'•*■. 
 
 :. '-^^o^ : 
 
 : **..** .'issf^'. %../ /Jife^ %..^^ y^^'^ V..* 
 
 v^^ 
 
 
 
 "^bv* 
 
 vs.* 
 
 • * * .V 
 
 
 .-iq* 
 
 'bV 
 
 
 >^..^.:r^% 
 
 'W* .*^^\ \/ •^\ "'•^..^^ 
 
 
 
 
 > \^ . « • o 
 
 
 v-o^ 
 
 •"' ^ ^P .•ilk:* ^ v^ 
 
 '■^ju.-? oV'^^^lQl'- "*bv* 
 
 iPvN 
 
 
 0^7 
 
 ■ V-"^ 
 
 
 
 
 sP-?*^ 
 
 /nV • . - "^^ 
 
 
 1- ^c^o* 
 
 ^^°^ 
 
 • o.-^ 
 
 
 
 '^^<,'' 
 
 % -t^A 
 
 
.. ^^^-'^^-^^ "°^'^-'*/ V'^^"\«^' %- ••' 
 
 "I 
 
 
 .'^'\ 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 X( 
 
 RICHARD h/ BAYARD, 
 
 OF DELAWARE* 
 
 ON 
 
 t«R. BENtO.N's MOTION TO EXPUNGE FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE SENATE 
 
 The Resolution of March 28th, 1834. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 1 6, 183f. 
 
 Wilmington : 
 
 I'rinted by U. and J. B. Porter, No, 97, Mairket Street. 
 
 1837 
 
b.^ 
 
 
 
 a 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 ■ «i>BC^«»— 
 
 Mr. BAYARD said that, notwithstanding he had not before had an op- 
 portunity of expressing his opinion on the suhject now under discussion, yet he 
 should have beenunwilliiig at this late hour to have trespassed on the time and 
 attention of the Senate, had he not felt it to be a duty which lie owed to him- 
 self and to his imvnediate constituents, to contend and protest against a meas- 
 ure which he believed to be a violation of the Constitution. I say, sir, consti- 
 tuents, for, in my theory of this Government, we are all the representatives of 
 the People, though chosen after a different manner. Every infraction of the 
 Constitution, however unimportant it may appear in its immediate consequen- 
 ces, tends to diminish the general confidence in the stability of our Govern- 
 ment, and the general attachment to it; and as the People ol the State I have 
 the honor in part to represent are devotedly attached to that instrument, and 
 feel that their political existence is incorporated with it, that in it they live, and 
 move, and have their being as a political community, I say, sir, it is a duty 
 which I owe to them to contend to the uttermost of my ability against whatever 
 thus incidentally affects them. It is a duty, too, which I owe to myself, as I 
 have a personal interest in whatever aflects the character and honor ot this 
 body, of which I am an humble member. 
 
 I have no intention, Mr. President, to inquire into the motives which may 
 lead gentlemen to the adoption of this resolution. The motives of every man 
 are his individual property; and as his action here, in relation to this matter, is 
 under the sanction of an oath, they involvp, a responsibility only to his con- 
 science and his God. I cannot say, sir, that the act which is now required to 
 be done is a sacrifice to the Moloch of party spirit. I cannot say that it is a 
 homage to an idol resembling that which the Cliinese pays to liis household 
 god when he burns before it a little piece of gilt paper as the humble ottering ol 
 l»is piety and adoration. Nor can 1 say, sir, that it is intended to smooth the 
 mane and calm the roar of the lion. All these views belong to the class of mo- 
 tives with which I have nothing to do. But, sir, I have something to say and 
 something to do with the doctrines advanced and the acts done here, which be- 
 come part of the common stock. \{\i seem% from the na/?»"« of the act done, 
 and from the insiifficiency of the reasons given for it, to be an act of homage at 
 the footstool of executive power, 1 have, then a personal interest in the nuitter 
 which not only justifies my doing so, but makes it a matter of duty to express 
 my opinions as well as to record my vote. And, sir, it becomes the more ne- 
 cessary and proper to express those opinions, since, if this principle of expunc- 
 tion be adopted, I have no security that the record of that vote may not be de- 
 stroyed, if hereafter it should become expedient to give to the resolution the 
 appearance of unanimous approbat'on. 
 
 What is it, sir, we are called upon to do? A man may do wrong unwitting- 
 ly, and we must take care to have a clear and precise idea cf the act to be 
 done. In ivords, sir, we are called upon to expunge from the journal a certain 
 resolution, but in fact and in ir\xi\\io falsify a record. The same mind which 
 migiit contemplate the one proposition with indift'erence, would regard the oth- 
 er with horror. To a mind rccA/ess of consequences, which hasnoy«/t/re, which 
 looks only to the present, and views every act as an insulated event, having no 
 
relation to what has preceded, and no influence on what is io{o\\ow,io expunge 
 from a journal may seem a very harmless act. But, sir, even such a mind 
 mi°-htbe brought to revolt with disgust from the same measure when it import- 
 ed "the suppression of the truth, or the assertion of a falsehood. The approach- 
 es of crime are stealthv and mysterious; the assassin wears his mask; vice pays 
 to virtue the homage of assuming her form; the knave puts on the cloak of re- 
 ligion; the demagogue becomes the friend of the People. Tt becomes, then, my 
 purpose to show "that to expunge from the journal is to falsify a record. 
 
 Let me.now draw the attention of the Senate to the terms of the resolution. 
 It professes to set forth the act to be done, and the reasons for doing it. And 
 first, sir, as to the act itself. It is described in these terms: 
 
 f "Resolved, That the said resolve be expunged from the journal, and for that pur- 
 pose that the Secretary of the Senate, at such time as the Senate may appoint, shall 
 bring the manuscript journal of the session of 1833-'4 in the Senate, and in the 
 presence of the Senate draw black lines around the said resolve, and write across 
 the face thereof, in strong letters, the following words: Expunged by order of the 
 Senate thia day of , in the year of our Lord 1836." 
 
