ry, who was decidedly opposed to such a measure, was promoted to th.e De-
partment of State, and M.'-. Duane was appointed to succeed him. But Mr.
Duane was equally convinced with his predecessor that he was forbidden bv
ever}- consideration of duty to execute the power with which the law liad
entrusted the Secretary of the Treasury, and refused to remove the deposites:
whereupon he was dismissed from ofiice. a new Secretary of the Treasury
was appointed, and, in September, 1833, by the command of the President,
the measure was finally accomplished. That it was the President's act was
never denied, but proclaimed, boasted, defended. It fell upon the country
like a thunderbolt, agitating the Union from one extremity to the other.
The stoutest adherents of the Administration were alarmed; and all think-
ing men, not blinded by party prejudice, beheld Im the act a bold and dan-
gerous exercise of power; and no human sagacity can now foresee the tre-
mendous consequences which will ensue. The measure was adopted not
long before the approaching session of Congress; and, as the concurrence
of both branches might be necessary to compel a restoration of the de-
posites, the object was to take the cha.ice of a possible division betweeti
them, and thereby defeat the restoration.

And where did the President find the power for this most extraordinary
act? It has been seen that the Constitulicn, jealous of all Executive inter-
ference with the Treasury of the nation, has confided it to the cxclusiva

care of Coiij^ress, by every precautionary guard, from the first imposition
of the taxes lo the final digbursemenl of the public money.

It has been seen that the language of the sixteenlh section of the law of 1816
is express anJ free from all ambiguity; and that the Secretary of the Trea-
sury is the sole and exclusive depositor}' of the authority which it confers.

Those who maintain the power of the President have to support it against
the positive language of the Constitution, against the explicit words of the
statute, and against the genius and theory ol' ail our institutions.

And how do they surmount these insuperable obstacles? By a series of
far-fetched implications, wliich, if every one of tliem were as true as they
are believed to be incorrect or perverted, would stop far short of maintain-
ing the power which was exercised.

The first of these implied powers is, that of dismissal, which is claimed
for the President. Of all the questioned powers ever exercised by this Go-
vernment, this is the most questionable. From the first Congress down to
the present Administration, it had never been examined. It was carried,
then, in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice President. And those
who, at that day, argued in behalf of the power, contended for it upon con-
ditions which have been utterly disiegarded by the present Chief Magistrate.
T ►^ power of dismissal is nowhere in the Constitution granted, in express
terms, to the President. It is not a necessary incident to any granted pow-
er; and the friends cf the power have never been able to agree among them-
selves as to the precise part of the Constitution from which it springs.

But, if the power of dismissal was as inconfestible as it is justly contro-
vertible, we utterly den}' the consequences deduced from it. The argu-
ment is, that the President has, by implicatifin, the power pf dismissal.
From this first implication another is drawn, and that is, that the President
has the power to control the officer, whom he may dismiss, in tiie discharge
of his duties, in all cases whatever; and that thiis power of control is so com-
preh'insive as to include even the case of a" specific duty expressly assigned
by law to the designated officer.

Now, we deny these results from the .dismissing power. That power,
if it exists, can draw after it only a right of general superintendence.
It cannot authorize the President to substitute his will to the will of the of-
ficer charged with the j)erformance of official duties. Above all, it cannot
justify suet: a substitution in a case where the law, as in the present instance,
assigns to a designated oflicer exclusively the performance of a particular
duty, and commands him to report not to the President, but to Congress,
in a case regarding the public purse of the nation, committed to the exclu-
sive control of Congress.

Such a consequence as that which I am contesting would concentrate in
the hands of one man the entire Executive power of the nation, uncontroll-
ed and unchecked.

It would be utterly destructive of all official responsil^ility. Instead of
each officer being responsible, in his own separate sphere, ibr his official acts,
he would shelter himself behind the orders of the President. And what tri-
bunal, in Heaven above or on earth below, could render judgment against
any officer for on act, liowever atrocious, performed by the express com-
mand of the Presidetit, which, accoi-ding to the argument, he was absolutely
bound to obey?

