Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

journal, a constructive duty may be implied from this command, which would forbid us to obliterate or destroy it. Under this impression, 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 this unprofitable discussion, let us proceed to the real point in controversy.

Is any such proceeding as that of actually expunging the journal proposed by the resolution of the Senator from Missouri? I answer, no such thing. If the constitution had, in express terms, directed us to record and to preserve a journal of our proceedings, there is nothing in the resolution now before us, which would be inconsistent with such a provision.

[SENATE.

have directed the Secretary in what manner he shall understand it, and we have excluded the idea that it is our intention 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 convey 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 authorities, 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 reputation. In speaking of the use of the word "expunge," the auWhen the contents of a book are in part re

thor says:

Is the drawing of a black line around the resolution of the Senate of March, 1834, to obliterate or to deface it? On the contrary, is it not to render it more conspicuous-jected, they are aptly described as being expunged; in to place it in bold relief--to give it a prominence in the this manner the free-thinking sects expunge every thing public view beyond any other proceeding of this body in from the Bible which does not suit their purpose, or past, and, I trust, in all future time? If the argument of they expunge from their creed what does not humor Senators were, not that we have no power to obliterate, their passions." The idea that an actual obliteration was but that the Senate possessed no power to render one intended in these cases would be manifestly absurd. In portion of the journal more conspicuous than another, it the same page there is a quotation from Mr. Burke, to il would have had much greater force. Why, sir, by lustrate the meaning of this word. "I believe," says means of this very proceeding, that portion of our jour- he, "that any person who was of age to take a part in nal upon which it operates will be rescued from a slum- public concerns forty years ago (if the intermediate ber which would otherwise have been eternal, and fac space were expunged from his memory) could hardly similes of the original resolution, without a word or a let credit his senses when he should hear that an army of ter defaced, will be circulated over the whole Union. two hundred thousand men was kept up in this island." shall now cite Mr. Jefferson as a literary authority. He has often been referred to on this floor as a standard in politics. For this high authority, I am indebted to my friend from Louisiana, [Mr. NICHOLAS.] In the original draught of the declaration of independence he uses the word "expunge" in following manner: "Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government." Although the word

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 this obliterate any part of the original resolution? If it does, the duty of the Secretary will be performed in a very bungling manner. No such thing is intended. It would be easy to remove every scruple from every mind upon this subject, by amending the resolu tion of the Senrtor from Missouri, so as to direct the Secretary to perform his duty in such a manner as not to obliterate any part of the condemnatory resolution. Such a direction, however, appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. The nature of the whole proceeding is very plain. We now adopt a resolution expressing our strong reprobation of the original resolution; and for this purpose we use the word "expunged," as the strongest term which we can apply. We then direct our Secretary to draw black lines around it, and place such a reference to our proceedings of this day upon its face, that in all time to come, whoever may inspect this portion of our journal, will be pointed at once to the record of its condemnation. What lawyer has not observed upon the margin of the judgment docket, if the original judgment has been removed to a superior court, and there reversed, a minute of such reversal? In our editions of the statutes, have we not all noted the repeal of any of them which may have taken place at a subsequent period? Who ever heard, in the one case or in the other, that this was obliterating or destroying the record or the book? So, in this case, we make a mere reference to our future proceeding upon the face of the resolution, instead of the margin. Suppose we should only repeal the obnoxious resolution, and direct such a reference to be made upon its face: would any Senator contend 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 present 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 constitution. On the face of the resolution we have stated distinctly what we mean.

We

alter" was afterwards substituted for expunge, I presume upon the ground that this was too strong a term, yet the change does not detract from the literary authority of the precedent.-Jefferson's Correspondence, &c. 1st vol. page 17.

I presume that I have shown that the word "ex. punge" has acquired a distinct metaphorical meaning in our literature, which excludes the idea of actual obliter. ation. If I should proceed one step further, and prove that, in legislative proceedings, it has acquired the very same signification, I shall then have fully established my position. For this purpose I cite, first, "the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Federal Convention." In page 118 we find the following entries: "On motion to expunge the clause of the qualification as to age, it was carried-ten States against one." Again: "On the clause respecting the ineligibility to any other office, it was moved that the words by any particular State' be expunged-four States for, five against, and two divided." So, page 119: "The last blank was filled up with one year, and carried-eight ayes, two noes, one divided."