 Nothing can be more explicit in its terms. The act to be done is to expunge. 
 The first member of the sentence conveys the whole idea, and if the resolution 
 had stopped there, with the simple assertion that an expunction should take 
 place, there cannot be a doubt that the Secretary would have been authorized 
 to blot out or erase from the journal the objectionable passage. The Senator 
 from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan) has gone into a critical examination of tlie 
 meaning of the term expunge, and has given us various instances of its use in 
 a metaphorical sense, and concludes that, because the word may be used met- 
 aphorically, it is in this instance a harmless metaphor. In all uses, whether 
 literal or metaphorical, it imports destruction; and the beauty and force of the 
 metaphor in every instance depends on the precise meaning of its literal accep- 
 tation. The term expunge means literally to wipe out, which imports destruc- 
 tion: or, in other words, it imports that something which has an existence shall 
 cease to exist. Whether the term is at any time used literally'or metaphorical- 
 ly,will depend on the subject-matter to which it is applied. "Thus, in some of 
 the instances given by the Senator from Pennsylvania, as the one "to ex- 
 punge our sins," no doubt the word is used metaphorically; but does not the 
 whole force and value of the expression depend on its literal meaning, and im- 
 port that those sins shall cease to have a moral existence as reasons for the Di- 
 vine vengeance.'' And when used as applicable to a section of a bill, which is 
 another instance given by the Senator, does it not mean that such section shall 
 cease to have existence? 
 
 The Senator asks whether,if a resolution passed that a section of a bill shall 
 be expunged, the Secretary would proceed to obliterate it.^ I answer that from 
 the method ot our proceedings it is not necessary for him to erase every word, 
 because the purpose is effectually answered by drawing his black lines across 
 it, or simply writing upon its face the word expunged, tor in effect it becomes 
 so, by ceasing to have anv legal existence; and if such bill were ordered to bi 
 engrossed for a third reading, the section thus expunged would be omitted in 
 the engrossment, as if it had never existed. But the authority conferred upon 
 liiin by such a resolution is literally to erase every word of the*^section. Such, 
 also, is the case when the word is used in relation to a part of the journal, and 
 it becomes his duty to blot^outor^obliteiate from its face the passage ordered to 
 be expunged. But it is said that the present resolution does not contemplate an 
 actual expunction or obliteration ot the passage, but merely a typical one. And 
 Senators seek to reconcile themselves to this measure by such a plaj- upon 
 
words. A typical expunction! To get rid of the sophistry" at once, let me 
 ask whether a journal is not the evidence of a fact, as, for instance, the pas- 
 sage of a particular resolution, and whether to expunge from the journal that 
 resoltion is not to destroy the evidence of the fact that such a resolution had 
 been adopted? If, then, you have the right to expunge, and do actually declare 
 that a passage shall be expunged, does it not for all legal purposes suppress the 
 evidence of the fact, no matter what the manner of expunction may be, wheth- 
 er by erasing, by blotting out, or by writing the word expunged over its face? 
 Could the Secretary certify, after the adoption of the expunging resolution, 
 that such a passage existed on the journal? If he were called upon to publish a 
 new edition of the journal, would he have a right to insert the passage expun- 
 ged? It is in vain that the assertion is made that the printed volumes would be 
 evidence of the fact. The printed volumes aie on\y prima facie evidence, and 
 admitted for convenience, but could never stand against a sworn copy of the 
 journal. There is, then, for all the purposes for which a journal is kept, name- 
 ly, as evidence of a particular transaction, no ditterence between an actual and 
 a typical expunction, Tliat in the present instance no grave and immedi- 
 ate consequences affecting individual rights' is to follow, does not alter the 
 case. The principle asserted in tlie resolution is, that the right to expunge 
 exists, the mode of doing it is of no consequence; and I will show presently, 
 that the exercise of such a power is not only unconstitutional, but may be at- 
 tended with the most important and direct influence on the personal rights of 
 individuals. The natural import and the necessary legal eft'ect of the phrase 
 *» expunged from the journal," is to destroy the evidence of the fact expunged 
 whether it be used literally or metaphorically. 
 
 Having thus ascertained the meaning of the word expunge, and the effect of 
 any mode of expunction, the question arises whether the Senate possess any 
 such power over its journals. Has it the right to destroy the evidence of a 
 particular transaction, for the journal is not only the highest evidence, but the- 
 only evidence of the fact? A journal is a daily record as contradistinguished 
 from a temporary memorandum. But it is contended that though a record, it 
 is not a permanent one, being ot value only until it is published ; after which, 
 it becomes mere waste paper. Is this proposition true? For if it be, then so 
 far as this particular case is concerned, there is an end of the question. — 
 The language of the Constitution is " that each House shall keep a journal of 
 its proceedings, and, from time to time, publish the same." Resort has 
 been had to the meaning of the word keep, as importing preservation, to show 
 that the Constitution contemplated a permanent, and not a temporary record. 
 But I admit that the word keep does not necessarily imply permanent preser- 
 vation ; it may mean preservation for a temporary purpose. The word keep, 
 like every other word in the language, must depend for its meaning on the 
 manner in which it is used, on the subject-matter to which it is applied. — 
 Words are but the signs of ideas, and it is one of the imperfections of language 
 that it often expresses too much or too little, while felicity in its use consitsin 
 the choice of those terms which convey either the simple or complex idea with 
 precision. A word, too, may stand for a whole sentence, for a class of ideas, 
 as in the familiar use of this very term. Thus, to keep a horse may not merely 
 mean that he is fed, and curried, and stabled, but that he is rode ; as, where 
 the conversation being about the personal habit of any one in relation to exer- 
 cise, it should be remarked of him, he keeps a horse ; the term imports both 
 preservation and use. So in the phrase keep a cow ; the use for which she 
 is kept is implied, as if a house keeper were asked, " Do you buy your milk?" 
 and should r«^ply, ''No, I keep a ccnv ;" it imports not only that she is fed and 
 
