SENATE.] The Indians. [APRIL 24, 1830. which emphatically repudiated the practice. And as to and yet the right of free contracts between individuals the exciting Georgia question, it has no proper connexion is of as high constitutional authority as that of contracting with this bill or amendment. This bill is to extinguish for Indian lands. Then, if Indian treaties for lands be Indian title north of the Ohio, in Indiana, and does not contracts of bargain and sale, as they are, force, fraud, touch the Georgia question at all; and presents a fair op- or bribery vitiates the contract, and makes it void. So portunity of putting down, by law, without prejudice to men, angels, and divinities would consider it. But the Georgia, a practice that has been improperly revived un- difficulty lies here: the Indians have not the physical der the present administration, and we presume without power to assert their rights; nor have they, like Portugal, the sanction of the President. Disguise this question as a powerful and warlike nation at hand to protect them, you may, it is substantially whether we will sanction by when we play false to them; nor any just common tribunal our votes the use of secret bribes to obtain cessions of In- to decide the matter in their favor, when we, their boasted dian lands. And I am sorry the Senator from Alabama guardians, bribe their avaricious or needy chiefs to sell has abandoned the amendment that would have done so their lands, or force them to do so under the mouths of much honor to the administration of which he is a sup- our cannon bearing upon them through the portholes of porter. This is a Government of law, and the national our western forts, by telling them of the irresistible power honor is concerned to prohibit, by law, all our agents, of their great father the President, and his warriors. And whether they be Presidents or subordinates, from continu- after a treaty for their lands shall be effected by force, ing so unfair and dishonorable a practice, which we ad- fraud, or bribes, what serious chance has the poor Indian mit has crept into our negotiations. Secret bribes to to come before this Senate and show all the facts and circhiefs, without the knowledge or consent of the poor cumstances, so as to induce the Senate to reject the treaty? tribes, whose guardians we affect to be, to sell us the lands Unless, indeed, your President be the nation, himself, how of the tribe, sullies the honor of the nation, and renders the can it infringe the constitutional power of the President contract void, if the Indians had power to assert their rights. and Senate to make bargains of purchase of Indian lands, The Senators from Tennessee, Louisiana, and Illinois, for the nation to prohibit by law our agent or negotiator [Messrs. GRUNDY, LIVINGSTON, and KANE] argue, how- from employing such means to cheat the weaker party as ever, that this amendment interferes with the treaty-mak- would render the contract void? Who but the law-making ing power of the President, given by the constitution. It is power can prohibit a practice, which, so far from being a true the treaty-making power is given to the President, use of the power given by the constitution, is a gross and subject to the advice and consent of two-thirds of the shameful abuse of it, unless, indeed, the President be above Senate; and it is equally true that a great revolution has law? Unless the supremacy to all law be accorded to the occurred during this session in this body, upon the subject President, as well as a freedom from all inquiry into the of the unrestrainable powers of the President. Formerly, abusive exercise of his power of removal from office for the rage was to render the President a cypher-to dispute cause, and from all restraint of the Senate, we have as his right to accept an invitation in the recess of the Senate, much power to prohibit the use of bribes to him, as to any to begin a negotiation to be afterwards submitted to the other agent or individual in the Union. So far from inSenate for their advice and consent, as in the Panama fringing the constitutional power, it would only guard it mission. Now, a treaty may be held without an appropri- from the approach and contamination of bribes, as other ation, even after a refusal to grant an appropriation. At contracts are and should be. this session the majority have carried their confidence in There is another high constitutional power secured by the President so far as to surrender the restraining power the same instrument--the great elective right of free of the Senate over an abusive exercise of the power of choice of a President, as high and constitutional as the removing unfit or delinquent officers, by converting the power to bargain for Indian lands. Would it infringe that whole offices and emoluments of the country into mere right to guard it from the bribes of Executive patronbribes to purchase popularity, reward partisans, and age? If so, your famous six bills reported during the last punish opponents for votes and opinions; and have utterly administration, under pretence of guarding the country refused to permit any inquiry into the causes of such re- from that influence, are all unconstitutional. This minomovals; and have established