are E3t¥- 
 
 Book 
 
I 
 
SPEECH 
 
 •r 
 
 
 MR. BUCHANAN, OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
 
 RESOLUTION OF COL. BENTON, 
 
 EXPUNGE FROM THK JOURNAL OF THE SENATE, 
 
 - 
 
 RESOLUTION OF THE TWKNTF-EIGHT OF MARCH. 1WM. 
 
 Delivered in the Senate of the U. S. January 16, 1857. 
 
 WASHINGTON i 
 
 TFISTttl IT THE DtOBK nfPirT.. 
 
 13:17. 
 
■ 7 
 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 In (lit- Senate of the United Slate:-, Monday, January 
 16, 1837 — Upon the resolution offered by Col. 
 Ben n souri, to expunge from the Jour- 
 
 nals of the Sena!;', the resolution of the 28th day 
 of March, 1834, condemning President Jackson, 
 by drawing ' ik lines ai iund the same, and 
 writi fa thereof, the words " Ex- 
 
 PCKl ' IF THE SeNAT] ■ DAY 
 
 Of , IX THE VKAil OK OUR LORD 1837." 
 
 After Mr. On had resumed his seat, Mr. 
 ■-.' >WS: 
 ter the able • ; ' itdis- 
 
 play of the £ ator'l m Kentucky, l V .■'< lay,) 
 i I h ig so i 
 
 i < 
 the 
 But I 
 rican topi 
 
 ustiiy Hie which I inten 
 
 to 
 
 A : quest 
 
 if e 1 
 
 St cussioh. Th 
 
 ■ci- 
 sioii 
 
 the i h this Goverh- 
 
 ■ 
 Sena 
 face 
 
 a ■. 
 
 pre i . ■ I . r we coa- 
 
 sidi r the e 
 
 illi 
 i it was di 
 feel • : 
 
 im | 
 
 facl 
 h:r. . and unco 
 
 the I ] ! I am 
 
 the ji 
 
 tio it, [o 
 
 [ ] 
 i 
 ■ 
 i I respeel [si 
 
 proceed no farther than the occasion demands, and 
 will, therefore, justify. 
 
 Who was the President of the United States, 
 against whom this sentence has been pronounced? 
 Andrew Jackson — a name which every American 
 mother, after the party strife which agitato s us for 
 the present moment shall have passed away, will, 
 during all the generations which this Republic is 
 destined to endure, teach her infant to lisp with 
 that of the venerated name of Washington. Th 
 one was the founder, the other the prese; 
 es of his conn!!',-. 
 If President Jackson has been guilty of vii il 
 the Constitution of the United States, let imp 
 in :i : i ! urse. I admit that il is no j 
 
 • l foi ich a i - that his long life hi 
 
 lished b; i of disin patri it- 
 
 than that of an, ' m< rican citizen m 
 
 the 1 neisty ofhishi 
 ■ i i nsharel on e pro; 
 t hi ii it is no justi- 
 
 t that I in the 
 
 lie b I I ■ itr-f I d. 
 
 lefchis nai : be "damned • eyejr- 
 faa ■ " with Ihi se of Ca sar and of 1- 
 
 ':'. on 1 l] h; . ' : h pi re ai cl i ai i 
 etu '■■'.' ift.t< i do !..:: 
 he foul ' ■ haves 
 
 haracter. ] 
 ,: ■ i e v in doubt as to wl t ma 
 f h co] Qtry. In anj ■ 
 i | i vale life, 
 we, the i. : ufil r his ofli I I ire, vi it! mt, 
 
 !..,,. said ol n 
 : i of othei ! leni tl 
 
 aid thus much i '< t he 
 
 meridian of h power. 
 
 I , 'H 
 
 ■ ful fe linj ■ ' 
 i i man who ha i .1 ae so much i 
 ■ : i M'l ei , for mj 
 
 . hani 
 
 istgreal cl ange if* I i i I I • 
 ucce : . [f] 
 
 J iffe 
 
 i city on this floor, i speak 
 ■.: i sman an I Ami 
 
4 
 
 and I feel proud now to have the opportunity of 
 raising my voice in his defence. 
 
 On the 28th day of March, 1834, the Senate of 
 the United States resolved, "that the President, in the 
 1 tte Executive proceedings, in relation to the public 
 revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and 
 power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, 
 bul : i en gation of both." 
 
 In discussing this subject, I shall undertake to 
 prove, first, that this resolution is unjust; secondly, 
 : lal it is unconstitutional; and in the last place, that 
 it ought tp b( i spunged from our journals, in the 
 manner proposed by the Senator from Missouri, 
 (Mr. Benton.) 
 
 First, then, it is unjust. On this branch of the 
 subject I had intended to confine myself to a bare 
 expression of myown decided opinion. This point 
 lias been so often and so ably discussed, that it is 
 impossible ft r me to cast any new light upon it. 
 But as it is my intention to follow the footsteps of 
 the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay,) wherever 
 they may lead, 1 must again treadthe ground. which 
 has been so often trodden. As the Senator, how- 
 ever, has confined himself to a mere passing re- 
 ferent to the topics which this head presents, I 
 shall, in this particular, follow his example. 
 
 Although the resolution condemning the Presi- 
 dent is pague and general in its terms, yet we all 
 know that it was founded upon his removal of the 
 public deposites from the Bank of the United Slates. 
 The Senator from Kentucky has contended that this 
 act was a violation of law. And why? Because, 
 says he, it is well known that the public money 
 was secure in dial institution; and by its charter 
 the pubiic deposites could not be removed from it, 
 unless under a just apprehension that they were in 
 danger. Now, sir, 1 admit that if the President 
 had no right to remove these deposites, except foi 
 thi sole reason that their safety was in danger, the 
 Senator has established his position. But what is 
 the fact? Was the Government thus restricted by 
 the terms of the bank charter? I answer, no. Such 
 ;i limitation is no where to be found in it. Let me 
 read the sixteenth section, which is the only one re- 
 lating to the subject. It enacts, "that the deposites 
 o.'iho money of the United States, in places in 
 which the said bank and branches thereof may be 
 established, shall he made in said hank or branches 
 thereof, unless tht Secretary of the Treasury shall at 
 tnui time oikeribise order and direct; in which case 
 the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately lay 
 betpfe Congress, if in session, and, if not, immedi- 
 ately ; f! i' i 1 ' • commencement of the next session, 
 the reasons of such order or direction." 
 
 i noi die authority thus conferred upon the Sec- 
 i.i.:. o1 the Treasury as broad and as ample as 
 the English ' tnguage will admit? Where is the li- 
 mftation, where the restriction.' One mighl have 
 supposed from the argument of the Senatpr from 
 keiiim kyj that the charter restricted the Secretary 
 ofthe Treasury from removing the deposites, un- 
 less he believed them to bi insecure in the Bank of 
 the I aited stales bin the language of the law it- 
 self complete!} refutes his argument. They were 
 to remain in the Bank of the United States, "un- 
 Itss tlte Secretory of the Treasury shall at any time 
 ot/icncisi? enter aijd rfirect." 
 
 The sole limitation upon the discretion of that 
 
 officer was his immediate and direct responsibility 
 to Congress. To us he was bound to render his 
 reasons for removing the deposites. We, and we 
 alone, are constituted the judges as to the sufficien- 
 cy of thes' reasons. 
 
 It would he an easy task to prove that the au- 
 thors of the bank charter acted wisely in nol limit- 
 ing the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury 
 over tic 1 deposites to the single case of their appre- 
 hended insecurity. We may imagine many other 
 reasons which would have rendered their removal 
 both wise and expedient. But I forbear; especi- 
 cially as the case now before the Senate presents 
 as striking an illustration of this proposition as I 
 could possibly imagine. Upon what principle, 
 then, do I justify the removal of the deposites? 
 