taken care of, but that she is milked, and her milk consumed by the family.—- 
 So, keep a carnage does not merely mean that a carriage is locked up in the 
 house, but that it is used. Keep house, imports the burden of household du- 
 ties ; as keep tavern imports the duty of receiving and attending to guests. — 
 There cannot be a doubt that the phrase "keep a journal," means to make and 
 preserve one. But still the question arises as to the length of that preserva- 
 tion ; and it is contended that the subsequent injunction to publish indicates 
 at once the purpose and length of preservation. Is this true.^ The words are 
 keep and jmblish, not keep in order to publish. But waiving all verbal cri- 
 ticism, let me remark that a constitution is merely a collection of principles j 
 and in-order to ascertain the force and meaning of any term, it is necessary 
 to attend ^to the object of the provision, and the principle connected with it. 
 What then, sir, are the purposes for which a journal is to be kept .►* I do not 
 pretend to give them all, but some of them, as drawn from the Constitution 
 itself 5 and it will then be seen whether such pwr^^oses are of a temporary or 
 permanent character, and by consequence whether the journal is intended to 
 be a permanent or temporary record. In the first place, it is intended to 
 record the day on which a bill has been presented to the President for his appro- 
 bation, and the day on which Congress adjourned, for on these two facts may 
 depend the validity of a law. Thus, in the seventh section of the first article 
 of the Constitution, it is provided ; 
 
 "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the 
 Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the U- 
 nited Statesj if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with 
 his objections, to the House in which it originated, &c. If any bill shall not 
 be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall 
 have been presented to him, thesame shall become a law, in like manner as if 
 he had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return ; 
 in which case it shall not be a law." 
 
 Here is one permanent purpose as enduring as the law itself. 
 
 In the second place, it is intended to record t!ie fact of membership in this 
 body, the Senate being the judge, and settling the question of membership in 
 cases of contested election, by the express provision of the fifth section of the 
 first article of the Constitution. And this was done in the case ot the venera- 
 ble and distinguished Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Robbins.) Has not he, 
 and has not his State, a permanent interest in that decision, and in the evidence 
 of that fact? Suppose, sir, it should become expedient at any time to expunge 
 such a decision, what would become of the rights of the Senator from Rhode 
 Island, if a competitor were to present himself here for his seat, with fresh cre- 
 dentials from his State? 
 
 In the third place, it is intended to record the presence of a quorum at the 
 opening of each session of Congress, as well as to ascertain the fact that Con- 
 o^ress did assemble on the constitutional day of its meeting. The journal al- 
 ways opens with a statement of the names of those who assembled: when it is 
 once ascertained that a quorum is present, it is afterwards taken for granted 
 tiiat they perform theii' duty, and are always present, unless the contrary is 
 made to appear. But if it so happened that no quorum was present, or that 
 Cono-ress had assembled before it had a legal right to do so, the laws passed 
 under such circumstances would be merely void, This certainly is a matter 
 of permanent importance. 
 
 In the fourth place, it is intended to record the action of this body on the 
 conduct of its members, as in the instance of the punishment of any of them for 
 disorderly behaviour. Suppose the case of the expulsion of a member, will not 
 
the right of the State from which he comes, to send a successor depend on the 
 fact of expulsion? And could you, by expunging the resolution ot expulsion, 
 restore him to his scat? And yet, if you destroy the evidence ot the expulsion, 
 is there anything to invalidate his rights as established by his credentials 
 when he first took his seat? Suppose he was elected for six years, and you ex- 
 pel him at the expiration of the second, how would it be possible to contest his 
 right to a seat for the remaining four years? 
 
 In the fifth place, it is intended to ascertain the fact of your organization as 
 a court of impeachment, and the judgment passed on the oftender. The judg- 
 ment may extend to a removal from office, and a disqualification to hold and 
 enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, which in its nature is perpetual, and 
 is excepted out of the pardoning power which is given to the President in all 
 other cases. 
 
 In the sixth and last place to which I mean to advert, it is intended to re- 
 cord the votes of members on matters of moment, that they may be held to 
 their responsibility for pernicious measures. And hence it is expressly pro- 
 vided in the fifth section of the first article, " that the yeas and nays ot the 
 ' members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of 
 * those present, be entered on the journal." Has not every individual a per- 
 sonal and permanent interest in the record for good or for evil? This last pur- 
 pose has reference to the great principle on which republican government is 
 founded — the responsibility of the representative to his constituents. From a 
 consideration, then, of the purposes for which a journal is to be kept, it is ap- 
 parent that it is intended to be a permanent and not a temporary record . 
 None of those purposes wouid be eftectually answered by the mere publication 
 of the journal. They are matters of fact of which the journal, I mean the ma- 
 nuscript journal, is the highest evidence, and the only evidence where recourse 
 is had to it, for any legal purpose. To expunge this record is to destroy the 
 evidence of a fact^ to falsify history, and verify the remark of the satirical 
 Frenchman, that history is nothing but coriventionable fables. Let me add, in 
 relation to this matter, that the suppressio veri differs nothing in point of mor- 
 ality from the allegatio falsi, and that it would be as hard to maintain that you 
 have a right to suppress the evidence of a fact which had occurred in your pro- 
 ceedings, as to maintain that you have the right to assert a fact upon your 
 journal which never had any existence. But it has been contended by some 
 that, because we have the custody of the journal, we have the right to do with 
 it what we please. And does custody import the right of destruction? Will 
 it be contended that the Secretary of State, who has the custody of your laws 
 and treaties, and even of the Constitution itself, has, from that circumstance, 
 the right to blot out sections from your laws, articles from your treaties, and 
 paragraphs from your constitution; that he has the right to mutilate and de- 
 stroy the records of the nation? In considering this right of expunction; the 
 question is not whether i\\c substance of the resolution proposed to be expunged 
 is true, but whether such a resolutionwus adopted^ that is the point of history. 
 The existence on the journal of the resolution is no evidence of the truth of its 
 allegation, but simply of its adoption; and the future historian, looking to the 
 whole transactions of the time, would decide upon the truth or error of its alle- 
 gation without giving to it any greater weight than is due to the mere expres- 
 sion of an opinion. Eveiy Senator who voted for the original resolution has a 
 personal interest in the record. 
 