in the palace a four years' rity is entitled to the credit of having revived these bills secret despotism and inquisition, contrary to all the for- since the discussion on "Foot's resolution." They died mer opinions, votes, and proceedings of themselves under at their birth in 1826, and have slumbered in their graves other administrations; thus screening the President from ever since, until this minority, by the friction and the fire a public knowledge of the true causes of removing men of that debate, restored them to life, and presented them too honest, and too proud of their rights, to buy peace to their wondering fathers. They come too late in the and office by a surrender of their sacred right of opinion session to save the country from the ravages of corrupt and election! proscription and despotism; but they may be in good time Formerly, the rage was to strip the Federal Government to save the credit and consistency of their authors. of its beneficial powers, dissolve and scatter it into the Suppose, as the case happens to be, that this adminissemi-anarchy then miscalled State rights; now, the Execu-tration should use all the offices and emoluments of the tive head is made an absolute despot for four years, while country, in their newly usurped power, as mere capital, to the other branches of the Government are prostrated in purchase popularity and votes, and reward partisans; and the dust, or their useful existence assailed. It is admitted the removing powers of the President should be perverted that the treaty-making power belongs to the President from their public purposes to punish men for their opinions and Senate by the constitution. And what is a treaty for and votes; until the spirit of the nation should be so corIndian lands but a contract between the parties? And rupted that we should see those loungers behind our seats, what is the President but the agent of the Union, in skulking about the city all the session, come from the exmaking such contract? Or is the President the nation? tremities of the Union to press the administration to reSo, also, by the same constitutional authority, individuals move gentlemen from office, and to resume the work of may make a contract; and it is even provided, that no law reform, from which they were frightened until the late shall be passed impairing the obligation of their contracts. decision of the Senate to sustain them by refusing inquiry But does that prevent a government from enacting laws into the causes of removal, to make room to reward such to prevent agents or principals from using bribery and creatures for the base prostitution of their votes (for infraud as the means of cheating the weaker party out of fluence they had none) at the last election, in hopes of his property? Laws against the use of force, fraud, and office-would it be unconstitutional to guard the great the bribery of agents, are enacted every day when needed; clective franchise of the United States from such bribes? APRIL 26, 1830.] Impeachment of Judge Peck. [SENATE. This was accepted by Mr. SANFORD, as a modification of his motion; and the amendment was then rejected. On motion by Mr. FORSYTH, the second section was amended, by adding thereto the following: Look at those mercenary expectants behind our seats dians, referred to in this section, shall be borne by the and in the gallery! One would be content with an Indian United States. agency; another would be satisfied, for the present, with some land office, or the like; a third presses the removal of a postmaster, that he may be rewarded for guessing at the strong side, by being placed in a situation to purify the rays of mental light and the streams of national intelligence, by exercising a servile and corrupt system of espionage upon the correspondence of our citizens, under the late subserviency to party discipline to which the General Post Office has been subjected. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. KANE] not only places the President's mere agency in negotiating these contracts for Indian lands above the control of the laws of the land, but boldly attempts to justify the use of secret bribes by the milder name of secret presents, by telling us that they are not used to induce the chiefs to do wrong, but to induce obstinate chiefs to do right! When the land claimed and occupied by the Indians is owned by the United States, or the United States are bound to the State within which it lies, to extinguish the Indian claim thereto. On motion of Mr. WHITE, the blank in the eighth section was filled with five hundred thousand dollars, and the bill reported to the Senate with the amendments; which, having been concurred in, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN moved further to amend the bill, by adding the following proviso; which was rejected: Provided, That before any exchange or removal shall take place, the President of the United States shall nomiSuch an argument would, if valid, destroy the capacity nate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senof the Indian tribe to make the contract. That is merely ate, appoint, three suitable persons, and by them cause saying we, the strong party, are to be the judges when it is the country to which it is proposed to