"Mr. Pinckney moved to expunge the clauseagreed to, nem. con." Again: "Mr. Butler moved to expunge the clause of the stipends-lost; seven against, three for, one divided." Again, in page 157: "Mr. Pinckney moved that that part of the clause which disqualifies a person from holding an office in the State be expunged, because the first and best characters in a State may thereby be deprived of a seat in the national

council."

"Question put to strike out the words moved for, and carried-eight ayes, three noes."

It will thus be perceived that in the proceedings of the very convention which formed the constitution un

SENATE.]

Expunging Resolution.

der which we are now governed, the word "expunge" was often used in its figurative sense. It will certainly not be asserted, or even intimated, by any Senator here, that when these motions to expunge prevailed, the words of the original draught of the constitution were actually obliterated or defaced. The meaning is palpable. These provisions were merely rejected; not actually blotted out. But I shall now produce a precedent precisely in point. It presents itself in the proceedings of the Senate of Massachusetts, and refers to the famous resolution of that body adopted on the 15th day of June, 1813, in relation to the capture of the British vessel Peacock; denouncing the late war, and declaring that it was not becoming in a moral and religious people to express any approbation of military or naval exploits wnich were not immediately connected with the defence of our seacoast. Some ten years afterwards, a succeeding Senate of Massachusetts adopted the following resolution:

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That the aforesaid resolve of the fifteenth day of June, A. D. 1813, and the preamble thereof, be, and the same are hereby, expunged from the journals of the Senate."

It is self-evident that, in this case, not the least intention existed of defacing the old manuscript journal. The word "expunge" was used in its figurative signification, just as it is in the case before us, to express the strongest reprobation of the former proceeding. That proceeding was to be expunged solely by force of the subsequent resolution, and not by any actual obliteration. There never was any actual obliteration of the journal.

Judging, then, from the highest English authorities, from the works of celebrated authors and statesmen, and from the proceedings of legislative bodies, is it not evident that the word "expunge" has acquired a distinct meaning, altogether inconsistent with any actual obliteration?

All that we have heard about defacing and destroying the journal are mere phantoms, which have been conjured up to terrify the timid. We intend no such thing. We only mean, most strongly, to express our conviction that the condemnatory resolution ought never to have found a place on the journal. If more authorities were wanted, I might refer to the Legislature of Virginia. The present expunging resolution is in exact conformity with their instructions to their Senators. As a matter of taste, I cannot say that I much admire their plan, though I entertain no doubt that it is perfectly constitutional. That State is highly literary; and I think I have established that their Legislature, when they used the word "expunge," without intending thereby to effect an actual ob literation of the journal, justly appreciated the meaning of the language which they employed.

The word "expunge" is, in my opinion, the only one which we could have used, clearly and forcibly to accomplish our purpose. Even if it had not been sanctioned by practice as a parliamentary word, we ought ourselves to have first established the precedent. It suits the case precisely, If you rescind, reverse, or repeal, a resolution, you thereby admit that it once had some constitutional or legal authority. If you declare it to have been null and void from the beginning, this is but the expres sion of your own opinion that such was the fact. word expunge" acts upon the resolution itself. It at once goes to its origin, and destroys its legal existence, as if it had never been. It does not merely kill, but it annihilates.

[ocr errors]

This

Parliamentary practice has changed the meaning of several other words from their primitive signification, in a similar manner with that of the word "expunge." The original signification of the word "rescind" is "to cut off." Usage has made it mean, in reference to a law or resolution, to abrogate or repeal it. We every day bear.motions to strike out." What is the literal meaning of this

[JAN. 16, 1837.

expression? The question may be best answered by asking another. If I were to request you to strike out a line from your letter, and you were willing to comply with my request, what would be your conduct? You would run your pen through it immediately. You would liter ally strike it out. Yet, what use do we make of this phrase every day in our legislative proceedings? If I make a motion to strike out a section from a bill, and it prevails, the Secretary encloses the printed copy of it in black lines, and makes a note on the margin that it has been stricken out. The original he never touches. Why, then, should not the word "expunge," without obliterating the proceeding to which it is directed, signify to destroy, as if it never had existed?