Whilst all official responsibility would be utterly annihilated in subordi-

j-o

nate officers, there would be no practical or available responsibility in the
President himself.

But the case has been supposed, of a necessity for the removal of the de-
posites, and a refusal of the Secretary of the Treasury to remove them; and
it is triumphantly asked if, in such a case, the President may not remove
him, and command the deed to be done. That is an extreme case, which
may be met by another. Suppose the President, without any necessity,
orders the removal from a place of safety to a place of hazard? If there be
danger that a Secretary may neglect his duty, there is equal danger that a
President may abuse his authority. Infallibility is not a human attribute.
And there is more security for the Public in holding the Secretary of the
Treasury to the strict performance of an official duty specially assigned 1o
him, under all his official responsibility, than to allow the President to wrest
the work from his hands, annihilate his responsibility, and stand himself
practically irresponsible. It is far better that millions should be lost by the
neglect of a Secretary of the Treasury, than to establish the monstrous prin-
ciple that all the checks and balances of the Executive Government shall be
broken down, the whole power absorbed by one man, and his will become
the supreme rule. The argument which I am combatting places the whole
Treasury of the nation at the mercy of the Executive. It is in vain to talk
of appropriations by law, and the formalities of warrants upon the Treasury.
Assuming the argument to be correct, what is to prevent the execution of
an order from the President to the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a war-
rant without the sanction of a previous legal appropriation, to the Comp-
troller to countersign it, to the Register to register it, and to the Treasurer
to pay it? What becomes of that quadruple security which the precaution
of the law provided? Instead of four substantive and independent wills,
acting under legal obligatioi.s, all are merged in the Executive vortex.

But there was, in point of fact, no cause, none whatever, for the measure.
Every fiscal consideration (and no other had the Secretary or the President
a right to entertain) required thedeposites to be left undisturbed in the place
of perfect safety where by law they were. We told you so at the time.
We asserted that the charges of ingecurit}' and insolvency of the bank were
without the slightest foundation. And time, that great arbiter of human
controversies, has confirmed all that we said. The bank, from documents
submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury at the present ses-
sion, appears to be able not only to return every dollar of the stock held in
its capital by the Public, but an addition of eleven percent, beyond it.

Those who defend the Executive act, have to maintain not only that the
President may assume upon himselfthe discharge of a duty specially assigned
to the Secretary of the Treasury, but that he may remove that officer, ar-
bitrarily, and without any cause, because he refused to remove the public
deposites without cause.

My mind conducts me to a totally diffiirent conclusion. I think, Isolemn-
!y believe, that the President "assumed upon himself authority and power
not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both," in
the language of the resolution. I believed then in the truth of the resolu-
tion; and I now in my place, and under all my responsibilit}-, reavow my
unshaken conviction of it.

But it has been contended on this occasion, as it was in the debate which
preceded the adoption of the resolution of 1834, that the Senate has no

right to express the truth on any question which, by possibility, may be-
come a subject of impeachment. It is manifest that if it may, there is no
more usual or appropriate form in which it may be done than that of reso-
lutions, joint or separate, orders, or bills. In no other mode can the collec-
tive sense of the body be expressed. But Senators maintain that, no matter
what may be the Executive encroachment upon the joint powers of the two
Houses, or the separate authority of the Senate, it is bound to stand mule,
and not breathe one word of complaint or remonstrance. According to the
argument, the greater the violation of the Constitution or the law, the greater
the incompetency of the Senate to express any opinion upon it! Further,
that this incompetency is not confined to the acts of the President only, but
extends to those of every officer who is liable to impeachment under the
Constitution. Is this possible? Can it be true? Contrary to all the laws of
Nature, is the Senate the only being which has no power of self-preserva-
tion— no right to complain or to remonstrate against attacks upon its very
existence?

The argument is, that the Senate, being the constitutional tribunal to try
all impeachments, is thereby precluded from the exercise of the right to ex-
press any opinion upon any official malfeasance, except when acting in its
judicial character.

