the constitution, having in the previous section provided that, pending the session of Congress, the two Houses should not have the power to adjourn for more than three days, nor to another place than that in which they shall be sitting, excepted this question of adjournment, thus arranged, from the prescribed course of other joint acts of the two Houses; thus making the application of this exception of the question of adjournment, directly and naturally, to the foregoing adjournment, pending the session.

But the President, in his veto message, contends that the question of adjournment is not a matter of legislation, and rests it upon this clause in the constitution; and there, I think, with respectful deference, is the error in the message, viz: making the exception of adjournment, in the clause stated, universal in its application, instead of special to adjournments, pending the session. The power of regulating the sessions of Congress by law seems to be an incidental and necessary power. Already the sessions of Congress are in part regulated by law. The commencement of the sessions is prescribed by the highest law, the constitution, empowering Congress to change it by law if they think proper; and the termination of a Congress is also prescribed by law; the doubt arises exclusively upon regulating the first session of Congress, which is always the long session. The bill now under consideration takes away no power from a future Congress, as it provides "that the day of adjournment of the first session of every succeeding Congress shall be the second Monday in May, unless Congress shall, at any such session, by joint resolution, otherwise provide." If it is thought, therefore, that the good of the country and the convenience of Congress require that this long session should be limited by law, unless the Congress in session at the time should find it necessary to provide otherwise, shall it be prohibited to Congress to effect this good and this convenience, merely because the question of adjourn ment is excepted from being presented to the President for his approbation, as all other resolutions, orders, or votes are, which require a concurrent vote of both Houses? This would seem to be a strained construction, and more particularly as a much more natural and direct application of that exemption has been shown to the adjournments authorized during a session.

The next quoted section of the constitution is from the article relating to the Executive, and is the third section, which treats on the regular and eventful power of the Executive. It is in these words, viz:

"He (the President) may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper," &c.

From this section the President, in his veto message, concludes that the proposal to fix a day by law, to be binding in all future time, unless changed by consent of both Houses of Congress, is "to take away the contingent power of the Executive, which, in anticipated cases, is vested in him." Here, again, I think the President generalizes too much in his construction. If we examine this section closely, we shall find both its grammatical and legal construction in exact concurrence. The part of the third section of the second article quoted is one sentence, where all its parts have a direct reference to each other, and to nothing else. In enumerating the eventual or contingent powers of the Executive, it states "that he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them," and then goes on, in the same breath, to say, "in case of disagreement between them, in respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he pleases;" evidently confining this power to the conven

tion of both Houses "on extraordinary occasions," where, as experience has shown, it would be much more likely to anticipate that its use would be necessary. By thus confining the exercise of this contingent power of interfering in adjournments, (grammatically, and by every principle of construction, as I have done,) said Mr. G., to the special cases referred to, and with which it is placed in immediate relationship, the contingent executive power is left untouched, and no fear of its invasion remains; and that such is the true construction I cannot hesitate to believe. With these views, sir, (said Mr. G.,) I am constrained to dissent from the veto. I would, Mr. President, say a word upon the policy of this law, if it was admissible at this time, as I am convinced that these extremely protracted sessions of Congress are injurious, and must eventually, if persisted in, drive those men from Congress who are most fit and best qualified to be there. But I do not consider this question now before us; the policy of this law has been decided by a large majority of both Houses, and is conceded by the Executive; the only question before you is that presented by the veto, and which has been spread upon your journals-the constitutional question-and on that we are alone called to decide. Any other course, sir, would involve an absurdity; for suppose a Senator here, who, objecting to the policy of the law, but entirely clear as to its constitutionality, opposed its passage, the President returns the law with a constitutional objection alone, admitting its sound policy. If such a Senator, confident that the law is constitutional, still perseveres to decide on his opinion of its policy, which is already decided on and admitted, he sustains the veto in effect, though he condemns and opposes it in opinion; and the express object of the veto, in presenting the President's special objections to a law for consideration, fails.

Mr. PORTER said he had voted against the bill when it was brought forward, but he was opposed to the grounds taken by the President.

Mr. WALL sustained the argument of the President in a few observations.