 The Bank of the United States had determined 
 to apply for a recharler at the session of Congress 
 immediately preceding the last Presidential elec- 
 tion. Preparatory to this application, and whilst 
 ii was pending, in the short space of sixteen mi mths, 
 it had increased its loans more than §28,000,000. 
 They rose from forty-two millions to seventy millions 
 between the last of December, 1830, and the fust 
 of May, 1832. Whilst this boasted ngulatorof 
 the currency was thus expanding its discounts, all 
 the local banks followed the example. The im- 
 pulse of self-interest urged them to pursue this 
 •ourse. A delusive prosperity was lints spread 
 over the land. Money, every where, became plen- 
 ty. The bank was regarded as the beneficent pa- 
 rent, who was pouring her money out into the laps 
 o{' her children. She thought herself wise and 
 provident in thus rendering herself popular. The 
 recharter passed both Houses of Congress by tri- 
 umphant majorities. But then came "(he frost, 
 the hilling frost." It was not so easy to propitiate 
 "the Old Roman. 1 ' Although he well knew the 
 power and influence 'which the bank could exert 
 against him at the then approaching Presidential 
 election, he cast such considerations to the winds, 
 lb vetoed the hill, and in the most solemn manner 
 placed himself for trial upon this question before 
 the American people. 
 
 From that moment the faith of many of his for- 
 mer friends began to grow cold. The bank opi nly 
 took the field against his re-election. It expended 
 large sums in subsidizing editors, and in circulating 
 pamphlets, and papers, and speeches, throughout 
 the Union, calculated to inflame the public mind 
 against the President. I merely glance at these 
 things. 
 
 Let us pause for a single moment to consider the 
 consequences of such conduct. What right had 
 the bank, as a corporation, to enter the arena of 
 politics fur the purpose of defending itself, and at- 
 tacking the President.' Whilst 1 freely admit that 
 each individual stockholder possessed the same 
 rights, in this respect, as every other American 
 citizen, I pray yon to consider what a dangerous pre- 
 cedent the bank has thus established. Our banks 
 now number nearh a thousand, and our other char- 
 .,, J ,./ titutiont; are almost innumerable. If all 
 < ■ . e corporations are to be justified in using their 
 irpi rati funds for the purpi se of infJuem it g elec- 
 tions: of < levating their political friends, and crush- 
 in:; then political Iocs, our condition is truly de- 
 plorable. We shall thus introduce into the State 
 
a new, a dangerous, and an alarming power, the 
 effects of which no tnari can anticipate. Watch- 
 ful jealousy is the price which a free people must 
 e\er pay for their liberties; and this j< a on j should 
 beAr ; -eyed in watching the political mi rements 
 of corporations. 
 
 After the bank had been defeated in the P 
 1 election, il adopted a new course of ; 
 What it had been unable to accomplish by makii 
 money plenty, it determined it would wrest from 
 the sufferings of the people by making monej r 
 scarce. Pressure and panic then became lis 'wea- 
 pons; and with these it was determined, if possible, 
 to extort a recharter from the American pi ople. It 
 commenced this warfsr< upon the interests of the 
 country about the first of August, L833. * ; i wo 
 short months it decreased its loans more than four 
 millions of dollars, whilst the deposites of the Go- 
 mernmenl with it had increased, during the same 
 period, two millions and a qua ter. 1 S] ak in 
 round nun ft wes then in the acl of red 
 
 its disi '•• at the rate of two millions of dollars 
 per m 
 
 The State banks had expanded their loans with 
 the form.?] expansion of the Bank of the I il 
 States. It now became necessary to contract them. 
 The seven si presst re began to be felt evi t"j here. 
 Had the Bank of the United States been per 
 a short lime longer to proceed in this course, 
 - tied as i i h ith the millions of the ( fovern 
 which il held on deposite, a scene of almost nn s 
 sal ban ruptej and insolvency musl havebeenpre- 
 
 ci mmercial cities. It thu: hec 
 absolu - try for the Presidenl eithi i I • di - 
 
 prive the bank of the public deposites, as the 
 
 the State hanks, and thr< ti : : 
 . from tl se impending e ils, or 
 cab " l a and :ei1 ipreading ruin hroi 
 
 out ih.- land. Il wi necessary for him to adi I : 
 pel purpo »re renting a unr salde- 
 
 range! ■ I icy, ■] gener il sai 
 
 pro]-. .] table conseqi 
 
 chart astitatii a. 
 
 By t! ioval of 1 isites he sti uck a blow 
 
 againsl the bank' from w"hich it has never 
 
 e club of Hercules with 
 he slev ra. This was the master str 
 
 which he prostrated I :' 
 
 Amerii i tieve to ha . e be □ irruptand 
 
 a oorri on. Por thi 
 
 justiii he etei ial gratitude 
 
 ooonti ■ ■ in i hi i; 
 
 but thi le 1 nited Sti ledhim 
 
 as a de 
 
 it is y tl Qatoi 
 
 that th "'. by i mo ring the de] 
 
 the! 1 1 nited Stati •. u lited in ii: 
 
 i' of the parse of the nation with 
 that ol ■-. 1 think i 1 is nol diflicuH to an- 
 
 swer th "i ; . What was ti of the 
 
 public il '■> d been n idfrom thi 
 
 Bail - under its charter, for ihe 
 
 cause which the Senator him sell d ifiable. 
 
 Why, it il . ■•■■ I th i) hi rebe nirn icdiatelj mil- 
 ted to th ' ip of chose laws under which I 
 had be in protected 1 - n ■ the Bank of the United 
 States was called into existence. Such w is the 
 present case. In regard lo th;s point, no matter 
 
 whether the cause of removal were .'. ■ 
 not, the moment the d "■'■' re- 
 
 niove l they became subject to the preexisting laws, 
 and not lo the arl u4ary * ill of the 1 lent, 
 
 The Senator from Kentucky hi ■'■ ''-■''' 
 
 the President violated'the Con on a ilaws, 
 
 by dismissing Mr. Diiane froin offici I '■ 
 
 would not remove the deposites; and 1 . ■ , \ 
 Mr. Taney to accomplish this purpose. I si 
 discuss at any length the powi . > i rei ioval. ft is 
 now too late in the day to question it. That the Ex- 
 ecutive possesses this power was d icided by the •' 
 I ' i ;ress. It has often since bei a d la id 
 
 decided in the same manner, and il ' a exer- 
 
 cised by every President of the Uniti I Stat . The 
 President is bound bj the Constituti m to "take c ire 
 that the laws be faithfully executed." If he. cat not 
 ren ove his executive officers, it [s impossible thai 
 he can perform (his duty. Every inferior office] 
 rnigl I set up for himself; might violal 
 the country, and put him at •' whilst he 
 
 would remain perfectly powerless,. He could not 
 arrest their career. A foreign,, mini bele- 
 
 tj ing and disj . acing the nation al r I < ithout 
 power to recall him until the ns tit of 
 
 the Senate. This construction of the Constil lion 
 invoh es i o many dangers an ' • ■ 
 tl al il could not be maintain' d for a , even 
 
 1 re had nor been a cbnstanl prai ti ■ ; 
 
 of almost half a century. 
 
 But it is contended by the Senator thai : : - ■ •- 
 cretary of the Treasury is a sort of indep hdenl 
 power in the Stale, and is reli I from the i on- 
 trol of ihe Executive. And whj ause 
 
 he is directed by law lo make his ant in 
 
 > ss and n il to the Presi : <' it. ' this ] osition 
 
 ;orrect, then it necessarily, follow: thai the Ex- 
 ecutive is released from the oblige on of taking 
 care that the numei a and im] t'anl ■ of G i- 
 gj. ess regulating :' • fiscal concern; o the cout ry 
 shall be faithfully executed. 1 
 
 ■ j is thus made independ 
 Whal would be the position of thi i 
 such .' c instruction of the Cot [Jaws, it 
 
 would be verj difii :ull to decide, ind ! '■ .. n- 
 derful tfansfo lationof.his char; 
 
 the i n cit ■; that < h ive by 
 
 . | i | | i , ke an ai t to them! 
 
 ponsible to 
 
 for the faithful execution rf -.■ t ' I id. if the 
 
 pre enl or i ny othei Presidenl should prove h- 
 
 ! lohishigh ' the presenl : - 
 
 Ii - 11 n hich has b< i said, ' 
 
 . , infl ct condig 
 i upon him, in the mi I i poini ' •■ 
 ■ ■■ 
 
 ! have now rr'tyed al the roat i 
 
 ituti dpowei of the Sen il : i do] the re- 
 solution ' ' ' rch, i !34. I m con 
 
 es no such j j 
 
 my purpose to e tabli >h this | I i. Th 
 m on this poinl musl -' 
 ' swer to the n\\> ;tion, I »oes thi i lution 
 in imp ach ible charge againsl th 
 
 .1 trust I shall di nonstrate thai the I 
 \ ilated iis constimtional duty in pr 
 condemn him in this manneh ! shall again read 
 ' the reso uiion: 
 
"Resofaed, That the President, in the late Execu- 
 tive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has 
 assumed upon himself authority and power not con- 
 ferred by the Constitution and laws, but in deroga- 
 tion of both." 
 