U this disqualification exist, it applies to all impeachable officers, and
ought to have protected the late Postmaster General against the resolution,
unanimously adopted by the Senate, declaring that he had borrowed money
contrary to law. And it would disable the Senate from considering that
Treasury order which has formed such a prominent subject of its delibera-
tions during the present session.

And how do Senators maintain this obligation of the Senate to remain si-
lent and behold itself stript, one by one, of all its constitutional powers,
without resistance, and without murmur? Is it imposed by the language of
the Constitution? Has any part of that instrument been pointed to which
expressly enjoins it? No, no, not a syllable. But it is attempted to be de-
duced by another far-fetched implication. Because the Senate is the body
which is to try impeachments, therefore it is inferred the Senate can ex-
press no opinion on any matter which ma)?^ form the subject of impeachment.
The Constitution does not say so. That is undeniable; but Senators think so.

The Senate acts in three characters; Legislative, Executive, and Judicial;
and their importance is in the order enumerated. By far the most impor-
tant of the three is its legislative. In that, almost every day that it has
been in session from 1789 to the present time, some legislative business has
been transacted; whilst, in its judicial character, it has not sat more than
three or four times in that whole period.

Why should the judicial function limit and restrain the legislative func-
tion of the Senate, more than the legislative should the judicial? If the de-
gree of importance of the two should decide which ought to impose the re-
straint, in cases of conflict between them, none can doubt which it sliould be.

But if the argument is Sound, how is it possible for the Senate to perform
its legislative duties? An act in violation of the Constitution or laws is com-
mitted by the President or a subordinate Executive officer, and it becomea
necessary to correct it by the passage of a law. The very act of the Presi-
dent in question was under a law to which the Senate had given its concur-
rence. According to the argument, the correcting law cannot originate in
the Senate, because it would have to pass in judgment upon that act. Nay,

CT...

more, it cannot originate in the House and be sent to the Senate, for the
same reason of incompetency in the Senate to pass upon it. Suppose the bill
contained a preamble reciting the unconstitutional or illegal act, to which the
legislative corrective is applied, according to the argument, the Senate must
not think of passing it. Pushed to its legitimate consequence, the argu-
ment requires the House of Representatives itself cautiously to abstain from
the expression of any opinion upon an Executive act, except when it is act-
ing as the grand inquest of the nation, and considering articles of impeach-
ment.

Assuming that the argument is well founded, the Senate is equally re-
strained from expressing any opinion which would imply the innocence or
the guilt of an impeachable officer, unless it be maintained that it is lawful
to express praise and approbation, but not censure or difierence of opinion.
Instances have occurred in our past history, (the case of the British minister,
Jackson, was a memorable one,) and many others may arise in our future
progress, when, in reference to foreign Powers, it may be important for
Congress to approve what lias been done by the Executive, to present a
firm and united front, and to pledge the country to siand by and support
him. May it not do that? If the Senate dare not entertain and express any
opinion upon an Executive measure, how do those who support this ex-
punging resolution justify the acquittal of the President which it proclaims?

No Senator believed in 1834 that, whether the President merited im-
peachment or not, he ever would be impeached. In point of fact he has
not been, and we have every reason to suppose that he never will be im-
peached. Was the majority of the Senate, in a case where it believed the
Constitution and laws to have been violated, and the liberties of the People
to be endangered, to remain silent, and to refrain from proclaiming the
truth, because, against all human probability, the President might be im-
peached by a majority of his political *friends in the House of Representa-
tives?

If an impeachment had been actually voted by the House of Representa-
tives, there is nothing in the Constitution which enjoins silence on the part
of the Senate. In such a casa, it would have been a matter of propriety for
the consideration of each Senator to avoid the expression of anv opinion on
a matter upon which, as a sworn judge, he would be called to act.