Mr. SOUTHARD had voted against the bill, because he considered that its provisions involved an inconvenience; but he was satisfied that Congress had the constitutional power to pass the law, and he could not therefore sustain the veto, but should vote for the bill, the decided vote of the two Houses having settled the question of expediency.

Mr. NILES sustained the principles of the message, and maintained that the bill could not be sustainable, because it fettered the successors of the Congress which passed the law.

Mr. WALKER referred to the constitution to show that, when a bill was vetoed by the President, it was not required of Congress to reconsider his reasons, but only to reconsider the bill.

The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, the President's objections notwithstanding, and decided as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Davis, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Morris, Robbins, Robinson, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Webster-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Linn, Mangum, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Porter, Rives, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, White, Wright-23.

So the bill was rejected.

Mr. CLAYTON asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to fix the day for the annual meeting of Congress; which was read a first time, and ordered to a second reading.

JUNE 27, 1836.]

[This bill merely fixes the day of meeting for the first Monday in November.]

JOSEPH GRANT.

The bill for the relief of Joseph Grant was taken up, and the amendment moved by Mr. WALKER on Saturday being agreed to, the bill was ordered to be engrossed: Yeas 17, nays 14.

FRENCH AND NEAPOLITAN INDEMNITIES.

Mr. WRIGHT moved to lay the preceding orders on the table, that the Senate might take up the bill to anticipate the payment of the indemnities due to the claimants under the French and Neapolitan treaties.

He said he was not disposed, at this stage of the session, to occupy unnecessarily the time of the Senate with this or any other bill; but he must say he considered this one of the most important public bills upon the files of the Senate. There was now a pressure upon the money market in all the trading towns, and he knew of no way in which Congress could so effectually contribute to the relief of the mercantile interests, to the extent proposed, as by the passage of this bill. Every Senator would recollect that the instalments were still due under the French treaty, the one to become due in one and the other in two years from the present time. Under the Neapolitan treaty, his recollection was that seven instalments were yet due, to be paid annually. It would, therefore, be seven years before the money would be paid under this last treaty. All the money due under both treaties was bearing an interest of at least four per centum per annum, which would make the advance of the money a safe and profitable operation for the Treasury, while its advance would contribute instant relief, to the amount of about four millions of dollars, to the great mercantile interests of the country, which are now suffering for the want of immediate cash capital. The present condition of the Treasury would permit the advance without any injury to any national interest, and he most earnestly hoped that the bill would be taken up, and would meet the favor and approbation of the Senate.

Mr. W. said his object in making the motion at this time was that it might be a test of the disposition of the Senate as to the bill itself. He had made the motion a few days since, unsuccessfully; and he had not at that time made any explanations whatever of his views in reference to the bill and its public importance. He now hoped he might so far obtain the attention of the mem. bers of the body as to prepare every Senator to vote upon the motion he had now made with reference to the fate of the bill. There could be no questions of detail. The only provisions contained in the bill, and the only provisions required, were that the money should be advanced from the Treasury to the claimants, and that assignments of their claims against these respective foreign Governments be taken by the United States in exchange for the money. The effect would merely be an investment of the money at an interest of four per cent. per annum, while the capital advanced would go to the immediate relief of the mercantile interests. He had made careful inquiries at the Treasury, and found that the appropriation would not vary far from four millions of dollars, and would not, very certainly, exceed that

[SENATE.

After a few words of conversation between Messrs. WERSTER, PORTER, LINN, and WRIGHT, the vote was taken, and the motion was lost. The ayes and noes upon it were as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Rives, Ruggles, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Wright-18.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Knight, Leigh, Mangum, Porter, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Webster, White-21. ARMORIES, ARSENALS, &c.

The bill to establish a foundry, an armory in the West and one in the South, arsenals in the States in which the same have not yet been established, and depots for arms in certain States and Territories, was taken up and considered as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. CALHOUN thought it was too late in the session to act on a bill of such importance, involving such heavy appropriations; and he would therefore move that it be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. LINN hoped that the postponement would not be ordered. For many years Congress had acted in both of its branches favorably for an armory in the West, though not in both at the same time, and there never had been a doubt of the importance of some of the objects included in this bill.