After all that has been said, I think I need scarcely again recur to the Pennsylvania precedent. It is evident, from the whole of that proceeding, that an actual expunging of the journal was intended, if it had not already been executed. I have no recollection whatever of the circumstances, but I am under a perfect conviction, from the face of the journal, that such was the nature of the case. I should vote now as I did then, after a period of more than twenty years. Both my vote, and the motion which I subsequently made upon that occasion, evidently proceeded upon this principle. The question arose in this manner, as it appears from the journal: On the 10th of February, 1816, "The Speaker informed the House that a constitutional question being involved in a decision by him yesterday, on a motion to expunge certain pro ceedings from the journal, he was desirous of having the opinion of the House on that decision," viz: “that a majority can expunge from the journal proceedings in which the yeas and nays have not been called." Now, as no trace whatever appears upon the journal of the preceding day of the motion to which the Speaker refers, it is highly probable, nay, it is almost 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 towards his brother Senators than myself; but we have now arrived at that point when imperious duty demands that we should either adopt this expunging resolution or abandon it forever. Already much precious time has been employed in its discussion. The moment has arrived when

we must act. Senators in the opposition console them. selves with the belief that posterity will do them justice, should it be denied to them by the present generation. They place their own names in the one scale, and ours in the other, and flatter themselves with the hope that, before that tribunal at least, their weight will prepon derate. For my own part, I am willing to abide the issue. I am willing to be judged for 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 after-times. After the passions and prejudices of the present moment shall have sub-ided, and the impartial historian shall record the proceeding of this day, he will say that the distinguished men who passed the resolution condemning the President were urged on to the act by a desire to occupy the high places in the Government; that an ambition, noble in itself, but not wisely regu lated, had obscured their judgment, and impelled them to the adoption of a measure unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional; that, in order to vindicate both the constitu tion and the President, we were justified in passing this expunging resolution, and thus stamping the former proceeding with our strongest disapprobation.

rejoice in the belief that this promises to be one of the last highly exciting questions of the present day. During the period of General Jackson's civil administra tion, what has he not done for the American people? During this period, he has had more difficult and dan

[blocks in formation]

gerous questions to settle, both at home and abroadquestions which aroused more intensely the passions of men-than any of his predecessors. They are now all happily ended, except the one which we shall this day bring to a close

"And all the clouds that lowered upon our house In the deep bosom of the ocean buried." The country now enjoys abundant prosperity at home, whilst it is respected and admired by foreign nations. Although the waves may yet be in some agitation from the effect of the storms through which we have passed, yet I think I can perceive the rainbow of peace extending itself across the firmament of heaven.

Should the next administration pursue the same course of policy with the present; should it dispense equal justice to all portions and all interests of the Union, without sacrificing any; should it be conducted with prudence 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 energy, the toils, and the wisdom of the pilot who has conducted us in safety through the storms of his tempestuous administration.

I am now prepared for the question. I shall vote for this resolution, but not cheerfully. I regret the neces sity which exists for passing it; but I believe that imperious duty demands its adoption. If I know my own heart, I can truly say that I am not actuated by any desire to obtain a miserable, petty, personal triumph, either for myself, 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 the opprobrious language of Senators in the opposition, to become one of the executioners of the condemnatory

resolution.

Appendix to Mr. Buchanan's speech.
OFFICE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U. S.,
April 6, 1836.

I entered this office a youth, under John Beckley, who was the first Clerk of the House of Representatives under the present constitution of the United States, 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 inquired 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 volume would not.

The "rough journal," as it was then termed, and is still termed, being the original rough draught 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, therefore, there was no use in lumbering the 'rough journal," after it had been

office with the "

printed.

Two of Mr. Beckley's immediate successors in office, Mr. Magruder and Mr. Dougherty, viewed the matter as Mr. Beckley viewed it. I know the fact from having called their attention to the subject. I often reflected upon the subject, and it appeared to me to be proper that the "rough journal" should be preserved, although I could not see any purpose whatever to be answered by

[SENATE.

doing so. I often conversed with the clerks of the office
upon the subject; but, as we were only subordinates, the
practice was not changed till the 1st session of the 18th
Congress, (1823-24,) when I determined, without con-
sulting my superior, that the "rough journal" should no
longer be thrown away, but be preserved and bound in
volumes; and it has been regularly preserved and bound
since.