 This language is brief and comprehensive. It 
 comes at once to the point. It bears a striking im- 
 press of the character of the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky. Docs it charge an impeachable offence 
 against the President? 
 
 The fourth section of the second article of the 
 Constitution declares that "the President, Vice Presi- 
 dent, and all civil officers of the United Slates, shall 
 be removed from office on impeachment for, and 
 conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes 
 and misdemeanors." 
 
 It has been contended that this condemnatory 
 resolution contains no impeachable offence, be- 
 • it charges no criminal intention against the 
 Pn sid nt: and I admit that it does not attribute to 
 . try corrupt motive in express words. Is this suf- 
 ficient I > convince the judgment of any : ; 
 man that none such was intended ? Let its, for a 
 few moments, examine this proposition. If it be 
 well founded, the Senate may for ever hereafter 
 ; the power of trying, condemning, and de- 
 ? any officer of the Government, without 
 • ■ him the slightest opportunity of being 
 
 heard in lis defence. They may thus abuse then- 
 power, and prostrate any object of their vengeance. 
 fl "i s we have now ma.de the discovery, that the 
 Senate are authorized to exert this tremendous 
 power — that they may thus assume to themselves 
 
 • ffice both of accuser and of judge, provided 
 i 'rent contains no express allegation of a 
 
 ct intention. The President, or any officer 
 
 of the Government, may be denounced by the Se- 
 nate as a violator of the Constitution of his coun- 
 try, — as derelict in the peformance of his public 
 . provided there be no express imputation of 
 an improper motive. The characters of men v hosi 
 reputation is dearer to them than their lives may 
 thu • be destroyed* They may be held up to public 
 exi xati m by the omission of a few formal words. 
 a mation of the Senate carries with it 
 such a moral power, that perhaps there is no 
 man in the United Suites, except Andrew 
 Jai ksow, who could have resist.-:! its force. No, 
 sir: such an argument can never command convic- 
 tion. That which we av no power to do direct- 
 ive can never accompli- db; i liri cl m 
 We resolution a n; ict a man of an irn- 
 
 ■ ■' ace, merelj 1 ecau e we may omit 
 ■ ' words of an impeachment. We 
 regard e ubstance of thing , and nol thi n 
 form. 
 
 tin. Although a criminal intention be 
 nol cli ged, in so many v ords, by this resolution, 
 ,! even withoul i'nr attendant cir- 
 cun rly convey ; this meaning. The 
 
 Pre I is ch'arj ed ■ ith hai ing "a imed up in 
 hin author ty and p >wer no! confi i n d b] tl • 
 Cons ; hi :\]i<\ laws, but in derogation of 1 1 
 
 '• ed upon himself." Whal is the plain p il- 
 pable i of this phrase connected with what 
 
 and follows? Is it not "to arroj 
 "to claim or seize unjustly.'; These are two of 
 rhe first meanings of the word assume, according 
 
 to the lexicographers. To assume upon oneself, is 
 a mode of expression which is rarely taken in a 
 good sense. As it is used here, I ask if any man 
 of plain common understanding, after reading this 
 resolution, would ever arrive at the conclusion that 
 any Senator voted for it under the impression that 
 the President was innocent of any improper inten- 
 tion, and that he violated the Constitution from 
 mere mistake, and from pure motives? The com- 
 mon sense of mankind revolts at the idea. How 
 can it be contended, for a single moment, that you 
 can denounce the President as a man who had "as- 
 sumed upon himself" the power of violating the 
 laws and the Constitution of his country, and in 
 the same breath declare that you had not the least 
 intention to criminate him, and that your language 
 was altogether inoffensive. The two propositions 
 are manifestly inconsistent. 
 
 But I go one step further. If we w s i : it ting as 
 a court of impeachment, and the bare proposition 
 . stablished to our satisfaction, that the Presi- 
 '-■ : i had, in violation of the Constitution and the 
 laws, wi hdrawn the public revenue of the country 
 from the depository to whose charge Congress had 
 committed it. and assumed the control over it him- 
 self, we would be bound to convict him of a high 
 official misdemeanor. Under such circumstances, 
 we should be bound to infer a criminal intention 
 from this illegal and unconstitutional act. Crimi- 
 nal justice could never be administered, — society 
 c >\ Id not exist, if the tribunals of the country should 
 not attribute evil motives to illegal and unconstitu- 
 tional conduct. Omniscience alone can examine 
 the heart. When poor frail man is placed in the 
 judgment seat, he must infer the intentions of the 
 : ed from his actions. That "the tree is known 
 by its fruits" is an axiom which we have derived 
 from the fountain of all truth. Does a poor, na- 
 ked, hungry wretch, at this inclement s< ion of the 
 year, take from my pocket a single dollar; the law 
 infers a criminal intent, and he must be convicted 
 and punished as a thief, though he may have- been 
 actuated by no other motive than that of sav- 
 ..s wife and his children from starvation. 
 And shall a different rule be applied to the Presi- 
 dent of the United States? Shallit be said of a man 
 elevated to the highest station on earth, for his wis- 
 dom, his integrity and Ins virtues, with all his con- 
 stitutional P'h isers around him, when he violates 
 the Cbnstii i< on of his country,- and usurps the con- 
 trol over its entire t i, that he may successfol- 
 ly defend himself by declaring that he had done 
 this deed, without any criminal intention? No,sir:in 
 i: h ; case, above all o - thect iminal intention 
 must be inferred from the unconstituti : exercise 
 of high anddangerous powers. Thi safety of the 
 Republic demands that the President oi' the United 
 States should nevei ■■< sid '• m ell bel ndsuchflim- 
 -■'. pretexts. This resolution, therefore, although 
 not have assumed th" form of an article of 
 tmpeachmei < all the substance. 
 
 It was my fate some years ago to have assisted 
 as a managers '" behalf of the House of Repre- 
 sentativeSj in the trial of an impeachment before 
 this body. It tfo o 1 ecame my duty to examine all 
 the precedi nts in such eases which had occurred 
 under our Government, since the adoption of the 
 Federal Constitution. On that occasion, I found 
 
one which lias a strong bearing upon this ques- 
 tion. I refer to the case of Judge Pickering. He 
 was tried and condemned by the Senate upon all 
 the four articles exhibited against him; although 
 the three first contained no other charge than that 
 of making decisions contrary to law, in a cause in- 
 volving a mere question of property, and then re- 
 fusing to grant the party injured an appeal from his 
 decision, to which he was entitled. From the clear 
 violation of law in this case, the Senate must have 
 inferred an impure and improper motive. 
 
 If any thing further were wanting to prove that 
 the resolution of the Senate contained a criminal 
 and impeachable charge against the President, it 
 might be demonstrated from all the circumstances 
 attending the transaction. Whilst this resolution 
 was in progress through the Senate, the. Bank 
 of the United States was employed in pro- 
 ducing panic and pressure throughout the land. 
 Much actual suffering was experienced by the 
 people; and where that did not exist, they 
 dreaded unknown and awful calamities. Con- 
 fidence between man and man was at an end. 
 There was a fearful pause in the business of the 
 country. We Mere then engaged in the most vio- 
 lent parly conflict recorded in our annals. To 
 use the language of the Senator from Kentucky, 
 we were in the midst of a revolution. On the one 
 contended that the power over the purse 
 of the nation had been ursurped by the President: 
 that in his own person he had united this pqwei 
 with that of the sword, and that the liberties of the 
 people w.-re gone, unless he could be arrested in 
 his mad career. On the other hand, the friends of 
 the President maintained that the removal of the 
 deposit' from the Bank of the United States was 
 an act of stern justice to the people; that ; t was 
 strictly legal and constitutional; that he was im- 
 pelled to it by the highest and purest principles of 
 patriotism; and that it was the only means of pros- 
 trating an institution which threatened the destruc- 
 tion of our dearest rights and liberties. During 
 tin'- t [ict public indignation was aroused 
 
 to such a degree, that the President received a great 
 numb. : i tnonymous lettet , Ihreateniri ; him 
 
 on unless lie should restore the de- 
 posites 
 
 It \ - the pendency of this conflict 
 
 througl country, that the Senator I 
 
 et proj - i : : 'i ■ 26lh I '; cen ber, 
 1-:'':. to pr< senl his condemn,: olution to the 
 