remove the Indians right for the weak party to sell their lands, and then to to be fully explored, and a report made to the President, bribe their agents to do the right thing! No, sir, it is no infringement of the constitutional power to buy Indian lands, to enter into private contracts, or to elect a Chief Magistrate, to guard them all by law from the contamination of bribes, either secret or public; but such a prohibition by the Legislature of the Union would redound to the honor of the administration that enacted it, and to the nation, for thus introducing into our intercourse with the Indians the elevated and honorable principle, not by varying Executive will, but by a permanent law. Mr. SPRAGUE then moved to add a proviso in the following words: Provided always, That until the said tribes or nations shall choose to remove, as is by this act contemplated, they shall be protected in their present possessions, and in the enjoyment of all their rights of territory and government, as promised or guarantied to them by treaties with the United States, according to the true intent and meaning of such treaties. The amendment was negatived. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN next offered the following proviso: Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to authorize the departure from, or non-observance of, any treaty, compact, agreement, or stipulation heretofore entered into, and now subsisting, between the United States and the Cherokee Indians. This amendment was rejected. On motion of Mr. McKINLEY, the fourth section was amended, by adding thereto the words following: And upon the payment of such valuation, the improvements so valued and paid for shall pass to the United States; and possession shall not afterwards be permitted to any of the same tribe. A verbal amendment in the fourth section, proposed by Mr. SPRAGUE, having been agreed to, and by him to Congress, of the extent of good and arable lands that can be obtained, and of the proportion of woodland in such country, and of its adaptation to the objects of this bill, and to the wants and habits of the Indian nations. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Adams, Barnard, Benton, Bibb, Brown, Dickerson, Dudley, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, Iredell, Johnston, Kane, King, Livingston, McKinley, McLean, Noble, Rowan, Sanford, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White, Woodbury- 28. Mr. BUCHANAN then rose and said: We are commanded, in the name of the House of Representatives, and of all the people of the United States, to impeach James H. Peck, Judge of the District Court of Missouri, of high misdemeanors in office; and to acquaint the Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same; and we do demand that the Senate take order for the appearance of the said James H. Peck, to answer to said impeachment. Messrs. BUCHANAN and STORRs having retired, Mr. SANFORD moved to add the following section: And be it further enacted, That where the lands in any State are held by Indians, and such lands belong to the Mr. TAZEWELL rose and said, that in looking over State, subject to the claim of the Indians, or the State or similar cases, for the purpose of ascertaining what would its grantees are entitled to purchase the Indian title, the be the proper course of proceeding, he discovered that President of the United States may give and assign to any messages, similar in most particulars to the one just resuch Indians any suitable district or portions of the lands ceived, had been presented to the Senate in three cases. described in the first section of this act, when any such The first was the case of John Blount, one of the memIndians shall choose to remove to, and reside on, the west-bers of this body; the next was that of John Pickering, ern lands, so as to be assigned to them. Judge of the District Court of New Hampshire; and the Mr. WOODBURY moved to add thereto the following: third was that of Judge Chase. Upon each of these Provided, That no part of the expense of extinguishing cases, there seemed to have been some anxious considerathe titles, or paying for the improvements of the lands on tion, in order to adopt the course most proper to be purthe removal, or of the first year's residence of the In-sued. Mr. T. would state in what the proceedings in SENATE.] Removals from Office. [APRIL 26, 1830. these cases differed. The case of Mr. Blount being the inform the Senate of the reasons that induced him to refirst of the kind that had ever occurred, presented so move James Carson, Register of the Land Office at Palanomalous a practice that it never could be referred to as myra, in the State of Missouri, was called up. a precedent. The other two were consistent with the Mr. GRUNDY asked for the yeas and nays on its pasgeneral principles of law and justice. From these it sage. seems that it had been settled, that, when the House of Mr. McKINLEY thought, as so much had been said and Representatives informed the Senate that they were about published on the other side of the question, that the resoto present articles of impeachment, a Select Committee lution ought not to pass without a farther examination of was appointed to take the subject into consideration, and