The history of the last war showed the great importance of an armory on the western waters, and, in further confirmation of the necessity of one there, he would call the attention of gentlemen to the report of the Secretary of War on the subject. The Secretary (Mr. L. said) went into an exact estimate of the difference of the cost of arms manufactured in the West and those manufactured east of the mountains, the difference being in favor of the former. The importance of an armory in the West in time of war was manifest; every one acquainted with the resources of Missouri would at once see the great economy there would be in having arms manufactured there. Within a compass of twenty miles square, in that State, could be found every material used both in the manufacture of arms and of gunpowder; and this, too, where there were the greatest facilities for water transportation. He regretted that the armory for the West did not stand in a bill by itself; but, as it was, he should vote for the whole bill.

Mr. BENTON observed that there were now nine or ten arsenals in the United States, distributed in the different States-principally at the North--and it was thought right by the Military Committee, that there should be one in every State in the Union. It was thought right that every State should be put on the same footing with the eight or nine States who now had arsenals. With respect to the armory, it rested on different foundations. We of the West, said be, have for fifteen years been endeavoring to get an armory established on our waters. We have had reports upon reports in favor of it-all showing that the expense of the transportation of arms beyond the mountains was of itself sufficient to authorize the measure. As the arms on hand became fewer and fewer, in consequence of use and decay, it would readily be seen what a supply the West would require for her constantly growing population. History showed the impossibility of supplying a country with arms at any one period. The supply must be constantly going on. In England and France, the manufacture of arms was continued with as much regularity as if they had never manufactured arms at all. Now, in Europe, the regular armies only were armed, while the body of the people went unarmed. Our people should be well armed, and not suffer

ed to muster in time of peace with cornstalks, and carry arms in time of war that they are afraid of. The secret of the great success of the western people in battle was in their being accustomed from their childhood to the handling of arms. Mr. B. referred to a report of the Secretary of War in 1818, which recommended an armory on the western waters, on account of cheapness, and the considerable expense that would be saved in transportation. We of the West (said Mr. B.) have miscarried heretofore, by endeavoring to fix upon the place. They had now abandoned that idea, and left the location to the discretion of the Executive. They saw that of the two armories of the United States, both were east of the mountains, and if a line were drawn from Florida point to Maine, they would be found in a quarter of the Union.

Mr. CLAYTON observed that his impressions were in favor of the bill; but he observed an appropriation of $100,000 for a foundry, and he desired to know where it was to be located.

Mr. BENTON replied that the object was to have a pattern foundry at the seat of Government, to bring to the same test, not only the caliber of all the guns, but the metal used in making them.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, said that he was rather in favor of the general objects of the bill, but on examination it seemed to him that there were some objections to it. He thought, as the bill stood, the foundry might be located either at Louisville or St. Louis. The Southwest, too, the most important part of the Union for an armory, was entirely excluded from the bill. It had heretofore been considered that the most favorable position for an armory was at the bend of the Tennessee river, west of the Muscle Shoals, where every convenience of water power, facilities of transportation, and materials, were to be found. He thought this would be the most favorable position for an armory, as it would there be most convenient for all the western and southwestern States. With regard to arsenals of depot, every gentleman would see the propriety of having them in every State, for the purpose of supplying arms to the militia. No gentleman, he believed, would object to this. With regard to arsenals of construction, he understood it as another name for an armory. Why should they have one at the South, and one in the West, and establish another arsenal of construction at St. Louis? An arsenal of construction, he presumed, was for the manufacture of small arms, and it was therefore the same thing as an armory. He would vote against the indefinite postponement of the bill, with a view of having such amendments made as would relieve the bill from any objections.

Mr. PORTER said he agreed with the Senator from Alabama, that there was no particular reason for having an armory in the South. He believed that St. Louis was as advantageous a position for Louisiana as any other place, considering the facilities of transportation from there.