 Senate. AjuI : ; re, sir, permit me to say that I do 
 not b i was any co upl connection be- 
 
 i upon tie 1 - floor and the Bank of 
 the United States. But it was at this inauspic 
 momen that the 
 
 wasil uppos ted bj the Senator from Kentucky! He 
 
 in iii" 1 v :'' ady comn i i- 
 
 ced. He told us that by the 3d of March, 1837, 
 
 if the pro; i i on i uld continue, 
 
 there would be scarcely a ve tig ngofthe 
 
 Government p.n.d policv ai thi . had i risted 
 prior to the 3d Match, 1829. ' at in a h 
 years a little more than thai \\ hich \ 
 to establish our liberties, the Government would lie 
 transf i i an elective monarchy — the worst 
 
 of all forms of govertmSent. He compared the 
 measure adopted by General Jackson with the con- 
 
 duct of the usurping Crcsar, who, after he had over- 
 run Italy in sixty days, and conquered the liberties 
 of his native country, terrified the Tribune Metel- 
 hts, who guarded the treasury of the Roman peo- 
 ple, and seized it by open force. He declared that 
 the President had proclaimed an open, palpable, 
 and daring usurpation. He concluded by assert- 
 ing that the premonitory symptoms of despotism 
 were upon us; and if Congress did not apply an in- 
 stantaneous and effective remedy, the fatal collapse 
 would soon come on, and we should die — ignobly 
 die! base, mean, and abject slaves, the scorn and 
 contempt of mankind, unpitied, unwept, and un- 
 mourned. What a spectacle Mas then presented in 
 this chamber! We are told, in the reports of the 
 day, that, when he took his seat, there was repeated 
 and loud applause in the galleries. This, it will be 
 remembered, was the introductory speech of the 
 Senator. In my opinion, it was one of the ablest 
 and most eloquent of all his able and eloquent 
 speeches. He was then riding upon the whirlwind 
 and directing the storm. At the time I read it, for 
 I was not then in the Senate, it reminded me of 
 the able, the vindictive, and the eloquent appea 
 of Mr. Burke before the House of Lords, on the 
 impeachment of Warren Hastings, in which he de- 
 nounced that Governor General as the ravager and 
 oppressor of India, and the scourge of the millions 
 whs had been placed under his authority. 
 
 And yet, we are now told that this resolution did 
 not intend to impute any criminal motive to the 
 President. That he was a good old man, though 
 not a good constitutional lawyer: and that he knew 
 better how to wield the sword than to construe the 
 Constitution. 
 
 [Mr. Clay here rose to explain. He said, "I 
 never have said and never will say, that personally 
 I acquitted the President of any improper intention. 
 I lament that I cannot say it. But what I did say, 
 was that the act of the Senate of 1834 is free from 
 the imputation of any crimnal motives."] 
 
 Sir, said Mr. B. this avowal is in character with 
 the frank and manly nature of the Senator from 
 Ken lucky. It is no more than what I expected 
 from him. The imputation of any improper mo- 
 tive to the President has been again and again dis- 
 claimed by other Senators upon this floor. The 
 !i ftator from Kentucky has now boldly come out 
 in his true colors, and avows the principles which 
 he held at the time. He acknowledges that he did 
 not acquil the President from improper intentions. 
 when charging him with a violation of the G 
 tution of bis country. 
 
 This trial of the President before th< Senate, con- 
 tinued for three months. [During this whole period, 
 instead of the evidence which a judicial tribunal 
 ought to receive, exciting memorials, signed by 
 vast numbers of the people, and well calculated to 
 inflame the passions of Ins judges, were daily pour- 
 ing in upon the Senate. He was denounced upon 
 tins floor i>\ every ddious epithel which belongs to 
 tyrants. Finally, the ob ixiou resolution was 
 adopted by the vote of the Senate, on the 28th day 
 of March,' L834. kfti i th ! exposition which 1 have 
 made, can any impartial imiid doubt but that this 
 
 , n m intended tdoharge against the President 
 a wilful and' daring violation of the Constitution 
 and the laws? I think not. 
 
8 
 
 The Senator from Kentucky has argued, with 
 his usual power, that the functions of the Senate, 
 acting in a legislative capacity, are not to be re- 
 stricted, because it is possible that the same ques- 
 tion, in another form, may come before us judi- 
 cially. I concur in the truth and justice of this po- 
 sition. We must perform our legislative duties; 
 and if, in the investigation of facts, having legi la- 
 tion distinctly in view, we should incidentally be led 
 to the investigation of criminal charges, it is a ne- 
 cessity imposed upon us by our condition, from 
 which we cannot escape; It results from the vary- 
 ing nature of our duties, and not from our own 
 will. 1 admit that it would be difficult to mark the 
 precise line which separate-: our legislatn i ffpln > ax 
 judicial functions. I shall not attempt if. In 
 cases, from necessity, they are, in some degree, in- 
 termingled. The present resolution, however, 
 stands far in advance of this line. It is placed in 
 Idi ef, and is clear of all such difficulties. It 
 is a mere naked resolution of censured ll 
 olelt to the pastconduct of the President, and a - 
 demhs it' in the strongest terms, without even pro- 
 posing any act of legislation by which the <-\ i] 
 be remedied hereafter. It was judgmenl 
 the past alone; tot prevention for the future. Nay, 
 more: the resolution is so vague andgeneral in its 
 th til is impossible to ascertain from its face 
 of the President's condemnation. The 
 ve resolved that the Executive "h; 
 1 upon himself authority am! power n I 
 ferred by the Constitution and laws, but in dero° 
 tion of both." VVhal is the spi cification under this 
 charge] Why, that he has acted thus, " in t] I 
 Executive proa ; d i in relation to the publicr 
 nue." What E ecutive proceeding ? The n 
 leaves us entirely in the dark upon this subject. 
 
 :. tion spring from such a resolu ii d ' 
 it is impoi - ble. None such was e\ . r attempted. 
 [fthe resolution had preserved its original | . 
 
 I ii had condemned the President for 
 dismissing one Secretary of the Treasury because 
 he would n ■; remove the deposites, and f 
 
 pi in i lis iv cessor to effect this purpose, h 
 
 it have contended that the <-\ il 
 
 was di nctij pointed out; and, although no 
 ed, the remedy might bi 
 
 I !ul ii" has dept ived himself ei 
 
 this i ument. He has left us upon an 
 
 : l\ . h ithout ch mi or o 
 
 , ■■■• ding in r< I itioii 
 
 " i i phf ise of the most general and 
 Evei Senator who vol 
 favor of this resolution, may haw acti d 
 [iff pri . To procure its passage, i - 
 
 thing n ore - necessan than that 
 
 u in the conclusion that tl e Pr< 
 had ■. :( lonstitution and the lav i i ime 
 
 one i othi r < f his numerous acts in relation to 
 ublic revet e. The \ iews oj Senators a n 
 stituting the majority may have varied from each 
 other to any conceivable extent; and ye\ they mav 
 have united in the final vote. That this was the 
 fact in a considerable extent, I have always under 1 
 L tl is utterly impossible, either that such a 
 coul i ever have been intended to be- 
 come the basis of legislation, or that legislative 
 
 action could have ever sprung from such a source. 
 
 I flatter myself, then, I have succeeded in prov- 
 ing that this resolution charged the President with a 
 high official misdemeanor, wholly disconnected 
 from legislation, which, if true, ought to have 
 subjected him to impeachment. 
 
 This brings me directly to the question, had the 
 S< nate any power, under the Constitution, to adopt 
 such a resolution? In other words, can the Senate 
 condemn a public officer by a simple resolution, 
 for an offence which would subject him to an im- 
 peachment? To state the proposition, is to answer 
 this question in the negative. Dreadful would be 
 the consequence^ if we possess and should exercise 
 such a power. 
 