the ground it had assumed, and the reasoning by which report what measures were proper to be taken. He would that ground was attempted to be maintained. If no one read, for the information of the Senate, the cases as they else would say any thing on the subject, he would nooccurred. tice it himself. As he understood the question presented in the resolution, it was one of power. It was contended that the President of the United States had no power to "In the Senate of the United States, March 3d, 1803. [remove an officer without the consent of the Senate. If "A message was received from the House of Repre- such a proposition can be maintained, then it appeared to sentatives, by Messrs. Nicholson and Randolph, two of the members of said House, in the words following: [Mr. TAZEWELL then read from the Senate Journal as follows:] him that the Executive power was not confided to the President, but to the Senate. This was not the distribu"Mr. President, we are commanded in the name of the tion of power, as regulated by the constitution of the House of Representatives, and of all the people of the United States. By that instrument, as he understood it, United States, to impeach John Pickering, Judge of the the execution of the laws was reposed in the President. District Court of the district of New Hampshire, of high The duties of the Senate were legislative. The House of crimes and misdemeanors, and to acquaint the Senate that Representatives had as good authority to ask and demand the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit of the President the reasons for performing the duties particular articles of impeachment against him, and make confided to him by the constitution, as the Senate. He good the same. would ask the gentleman who made this proposition, to "On motion, "We are further commanded to demand that the Sen-point to the authority for calling upon the President to ate take order for the appearance of the said John Picker-assign the reasons to remove or nominate. If by the coning, to answer to the said impeachment. stitution he be empowered to see the laws faithfully executed, as he thought it would not be questioned, he could “Ordered, That the message received this day from the not see how the Senate could claim or exercise the same House of Representatives, respecting the impeachment of power. It was an absurdity in terms to suppose that such John Pickering, Judge of a District Court, be referred to coeval powers could exist; yet it was evident that the Messrs. Tracy, Clinton, and Nicholas, to consider and re-ground assumed in the resolution amounted to such a port thereon." claim. If the Executive and Senatorial powers be co In the case of Judge Chase, the articles of impeach-equal, the President has the same right to demand of the ment were presented at the bar of the Senate by Messrs. Senate the reasons why they reject his nomination, that Randolph, Rodney, Nicholson, Early, Nelson, and Geo. the Senate has to call upon him for the causes of removal; W. Campbell, managers on the part of the House of Re- and he might say, that, until such reasons were assigned, presentatives. [Mr. TAZEWELL here read the proceed- he would make no further nominations, and throw the reings, from which it appeared that the Senate had pre-sponsibility on the Senate. He viously decided what forms should be observed in receiv- But it is contended that the President is not responsible ing the articles of impeachment, and that the managers, to any tribunal, but to the Senate; and that, if the Senate on appearing at the bar of the Senate, were prepared are not permitted to check him, there is no power any with and presented the articles.] where else during his term of office to restrain his tyranny; The case of Blount was not exactly similar to either of and that he may remove from office without cause. the cases he had cited. This was in the year 1797. [Mr. would ask, to what tribunal is the Senate amenable for T. then read the proceedings of that case.] The idea their conduct during their term of service? They were both [said Mr. T.] of calling upon an individual to enter into responsible to the same tribunal--the people. It seemed a recognizance to appear at no named time, at no given to him a strange state of things for the Senate to erect place, and to answer to charges the Lord knew what, (for themselves into a tribunal, for such an investigation. The no articles of impeachment had been made out,) was so decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in manifestly contrary to justice, that the Senate itself seem- the case of Marbury and Madison, so far as a decision of ed to have abandoned it, for the accused did not appear, that court could effect the constitutional power of the Exand no further proceedings were had until the next ses-ecutive, had put the whole question for ever to rest. By sion of Congress. Under all the circumstances, Mr. T. that decision, the power of removal was demonstrated to took it for granted that Blount's case would not be con- be exclusively in the discretionary power of the President; sidered as a fit precedent, but that the proceedings in the and if he abused it, he could only be punished by the people. cases of Pickering and Chase would be resorted