Mr. LINN, in reply to Mr. KING of Alabama, said that he really thought that the gentleman's State belonged to the West. He had always been very willing to claim Alabama as a western State. The position spoken of by the gentleman from Alabama had been recommended, when the resources of Missouri were not so well understood as they now were. When he was up before he remarked, that within the compass of twenty miles square, in Missouri, could be found all the advantages of water power, with the facilities of transportation to any part of the West, together with all the materials in the greatest abundance used in the manufacture of arms and ammunition; such as iron, copper, coal, manganese, zinc, ammonia, nitre, sulphur, and lead. He was perfectly willing that Missouri should en

[JUNE 28, 1836.

ter into competition with Alabama, and to yield to the latter, if she could show superior advantages for an armory on her waters.

Mr. CALHOUN, after some remarks, renewed his motion for the indefinite postponement of the bill.

Mr. KING, of Georgia, said that, as respected additional armories, the report of the Secretary of War was decidedly averse to them. If an armory were established in the West, he thought one of those now existing ought to be abolished. The Secretary said that the present establishments could turn out about thirty or forty thousand stand of arms a year, and that there were about eight hundred thousand now on hand-a number, he should suppose, sufficient for the present wants of the country. He was not disposed, Mr. K. said, to increase the number of armories, but he would be very willing to support the principles of this bill so far as to establish depots for arms in the States where there were no arsenals. But, as it was suggested by the Senator from South Carolina, they had hardly time this session to act with a sufficient understanding of the subject, and he hoped the motion to postpone would prevail.

After some remarks from Messrs. LINN and WALL, in opposition to the postponement, the question was taken on Mr. CALHOUN's motion, and it was rejected by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Calhoun, Crittenden, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Mangum, Moore, Page, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift-12.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Nicholas, Porter, Robinson, Ruggles, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, Webster, White, Wright-22.

After some remarks from Messrs. BENTON and BUCHANAN in favor of the bill, and from Mr. KING, of Georgia, in favor of the postponement, Mr. K. moved to lay the bill on the table; which motion was rejected: Yeas 16, nays 17.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, moved to strike out the armory in the South; and after some remarks from Messrs. CALHOUN and PRESTON, in opposition to the motion, it was carried.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, moved further to amend the bill by inserting the words "or Southwest." The effect of this amendment is to leave it to the discretion of the President to locate the armory either in the West or Southwest.

TUESDAY, JUNE 28. RESCINDING RESOLUTION. The following preamble and resolution, offered by Mr. WHITE, being under consideration

Whereas, on the 28th day of March, 1834, the Senate of the United States adopted a resolution in the words following, to wit:

"Resolved, That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and powers not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both."

And whereas, upon the question whether said resolution should be adopted, it was decided by one fifth of the Senators present that the same should be taken by yeas

and nays, and the votes of the several members now stand recorded on the journal of the Senate:

And whereas the said resolution still remains on the journal of the Senate in full force, not rescinded, reversed, repealed, or annulled; and cannot now be expunged, cancelled, or in any way obliterated or defaced without violating that clause of the constitution of the United States which is in the following words, to wit: "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal:" And whereas each Senator, before taking his seat, was bound to take, and did take, an oath to support said constitution:

And whereas the President of the United States, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, alluded to in said resolution, did not, in the opinion of the Senate, assume upon himself authority and powers not conferred upon him by the constitution and laws: Therefore, it is

Resolved, That the said resolution, and the opinion therein expressed, be, and the same hereby are, rescinded, reversed, and annulled; and it is hereby declared that the said resolution ought not to be considered as having had, or as now or hereafter having, any force or effect whatever.

Mr. WHITE addressed the Senate as follows: Mr. President, by means not within my control, I have become so far connected with this subject as to consider it a duty to submit the resolution now under consideration, and to urge its adoption by such reasons as are satisfactory to my own mind. During our last session, the honorable Senator from Missouri offered a resolution, proposing that we should order the resolution of the 28th of March, 1834, to be expunged from the journal. When it was taken up for consideration, entertaining the opinion that the Senate had not the power to make such an order, I moved to amend the resolution, by striking out the order to expunge, and all which followed it, and inserting that the resolution should be rescinded, reversed, repealed, and declared to be null and void. The Senator from Alabama moved that the question be first taken on striking out the word "expunge," and, after a very short debate, it was stricken out by almost a unanimous vote; and then, upon the motion of one of the Senators from Massachusetts, the subject was laid on the table. At this session we have a proposition, which is now on the table, for a qualified or limited expunging. Still believing my first impressions on the subject were correct, I have ventured to submit my resolution, and upon it will desire the decision of the Senate.