 This body is invested with high and responsible 
 powers of a legislative, an executive, and a judicial 
 character. No 'person can enter it until he has at- 
 tained a mature age. Our term of service is longer 
 than that of any oilier elective functionary. If Se- 
 nators will have it so, it is the most aristocratic 
 branch of our Government. For what purpose did 
 the framers of the Constitution confer upon it these 
 varied and important powers, and this long tenure 
 of office? The answer is plain. It was placed in 
 ecure and elevated position that it might be 
 1 the storms of faction which so ofti n iiiflame 
 the passions of men. It never was intended to be 
 ■ a ai <■ ■ for political gladiators. Until the second 
 - ission of the third Congress, the Senate always sat 
 with closed doors, except in the single instance when 
 the eligibility of Mr. Gallatin to a seal in the body 
 was the subject of discussion. Of this particular 
 practice, however, I cannot approve. I merely 
 state it, to show the intention of those who formed 
 Constitution, [was informed by one of the 
 eminent statesmen and Senators which this 
 country has ever produced, now n le late 
 
 Mr. King,) that for some years alar the Federal 
 Government commenced its operation, the debates 
 of the - i ibled conversant o r than 
 
 ties, and that it originated but few legislative 
 measures. Senators were then cr rthan 
 
 authors in legislation. Whether its gain in elo- 
 quence, since it has become a popul i ibly, and 
 since the sound of thundering applai : has been 
 heard in our galleries at the deni of the 
 • '!■ sident, has been an equivalent for its less in true 
 
 ;nil , may well be doubted. To give this body its 
 just influence with the peopl o preserve 
 
 . fre v i possible from I Liscus- 
 
 sions. In the performance of < ure - ,, 
 
 fication of treaties, and in Ihi tation of 
 
 lations, the Constitution ! I us w ith 
 
 the Executive. The efficient and successful ad- 
 rat on of the Government then ore requires 
 that we should move on together in as much har- 
 may be consistent with the independent 
 i i erci: e of our respect^ e functions. 
 
 lint above all, we should be the mo ;l i aulious in 
 guarding our judicial charai i suspicion. 
 
 Wet onstitute the high court of im] cl nt of 
 
 this nation, before which every officer of the Go- 
 vernment may be arraigned. To this tribunal is 
 committed the character of men whose character is 
 , I arer to them than their lives. We should be 
 the rock standing in the midst of the ocean, for the 
 
purpose of affording a shelter to the faithful officer! 
 from unjust persecution, against which the bil- 
 lows might dash themselves in vain. Whilst \\< 
 are a terror to evil doers, we should be a praise to 
 those who do well. We sliould never voluntarily 
 I" rf rm any act which might prejudice our judg- 
 ment, or render us suspected us a judicial tribunal. 
 More especially, when the President of the U. states 
 is arraigned at the bar of public opinion for of- 
 fences which might subject him to an impeachment, 
 we should remain not only chaste hut unsuspected. 
 Better, infinitely better, would it be foi us not. to 
 manii'est our feeling, even in a case in which we 
 were morally certain ihe House of Representatives 
 would not prefer before us articles of impeai hmi at, 
 than to reach the object of our disapprol ation by a 
 usurpation of their rights. It is true that when the 
 Senate passed the EBGOlntioD condemning the Presi- 
 dent, a majority &» t&c Hoose were of a diffi rent 
 opinion. But the next elections might have changed 
 that majority into a minority. The House might 
 then have voted articles of impeachment against 
 the President. Under such circumstances, I pray 
 you to consider in what a condition the Senate 
 would have been placed. They had ahead . 
 judged the case. They had already convicted the 
 President, and denounced him to the world as a 
 violator of the Constitution. In criminal prosecu- 
 cutions, even against the greatest malefactor, if a 
 juror has prejudged the cause, he cannot entei the 
 jury box. The Senate had rendered itself wholly 
 incompetent, in this case, to perform its highest ju- 
 dicial functions. The trial of the President, had. 
 articles of impeachment been preferred ag; 
 him, would have been but a solemn mockery of 
 justice. 
 
 T! Constitution of the United States has . 
 folly provided against such an enormous evil, by 
 declaring that "the House of Representatives 
 ha. i the ole power of impeachment," and '-the 
 Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeach- 
 ments." Until the accused is brought before a by 
 the House, it is a manifesl violation of our -< le 
 duty to i !' him by a resolution. 
 
 If a court of criminal jurisdiction, without any 
 indictment having been found by a grand jury, 
 without havinggiven the defendant noti< i 
 without having afforded him an o nity of 
 
 the w itnesses ag tinsl him, and 
 makin; nee. should resolve thai he was 
 
 guilty of a high crime, and place Up- convict 
 upon then records, all mankind w nld exclaim 
 againsl ■ i a ■ e a id unconstitutionality of the 
 act. \". herein consists the difference bet' > i thi 
 case and the condemnation of the President? In 
 nothing, except that such a conviction by the £ 
 nate. on account of its exalted cl a act 
 with ten;. iid force upon its object. I have often 
 been i : . notwithstanding the e? tended and 
 
 well di served popularity of General Jackson, that 
 the moral influence of this condemnation b 
 Senate ha I hed him. With what tre i 
 
 dous efl tcl : hi this assumed powei of the Senate 
 be used to blast the reputation of anj man 
 might fall under its displeasure! The precedenl is 
 extremely dangerous; and the American people 
 have wisely determined to blot it out for ever. 
 
 It is painful to reflect what might have been the 
 
 condition of the country, if a( the inauspicious mo- 
 ment 1 of the. passage of the resolution against the 
 President, its interelts and its honor had rendered 
 it necessary I " ;i > ,n a foreign war. The fear- 
 ful consequences oPsuch a condition, at such a mo- 
 ment, must strike ev< ry mind. Would the Senate 
 then have confided to the President tss'ary 
 
 power to defend the country? Where could the 
 sinews of war have been found? In what condition 
 was this body, at that moment, to act upon an im- 
 portant treaty negotiated bv the Presid tnt, or upon 
 any of his nominations? But I forbear to enlarge 
 upon this topic. 
 
 I have now arrived at the last point in this dis- 
 cussion'. Do the Senate possess the power,. under 
 the Constitution, of expunging the resolution 1 of 
 Ma, - , 1834, from their journals, in the manhei 
 proposed by the Senator from Missouri.' (Mr. Ben- 
 ton.) I cheerfully admit we must show that this 
 is not contrary to the Constitution; for we can never 
 r, dress one violation of that instrument by commit- 
 ting another. Before I proceed to this branch of 
 the subject, 1 shall put myself right, by a brief his- 
 torical reminiscence. 1 entered the Senate in De- 
 cember, 1834, fresh from theranksoftl s_ people, 
 without the slightest feeling of hostility against any 
 Senator on this floor. [• then thought thai here- 
 ion of the Senator from Mi ouri t as too 
 sev< re m propositi": to expunge. Althcnj h I was 
 anxious to record, in strong terms, my entire dis- 
 approbation of the resolution of March, 1834, yet 
 I was willing to accomplish this object without 
 doing more violence to the feelings of mj associates 
 on this floor, than was absolutely ne6essary to jus- 
 tify the President. Actuated by these tnendly mo- 
 tive,, I exerted all mv tittle influence with the 
 Senator from Missouri, to induce him to tbandon 
 ord expunge, and substitute some others in its 
 place. I knew that this word wi ledrngl) 
 
 obnoxious to the Senators who had v b d for the 
 former resolution. Other fn-i" ; o '■ al o ex- 
 erted their influence; and al length hi ki idly teel- 
 m*s prevailed, and he consented to ' «n that 
 
 word, although it was peculiarly dear I va\ 
 
 speak from my own know dge. " Lll which I 
 saw and part of which ! was." 
 
 The resolution of the Senator fr m njssoim 
 came before th Sen ite on the 3d el ■■ rch, ] ^ A -' 
 Under it the resolution of V. i ' ? s '''"'" 
 
 deredtobe expunged from the journal," tor rea- 
 
 m appearing on its face, which I need not ruu- 
 
 merate. The Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. 
 
 White,) moved to amend then soluto n ol thebena- 
 
 om Missouri, by striking oul the ordei to ex- 
 
 tvith the reasons for it, and ' iheir 
 
 tead the words, "rescinded, revi i e I, repeated, 
 
 leclared to be null and void." S me difl er- 
 
 en< ■ of opinion then an e a m '" "' 
 
 as to the word- which houldtoe 
 
 uted in place of the order to ex] 
 
 the purpose of leaving this qu< stion perfectly open, 
 
 von sir, (Mr. King, of Alabama n ' the < hair,) 
 
 i moved to amend th i inal i ■ ' : ■ Mr. 
 