Hitherto I have considered the question on the supposition that the reso-
lution of March, 1834, implied such guilt in the President that he would
have been liable to conviction or. a trial by impeachment before the Senate
of the United Slates. But the resolution, in fact, imported no such guilt.
It simply affirmed that he had ^'assumed upon himself authority and power
not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." It
imputed no criminal molives. It did not profess to penetrate into the heart
of the President. According to the phraseology of the resolution, the ex-
ceptionable act might have been performed with the purest and most
patriotic intention. The resolution neither affirmed his innocence, nor pro-
nounced his guilt. It amounts, then, say his friends on this floor, to no-
thing. Not so. If the Constitution be trampled upon, and the laws be vi-
olated, the injury may be equally great whether it has been done with good
or bad intentions. There may be a difference to the officer, none to the
country- The country, as all experience demonstrates, has most reason to
apprehend those encroachments which take place on plausible pretexts, and
with good intentions.

le

I put it, Mr. President, to the calm and deliberate consideration of the
majority of the Senate, are you ready to pronounce, in the face of this en-
lightened community, for all time to come, and whoever may happen to be
the President, that the Senate dare not, in language the most inoffensive and
respectful, remonstrate against any Executive usurpation, whatever may be
Us degree of danger ?

For one, I will not, I cannot. I believe the resolution of March, 1834, to
have been true; and that it was competent to the Senate to proclaim the
truth. And 1 solemnly believe that' the Senate would have been culpably
neglectful of its duty to itself, to the Constitution, and to the country, if it
had not announced the truth.

But let me suppose that in all this I am mistaken; that the act of the Presi-
dent to which exception was made was in conformity with the spirit of our
free institutions and the language of our Constitution and laws; and that,
whether it was or not, the Senate of 1834 had no authority to pass judgment
upon it; what right has the Senate of 1837, a component part of another
Congress, to pronounce judgment upon its predecessor ? How can you who
venture to impute to those who have gone before you an unconstitutional
proceeding escape a similar imputation ? What part of the Constitution
•riommunicates to you any authority to arraign and try your predecessors ?
In what article is contained your power to expunge what they have done ?
And may not the precedent lead to a perpetual circle of defacement and
restoration of the transactions of the Senate as consigned to the public
records ?

Are you not only destitute of all authority, but positively forbidden to
do what the expunging resolution proposes ? The injunction of the Consti-
tution to keep a journal of our proceedings is clear, express and emphatic.
It is free from all ambiguity: no sophistry can pervert the explicit language
of the instrument; no artful device can elude the force of the obligation
which it imposes. If it were possible to make more manifest the duty
which it requires to be performed, that was done by the able and eloquent
speeches, at the last session, of the Senators from Virginia and Louisiana,
(Messrs. Leigh and Porter,) and at this of my colleague. I shall not
repeat the argument. But I would ask, if there were no constitutional
requirements to keep a journal, what constitutional right has the Senate of
this Congress to pass in judgment upon the Senate of another Congress, and
to expunge from its journal a deliberate act there recorded ? Can an uncon-
stitutional act of that Senate, supposing it to be so, justify you in perform-
ing another unconstitutional act?

But in lieu of any argument upon the point from me, I beg leave to cite for
the consideration of the Senate two precedents: one drawn from the reign
of the most des[)Otic monarch in modern Europe, under the most despotic
minister that ever bore sway over any people; and the other from the purest
fountain of democracy in this country. I quote from the interesting life of
the Cardinal Richelieu, written by that most admirable and popular author,
Mr. James. The Duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis the 1 3th, had been
goaded into rebellion by the wary Richelieu. The King issued a decree
declaring all the supporters of the Duke guilty of high treason, and a copy
of it was despatched to the Parliament of Paris, with an order to register it
at once. The Parliament demurred, and proceeded to what was called un
arret de partage. "Richelieu, however, could bear no contradiction in the
course which he had laid down for himself;" [How strong a resemblance