 If it is true that to pass such a resolution was illegal and unconstitutional, 
 ni d tha(.|flagrant wrong was done to the Prcsidentof theUnitcd States, then his 
 friends should not dpsirc to have it expunged, but on the contrary, to preserve 
 
it as a monument of reproach to those who participated iu the measure. In thi» 
 view of the subject, it should be preserved as a matter of satisfaction on the 
 part of his friends, and of disgrace and shame on the part ot his adversaries. 
 And, on the other hand, if the right existed to pass the resolution, and its 
 allegation was true in point of fact, those w!io sustained it by their vote have an 
 interest in the evidence of their opinion, while those who thought otherwise 
 have the benefit and satisfaction of being able to establish their dissent. In 
 neither view of the case have the friends of the President any fair reason to 
 desire that the evidence of the proceeding should be destroyed. The Senator 
 from Missouri (Mr. Benton) may glory in the vote he gave on the occasion j 
 the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) may do the same 5 neither has the right 
 to deprive the other of the evidence of his course in relation to it. Those who 
 voted for the resolution alone hazard any thing in preserving that evidence. If 
 they were wrong, then it is for their shame ; if they were right, it is the mere 
 expressionof an opinion from which others might rightfully and sincerely dif- 
 fer. If the allegation of the friends of the President is true, that the adop- 
 tion of that resolution was a breach of the Constitution, and a most flagrant 
 wrong to him, would it not be more natural that the Senator from Kentucky 
 (Mr. Clay) should come here and ask us to expunge it, that he might conceal 
 his participation in the matter? Is it not extraordinary that the Senator from 
 Missouri, who takes great credit to himself for resisting the measure, should 
 seek not only to conceal his own glory in opposing it, but the shame of his ad- 
 versaries in supporting it.'' What is the purpose to be answered by expunging 
 the resolution.^ The fact that such a resolution was adopted cannot now be 
 concealed from the eye of history. The journal is only evidence of that fact, 
 and not of the truth of the allegation contained in it. What valuable end, then 
 is to be accomplished by theexpunction? I fear, sir, that the future historian, 
 looking over the whole ground of the controversy, will say, from the nature of 
 the act, that it was a sacrifice, a peace offering at the altar of Executive pow- 
 er. In this view, we have all an interest in the record of the proceedings of 
 this day, for good or for evil report. 
 
 But, Sir, I come now to consider the reasons which are offered for the adop- 
 tion of this expunging resolution. They are set forth in the preamble, and I pre- 
 sume they are the best that can be offered. They have been well weighed and 
 considered, and no doubt the ability of the Senator from Missouri has been tax- 
 ed to the uttermost to present the casein the strongest possible point of view. 
 His reasons are eight in number, and the first of them is in these words: 
 
 " And whereas the said resolve was irregularly, illegally and unconstitutionally 
 adopted by the Senate in violation of the rights of defence which belong to every 
 citizen, and in subversion of the fundamental principles of law and justice: because 
 President Jackson was thereby adjudged, and pronounced to be guilty of an im- 
 peachable offence, and a stigma placed upon him as a violator of his oath of of- 
 fice and of the Laws and Constitution, whicb he was sworn to preserve, protect and 
 defend, without going through the form of an impeachment, and without allowing 
 to him the benefits of a tiial, cr means of defence." 
 
 Is this true in point of fact.^ The proceeding of which this reason professes 
 to be descriptive was this: On the 28th day of March, 1834, the Senate in 
 its usual course of businiess, adopted the following resolution: 
 
 *' Resolved, That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to 
 the revenue, has aussumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the 
 Constitution and Laws, but in derogation of both." 
 
 Jsliiis first reason, tlicn, a trued<:&cription of the subject to which it refers? 
 
If the Senate had organized itself into a Court of impeachment, called in the 
 Chief Justice to preside, as required by the Constitution, and then proceeded 
 to try the President without hearing him, and to pronounce judgment upon 
 him, of removal from office, more could not have been said; no stronger lan- 
 