 Benton, by striking out the word-, ' ordered to be 
 expnnged'from the journal of the Sen I ■•"' This 
 motion prevailed, on the ayes and noi s, by 
 of 39 to 7; and amongst the ayes, the name ol toe 
 Senator from Missouri is recorded. The resolu- 
 
1 
 
 tion was thus left a blank, in its most essential fea- 
 ture, read}' to be filled up as the Senate might di- 
 rect. The era of good feeling, in regard to this 
 subject, had commenced. It was nipped in the bud, 
 however, by the Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
 Webster.) Whilst the resolution was still in blank, 
 he rose in his place, and proclaimed the triumph of 
 the Constitution, by the vote to strike out the word 
 expunge, and then moved to lay the resolution on the 
 table, declaring that he would neither withdraw his 
 morion fi ir friend nor foe. This motion precluded all 
 amendment and all debate. It pan-ailed by a par- 
 ty vote ; and thus we were left with our resolution 
 a blank. Such was the manner in which the Sen- 
 ators in opposition received our advances of cour- 
 tesy and kindness, in the moment of their strength 
 and our weakness. Had the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts suffered us to proceed but for five minutes, 
 "we should have filled up the blank in the resolu- 
 tion. It would then have assumed a distinct form, 
 and they would never afterwards have heard of 
 the word expunge. We should have been content 
 with the words "rescinded, reversed, repealed, and 
 declared to be null and void.'' But the conduct of 
 the Senator from Massachusetts on that occasion, 
 and thai of the party with which he acted, roused 
 the indignation of every friend of the administra- 
 tion on this floor. We then determined that the 
 word expunge should never again be surrendered. 
 
 The Senator from Kentucky has introduced a 
 precedent from the proceedings of the House of 
 Representatives of Pennsylvania, for the purpose 
 of proving that we have no right to adopi this reso- 
 lution. To this I can have no possible objection. 
 But I can tell the SemUor, if I were convinced that 
 I had voted wrong, when comparatively a boy, 
 more than twenty years ago, the fear of being termed 
 inconsistent would not now deter me from voting 
 right upon the same question. I do not, howi \ i r, 
 repent of my vote upon that occasion. I would 
 now vote in the same manner, under similar cir- 
 cumstances. I should not vote to expunge, under 
 any circumstances, any proceeding from the jour- 
 nals by obliterating the record. If I do not prove, 
 before I take my seat, that the case in the Le\ 
 in re of Pennsylvania was essentially different from 
 that now before the Senate, I shall agree to be pro- 
 claimed inconsistent and time-sen tng. 
 
 It was my settled conviction at the commence- 
 ment of the last session of Congress, that the Senate 
 had no power to obliterate their journal. This was 
 shaken, but not removed, by the argument of the 
 Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. Porter,) who confess- 
 edly made the ablest speech on the other side of the 
 question. The Constitution declares that "each 
 House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and 
 from time to time publish the same, excepting Mich 
 parts as may in their judgment require secrecy " 
 What was the position which thai Senator then at- 
 tempted to maintain? In order to prove that we ha 
 no power to obliterate or destro} our journals he 
 thought ii necessary to contend thai the word "keep" 
 as used in the Constitution, means both to record 
 and to preserve. Tin's appeared to me to bra mere 
 begging of the question. 
 
 I shall attempt no definition of the word "keep." 
 At least since the days of Plato, we know that d - 
 finitions have been dangerous. Yet I think that the 
 
 meaning of this word, as applied to the subject 
 matter, is so plain that he who runs may read. If 
 I direct my agent to keep a journal of his proceed- 
 ings, and publish the same, my palpable meaning is, 
 that he shall write these proceedings down, from day'to 
 day, and publish what he has written for general in- 
 formation. After he has obeyed my commands, after 
 he has kept his journal, and published it to the world, 
 he has executed the essential part of the trust confided 
 to him. What becomes of this original manuscript 
 journal afterwards, is a matter of total indifference. 
 So in regard to the manuscript journals of either 
 House of Congress: after more than a thousand 
 copies have been printed, and published, and dis- 
 tributed over the Union, it is a matter ©f not the 
 least importance what disposition may be made 
 of them. They have answered their purpose, and, 
 in any practical view, become useless. If they 
 were burnt, or otherwise destroyed, it would not be 
 an event of the slightest public consequence. Such 
 indifference has prevailed upon this subject, that 
 these journals have been considered, in the House 
 of Representatives, as so much waste paper, anil, 
 during a period of thirty-four years after the or- 
 ganization of the Government, they were actually 
 destroyed. (Vide the Appendix.) From this cir- '. 
 cumstance, no public or private inconvenience has 
 been or ever can be sustained; because our printed 
 journals are received in evidence in all courts of 
 justice in the same manner as if the originals were 
 produced. 
 
 The Senator from Louisiana has discovered 
 that to " keep" means both " to record" and " to 
 psrserve." But can you give this, or any other 
 word in the English language, two distinct and in- 
 dependent meanings at the same time, as applied 
 to the same subject? I think not. From the im- 
 perfection of human language, from the impossi- 
 bility of having appropriate word- to express every 
 idea, the same word, as applied to different sub- . 
 jects, has a variety of significations. As applied 
 to any one subject, it cannot, at the same time, 
 <•< iivcv two distinct meanings. In the Constitu- 
 tion it must mean either " to write down," or " to 
 preserve." It cannot have both significations. Let 
 Senators, then, take their choice. If it signifies 
 " to write down," as it unquestionably does, what 
 becomes of the constitutional injunction to pre- 
 serve? The truth is, that the Constitution has not 
 provided what shall be done with the manuscript 
 journal, after it has served the purposes for which 
 it was called into existence. When it has been 
 published to the people of the United States, 
 for whose use it was ordered to be kept; after it has 
 thus been perpetuated, and they have been furnish- 
 ed with the means of judging of the public conduct 
 of their public servants, it ceases to be an object of 
 the least importance. Whether it be thrown into 
 the garret of the Capitol with other useless lum- 
 ber, or be destroyed, is a matter of no public inte- 
 rest. It has probably never once been referred to 
 in the historj of our Government. If it should ever 
 be determini i '■■ be a violation of the Constitution 
 to obliterate or destroy this manuscript journal, it 
 must lie upon different principles from those which 
 have be. n urgi in this debate. My own impres- 
 sion is, that as the framers of the Constitution have 
 directed us to keep a journal, a constructive duty 
 
11 
 
 may be implied from this command, which would 
 forbid us to obliterate or destroy it. Under this im- 
 pression, I should vote, as I did twenty years ago, 
 in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, against any 
 proposition actually to expunge any part of the 
 journal. But waiving tins unprofitable discussion, 
 let u> proceed to the real point in controversy. 
 
 Is any such proceeding as that of actually expung- 
 ing the journal, proposed by the resolution of the 
 Senator from Missouri? I answer, no such thing. 
 If the Constitution had, in express terms, directed 
 as to record and to preserve a journal of our pro- 
 ceedings, there is nothing in the resolution now 
 before us which would be inconsistent with such a 
 provision. 
 
 Is iiii- drawing of a black line around the resolu- 
 tion of the Senate of March, 1834, to obliterate or 
 to deface it? On the contrary, is it not to render it 
 more conspicuous, — to place it in bold relief, — to 
 give it a prominence in the public view, beyond 
 any other proceeding of this body, in past, and I 
 trust, in all future time. If the argument of Sena- 
 tors Were, not that we have no power to obliterate; 
 but that the Senate possessed no power to render 
 one portion of the journal more conspicuous than 
 another, it would have had much greater force. 
 Why, sir, by means of this very proceeding, that 
 portion of our journal upon which it operates will 
 be rescued from a slumber which would otherwise 
 have been eternal, and, fac-similes of the original 
 resolution, withoul a word or a letter defaced, will 
 be circulated over the whole Union. 
 
 But, sir, this resolution also directs that across the 
 face of the condemnatory resolution there shall be 
 written by the Secretary, " Expunged by order of 
 
 the Senate this day of , in the year of 
 
 our Lord 1837." 
 