to; and Mr. KNIGHT said, that when the resolution was first he therefore moved that the message of the House of Re-introduced, he had been at a loss to know what object presentatives be referred to a select committee, to consist of three Senators, to consider and report thereon. Mr. TAZEWELL's motion having been carried, Mr. BENTON asked to be excused from voting on the subject; and the question being taken, Mr. B. was ex cused. The Senate then proceeded to ballot for a committee; and, on counting the ballots, it appeared that Messrs. TAZEWELL, BELL, and WEBSTER were chosen. REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. The resolution proposed some time ago by Mr. BARTON, calling upon the President of the United States to could be attained by its adoption. If any legislative act could grow out of it, there might be some reason for its adoption; but if no legislation could follow, it seemed to him that it would be a perfect act of supererogation. He should be glad to be informed on this point. When the President sent nominations to the Senate, it might be very proper to call upon him for his reasons for the removal of a public officer, and to inquire why the Senate had been asked the second time to sanction an appointment to the same office. Mr. KANE said, the Senate was certainly satisfied that it was unnecessary now to consume time in arguing a question that had so often been decided, and decided, too, by APRIL 27, 28, 1830.] Judge Peck.-Executive Powers of Removal. [SENATE. yeas and nays. The question had been settled; and, with dent to create vacancies and fill them in the recess of the a view of putting an end to useless and unprofitable de- Senate, and to illustrate my remarks by a brief historical bate, he would move to lay the resolution on the table. sketch of the practice of the Government since the adopMr. BARTON requested Mr. KANE to withdraw the motion of the constitution. Notwithstanding the able argution, saying he wished to answer the question of the gen-ments of my friends from Delaware and Missouri [Messrs. tleman from Rhode Island; and Mr. KANE having con- CLAYTON and BARTON] and others who have touched upsented to withdraw the motion, Mr. BARTON addressed on this topic, still the facts, more in detail, are necesthe Senate at some length; and when he had concluded, sary for a full understanding of the subject. The people Mr. KANE renewed the motion to lay the resolution on want more light, and, so far as my feeble taper will rethe table. flect it, they shall have it. This question was decided in the affirmative; yeas 22, nays 15. TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1830. But, sir, I will come directly to the questions raised by the resolutions, and my position is this: That the Presi dent of the United States may, by removals in the recess of the Senate, abuse the power; that he has abused it; and that the Senate, a co-ordinate branch of the ExecuMr. TAZEWELL, from the Select Committee appoint-him; and that, consequently, this is the one which was intive, is the only effectual tribunal to restrain or correct ed on the subject, made the following report, which was tended by the constitution. concurred in by the Senate: JUDGE PECK. Whereas the House of Representatives on the 26th of will make two brief remarks. The first is, that though Before I proceed to the discussion of this proposition, I the present month, by two of their members, Messrs. the constitution has given the appointing power to the BUCHANAN and STORRS, of New York, at the bar of the President and Senate, and to the President alone to fill vaSenate, impeached James H. Peck, Judge of the District cancies which may happen in the recess," it says not Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, one word about the removing power. Now, as there is of high misdemeanors in office, and acquainted the Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due time, ex-infer that it belonged to the appointing power, or that it no provision for this removing power, it would be fair to hibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same; and likewise demanded, that the was to be defined by law. No law has defined it, and it Senate take order for the appearance of the said James might seem to follow that every removal since the adoption of the constitution was illegal and unconstitutional. H. Peck, to answer the said impeachment: Therefore, Resolved, That the Senate will take proper order there- The framers and expounders of this constitution, before it on, of which due notice shall be given to the House of nion that the removing and appointing powers were co-orwas ratified by the States and the people, were of the opiRepresentatives. the right of removal was vested in the President alone. dinate. The practice under it, however, has been, that And the committee further recommended to the Senate, that the Secretary of the Senate be directed to notify the House of Representatives of the foregoing resolution. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1830. THE EXECUTIVE POWERS. Resolved, That the President of the United States, by the removal of officers, (which removal was not required for the faithful execution of the law,) and filling the vacancies thus created in the recess of the Senate, acts against the interest of the people, the rights of the States, and the spirit of the constitution. "Resolved, That it is the right of the Senate to inquire, and the duty of the President to inform them, why, and for what cause or causes, any officer has been removed in the recess. Resolved, That the removals from office by the President since the last session of the Senate, seem, with few exceptions, to be without satisfactory reasons, against the public interest, the rights of the States, and the spirit of the constitution: Wherefore, "Resolved, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to communicate to the Senate the number, names, and offices, of the officers removed by him since the last session of the Senate, with the reasons for each removal." The second remark is, that, except of Judiciary officers, the tenure of office is nowhere defined. The ques tions, therefore, which would naturally arise, are, can Congress define it by law, or is it vested in the discretion of the President and Senate, or the President alone? Is it inferrible that because the constitution has defined the tenure of a certain class of officers, that therefore it has placed all others at the will of the President? It would, in my view, be a far fetched conclusion. But, sir, supposing that the power of removal, in the recess of the Senate, be vested by the constitution in the President, still the question recurs, cannot the Senate correct an abuse of this power? It would seem to me that there was no other adequate corrective. If the power is not here, where else are you to look for it? Sir, it is not merely the loss of office, which has created such individual suffering, and which (as my friend from Missouri remarked) "makes the land pale;" it is not the distresses which I witness around me, that most afflicts me; it is the principle upon which this is attempted to be justified; it is the danger to the public interest, from new and inexperienced officers, to manage our complicated concerns, and, above all, the alarming doctrine of absolute Executive will. These are not only afflicting, but alarming. The States have hitherto looked to the Senate as their chief security. By the constitution, it was established for the very purpose of guarding against the popular branch of the Legislature, on the one hand, and the President, Mr. HOLMES rose and said, that it was, perhaps, for- who, by his election, is chiefly a popular Executive, on tunate for him that the Senator from Illinois [Mr. KANE] the other. It was just as necessary that the Senate should had snatched the resolution of the Senator from Missouri, hold an Executive as a Legislative check. Suppose [Mr. BARTON] out of his hands, and placed it beyond the some great political question should arise: suppose one reach of debate. And, [said Mr. H.] although it was no party should wish to diminish, and even annihilate, the mark of liberality, and, at other periods, would have been powers of the States, and transfer every thing to the Gencalled by a very different name, yet it has given me an op- eral Government; and that, to accomplish the views of the portunity to discuss the question on a more extended popular branch and the popular President, all the nominascale. I have been waiting for this opportunity (not for tions of Judicial and other officers should be made to the the edification of the Senate, but for the instructions of Senate, the guardian of State rights, from this partythe public) to give my views of the power of the Presi- would it then be contended that we could inquire no far In support of these resolutions, VOL. VI.--49 SENATE.] Executive Powers of Removal. [APRIL 28, 1830. ther but into the qualifications of the officer nominated?-- was given, and all was hushed and still as death; the comthat we could not look beyond his talents and integrity?pany separated; an avenue was formed; the trumpet soundImagine, further, that we should be engaged in a disas-ed, and lo! "he comes, the conquering hero comes," trous war, and threatened with entire conquest, and that supported and sustained by the grandees of the empire, there was but one man--one Washington, who, as Com- and conducted up to the throne. He bowed graciously mander-in-Chief of our armies, could probably save us, to the ladies of his court, mounted the steps, and was but the President should nominate another, qualified, to seated on "the throne." be sure, but not pre-eminently so, nor so equal to the crisis as the other; should we then be told we cannot look beyond the qualifications of the candidate? Sir, to test a principle, it is a fair illustration to imagine a crisis, and then apply to it the limited powers of the Senate, which are contended for. Was the Senator from Louisiana present? Was he one of the dignitaries who conducted his majesty up? Sure Iam, no one could better deserve the distinction; but if he was there, and a thought of the scene at New York had happened to cross his mind, what must have been his reflections. Then he was in the heyday of youth; the blood I never expected to witness the time when a majority ran quick, and the pulse beat strong, and hope was ready of the Senate should surrender its powers to the Executo seize on fruition. Now, he