SENATE.] Expunging Resolution. then became its weapons; and with these it was determined, if possible, to extort a recharter from the American people. It commenced this warfare upon the interests of the country about the 1st of August, 1833. In two short months it decreased its loans more than four millions of dollars, whilst the deposites of the Govern ment with it had increased, during the same period, two millions and a quarter. I speak in round numbers. It was then in the act of reducing its discounts at the rate of two millions of dollars per month. [JAN. 16, 1837 career. A foreign minister might be betraying and dis gracing the nation abroad, without any power to recall him until the next meeting of the Senate. This construction of the constitution involves so many dangers, and so many absurdities, that it could not be maintained for a moment, even if there had not been a constant practice against it of almost half a century. But it is contended by the Senator that the Secretary of the Treasury is a sort of independent power in the State, and is released from the control of the Executive. And why? Simply because he is directed by law to make his annual report to Congress, and not to the President. If this position be correct, then it necessari The State banks had expanded their loans with the former expansion of the Bank of the United States. I: now became necessary to contract them. The severest pressure began to be felt every where. Had the Bankly follows that the Executive is released from the obliga. of the United States been permitted a short time longer to proceed in this course, fortified as it was with the millions of the Government which it held on deposite, a scene of almost universal bankruptcy and insolvency must have been presented in our commercial cities. It thus became absolutely necessary for the President either to deprive the bank of the public deposites, as the only means of protecting the State banks, and, through them, the people, from these impending evils, or calmly to look on and see it spreading ruin throughout the land. It was necessary for him to adopt this policy for the purpose of preventing a universal derangement of the currency, a general sacrifice of property, and, as an inevitable consequence, the recharter of this institution. By the removal of the deposites, he struck a blow against the bank from which it has never since recovered. This was the club of Hercules with which he slew the Hydra. This was the master-stroke by which he prostrated what a large majority of the American people believe to have been a corrupt and a corrupting institution. For this he is not only justified, but deserves the eternal gratitude of his country. For this the Senate have condemned him; but the people of the United States have hailed him as a deliverer. I tion of taking care that the numerous and important acts of Congress regulating the fiscal concerns of the country shall be faithfully executed. The Secretary of the Treasury is thus made independent of his control. What would be the position of this officer under such a construction of the constitution and laws, it would be very difficult to decide. And this wonderful transformation of his character has arisen from the mere circumstance that Congress have by law directed him to make an annual report to them! No, sir; the Executive is responsi ble to Congress for the faithful execution of the laws; and if the present or any other President should prove faithless to his high trust, the present Senate, notwithstanding all which has been said, would be as ready as their predecessors to inflict condign punishment upon him, in the mode pointed out by the constitution. I have now arrived at the great question of the constitutional power of the Senate to adopt the resolution of March, 1834. It is my firm conviction that the Senate possesses no such power; and it is now my purpose to establish this position. The decision on this point must depend upon a true answer to the question, does this resolution contain any impeachable charge against the President? If it does, I trust I shall demonstrate that the Senate violated its constitutional duty in proceeding to condemn him in this manner. I shall again read the resolution: "Resolved, That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assamed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." This language is brief and comprehensive. It comes at once to the point. It bears a striking impress of the It has been said by the Senator from Kentucky, that the President, by removing the deposites from the Bank of the United States, united in his own person the power of the purse of the nation with that of the sword. think it is not difficult to answer this argument. What was to become of the public money, in case it had been removed from the Bank of the United States, under its charter, for the cause which the Senator himself deems justifiable? Why, sir, it would then have been imme-character of the Senator from Kentucky. Does it charge diately remitted to the guardianship of those laws under which it had been protected before the Bank of the United States was called into existence. Such was the present case. In regard to this point, no matter whether the cause of removal were sufficient or not, the moment the deposites were actually removed, they became subject to the pre-existing laws, and not to the arbitrary will of the President. The Senator from Kentucky has contended that the President violated the constitution and the laws by dismissing Mr. Duane from office because he would not remove the deposites, and by appointing Mr. Taney to ac complish this purpose. I shall not discuss at any length the power of removal. It