 f;uage would be required to describe so wanton a violation of the constitutional 
 aw. Is there no difference between the cases? Can a stronger case of the 
 perversion and abuse of language be put than this, which vvould represent a 
 simple resolution of a deliberative assembly, expressing an opinion which has 
 no legal effect whatever on the rights of the individual, as the judgment of a 
 court which acts directly and immediately upon those rights? '1 he proceeding 
 referred to has neither the form nor substance of a judgment. Nor is the slight- 
 est guilt imputed in the opinion as expressed by the resolution. It states a 
 fact, "that the President has assumed upon himself authority and power not 
 conferred by the Constitution;'' but is silent as to the motives and intention 
 with which that tact was accompanied, the corrupt and wilful character of which 
 alone, could give to the proceeding the attribute ofguilt. But suppose, for a 
 moment, that the Senate had, losing sight of the principles of law and justice, 
 formed itself into a Court of Impeachment, and proceeded, without a hearing, 
 to pass judgment on the individual: would that be a reason for expunging the 
 record; for suppressing the evidence of so monstrous a proceeding? On the 
 contrary, sir, it should stand as a monument of disgrace and dishonor to the 
 men who participated in it. Its legal effect would be nothing; its moral influ- 
 ence would recoil on their own heads, and they should be held to that respon- 
 sibility to Public Opinion, to secure which, it was provided that the yeas and 
 nays should be entered on the journal. In this view of the subject, the hollow- 
 ness and fallacy of the reason assigned is manifested by the fact that those who 
 seek to suppress the evidence are not those who advocated, but those who op- 
 posed, the resolution. But, sir, it is the fate of a false position to embody the 
 principles of its own destruction. If this reason be a true description of the 
 resolution of 28th March, 1834, and sufficient for its expunction, is it not per- 
 ceived that this very expunging resolution and its preamble is open to the same 
 objection, as pronouncing judgment on those Senators who supported the for- 
 mer, as guilty of an impeachable offence and violators of their oaths of office, 
 without the benefit of a trial? It should, then, in its turn, be expunged; and if 
 I were called upon to draw up a preamble upon the strength of this precedent, 
 I should use the same language, as being, as fair and legitimate a description of 
 the present resolution and its preamble, as this reason is descriptive of the reso- 
 lution of March 28, 1834. It is absolutely suicidal. 
 The second reason is as follows : 
 
 " And whereas the said resolve, in all its shapes and forms, was unfounded and 
 erroneous in point of fact, and, therefore, unjust and unrighteous, as vvell as irreg- 
 ular and unconstitutional, because the said President Jackson, neither in the act of 
 dismissing Mr. Duane, nor in the appointment of Mr. Taney, as specified in the first 
 form of the resolve; nor in taking upon himself the removing of the deposites, as 
 specified in the second form of the same resolve; nor in any act which was then or 
 can now be specified under the vague and ambiguous terms of the general denunci- 
 ation contained in the third and l?ist form of the resolve, did do or commit any acf 
 in violation or in derogation of the laws and Constitution, or dangerous to the lib- 
 erties of the People." 
 
 The substance of this reason is, that the resolution was erroneous in point of 
 fact. Is that a reason for expunging it? It might form a very good reason for a 
 counter-resolution. The subject is one on which a difference of opinion might 
 fairly exist, and that difference was expressed at the time, both in debate and 
 
10 
 
 on the journal; but surely that difference of opinion is no reason for destroying 
 the evidence that such an opinion was expressed. 
 The third reason is, that 
 
 ' " The said resolve, as adopted, is uncertain and ambiguous, containing nothing 
 but a loose and floating charge for derogating from the laws and Constitutien, and 
 assuming ungranted power and authority in the late executive proceedings in rela- 
 tion to the public revenue, without specifying," &c. 
 
 This reason conflicts with both the others, implying that, if the resolve were 
 detailed and specific, it ought not to be expunged. If all these are reasons for 
 the same act, they should not be antagonist to each other, but should harmo- 
 niously tend to the same conclusion. But want of detail can be no reason for 
 suppressing the evidence that such a resolution was adopted. 
 
 The fourth reason is merely an amplification of the third. 
 
 The fifth reason is as follows : 
 
 "And whereas the Senate being the constitutional tribunal for the trial of the 
 President, when charged by the House of Representatives with offences against the 
 laws and Constitution, the adoption of the said resolve before any impeachment 
 preferred by the House was a breach of the privileges of the House; a violation of 
 the Constitution; a subversion of justice; a prejudication of a question which might 
 legally come before the Senate; and a disqualification of that body to perform its 
 constitutional duty with fairness and impartiality, if the President should thereaf- 
 ter be regularly impeached by the House of Representatives for the same offence." 
 
 The same answer may be given to this reason as is given to the first, that it 
 is not a fair and true description of the case. It treats the resolution of 1834 
 as if it were ajudgment of the Senate in its judicial capacity as a court of im- 
 peachment, when, in truth, it is nothing more than the expression of an opinion 
 in its character of a deliberative assembly. It is no breach of the privileges of 
 the House of Representatives, since it neither anticipates nor precludes an im- 
 peachment. It is no prejudication of any question which might come before 
 the Senate as a court of impeachment, since such question must be one of guilt, 
 and nothing of the kind is imputed in the resolution. But again: if all this 
 were true, it would be no reason for expunging, or in other words, destroying 
 the evidence of the fact that such a resolution was adopted. 
 
 But, sir, we come now to the sixth reason, which is perhaps the true motive, 
 though not a justification for this extraordinary proceeding, and a gleam of light 
 is thrown upon the subject, which gives it color and complexion. The sub- 
 stance of this reason is, that the President's protest was rejected, and not per- 
 mitted to be entered upon the journal, while memorials and petitions against 
 him were duly and honorably received. Here is another instance of that con- 
 flict with other reasons, which was remarked upon in adverting to the third. — 
 It implies that, if the protest had been received, then the resolve should 
 not be expunged. But with that confusion of ideas which seems to character- 
 ize the whole preample, it places the protest of the President on the same foot- 
 ing with petitions from the people. The President demanded that his protest 
 should be spread upon the journal, which he had no right to do. But, suppos- 
 ing for a moment that he had, is the refusal a reason for expunging the resolu- 
 tion to which the protest had reference? The People have an undoubted right 
 to express their opinions and wishes, in the form of petitions and memorials, 
 but the President, as such, has no right to notice the proceedings of any other 
 branch of the Government in the form of a protest. It is no part of the func- 
 tions or privileges of Executive power to review and rebuke the proceedings of 
 the legislative or judicial branches of the Government. The aspect which the 
 whole subject assumes, in contemplating this reason, is that of retaliation. It 
 
11 
 
 looks like ofreriiigau iiuligiuty to this body by way of compensating the slii^ht 
 of Executive power. 
 