With great respect, I am, sir, your obedient servant,
S. BURCH.
Colonel WALTER S. FRANKLIN,

Clerk House of Representatives U. S.

When Mr. BUCHANAN had taken his seat, had not before had an opportunity of expressing his Mr. BAYARD rose and said that, notwithstanding he opinion on the subject now under discussion, yet he should have been unwilling 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 he owed to himself and to his immediate constituents to contend and protest against a measure which he believed to be a violation of the constitution. I say, sir, constituents, 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 consequences, tends to diminish the general confidence in the stability of our Government, and the general attachment to it; and as the people of 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 what ver affects the character and honor of this body, of which I am a 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 involve a responsibility only to his conscience 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 can. not say that it is a homage to an idol resembling that which the Chinese pays to his household god when he burns before it a little piece of gilt paper as the humble offering of his piety and adoration. Nor can I 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 motives 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 become part of the common stock. If it seems from the nature of the act done, and from the insufficiency of the reasons given for it, to be an act of homage at the footstool of execu tive power, I have, then, a personal interest in the mat. ter, 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 necessary and proper to express those opinions, since if this principle of expunction be adopted, I have no security that the record of that vote may not be destroyed, if hereafter it should become expedient to give to the resolution the appearance of unanimous approbation.

What is it, sir, we are called upon to do? A man may do wrong unwittingly, and we must take care to have a clear and precise idea of the act to be done. In words, sir, we are called upon to expunge from the journal a certain resolution, but in fact and in truth to falsify a rec

[blocks in formation]

ord. The same mind which might contemplate the one proposition with indifference, would regard the other with horror. To a mind reckless of consequences, which has no future, 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 to follow, to expunge from a journal may seem a very harmless act. But, sir, even such a mind might be brought to revolt with disgust from the same measure, when it imported the suppression of the truth, or the assertion of a falsehood. The approaches of crime are stealthy and mysterious; the assassin wears his mask; vice pays to virtue the homage of assuming her form; the knave puts on the cloak of religion; the demagogue be comes the friend of the people. It 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:

66 Resolved, That the said resolve be expunged from the journal, and for that purpose 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 into the Senate, and in the presence of the Senate draw black lines round the said resolve, and write across the face thereof, in strong letters, the following words: Expunged by order of the Senate, this day of

[ocr errors]

in the year of our Lord 1836."

The act

[JAN. 16, 1837,

ally 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 becomes his duty to blot out or obliter-
ate from its face the passage ordered to be expunged.
But it is said that the present resolution does not con
template an actual expunction or obliteration of the pas
sage, but merely a typical one. And Senators seek to
reconcile themselves to this measure by such a play upon
words. A typical expunction! To get rid of the soph-
istry at once, let me ask whether a journal is not the
evidence of a fact, as, for instance, the passage of a
particular resolution, and whether to expunge from the
journal that resolution 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 de-
clare 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, whether
by crasing, by blotting out, or by writing the word "ex
punged" 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 call-
ed upon to publish a new edition of the journal, would
he have a right to insert the passage expunged? It is
in vain that the assertion is made that the printed vol
umes would be evidence of the fact. The printed vol
umes are only prima facie evidence, and admitted for
convenience, but could never stand against a sworn
copy of the journal. There is, then, for all the pur-
poses for which a journal is kept, namely, as evidence
of a particular transaction, no difference between an ac
tual and a typical expunction. That in the present in-
stance no grave and immediate consequence affecting
individual rights is to follow, does not alter the case.
The principle asserted in the resolution is, that the right
to expunge exists, the mode of doing it is of no conse-
quence; and I will show presently that the exercise of
such a power is not only unconstitutional, but may be
attended with the most important and direct influence
on the personal rights of individuals. The natural im-
port and the necessary legal effect of the phrase "ex-
punge from the journal," is to destroy the evidence of
the fact expunged, whether it be used literally or meta-
phorically.