is now too late in the day to question it. That the Executive possesses this power was decided by the first Congress. It has often since been discussed and decided in the same manner, and it has been exercised by every President of the United States. The President is bound by the constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." If he cannot remove his executive officers, it is impossible that he can perform this duty. Every inferior officer might set up for himself; might violate the laws of the country, and put him at defiance, whilst he would remain perfectly powerless. He could not arrest their an impeachable offence against the President? The fourth section of the second article of the constitution declares that "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, 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 resolu tion contains no impeachable offence, because it charges no criminal intention against the President; and I admit that it does not attribute to him any corrupt motive in express words. Is this sufficient to convince the judgment of any impartial man that none such was intended? Let us, for a few moments, examine this proposition. If it be well founded, the Senate may forever hereafter usurp the power of trying, condemning, and destroying, any officer of the Government, without affording him the slightest opportunity of being heard in his defence. They may thus abuse their power, and prostrate any ob ject of their vengeance. It seems we have now made the discovery that the Senate are authorized to exert this tremendous power; that they may thus assume to themselves the office both of accuser and of judge, provided the indictment contains no express allegation of a criminal intention. The President, or any officer of the Government, may be denounced by the Senate as a vio JAN. 16, 1837.] Expunging Resolution. [SENATE. himself by declaring that he had done this deed without any criminal intention? No, sir; in such a case, above all others, the criminal intention must be inferred from the unconstitutional exercise of high and dangerous powdent of the United States should never shield himself beThe safety of the republic demands that the Presihind such flimsy pretexts. This resolution, therefore, although it may not have assumed the form of an article of impeachment, possesses all the substance. ers. It was my fate some years ago to have assisted as a manager, in behalf of the House of Representatives, in became my duty to examine all the precedents in such the trial of an impeachment before this body. It then cases which had occurred under our Government since the adoption of the federal constitution. On that occasion I found one which has a strong bearing upon this question. I refer to the case of Judge Pickering. He four articles exhibited against him, although the three was tried and condemned by the Senate upon all the first contained no other charge than that of making decisions contrary to law, in a cause involving a mere question of property, and then refusing to grant the party injured an appeal from his decision, to which he was entitled. this case, the Senate must have inferred an impure and From the clear violation of the law, in improper motive. lator of the constitution of his country, as derelict in the performance of his public duties, provided there be no express imputation of an improper motive. The characters of men whose reputation is dearer to them than their lives may thus be destroyed. They may be held up to public execration by the omission of a few formal words. The condemnation of the Senate carries with it such a moral power, that perhaps there is no man in the United States, except Andrew Jackson, who could have resisted its force. No, sir; such an argument can never command conviction. That which we have no power to do directly, we can never accomplish by indirect means. We cannot by resolution convict a man of an impeachable offence, merely because we may omit the formal words of an impeachment. we must regard the substance of things, and not the mere form. But again: Although a criminal intention be not charged in so many words, by this resolution, yet its language, even without the attendant circumstances, clearly conveys this meaning. The President is charged with having "assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." "Assumed upon himself!" What is the plain, palpable meaning of this phrase, connected with what precedes and follows? Is it not "to arrogate," "to claim or seize unjustly?" These are two of the first meanings of the word assume, acoording to the lexicographers. To assume upon one's self, is a mode of ex- resolution of the Senate contained a criminal and imIf any thing further were wanting to prove that the pression which is rarely taken in a good sense. used here, I ask if any man of plain, common understand- monstrated from all the circumstances attending the As it is peachable charge against the President, it might be deing, after reading this resolution, would ever arrive at the conclusion that any Senator voted for it under the through the Senate, the Bank of the United States was transaction. Whilst this resolution was in progress impression that the President was innocent of any im-employed in producing panic and pressure throughout proper intention, and that he violated the constitution the land. Much actual suffering was experienced by from mere mistake, and from pure motives? The common sense of mankind revolts at the idea. How can it unknown and awful calamities. Confidence between the people; and where that did not exist, they dreaded be contended, for a single moment, that you can denounce the President as a man who had "assumed