 The seventh and eighth reasons may be classed together, and resolve them- 
 selves into the general allegation that the said resolve was inopportune, of evil 
 example, and dangerous precedent. All of which, being a mere matter of o- 
 pinion about which a fair dilFerencc might arise, could furnish no reason for ex- 
 punging the resolve, however it might be urged as a reason for passing a coun- 
 ter resolution. We have thus, sir gone through them all, and do not find one 
 which justifies the conclusion that the resolution should be expunged. And if 
 they do not singly support that conclusion, they cannot do it collectively. A 
 thousand bad reasons have no more force than one. We may say, then, of 
 this preamble, what was said of Gratiano's reasoning: " Gratiano speaks an iti- 
 ' finite deal of nothing, more than any man in iiU Venice; his reasons are as two 
 ' grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaft", you shall seek all day ere you find 
 ' them ; and wiien you have them they are not worth the search." 
 
 But it is said the Senate had no right to pass such a resolution ; that it can- 
 not be justified as the fiiir exercise of any one of its powers. Still it m»y be an- 
 swered, it is a fact that such a resolution was adopted, and the objection in- 
 volves a mere difterence of opinion, which cannot be a reason for destroying the 
 evidence of the facto But as to the right itself, I think there can be no doubt of 
 its existence, when the subject is fully understood. The Senate, under the 
 Constitution, has various powers, legislative, judicial and executive." The er- 
 ror lies in attempting to discover and explain the right to pass such a resolutiori 
 in the exercise of any of these powers. 
 
 The object of all these powers is the modification of some social or political 
 right. But the Senate is a deliberative body., and, as such, must have opinions, 
 and express them. It is the inherent right and property of every deliberative 
 assembly to have and express opinions, which can only be done by resolution. 
 A resolution of thanks cannot be traced to any one of these powers, neither can 
 a resolution of condolence; and yet no one ever doubted the right to pass either 
 the one or the other. If it were necessary to resort to the Constitution for any 
 express or implied authority, it might be found in the seventh section of the 
 fourth article, which, in its last paragraph, supposes tliat there are other reso- 
 lutions than legislative acts, or sucli as require the concurrence of both houses. 
 But the very institution of a deliberative assembly in the nature of things, sup- 
 poses and involves the existence of opinions and the right of expressing them. 
 The powers of such an assembly, or, in other words, the control which it may 
 exercise overthe social or political rights of others, is a very different matter, 
 and depends on tlie provisions of the Constitution which gives it existence. But 
 is it not somewhat remarkable that those wlio made the objection do not per- 
 ceive that this very expunging resolution which they advocate, presupposes the 
 right.^ If the Senate has no right to pass any resolution but such as can be tra- 
 ced to one those powers, what right has it to pass this expunging resolution? — 
 Into such absurdities, sir, will men fall when they seek to sustain, by reasoning, 
 a false position. The right, then, to pass such a resolution I take to be un- 
 questionable, and the exercise of it may be, at times, highly expedient, as a 
 check or caution to the wantonness or heedlessness of Executive power, and as 
 a measure short of impeachment. But sir, what is impeachment? A farce, a 
 nullity! It is, like tlie case of the electoral colleges, an abortion. There is 
 little danger to be apprehended but from a popular President; and the very fact 
 jf his being such, under the party organization of this country, supposes thef act 
 that he is sustained and supported by a majority of the body in whom the im- 
 peaching power rcbides. I might here, sir, conclude what I wished to say in 
 
12 
 
 relation to the matter now depending before the Senate, having, as I think, 
 established two propositions, which cover the whole ground: first, chat the Sen- 
 ale, as a deliberative assembly, had the right to pass the resolution of March 
 28, 1834, and secondly, that, whether true or not in point of fact, we have no 
 right to expunge it, because the journal is, by the Constitution a permanent 
 RECORD. I will further incidentally remark that, if the nghtof expunction ex- 
 ists, and is to be established by this precedent, then a subsequent Senate may 
 expunge this expunging resolution; and so, in all time to come: these succes- 
 sive expunctions may serve to indicate the triumph or defeat of the respective 
 political parties of the country. But an attempt has been made to sustain this 
 measure by a resort to precedents. Sir, precedents are of no authority when 
 opposed to a clear,ascertained, settled principle. They are resorted to in doubt- 
 ful cases, and often to avoid the force of principle. It is easier, at all times, to 
 follow precedents than to reason. But, sir, above all things, precedents drawn 
 from a period of revolution such as that referred to by the Senator from Vir- 
 ginia (Mr. Rives) are of no weight in a tiraeof profound tranquility, when secu- 
 rity and leisure give opportunity for reflection. It may be very expedient, in 
 a moment of unsettled government and of violence, to suppress the evidence of 
 a particular proceeding: but one could scarcely rely upon such authority for a 
 warrant to corrupt a constitutional record in moments of security and regular 
 government. And yet such is the character of the Senator's domestic prece- 
 dent. As to his English precedents, they are of no value on a question like 
 this, whicii does not depend on general parliamentary practice, but on the ex- 
 piess provisions of a written Constitution, which has directed the keeping of a 
 journal, and contemplates that journal as a permanent record. 
 