11

0.5

does that feature of his character bear to one of an illustrious individual
whom I will not further describe !] " and hurrying back to Paris with the
Kinj;, he sent, in the monarch's name, a command for the members of the
Parliament to present themselves at ihe Louvre in a body and on foot. He
was obeyed immediately; and the King receiving them with great haughti-
ness, the Keeper of the Seals made Ihem a speech, in which he declared that
they had no authority to deliberate upon affairs of Slate; that the business
of private individuals they might discuss, but that the will of the monarch
in other matters they were alone called upon to register. The. King then
tore loilh his mvn hands the page of the trgis/er on ivhich the arrat de
partage had been inscribed, and punished wilh suspension from their
functions several of the members of the various courts composing the
rarliament of Paris. ^^ How repeated acts of the exercise of arbi-
trary power are likely to subdue the spirit of liberty, and to render
callous the public sensibility and the fate which awaits us, if we had not
been recently unhappily taught in this country, we may learn from the same
author. '^The finances of tiie State were exhausted, new impositions were
devised, and a number of new offices created and sold. Against the last
named abuse the Parliament ventured to remonstrate; but the Government
of the Cardinal had for its first principle despotism, and the refractory mem-
bers were punished, some wilh exile, some with suspension of their func-
tions. All were forced to comply wilh his will; and the Parliament, unable
to resist, yielded, step by step, to his exactions."

The other precedent is supplied by the archives of the democracy of
Pennsylvania in ISIG, when it was genuine and unmixed wilh any other
ingredient.

The provisions of the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsyl-
vania, in regard to the obligation to keep a journal, are substantially the
same. That of the United States requires that "each House shall keep a
journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, except
such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays
of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-
fifth of the members present, be entered on the journal," And that of
Pennsylvania is, "each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and
publish them weekly, except such parts as require secrecy; and the yeas and
nays of the members, on any question, shall, at the desire of any two of
them, be entered on the journals." Whatever inviokbility, therefore, is
attached to a journal, kept in conformity with the one Constitution, must be
equally stamped on that kept under the other. On the 10th February,
1816, in the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, "the Speaker in-
formed the House that a constitutional question being involved in a decision
by him yesterday, on a motion to expunge certain proceedings from the
journal, he was desirous of having the opinion of the House on that decision,
viz. that a majority can expunge from the journal any proceedings in which
the yeas and nays have not been called.''^ Whereupon Mr. Holgate and
Mr. Smith appealed from said decision; and on the question, is the Speaker
right in his decision ? the members present voted as follows: yeas three,
nays seventy-eight. Among the latter are to be found the two Senators
now representing in this body the State of Pennsylvania. On the same
day a motion was made by one of them (Mr. Buchanan) and Mr. Kelly,
and read as follows: '^ Resolved, That in ihe opinion of this House no part
of the journals of the House can be expunged even by unanimous consent."

12

The Senate observes that the question arose in a case where the yeas and
nays had not been called. Even in such a case there were but four mem-
bers out of eig;hty-two that thought it was competent to the House to ex-
punge. Had the yeas and nays been called and recorded, as they were on
the resolution. of March, 1834, there would not have been a solitary vote in
the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania in support of the power of
expunging. And if you can expunge the resolution, why may you not ex-
punge also the recorded yeas and nays attached to it?

But, if the matter of expunction be contrary to the truth of the case, re-
proachful for its base subserviency, derogatory from the just and necessary
powers of the Senate, and repugnant to the Constitution of the United States,
the manner in which it is proposed to accomplish this dark deed is also
highly exceptionable. The expunging resolution, which is to blot out or
enshroud the four or five lines in wliich the resolution of 1834 stands record-
ed, or rather I he recitals by which it is preceded, are spun out into a thread
of enormous length. It runs, whereas, and whereas, and whereas, and
whereas, and whereas, &c. into a formidable array of nine several whereases.
One who should have the courage to begin to read them, unaware of what
was to be their termination, would think that at the end of such a tremen-
dous display he must find the very devil. It is like a kite or a comet,
except thattiie order of Nature is inverted, and the tail, instead of being
behind, is before the body to which it is appended.