 Will tiiis obliterate any part of the original reso- 
 lution? [f it does, the duty of the Secretary will be 
 performed in a very bungling manner. No such 
 thing is intended. It would he easy to remove 
 every scruple from every mind upon this subject, by 
 amending the resolution of the Senator from Mis- 
 souri, so as to direct the Secretary to perform his 
 d " in such a manner as nol to obliterate any part 
 condemnatory resolution. Such a directii n, 
 howev r, appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. 
 The nature of the whole proceeding is very plain. 
 We now adopt a resolution, expressing our 
 m of the orij inal resolution; and 
 for this purpose we use the word "< spunged," as the 
 strong l term hich we can apply. We then di- 
 rect our Secretary to draw black lines around it, 
 ice such a reference to our proceedings of 
 this day upon its face, thai in all time to come, 
 whoever may inspect this portion of our journal, 
 will bi I : at once to the record of its condem- 
 
 nation. What lawvr ha- not observed upon the 
 margii Igmenl docket, il the oi Iginal judg- 
 
 meD beei ed to a tiperiot court, and 
 
 then ' ■ ■■ minute of such r ersall [n our 
 
 the statutes, have we nol all note I the 
 I of any of them, which may h: i e taken place 
 at a ubsequenl period? Who evei heard. i 
 one case or in the other, thai this was obliterating 
 oi desl r< j ing the record, or the boo! ' So in this 
 case, we make a mere reference to our future pro- 
 ceeding upon the face of the resolution, instead of 
 
 the margin. Suppose we should only repealt he 
 obnoxious resolution, and direct such a reference U» 
 be made upon its face? Would any Senator con- 
 tend that this would be an obliteration of the 
 journal? 
 
 But it has been contended that the word expunge 
 is not the appropriate word; and we have wrested it 
 from its true signification, in applying it to the pre- 
 sent case. Even if this allegation were correct, the 
 answer would be at hand. You might then convict 
 us of bad taste, but not of a violation of the Con- 
 stitution. On the face of the resolution we have 
 stated distinctly what we mean. We have directed 
 the Secretary in what manner he shall understand 
 it, and we have excluded the idea that it is our in- 
 tention to obliterate or to destroy the journal. 
 
 But I shall contend that the word expunge is the 
 appropriate word, and that there is not another in 
 the English language so precisely adapted to con- 
 vey our meaning. I shall show, from the highest 
 literary and parliamentary authorities, that this 
 word has acquired a signification entirely distinct 
 from that of actual obliteration. Let me proceed 
 immediately to this task. After citing my au- 
 thorities, I shall proceed with the argument. First, 
 then, for those of a literary character. I read from 
 Crabbe's Synonymes, page 140; and every Senator 
 will admit that this is a work of established repu- 
 tation. In speaking of the use of the word ex- 
 punge, the author says: "When the contents of a 
 book are in part rejected, they are aptly described 
 as being expunged; in this manner die free-thinking 
 sects expunge every thing from the Bible which 
 does not suit their purpose, or they expunge from 
 their creed what does not humor their passions." 
 The idea that an actual obliteration was intended 
 in these cases would be manifestly absurd. In the 
 same page there is a quotation from Mr. Burke to 
 illustrate the meaning of this word. "I believe," 
 says he, "that any person who was of age to take 
 a part in public concerns forty years ago (if the 
 intermediate space were expunged from his memo- 
 ry) could hardly credit his senses when he should 
 hear that an army of two hundred thousand men 
 was kept up in this island." I shall now cite Mr. 
 Jefferson as a literary authority. He has often 
 been referred to on this floor as a standard in poli- 
 tics. For this high authority, I am indebted to my 
 friend from Louisiana (Mr. Nicholas.) In the 
 original draft of the declaration oi' independence, 
 he uses the word expunge in the following manner: 
 "Such has been the patient sufferance of these 
 
 coli s; and such is now the necessity which con- 
 
 them to expunge their former systems oi 
 Government." Although the word alter was after- 
 wards substituted for expunge, I presume upon the 
 ground thai this was too strong i term,yetthe 
 ij e does not detract from the lil rai athority 
 precedent. — Jefferson's Correspondence, >S*c. 1st 
 volume, page 17. 
 
 I presume that I have shown that the word ex- 
 punge has acquired a distinct metaphorical mean- 
 ing in our literature, which excludes the idea of 
 , | ; obliteration. If I should procee ' one step 
 .., and prove thai in legislative proeee bugs it 
 has acquired the very same signification, I shall 
 then have fully established nvj position. For this 
 purpose I cite, first, " the Secret Proceedings and 
 
12 
 
 debates of the Federal Convention." In page 118, 
 we find the following entries: " On motion to ex- 
 punge the clai the qualification as to age, it 
 was carried — ten States against one." Again: "On 
 the clause respecting the ineligibility to any other 
 office oved that the words ' by any parti- 
 cular State,' be expunged — four States for, five 
 
 the journal. If more authorities were -wanting, I 
 might refer to the Legislature of Virginia. The 
 present expunging resolution is in exact conformity 
 with their instructions to th r lators. As a 
 matter of taste, I cannot say that I much admire 
 tin ir plan, though I entertain no doubt but that it 
 is perfectly constitutional. That State is highly 
 
 against,. and two divided." So page 119. " The literary; and I think 1 have established 'hat their 
 
 last blank was filled up with one year, and carried 
 — eij hi aye.-:, two noes, one divided." 
 
 I inekney moved to expunge the cl 
 agreed to, nem. con. Again: " Mr. Butler moved 
 to expunge the clause of' the stipends — lost, seven 
 against, three fur, one divided." Again, in pas:e 
 
 lature, when they used the word expunge, 
 without intending thereby to effect an actual oblite- 
 ration of the journal, justly a I the mean- 
 ing of the language whieh they 
 
 The word expunge is, in my opinii Q, the only one 
 which we could have used, clearly and forciblj to 
 
 157, " Mr. Pinckney moved that that- ccomplish our purpose. Even if it had not been 
 
 clans;? which disqualifies a person from h ;tioned by practice as a parliamentary word, we 
 
 -office in the State In expunged, because the first and 1 ought ourselves to ha^ e first established th 
 
 bested :• m a State may thereby I 
 
 of a seat in the national council." 
 
 " ' ' '■ ' >n pul to strike out the words moved for 
 and carried— eight ayes, three noes." 
 
 It will : perceived that in the proceedings 
 
 of the very convention which formed the Constitu- 
 tion und :r which we arc now governed, the 
 expung often usedin its figurative sense. It 
 
 will c t; [inly not be asserted, or even intimal : . I 
 any Senator here, that when these moti 
 punge | .. led, the words of the original draft of 
 the Ci i were actually obliteral I 
 
 f^ced. I ming is palpable. These prov 
 
 were : ely.i ually blotted 
 
 It suits the case precisely. If you rescind, 
 
 repeal a resolution; you thei mil that it ontee 
 
 had some constitutional or legal authority. [J 
 declare it to have been null and void from the be- 
 ginning; this is but the expression of your i •■ ■ - 
 ion that such was the fact. This word expunge 
 on the resolution itself. It at once goes to 
 - origin, and destroys its legal existence as if it had 
 been. It does not men.lv kill, but it annihi- 
 
 Parliamentary practii : has ch aning 
 
 ral other words from t! tifi- 
 
 i, in a similar manner with thatof the word 
 
 expunge. The original signification of the word 
 
 But i shall now prodxice a pr< cedent pi ind - 'li cut i if. ' Usage has made it mean, 
 
 point, [i mts itself in the proceed igs of tl reference to a law or resolution, to 
 
 Senateofj\l i tts, and refet d ; t. We every day hear m< 
 
 : bod Lo] bi on the 15th da; of out." What is -the literal meaning of this expres 
 
 June,! 1 .3, in relation to the capture of 1 " i The question may be best-answered by ask- 
 
 ': denouncing the late war, and tij aother. If I were to request you strike oul 
 
 daring that it was not becoming hi a moral 
 rejigii . | ople, lo express any approl | 
 militai i naval exploits b bich v ere iol imme- 
 diate!] i with the defence of i : 
 
 a line from your letter, and you were nriUin 
 comply with my request, what would be youi n- 
 You would run your -pen through it imme- 
 . You would literally strike it out. Sfel 
 
 irds, a succeediii ite of [what use do we make of this phrase every day in 
 
 tt adi pted the follow in ; tiye proceeding I 
 
 " Ret '■::!. That the aforesaid resolve i a section from a bill and il prevails, 
 
 of June, A. D. 1813, and the pn ■ : — ; the printed copy of il in 
 
 me ther . /» , and the same, are hereby 
 from tl ■ i th S n ■>.-." 
 