The first position assumed in the preamble to my resolution liable to doubt is, that we have not the power to expunge from our journal the resolution of the 28th of March, 1834.

Our Government is republican, and, by the constitution, it was intended that all agents in the different departments of it should be responsible for their public conduct. With a view to secure this accountability, so far as the two Houses of Congress are concerned, and also for the purpose of perpetuating a knowledge of what should be done by them, it is provided by the constitution of the United States, 5th section of the 1st article, that "each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.” Generally, that interpretation of the constitution, or of a statute, is

[SENATE.

the true one, which would be put upon it by a common man. It appears to me very clear that were a common man asked what did the framers of the constitution mean should be done, when they used the language just quoted, he would answer, that each House should have faithfully recorded the proceedings of each day, and carefully preserve the book in which they were recorded. To determine the meaning of this word "keep," we are not to look into a glossary to see how many different definitions we can find, but to the context and to the object the framers of the constitution wished to attain. Each House is directed to keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same. The object evidently is, that the body itself may at all times know what it and its predecessors have done, and that the constituent may also know what has been done, and by whom.--[Bayard's Exposition of the Constitution, p. 58.]

If, as soon as we have recorded our daily proceedings, we have performed the whole duty required by this clause, and may then burn, tear up, obliterate, or expunge the journal, the whole object will be defeated. The convention were aware that neither House would be always in session, and that, when in session, the members themselves could not, in person, keep the journal; provision is therefore made in article 1, sections 2 and 3, that each House shall have power to appoint the necessary officers. Through officers thus appointed, the journal is kept and preserved, as the records of courts are kept and preserved by their clerks.

We are not only to keep the journal, but from time to time to publish the same. The journal which is kept is the one which is to be published; not once only, but from time to time. If we admit that after our proceedings have been once published, then we may expunge, how shall we comply with the injunction to publish from time to time? Those to whom the printed copies have been delivered are under no constitutional obligation to preserve their copies. They may be destroyed at pleasure. Upon their care we must depend to enable us to publish a second or third edition; yet we have been directed to keep, and from time to time publish. Again: if we do not publish a second or third edition from our own journal, having expunged some of our proceedings immediately after the first publication, then the first edition and the subsequent ones will not agree, because the expunged proceedings will not appear in the last publications, no matter whether the expunging is considered literal or figurative. And, what will make the matter worse is, there will be no record in charge of our own officer, by which to prove which edition is a

true copy.

The provisions in the 7th section of the same article strongly support the construction for which I contend:

"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, we shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered; and, if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House, respectively. 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 be 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."

The like ceremonies are to be gone through in relation to orders, resolutions, or votes, in which the concurrence of both Houses is necessary. Now, sir, is any gentle. man prepared to say that, in any case arising under this section, we have the power to expunge the journal? If we cannot, how can we in any other case? The language requiring us to keep a journal of our proceedings is as strong and imperative as the language of this section requiring the President's objections to be entered on the journal, and the names of the voters to be recorded. The same solemn guards are thrown around both; and if we now have the power to expunge the journal of March, 1834, we also have the power to go back and expunge from the journals the proceedings in relation to any veto sent to us by any President.

To keep a journal of our proceedings must mean that we shall have them faithfully recorded, and then the record carefully preserved; otherwise, the whole context is disregarded, and the great object of responsibility of legislative agents defeated. Let us, for a moment, consider some of the familiar cases put by the other side. We employ a man "to keep the door." After he has opened it, and let some person in or out of the House, surely he is not at liberty to break the door. A man employs a person to keep his house. After the house is put in good order, the housekeeper is not at liberty to break or burn the furniture, or to expunge it, by making black marks around it. A merchant employs a person to keep his store and books. After the day's or week's work is over, the clerk is not at liberty to tear out or expunge any of the entries, showing the goods sold, or the cash received; yet all these things might lawfully be done by these different persons, if the arguments in favor of expunging our journal are correct.