I shall not trespass on the Senate by inquiring into the truth of all the
assertions of fact and of principle contained in these recitals. It would not
be difficult to expose them all, and to show that not one of them has more
than a colorable foundation. It is asserted by one of them that the Presi-
dent was put upon his trial, and condemned, unheard, by the Senate in 1834.
Was that true? Was it a trial? Can the majority now assert, upon their
oaths, and in their consciences, that there was aiiy trial or condemnation ?
During the warmth of debate. Senators might endeavor to persuade them-
selves and the Public tliat the proceeding of 1S34 was, in its effects and con-
sequences, a trial, and would be a condemnation of the President; but now,
after the lapse of near three years, when the excitement arising from an
animated discussion has passed away, it is marvellous that any one should
be prepared to assert that an expression of the opinion of the Senate upon
the character of an Executive act was an arraignment, trial, and conviction
of the President of the United Slates!

Another fact, asserted in one of these recitals, is, that the resolution of
1834, in either of the forms in which it was originally presented or subse-
quently modified prior to the final shape which it assumed when adopted,
would have been rejected by a majority of the Senate. What evidence is
there in support of this assertion ? None. It is, I verily believe, directly
contrary to the fact. In either of the modifications of the resolution, I have
not a doubt that it would have passed ! They were all made in that S|)irit
of accommodation by which the mover of the resolution has ever regulated
his conduct as a member of a deliberative body. In not one single instance
did he understand from any Senator at whose request he made the modifica-
tion, that, without it, he would vote against the resolution. How, then, can
even the Senators who were of the minority of 1834, undertake to make the
assertion in question? How can the new Senators, who liave come here
since, pledge themselves to the fact asserted in the recital of which they
could not have had any conusance? But all the members of the majority —
the veterans and the raw recruits — the six years men and the six weeks men

13 JV

are required to concur in this most unfounded assertion, as I believe it lo

be. I submit it to one of the lat'.er (looking towards Mr. Dana, from Maine,^
here by a temporary appointment from the Executive,) whether, instead of
inundaVmg the Senate with a torrent of fulsome and revolting adulation
poured on the President, it would not be wiser and more patriotic to illus-
trate the brief period of his Senatorial existence by some great measure
fraught with general benefit to the whole Union ? Or, if he will not or can-
not elevate himself to a view of the interests of the entire country, whether
he had not better dedicate his time to an investigation into the cause of an
alien jurisdiction being still exercised over a large part of the territory of the
State which he represents ? And why the American carrying trade to the
British colonies, in which his State was so deeply interested, has been lost
by a most improvident and bunglmg arrangement ?

Mr. President, what patriotic purpose is to be accomplished by this ex-
punging resolution ? What new honor or fresh laurels will it win for our
common country ? Is the power of the Senate so vast that it ought to be
circumscribed, and that of the President so restricted that it ought to be ex-
tended > What power has the Senate ? None separately. It can only act
jointly with the other House, or jointly with the Executive. And although
the theory of the Constitution supposes, when consulted by him, it may
freely give an affirmative or negative response, according to the practice, as
it 710W exists, it has lost the faculty of pronouncing the negative monosylla-
ble. When the Senate expresses its deliberate judgment, in the form of re-
solution, that resolution has no compulsory force, but appeals only to the
dispassionate intelligence, the calm reason, and the sober judgment of the
community. The Senate has no army, no navy, no patronage, no lucrative
offices, nor glittering honors to bestow. Around us there is no swarm of
greedy expectants, rendering us homage, anticipating our wishes, and ready
to execute our commands.

How is it with the President ? Is he powerless ? He is felt from one ex-
tremity to the other of this vast Republic. By means of principles which
he has introduced, and innovations which he has made in our institutions,
alas! but too much countenanced by Congress and a confiding- People, he
exercises uncontrolled the power of the State. In one hand he holds the
purse, and in the other brandishes the sword of the country. Myriads of
dependents and partisans, scattered over the land, are ever ready to sing ho-
sannas to him, and to laud to the skies whatever he does. He has swept
over the Government, during the last eight years, like a tropical tornado.
Every department exhibits traces of the ravages of the storm. Take, as one
example, the Bank of the United States. No institution could have been
more popular with the People, with Congress, and with State Legislatures.
None ever belter fulfilled the great purposes of its establishment. But it un-
fortunately incurred the displeasure of the President; he spoke, and
the bank lies prostrate. And those who were loudest in its praise are now
loudest in its condemnation. What object of his ambition is unsatisfied ?
When disabled from age any longer to hold the sceptre of power, he desig-
nates his successor, and transmits it to his favorite ! What more does he
want ? Must we blot, deface, and mutilate the records of the country to
punish the presumptuousness of expressing an opinion contrary to his own?
• \V hat patriotic purpose is lo be accomplished by tliis expunging resolution?
Can you make that not to be which has been? Can you eradicate from me-
mory and from history the fact that in March, 1834, a majority of the Senate ^