 It is -■ ' ' l< nl that, in this case, not th ' 
 intent | of lefai Lng the old maun 
 
 journ "expunge" was us( d in its 
 
 ication, just as it is in th< 
 before spress the stronge n Lion of 
 
 the fi roceed ag. Thai proceeeding ■ 
 
 be ex , !i\ fora of the 
 
 resplul tid not by any actual 
 
 There never was any actual obhleration of the 
 journal. 
 
 Ju< : , ,' th< hi h< ;1 English au 
 
 ties, l works of celebrated authors and 
 
 state- m the proa edings of 
 
 bodies, is itnot e\ il the wi rd < cptti 
 
 acquii , i tning, altogethei 
 
 with any actual obliteration? 
 
 All ili.it we have heard aboul di a id d •- 
 
 stroying the journal are mere phantoms, which 
 have been conjured up to terrif) the timid. We 
 intend no such thing. We only mean, niosi strong- 
 ly, to express our conviction that the condemnatory 
 resolution ought never to have found a place on 
 
 and aakes a note on th til has 
 
 tricken out. The original he never toui 
 then should not the word expunge, without 
 ating the proceeding to whic cted, 
 
 to di n as if it ii 
 After all that has been ] think i need 
 
 scarcely again recur to the Pennsylvan 
 di at. it is evident from the who! i 
 
 I an actual expunging of the . as in- 
 
 • il had not alreadj beet 
 collection whatever of the ciri . but 
 
 I am under a perfect conviction, from th 
 
 i ; mil, thai such was the nati i ise.-l 
 
 now as 1 did then, after a 
 in tv enty 5 eat >. Both my vote, and the 
 n hich I sul 1 mad< npon ca- 
 
 ll Mil\- proceeded upon this principle. The 
 question arose in this manner, as il apj 
 
 ural. On the 10th of February, 1816, 
 Speaker infoimed the House that a co stitutional 
 question .being involved in a decision by him yes- 
 
 . , on ,1 motion to expunge certain ; 
 from the journal, he was desirous of having 
 opinion of the House on that decision," viz: "that 
 
13 
 
 a majority can expunge from the journal proceed- 
 ings in which the yeas and nays have not been 
 called." Now, as no trace whatever appears upon 
 the journal of the preceding day oi' the. motion to 
 winch, the Speaker refers, it is highly probable, nay 
 it is almos! certain, that the proceedings had been 
 actually expunged before he asked the advice of 
 the House. 
 
 No man feels with more sensibility, the necessity 
 which compels him to perform an unkind act to- 
 wards his brother Senators than myself: but we 
 have now arrived at that point when imperious 
 duty demands that we should either adopt this ex- 
 punging resolution or abandon it for ever. Already 
 much precious time has been employed in its dis- 
 cussion. The moment has arrived when we must 
 act. Senators in the opposition console themselves 
 With the belief that posterity will do them justice, 
 should it 1 e denied to them by the present genera- 
 tion. They place their own names in the one scale, 
 and our- in the other, and Hatter themselves with 
 tin hope that before that tribunal at least, their 
 Weight wdl preponderate. For my own part, I am 
 Willing to abide the issue. I am willing to be 
 judged fur the vote which I shall give to-day not 
 only by the present, but by future generations, 
 should my obscure name ever be mentioned in af- 
 ter limes. After th" passions and prejudices of the 
 present moment shall have subsided, and the impar- 
 tial historian shall come to record the proceedings of 
 this day, he will say that the distinguished men who 
 passed tie,- resolution condemning the President, 
 Were urged on to the act by a desire to occupy the 
 ligh places in the Government. That an ambition 
 nolle in itself, but not wisely regulated, had ob- 
 scured their judgment, and impelled them to the 
 adoption of a measure unjust, illegal and uncon- 
 stitutional. That in order to vindicate both the 
 Constitution and tin; President, we were justified 
 i;i passing this expunging resolution, and thus 
 stamping the former proceeding with our strongest 
 disapprobation. 
 
 1 rejoice in the belief, that this promises to be 
 on- of the last highly exciting questions of the 
 present day. During the period of General Jack- 
 Bon's civil administration, what ha.s he not done for 
 the American people 1 During this period he has 
 had more, difficult and dangerous questions to settle, 
 both al home and abroad, — questions which aroused 
 more mt nsely the passion., of men, — than any of 
 bis pred ■cessors. They are now all happily ended, 
 except the one which we shall this day bring to a 
 Hose, 
 
 •■ Indnllihe cloud? that lowered upon our houw 
 In ihe He ■;> bosom n{ the oci a i bin .1 d ' 
 
 The country now enjoys abundant prosper- 
 ity at home, whilst it is respected and admired by 
 foreign nations. Although the waves may ye bi 
 ui some agitation from Ihe effect of the storms 
 through which we have passed, yel I thud; [can 
 p eivi the r tinbow of peai e extending ifc ;lf 
 ■ere n tent i ; ' Heaven. 
 
 S ould di • ne tt administration pursue the 
 course o.' policy with the present — motiid it dis- 
 pells: equal justice to all portions and all interests 
 of f;e Union, without sacrificing any — should ii 
 be conducted with pro lena and with firmness, and 
 I doubt not but that this will be the case — we shall 
 
 hereafter enjoy comparative peace and quiet in our 
 day. This will be the precious fruit of the en- 
 ergy, the toils, and the wisdom of the pilot who has 
 conducted us in safety through the storms of his 
 tempestuous administration. 
 
 1 am now prepared for the question. I shall 
 vote for this resolution; but not cheerfully. I re- 
 gret the necessity which exists for passing it; but I 
 believe that imperious duty demands its adop- 
 tion. If I know my own heart, 1 can truly say 
 that I am not actuated by any desire to obtain a 
 miserable, petty, personal triumph, either for my- 
 self, or for the President of the United States, over 
 my associates upon this floor. 
 
 I am now ready to record my vote, and thus, in- 
 die opprobrious language of Senators in. the op- 
 position, to become one of the executioners of the 
 condemnatory resolution. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 Office, HotSE of Rep. U. S. April 6, HTIG. 
 
 I entered this office a youth, under JohnBeckley, 
 who was the first clerk of the House of Represen- 
 tatives under the present Constitution of the United 
 Stales, and who died in the year 1807. 
 
 During the recess of Congress, he put me at 
 what was termed " recording the journal" of the 
 preceding session, which was to write it off from 
 the printed copy into a large bound volume. I in- 
 quired of him why it was that it was copied, when 
 there were so many printed copies? He answered 
 that the printed copies would probably, in time, 
 disappear from use, &c. the large manuscript vo- 
 lume would not. 
 
 The ''rough journal," as it was then termed, and 
 is still termed, being the origin il rough draft, read 
 in the House on the morning after the day of which 
 it narrates the proceedings, was not, and had not 
 from the beginning, been preserved. I inquired' the 
 reason, and was answered, that the printed copy was 
 the official copy, as it was printed under the official 
 order of the House; and as errors, which were 
 sometimes discovered in the rough journal, were 
 corrected in the proofs of the printed copy, the 
 printed copy was the most correct, and that, there- 
 fore, there was no use in lumbering the office with 
 the "rough journal," after it had been printed. 
 
 Two of Mr. Beckley's immediate successors in 
 office, Mr. Magruder and Mr. Dougherty, viewed 
 the matter as Mr. Beckley viewed it. I knowthe 
 fact from having called their attention to the sub- 
 ject. I often reflected upon the subject, and it ap- 
 peared to me lo be proper that the " rough jour- 
 nal"sh«uld be preserved, although I could net see 
 any purpose whatever to be answered by doing so* 
 I "in n com ersed « ith Ihe clei ks of the offii upon 
 the subject; but a. we were only subordinates, the 
 practice was nol changed till 1st session of the 
 I8ih Congress, (1823-4 1 when I determined, 
 ul con til ing my superior, tU:ii the "rough 
 
 u ial" should no long*;i he thrown away, but be 
 prei n ed and bound in 1 olumes; an ' i; - been 
 regularl pre rved and bound since. 
 With greal respect, I am, sir, 
 
 Vot r ob -in al s< n mt. 
 
 S. iXJRCEf. 
 Col. Walter S. Franklin, 
 
 Clerk Howe of Representatives, U. 8. 
 

 - 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 896 359 3