 But I am warned by the lateness of the hour that it is time to take leave of 
 the subject; however sir, before I take my seat, I cannot forbear to offer a few re- 
 marks on some of the opinions and sentiments expressed by the Senator from 
 "Virginia (Mr. Rives) and others. We have been told by that Senator that the 
 Senate is an aristocratical feature of the Government; that it is the citadel of 
 that aristocratic spirit which seeks to ride on the necks of the people. What 
 purpose, sir, is this sentiment to answer? Is it to break down the Senate? To 
 bring it into contempt and odium with the people? But, first sir, let us inquire 
 intothefact. Aristocracy in America! Where are its elements, where its 
 means and appliances? Here, sir, where the wheel of fortune is perpetually 
 revolving; where the poor man of to day becomes the rich man of to morrow; 
 and no one can tell, whatever his present actual property, that his grandson 
 may not be compelled to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow; where political 
 rights are equal; and the avenues to wealth and honor open to every man; 
 where the laws and customs of the country guard no man's inheritance in a set- 
 tled course of descent, but break up and distribute in various rivulets, that 
 wealth which may have been dammed up in the course of temporary accumula- 
 tion, I say, sir, here, and under such circumstances, to talk of aristocracy is 
 an insult to the common sense of the community. I see, sir, a practical refu- 
 tation of this sentiment in the persons of the distinguished men by whom I am 
 surrounded. To what patronage were they indebted for the honorable dis- 
 tinction which they have attained? To what do they owe their elevation and 
 the high consideration in which they are held by the whole country but to the 
 unaided efforts of their own abilities? Why, sir, you find in the person of your 
 Chief Magistrate another striking proof of its error. A poor boy, for so I be- 
 lieve the story runs, cuffed during the Revolutionary War by a British officer 
 for not performing some menial office, wins his way to the highest honors of, 
 theRepublic, and comes to preside over the destinies of a great People: " bids 
 the Romans mark him, and write his speechesin their books." Sir, the term is 
 
a mere catch-word, or to use the metaphor of the Senator from South Carolina, 
 " a mere tinkling bell to bring together a rabble of ideas which overwhelm all 
 reasoning." 
 
 One of the strongest objections I have had to the course of the present Ad- 
 ministration has been its constant etlbrt to array the different portions of society 
 against each other, and its habit of appealing for support to the worst passions 
 and prejudices of our nature. When I heard the distinguished Senator from 
 Virginia (Mr. Rives) a few days since, in the debate on the Treasury circular, 
 declare that he did not belong to that class of politicians who divided society 
 norizontally, but rather perpendiculailj, into classes who mutually sustained 
 and supported each otiier, I thought I perceived the dawn of a better state of 
 things, and 1 felt grateful to him, sir, for the sentiment; but alas! sir, I fear it 
 was but a temporary impulse of sound feeling, that must subside before the poli- 
 cy of the party. 
 
 To test the soundness of this opinion, let us for a moment consider the na- 
 ture of this Government. It is emphatically a Government as contradistin- 
 guished from a Confederacy, limited in its powers, though supreme within its 
 sphere; the legislative powers being vested in a Congress, composed of the Sen- 
 ate and House of Representatives. The People, being the source ot all power, 
 elect, either immediately or mediately, their representatives; immediately in the 
 instance of the House of Representatives, mediately in the instance of the Sen- 
 ate. We ate all, sir, the representatives of the People, though chosen after a 
 different manner. I claim, sir, to be not the immediate but the general repre- 
 sentative of the State of Virginia, as 1 hold that Senator to be the general rep- 
 resentative of Delaware; and I, for one, thank Virginia for having sent so able 
 and distinguished a representative of our common interests. The more per- 
 manent character of the representation in this body is a check imposed by the 
 People themselves on their own action. The whole system is one of checks 
 and balances. The two houses of Congress are mutual checks on each other. 
 The Senate may fairly be presumed to be the more grave and sedate body, from 
 the general fact of possessing less of youth and its attributes, although, sir, to 
 be sure, there are some veterans in the other House, as well as some youthful 
 aspirants in this. The ancient Germans, sir, who carried among the nations 
 whom they conquered their notions of civil polity, were in the habit of arguing 
 every question twice, once at their carousals, probably drunk, and once sober, 
 that there might be in their councils a due degree of vivacity and deliberation. 
 The same idea may be supposed to be carried out in our institutions, though the 
 requisite attributes may not be insured by the same means. In claiming, sir, for 
 this body tlie attribute of deliberation, I do not mean to say that we are by con- 
 tradistinction tlie sober body. 
 
 The constitution which has established this system of government was the 
 peaceable and deliberate work of the People. It was not, sir, the result of ac- 
 cident, or of a struggle for political power between different orders of society. 
 To find fault, then, with the Senate, is to impeach the wisdom and intelligence 
 of the People themselves. It is they, who, in adopting the Federal Constitu- 
 tion, have said that the Senate siiall be organized as we find it, have prescribed 
 the mode of its election, and given to it the character of greater permanency. 
 But, sir, I ask again, what is the meaning of this sentiment.'' Are we to be pre- 
 pared for reducing the Government to a Mni7, as we have been told that the cab- 
 inet should be one.^ Is it intended to blot out the component parts of this sys 
 tern, and reduce the Government to the simple relation of the President and the 
 People? In the message of 1832, the Supreme Court was assailed, and its au- 
 thority as the interpreter of the Constitution denied, and now,sir, we are told by 
 the Senator from Missouri, that the President has corrected and repealed 
 