It has been sometimes urged that each House has a discretion as to the matter that shall be put on its journal. This, to some extent, is true, but cannot affect my argument. Each House is forever bound to put enough matter on the journal to show on what subjects it acted and the decision of the body on each subject. To prove this discretionary power, it is said we may select for publication such parts of the journal as we please, and keep the rest secret. It is true, by the clause under consideration, each House is bound to keep a journal of all its proceedings, but may refrain from having published such parts as the public interest requires should be kept secret. This power to refrain from publishing is expressly given, and therefore may be legally exercised. It is, with me, conclusive to show that we are bound always to preserve the journal. Parts of it we need not publish. Now, if we are not bound to preserve the record of our proceedings, there would be no evidence in existence of what had been done upon those subjects in relation to which the journal had not been published.

Again: we have the express power given not to publish some parts of our proceedings; if, in addition to this, we assume the power which is not given, to expunge what we please, we may, and probably will, some time choose not to publish some proceeding which would not be acceptable to our constituents; and then, after it had performed what we intended, we could expunge it, and thus evade all that responsibility intended to be secured. It is said the journal is nothing but inducement to some other matter more important. opinion I do not think is well founded. The journals, so far from being considered as merely introductory, or inducement to something more important, and therefore in our power to dispose of as we please, ought to be viewed as sacred, because they contain the only evidence of the judgment of the representatives of the people upon the different subjects acted on; they are the very es

This

[JUNE 28, 1836.

sence, or, as the lawyers term it, the gist of the whole

matter.

In our free and happy country our laws are binding, because they contain the will of the people themselves, expressed by their representatives, in the mode pointed out in the constitution. The journal is the only evidence of this will. An act is not binding because it is signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses, but because it is the expressed will of a majority in each House; and the journal is the highest evidence of this will. At the last session, by some mistake, a bill, which our journal shows was indefinitely postponed, was signed by the presiding officers and by the President. It was no law, although it had the form of one. It wanted the essence, the will of a majority of one of the Houses, and the journal of that House is the highest and only evi dence of the defect. I therefore deny that we have any power to expunge, on the ground that the journal is mere inducement to something more important. But, again, even if it were only inducement, I deny, on that account, we have any power to disobey & command of the constitution. It says we shall keep a journal of our proceedings. We call Heaven to witness we will obey this command. In consequence of this solemn promise, we are intrusted with matters of the highest interest. We have faithfully recorded one of our proceedings, but afterwards tear or blot it out, or expunge it-that is, prick it out-and are called upon for the reason, and answer, it was of no consequence, because it was mere inducement to something else. The excuse ought never to be admitted; if it is in one case, it might be in every case. We may obliterate, expunge, or burn, the whole. It is further urged, if the whole record is destroyed, after the journal has been published, it makes no differ ence, because each printed copy is the journal. This I think an entire mistake; the printed journal is only a copy of the original, and, although it may be admitted as evidence in court, it is only because it is supposed to be a true copy of the original, and it has been printed by public authority; and because you cannot procure the original, it being the duty of the Secretary to keep it in his own possession. The original is the best evidence; and the party is only excused from producing it because he cannot procure it. Suppose the copy offered not a true one, the error is always corrected by having recourse to the original.

Again: if all these printed copies are originals, and we order the journal to be expunged, we must make our Secretary apply the process to each copy; if he does to one, and not to all, they will vary from each other; and if we apply the process to the original, and not to the printed copies, every copy will vary from the original. The journal of 1834 has been published-many copies of it--the obnoxious resolution with the rest. Suppose we now expunge it, actually or figuratively, and then publish another edition, the resolution would not appear in the last edition, and thus it would vary from that now in existence. If we decide that the printed copies are to be considered as the originals, and not copies merely, it appears to me we endanger the purity of our whole proceedings. It will be very easy for those who are ingenious in villany to print with our mark and impose on the world spurious copies, and insert as our proceedings matters which never occurred.

It is thought we err in giving the same sanctity to our journal which is properly given to the records of courts of justice; which, it is admitted, cannot be expunged or altered after the term. In my opinion, our journal ought to be considered the most sacred of the two. The records of the courts only affect the private rights of individuals; our records affect all society. Records of courts are only required to be kept by legis lative enactments; the records of each House of Con