upon in the business of the country. man and man was at an end. There was a fearful pause himself" the power of violating the laws and the consti- in the most violent party conflict recorded in our annals. We were then engaged tution of his country, and in the same breath declare that had not the least intention to criminate him, and To use the language of the Senator from Kentucky, we you that your language was altogether inoffensive? were in the midst of a revolution. On the one side it The two propositions are manifestly inconsistent. was contended that the power over the purse of the naBut I go one step further. tion had been usurped by the President; that in his own If we were sitting as a court of impeachment, and the bare proposition were person he had united this power with that of the sword, established to our satisfaction, that the President had, in could be arrested in his mad career. and that the liberties of the people were gone, unless he violation of the constitution and laws, withdrawn the the friends of the President maintained that the removal On the other hand, public revenue of the country from the depository to whose charge Congress had committed it, and assumed of the deposites from the Bank of the United States was the control over it himself, we would be bound to con- legal and constitutional; that he was impelled to it by the an act of stern justice to the people; that it was strictly vict him of a high official misdemeanor. Under such highest and purest principles of patriotism; and that it circumstances, we should be bound to infer a criminal intention from this illegal and unconstitutional act. was the only means of prostrating an institution which Criminal justice could never be administered, society erties. During this terrific conflict, public indignation threatened the destruction of our dearest rights and libcould not exist, if the tribunals of the country should not attribute evil motives to illegal and unconstitutional con- ceived a great number of anonymous letters, threatenwas aroused to such a degree, that the President reduct. Omniscience alone can examine the heart. When ing him with assassination, unless he should restore the poor, frail man is placed in the judgment seat, he must deposites. infer the intentions of the accused 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, naked, hungry wretch, at this inclement season 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 saving his wife and children from starvation. And shall a different rule be applied to the President of the United States? Shall it be said of a man elevated to the highest station on earth, for his wisdom, bis integrity, and his virtues, with all his constitutional advisers around him, when he vio lates the constitution of his country, and usurps the control over its entire revenue, that he may successfully defend the country, that the Senator from Kentucky thought SENATE.] Expunging Resolution. [JAN. 16, 1837. establish our liberties, the Government would be trans-legislation distinctly in view, we should incidentally be formed into an elective monarchy-the worst of all forms led to the investigation of criminal charges, it is a necesof government. He compared the measure adopted by sity imposed upon us by our condition, from which we General Jackson with the conduct of the usurping Cæsar, cannot escape. It results from the varying nature of our who, after he had overrun Italy in sixty days, and con- duties, and not from our own will. I admit that it quered the liberties of his native country, terrified the would be difficult to mark the precise line which sepatribune Metellus, who guarded the Treasury of the rates our legislative from our judicial functions. I shall Roman people, and seized it by open force. He de- not attempt it. In many cases, from necessity, they are clared that the President had perpetrated an open, pal- in some degree intermingled. The present resolution, pable, and daring usurp tion. He concluded by assert- however, stands far in advance of this line. It is placed that the premonitory symptoms of despotism were upon in bold relief, and is clear of all such difficulties. It is us; and if Congress did not apply an instantaneous and ef- a mere naked resolution of censure. It refers solely to fective remedy, the fatal collapse would soon come on, the past conduct of the President, and condemns it in and we should die-ignobly die-base, mean, and abject the strongest terms, without even proposing any act of slaves, the scorn and contempt of mankind, unpitied, legislation by which the evil may be remedied hereafter. unwept, and unmourned. What a spectacle was then It was judgment upon the past alone; not prevention for presented in this chamber! We are told, in the reports the future. Nay, more: the resolution is so vague and of the day, that, when he took his scat, there was re- general in its terms, that it is impossible to ascertain peated and loud applause in the galleries. This, it will from its face the cause of the President's condemnation. be remembered, was the introductory speech of the Sen- The Senate have resolved that the Executive "has asator. In my opinion, it was one of the ablest and most sumed upon himself authority and power not conferred eloquent of all his able and eloquent speeches. He was by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." then riding upon the whirlwind and directing the storm. What is the specification under this charge? Why, that At the time I read it, for I was not then in the Senate, he has acted thus, "in the late executive proceedings in it reminded me of the able, the vindictive, and the elo- relation to the public revenue." What executive proquent appeal of Mr. Burke before the House of Lords, ceedings? The resolution leaves us entirely in the dark on the impeachment of Warren Hastings, in which he upon this subject. How could any legislation spring from denounced that Governor General as the ravager and such a resolution? It is impossible. None such was oppressor of India, and the scourge of the millions who ever attempted. 