14 
 
 tlie decision of that court in relation to the constitutionality of the Bank of the 
 United States, and that, in his opinion, all that remains to be done is to issue an 
 audita querella to ascertain the fact, have it entered on the record, and the judg- 
 ment reversed. Here is at once a new attribute of power, and a most extraor- 
 dinary mode of proceeding. On the other hand, we are told by the Senator 
 from Virginia that the Senate is the citadel of that aristocratic spirit which 
 seeks to ride on the necks of the People. If the Senator merely means that this 
 language is descriptive of himself and his friends, be it so. I cannot quarrel 
 with what he may deem just and proper, as to them, though I should have been 
 backward myself in so characterizing tliem; but, sir, I utterly deny its justice 
 and propriety as applicable to myself, or those with whom I have the honor and 
 the happiness to act. In relation to this Government, I and my immediate 
 constituents, and I believe a great majority of the American People, are con- 
 servatives. We go for the Ciovernment as it is. We wish to preserve the 
 system ot Federal ^x\(\ State Governments as it was established by the wisdom 
 of our ancestors "We ask no change, and least of a'l, such change as they 
 would bring us." In this system we live, and move, and have our being; antt' 
 as we were the first to adopt the Constitution, we shall be the last to abandon it. 
 We have heard much about the policy of the Executive, and have even been ad- 
 vised to look to that source for the initiative of certain measures. To my mind, 
 all this is apiece with that exaggerated and false conception of Executive pow- 
 er and consequence, which has characterized the present Chief Magistrate and 
 his advisers. The executive power which represents the common force of soci- 
 ety is, in every just theory, and in the nature of things, inferior to the legisla- 
 tive power, which is the representative of the common intelligence and the com- 
 mon will, and that too, precisely in (he degree in which brute force is inferior 
 to reason. It is the business of the President to execute the laws, not to make 
 them. The policy of the Executive! Who charged the President with the care 
 of the general welfare? What business has he with any policy distinct from the 
 ])olicy of the law.P The prosperity of a great and civilized People depends on 
 the lawSf and not on the will of the Executive. Sir, I regret to hear such opin- 
 ions expressed. I trust in Gad they will not prevail in this countryj for, to my 
 mind, they are in direct hostility with that tone of m:inly and independent feel- 
 ing whicli should cliaracterize a nation of freemen. 
 
 In opening the subject of this expunging resolution, the Senator from Mis- 
 souri, (Mr. Benton) has seen fit to entertain us with a magnificent eulogy on 
 the merits of the President. This, no doubt, was a very fit introduction to the 
 measure which is proposed, and may perhaps serve to indicate its ultimate aim 
 and purpose. He has been described at one time as teaching the saucy Briton;* 
 a lesson of humility from behind the cotton bags of New Orleans, and at ano- 
 ther rebuking with the thunder of American cannon the savages of the Pacific 
 Ocean, "bestriding the narrow world like a Colossus." Not content with this 
 plenitude of military fame, lie has been endued witli all civic virtues and super- 
 human sagacity. Vv'hile listening to this strain of adulation, every sober-mind- 
 ed individual must have involuntarily exclaimed with Cassius, 
 
 " Now in the names of all the gods at once. 
 Upon what meat doth this our (Jcsar feed. 
 That he has grown so greatl' 
 
 Sir, I am not disposed to deny his real merits, or to withhold my gratitude for 
 his real services. He has, sir, rendered good service to his country, and well 
 has that country repaid him for it. But that service was in a military, not in a 
 civil capacity. 
 
 Much has, as usual, been said about the People, and the People's friends, and 
 
15 
 
 an impression is attempied to be given that those who support this Administra- 
 tion are alone the friends of the People. Who are they that thus arrogantly 
 talk about the People as if they belonged to some superior order? The People's 
 friends, indeed! The People, sir, stand in need of no friends; they are the sov- 
 ereigns, it is they who dispense their smiles and their favors; and it would be 
 much more becoming and seemly to speak of the People as being one's friend 
 than of oneself as being the friend of the People. There is, to be sure, one 
 point of view in which the supporters of this administration, I mean those in of- 
 tice, may be considered the Iriends of the People. It is the same in which the 
 Licentiate, in Gil Bias, is termed and considered himself the friend of the poor, 
 and who proved his friendship by consuming their revenues. 
 
 The aid of public opinion has been invoked in relation to this measure, and 
 we are told by the Senator from Missouri that the People have rendered their 
 verdict, and he demands judgment and execution. When and how, sir, was 
 the issue made up? The resolution of March, 1834, was adopted after the last 
 Presidential election; but this notion of a verdict is gathered from the fact of the 
 continued ascendency of the party and the resolves of some State Legislatures. 
 Can any thing be more preposterous than the assumption, that a majority of the 
 People, liking the man, in yielding to him their support, are to je understood as 
 approving of everv thing that he says and does, and disapproving of every thing 
 that is said or done against him? As well might it be contended, on the same- 
 ground, that because General Jackson smokes a pipe, the verdict of the People 
 has escablished that it is right and proper to use tobacco, and that the legitimate 
 mode ofdoing so, is by smoking it in an earthen pipe. 
 
 But all this, sir, is apart from the main question. We are called upon to ex- 
 punge a resolution from our journal, to suppress the evidence of a fact, to fal- 
 sify a record! If the right to do so were a matter of doubt merely, it would be 
 the part of a prudent and conscientious man to pause. Let not, I pray, sir. the 
 excitement of party spirit hurry this body to an act which is a clear infraction of 
 the Constitution; be satisfied with a counter-resolution, expressing in as strong 
 terms as you please your approbation of the President's conduct, and your re- 
 pugnance to the resolution of the 28th of March, 1834, but do not let us inflict 
 another wound upon the great charter of our Union. Rely upon it, sir, that if 
 the frenzy of party spirit, or any other motive, shall lead you to do this deed, 
 you will find yourselves in the condition of a homicide, who having exhausted 
 his malice in a'deed of violence, recoils with horror and remorse from the victim 
 of his passion. 
 
B9 HP 
 
9.. ''IT, •• iS>' V •• :^'" .««•' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jf* r>^ "^^ '^ 
 
 
 .^''^ 
 
 
 "^^^ 
 
 V<^' 
 
6^=^^ 
 
 nP-t:. 
 
 K^""^ 
 
 t9 v'. 'I 
 
 "°^^^^^'/^ \''^?^-\/'' V*^"'V '^^. 
 
 
 
 o V 
 
 **\.i'^%\ o°^^;I.>o ^/.ci^.\ /•■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^^0^ 
 
 ♦^ Q. 
 
 ,w»« 
 
 ^ j^-\ liar. 
 
 .c,^ ^ j>.