Nothing can be more explicit in its terms. 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 the 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 metaphorically, it is in this instance a harmless metaphor. In all its uses, whether literal or metaphorical, it imports destruction; and the beauty and force of the metaphor in every instance deHaving thus ascertained the meaning of the word "expends on the precise meaning of its literal acceptation, punge" and the effect of any mode of expunction, the The term expunge means literally to wipe out, which question arises whether the Senate possesses any such imports destruction; or, in other words, it imports that power over its journal. Has it the right to destroy the something which has an existence shall cease to exist. evidence of a particular transaction, for the journal is Whether the term is at any time used literally or metanot only the highest evidence, but the only evidence of phorically, will depend on the subject-matter to which the fact? A journal is a daily record, as contradistin. it is applied. Thus, in some of the instances given by guished from a temporary memorandum. But it is con.. the Senator from Pennsylvania, as in the one "to extended that, though a record, it is not a permanent one, punge our sins," no doubt the word is used metaphori-being of value only until it is published; after which, it cally; but does not the whole force and value of the expression depend on its literal meaning, and import that those sins shall cease to have a moral existence as reasons for the Divine 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?

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 pub lish the same." Resort has been had to the meaning of the word "keep," as importing preservation, to show that The Senator asks whether, if a resolution passed that the constitution contemplated a permanent, and not a a section of a bill should be expunged, the Secretary temporary record. But I admit that the word "keep" would proceed to obliterate it? I answer, that from the does not necessarily imply permanent preservation; it method of our proceedings it is not necessary for him to may mean preservation for a temporary purpose. The erase every word, because the purpose is effectually an- word "keep," like every other word in the language, swered by drawing his black lines across it, or simply must depend for its meaning on the manner in which it writing upon its face the word "expunged," for in effect it is used, on the subject-matter to which it is applied. becomes so, by ceasing to have any legal existence; and Words are but signs of ideas, and it is one of the imperif such bill were ordered to be engrossed for a third fections of language, that it often expresses too much or reading, the section thus expunged would be omitted in too little, while felicity in its use consists in the choice the engrossment, as if it had never existed. But the auof those terms which convey either the simple or com thority conferred upon him by such a resolution is liter-plex idea with precision. A word, too, may stand for

[ocr errors]

JAN. 16, 1837.]

Expunging Resolution.

[SENATE.

those who assembled, when it is once ascertained that a quorum is present; it is afterwards taken for granted that they perform their duty, and are always present, unless the contrary is made to appear. But if it so happened that no querum was present, or that Congress 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 impor

tance.

a whole sentence, for a class of ideas, as in the familiar use of this very one. 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 exercise, 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 housekeeper were asked, "Do you buy your milk?" and should reply, "No, I keep a cow," 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 carriage" 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 duties; 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 pres-validate his rights as established by his credentials when ervation; 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 publish," not "keep in order to publish." But waiving all verbal criticism, let me remark that a constitution is merely a collection of principles; 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; and it will then be Been whether such purposes are of a temporary or permanent character, and, by consequence, whether the journal is intended to be a permanent or temporary rec ord. In the first place, it is intended to record the day on which a bill has been presented to the President for his approbation, 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:

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 of expul sion, restore him to his seat? And yet, if you destroy the evidence of the expulsion, is there any thing to in

"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 United States; 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, the same 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 the 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 of the venerable 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 by which it is established? And is not the journal the highest and the only 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 credentials 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 Congress did assemble on the constitutional day for its meeting. The journal always opens with a statement of the names of

he first took his seat? Suppose he was elected for six years, and you expel him at the expiration of the second, and then expunge the resolution of expulsion, how would it be possible to contest his right to a seat for the remain. ing 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 offender. That judgment 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 which I mean to advert to, it is intended to record the votes of members on matters of moment, that they may be held to their responsibility for pernicious measures. And hence it is expressly provided, in the fifth section of the first article, "that the yeas and nays of 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 in. dividual a personal and permanent interest in the record, for good or for evil? This last purpose 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 would be effectually answered by the mere publication of the jour nal. They are matters of fact, of which the journal, I mean the manuscript 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 conventional fables. Let me add, in relation to this matter, that the suppressio veri differs nothing in point of morality 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 proceedings, as to maintain that you have the right to as. sert 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 Sccretary 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 destroy the records of the nation? In considering his right of expunction, the question is not whether the

« AnteriorContinuar »