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 criminal motives."] Sir, (said Mr. B.,) this avowal is in character with the frank and manly nature of the Senator from Kentucky. It is no more than what I expected from him. The imputation of any improper motive to the President has been again and again disclaimed by other Senators upon this floor. The Senator 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 acquit the President from improper intentions, when charging him with a violation of the constitution of his country. This trial of the President before the Senate continued for three months. During this whole period, instead of the evidence which a judicial tribunal cught to receive, exciting memorials, signed by vast numbers of the peo ple, and well calculated to inflame the passions of his judges, were poured in upon the Senate. He was denounced upon this floor by every odious epithet which belongs to tyrants. Finally, the obnoxious resolution was adopted by the vote of the Senate, on the 28th day of March, 1834. After the exposition which I have made, can any impartial mind doubt but that this resolution intended to charge against the President a wilful and daring violation of the constitution and the laws? I think not. 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 restricted, because it is possible that the same question, in another form, may come before us judicially. I concur in the truth and justice of this position. We must perform our legisla tive duties; and if, in the investigation of facts, having If the resolution had preserved its original phraseology; if it had condemned the President for dismissing one Secretary of the Treasury because he would not remove the deposites, and for appointing his successor to effect this purpose, the Senator might then have contended that the evil was distinctly pointed out; and, although no legislation was proposed, the remedy might be applied hereafter. But he has deprived himself even of this feeble argument. He has left us upon an ocean of uncertainty, without chart or compass. "The late executive proceedings in relation to the revenue" is a phrase of the most general and indefinite character. Every Senator who voted in favor of this resolution may have acted upon different principles. To procure its passage, nothing more was necessary than that a majority should unite in the conclusion that the President had violated the constitution and the laws in some one or other of his numerous acts in relation to the public revenue. views of Senators constituting the majority may have varied from each other to any conceivable extent; and yet they may have united in the final vote. That this was the fact to a considerable extent, I have always un. derstood. It is utterly impossible either that such a proceeding could ever have been intended to become the basis of legislation, or that legislative action could have ever sprung from such a source. The I flatter myself, then, I have succeeded in proving that this resolution charged the President with a high official misdemeanor, wholly disconnected from legistation, which, if true, ought to have subjected him to im peachment. This brings me directly to the question, had the Senate 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 impeachment? To state the proposition, is to answer this question in the negative. Dreadful would be the consequences, if we possess and should exercise such a power. ter. This body is invested with high and responsible pow ers, of a legislative, an executive, and a judicial charac No person can enter it until he has attained a ma ture age. Our term of service is longer than that of any other elective functionary. If Senators will bave it so, JAN. 16, 1837.] Expunging Resolution. [SENATE. President, had articles of impeachment been preferred against him, would have been but a solemn mockery of justice. 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 The constitution of the United States has carefully prowas placed in this secure and elevated position that it vided against such an enormous evil, by declaring that might be above the storms of faction which so often in- "the House of Representatives shall have the sole powflame the passions of men. It never was intended to be er of impeachment," and "the Senate shall have the an arena for political gladiators. Until the second ses- sole power to try all impeachments." Until the accused sion of the third Congress, the Senate always sat with is brought before us by the House, it is a manifest vioclosed doors, except in the single instance when the eli-lation of our solemn duty to condemn him by a resolu. gibility of Mr. Gallatin to a seat in the body was the sub- tion. ject under discussion. Of this particular practice, however, I cannot approve. I merely state it to show the intention of those who formed the constitution. I was informed by one of the most eminent statesmen and Senators which this country has ever produced, now no more, (the late Mr. King,) that for some years after the Federal Government commenced its operation, the debates of the Senate resembled conversations rather than speeches, and that it originated but few legislative measures. Senators were then critics rather than authors in legislation. Whether its gain in eloquence, since it has become a