14

of the United States passed the resolution which excites your enmity? Is it
your vain and wicked object to arrogate to yourselves that power of annihi-
lating the past, which has been denied to Omnipotence itself? Do you intend
to thrust your hands into our hearts, and to pluck out the deeply-rooled con
viciions which are there ? Or is it your design merely to stigmatize us ?
lOU cannot stigmatize US.

Ne'er jet did base dislionor blur our name.
Standing securely upon our conscious rectitude, and bearino- aloft the
shield of the Constitution of our country, your puny efforts are^'impotent
and we defy all your power. Put the majority of 1834 in one scale, and that
by which this expunging resolution is to be carried in the other, and let
truth and justice, in Heaven above, and on Earth below, and liberty and
patriotism decide the preponderance.

What patriotic purpose is to be accomplished by this expunging resolution ?
Is it to appease the wrath, and to heal the wounded pride of the Chief
Magistrate ? If he be really the hero that his friends represent him, he
must despise all mean condescension, ail grovelling sycophancy, all self-
degradation and self-abasement. He would reject, with scorn and contempt
as unworthy of his fame, your black scratches and your baby lines in the
fair records of his country. Black lines ! Black lines ! Sir, I hope the
Secretary of the Senate will preserve the pen with which he may inscribe
them, and present it to that Senator of the majority whom he may select, as
a proud troj)hy, to be transmitted to his descendants. And hereafter, when
we shall lose the forms of our free institutions, ail that now remains to us
some future American monarch, in gratitude to those by whose means he
has been enabled, upon the ruins of civil liberty, to erect a throne, and to
commemorate especially this expunging resolution, may institute a new
order of Knighthood, and confer on it the appropriate name of The Kniehts
ol the Black Lines °

But why should I detain the Senate, or needlessly waste my breath in
Iruitless exertions. The decree has gone forth. It is one of urgency, too
1 he deed is to be done— that foul deed, which, like the blood-stained hands
of the guilty Macbeth, all Ocean's waters will never wash out. Proceed
then, to the noble work which lies before you, and like other skilful execu-
tioners, do It quickly. And when you have perpetrated it, go home to the
People, and tell them what glorious honors you have achieved for our com-
mo.n country. Tell them that you have extinguished one of the brightest
and purest lights that ever burnt at the altar of civil liberty. Tell them that
you have silenced one of the noblest batteries that ever thundered in defence
of the Constitution, and bravely spiked the cannon. Tell them that, hence-
torward, no matter what daring or outrageous act any President may perform
you have forever hermetically sealed the mouth of the Senate. Tell them that
he may fearlessly assume what powers he pleases, snatch from its lawful cus-
tody the public purse, command a military detachment to enter the Halls of
the Capitol, overawe Congress, trample down the Constitution, and raze
every bulwark of freedom ; but that the Senate must stand mute, in silent
submission, and not dare to raise its opposing voice. That it must wait
until a House of Representatives, humbled and subdued like itself, and
a majority of it composed of the partisans of the President, shall prefer arti-
cles of impeachment. Tell them, finally, that you have restored the glorious
doetnne of passive obedience and non-resistance. And, if the People do not
pour out their indignation and imprecations, I have yet to learn the charae-
V of Amcncaa fretman.

J

^7

\.'~i:*mlit'°^mi i^t i

!>>^, /i C*/./fp •- /-//

/