popular assembly, and since the sound of thundering applause has been heard in our galleries at the denunciation of the President, has been an equivalent for its loss in true dignity, may well be doubted. To give this body its just influence with the people, it ought to preserve itself as free as possible from angry political discussions. In the performance of our executive duties-in the ratification of treaties and in the confirmation of nominations-the constitution has connected us with the Executive. The efficient and successful administration of the Government, therefore, requires that we should move on together in as much harmony as may be consistent with the independent exercise of our respective functions. But, above all, we should be the most cautious in guarding our judicial character from suspicion. We constitute the high court of impeachment of this nation, before which every officer of the Government may be arraigned. To this tribunal is committed the character of men, whose character is far dearer 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 billows might dash themselves in vain. Whilst we are a terror to evil-doers, we should be a praise to those who do well. We should never voluntarily perform any act which might prejudice our judgment, or render us suspected as a judicial tribunal. More especially, when the President of the United States is arraigned at the bar of public opinion, for offences which might subject him to an impeachment, we should remain, not only chaste, but unsuspected. Better, infinitely better, would it be for us not to manifest our feeling, even in a case in which we were morally certain the House of Representatives would not prefer before us articles of impeachment, than to reach the object of our disapprobation by a usurpation of their rights. It is true that, when the Senate passed the resolution condemning the President, a majority in the House were of a different 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 already prejudged the case. They had already convicted the President, and denounced him to the world as a violator of the constitution. In criminal prosecutions, even against the greatest male factor, if a juror has prejudged the cause, he cannot enter the jury-box. The Senate had rendered itself wholly incompetent, in this case, to perform its highest judicial functions. The trial of the VOL. XIII-29 If a court of criminal jurisdiction, without any indictment having been found by a grand jury, without having given the defendant notice to appear, without having afforded him an opportunity of cross-examining the wit nesses against him, and making his defence, should resolve that he was guilty of a high crime, and place this conviction upon their records, all mankind would exclaim against the injustice and unconstitutionality of the act. Wherein consists the difference between this case and the condemnationof the President? In nothing, except that such a conviction by the Senate, on account of its exalted character, would fall with tenfold force upon its object. I have of en been aston shed, notwithstanding the extended and well-deserved popularity of General Jackson, that the moral influence of this condemnation by the Senate had not crushed him. With what tremendous effect might this assumed power of the Senate be used to blast the reputation of any man who might fall under its displeasure. The precedent is extremely dangerous, and the American people have wisely determined to blot it out forever. It is painful to reflect what might have been the condition of the country, if, at the inauspicious moment of the passage of the resolution against the President, its interests and its honor had rendered it necessary to engage in a foreign war. The fearful consequences of such a condition, at such a moment, must strike every mind. Would the Senate then have confided to the President the necessary 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 important treaty negotiated by the President, or upon any of his nominations? But I forbear to enlarge upon this topic. I have now arrived at the last point in this discussion. Do the Senate possess the power, under the constitution, of expunging the resolution of March, 1834, from their journals, in the manner proposed by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON.] 1 cheerfully admit that we must show that this is not contrary to the constitution; for we can never redress one violation of that instrument by committing another. Before I proceed to this branch of the subject, I shall put myself right by a brief histori. cal reminiscence. I entered the Senate in December, 1834, fresh from the ranks of the people, without the slightest feeling of hostility against any Senator on this floor. I then thought that the resolution of the Senator from Missouri was too severe in proposing to expunge. Although I was anxious to record, in strong terms, my entire disapprobation of the resolution of March, 1834, yet I was willing to accomplish this object without doing more violence to the feelings of my associates on this floor than was absolutely necessary to justify the Presi dent. Actuated by these friendly motives, I exerted all my little influence with the Senator from Missouri, to induce him to abandon the word expunge, and substitute some others in its place. I knew that this word was exceedingly obnoxious to the Senators who had voted for the former resolution. Other friends of his also exerted their influence; and at length his kindly feeling prevailed, and he consented to abandon that word, although it was peculiarly dear to him. I speak from my own SENATE.] knowledge. was." Expunging Resolution. "All which I saw, and part of which I The resolution of the Senator from Missouri came before the Senate on the 3d of March, 1835. Under it the resolution of March, 1834, was "ordered to be expunged from the journal," for reasons appearing on its face, which I need not enumerate. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WHITE] moved to amend the resolution of the Senator from Missouri, by striking out the order to expunge, with the reasons for it, and inserting in their stead the words "rescinded, reversed, repealed, and declared to be null and void." Some difference of opinion then arose among the friends of the administration as to the words which should be substituted in place of the order to expunge. For the purpose of leaving this question perfectly open, you, sir, (Mr. KING, of Alabama, was in the chair,) then moved to amend the original motion of Mr. BENTON, by striking out the words "ordered to be expunged from the journal of the Senate.' This motion prevailed, on the ayes and noes, by a vote 39 to 7; and amongst the ayes the name of the Senator from Missouri is recorded. The resolution was thus left a blank, in its most essential feature, ready to be filled up as the Senate might direct. 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 resolu tion on the table, declaring that he would neither withdraw his motion for friend nor foe. This motion pre. cluded all amendment and all debate. It prevailed by a party vote; and thus we were left with our resolution a blank. Such was the manner in which the Senators in opposition received our advances of courtesy and kind. ness, in the moment of their strength and our weakness. Had the Senator from Massachusetts suffered as to proceed but for five minutes, we should have filled up the blank in the resolution. 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 that of the party with which he acted, roused the indignation of every friend of the administration on this floor. We then determined that the word expunge should never again be surrendered. The Senator from Kentucky has introduced a procedent from the proceedings of the House of Representa. tives of Pennsylvania, for the purpose of proving that we have no right to adopt this resolution. To this I can have no possible objection. But I can tell the Senator, if I were convinced that I had voted wrong when compara. tively 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, however, repent of my vote upon that occasion. I would now vote in the same manner, under similar circumstances. I should not vote to expunge, under any circumstances, any proceeding from the journals, by obliterating the record. If I do not prove, before I take my seat, that the case in the Legislature of Pennsylvania was essentially different from that now before the Senate, I shall agree to be proclaimed inconsistent and time-serving. It was my settled conviction, at the commencement 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 Louisi ana, [Mr. PORTER,] who confessedly made the ablest speech on the other side of the question. The constitution declares that "each House shall keep a journal of its [JAN. 16, 1837 proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy." What was the position which that Senator then attempted to maintain? In order to prove that we had no power to obliterate or destroy our journals, he thought it necessary to contend that the word " keep," as used in the constitution, means both to record and to preThis appeared to me to be a mere begging of the question. serve. I shall attempt no definition of the word "keep." At least since the days of Plato, we know that definitions 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 proceedings, 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 information. 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 may become 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 distributed over the Union, it is matter of not the least importance what disposition may be made of them. They have an swered 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 conse quence. Such indifference has prevailed upon this subject, that these journals have been considered, in the House of Representatives, as so much waste paper, and, during a period of thirty-four years after the organi zation of the Government they were actually destroyed. (Vide the Appendix.) From this circumstance, 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 bas discovered that to "keep" means beth "to record" and "to preserve." But can you give this, or any other word in the English language, two distinct and independent meanings at the same time, as applied to the same subject? I think not. From the imperfection of human language, from the im possibility of having appropriate words to express every idea, the same word, as applied to different subjects, has a variety of significations. As applied to any one subject, it cannot, at the same time, convey two distinct meanings. In the constitution 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 preserve? 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 peo ple of the United States, for whose use it was ordered to be kept, after it has thus been perpetuated, and they have been furnished 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 lumber, or be destroyed, is a matter of no public inter est. It has probably never once been referred to in the history of our Government. If it should ever be deter. mined to be a violation of the constitution to obliterate or destroy this manuscript journal, it must be upon dif ferent principles from those which have been urged in this debate. My own impression is, that, as the framers of the constitution have directed us to keep a |