had arrived, to say the tive chief, nor even when it should be slow to stand for least, to the meridian of life, when reason assumes the its rights. What, sir, the Senate of the United States, empire of the passions, and all our predictions tend to the the Representatives of twenty-four sovereignties, once the gloomy side. Sir, he must have looked with indignation most august assemblage in the world, once the inflexible at the disgusting scene, and, with downcast eye and heavy guardians of State rights against Federal encroachment, heart, have turned his back, and, with slow and pensive now yielding to the President almost the last vestige of its step, have retired to his home, lamenting sincerely at this Executive power! What patriot, who observes "the dismal and fatal symptom of the destruction of his counsigns of the times," but must deplore this obsequiousness try's liberty. I do not know that there was a Mark Anthony and humiliation of the Senate of the United States? there, who "thrice did offer a kingly crown, which he Sir, I see in this, symptoms of monarchy more strong did thrice refuse." No, that would have been premature. and palpable than those which disturbed the nerves of the Then the Rubicon had not been passed; then the outposts Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. LIVINGSTON.] He has giv- had not been surrendered; then the Senate had not yielded en us a vivid description of the first inauguration of the up all its executive powers, and accorded to the President first President of the United States; and he then imagined an unlimited and boundless discretion. After all this has that he saw, in the extravagant and enthusiastic adulation been done, a crown is a matter of course; it is but a symbol of the man, symptoms of a monarchical tendency. I, too, of the power surrendered; the seal and sign manual of sir, think that extravagant adulation or adoration of men the deed of surrender. should not be encouraged, as it tends to detach our affec- Sir, I would not look upon "the signs of the times" tions from our institutions, and to fix them upon those who with a jaundiced eye; it is not my habit to despond. I contributed most to establish them. A perpetual, habitu- would hope even against hope; but when the Senate gives al praise of an individual has but too often converted the way, where is the ground of hope? Once the American adorers into slaves, and the adored into a tyrant. But I people regarded it as the bulwark of their liberties. It suspect, that, in the case to which he alludes, he was was the rock in the midst of the ocean, defying the storm. (begging his pardon) a little fastidious, if not capricious. The tempest of executive power had burst in vain upon Washington had been too well tried, and was too firm a its brow, and the billows of popular fury had broken patriot, to be seduced by flatteries, adulations, or hosan- harmless at its base; but, alas! they now see, to their unutnas. And besides, sir, was there not an apology, if not a terable disappointment, that it was but a house built upon justification, for this pageantry? We had endured the dis- the sand, and the rains descended, and the winds blew, and tresses of the Revolutionary war; Washington had, to say the floods came, and beat upon that house, and it fell, and the least, been the chief actor in that war, and had con- great was the fall thereof. Aye, great indeed, for it contributed more than any other to its successful termination. tained within it the ark of our liberties; and when the Peace came; but peace found us poor, distracted, and house fell, that ark was crushed to atoms. We, the reunited only by "a rope of sand." Something was neces- presentatives of the States-we, their watchmen upon sary to place us on an equality, and to unite our energies. their walls-we, the guardians of their sovereignty, have A Federal constitution was to be formed; the object was surrendered up all executive discretion to a single Execuaccomplished, and principally by his agency. He was tive Chief, who can create vacancies in offices, supply unanimously elected the first Chief Magistrate, to put the them at his will, and is responsible to no earthly tribunal. machine in motion, and to give the new Government an Sir, it is not altogether sympathy for friends who are impetus, which should secure its successful operation. made the victims of this relentless proscription, which inThe people looked back upon the past; upon the distresses duces me to stand here to defend these resolutions; it is of the struggle, and the consequent anarchy; they looked not merely the injuries and cruelties which we every forward with hopeful prophecy to the future, for an end of where witness, and which, as my friend from Missouri (Mr. their toils, to prosperity, liberty, and happiness, which BARTON] has expressed it, "makes the land pale," which they have since enjoyed in full fruition. Was it then afflicts me most. I know that to see the honest, faithful, strange, that, with such a prospect before them, they aged patriotic republican, persecuted and punished for should have indulged in an extravagance of joy, and opinion's sake, would extract a tear from the eye of the have idolized the man who had done so much, and was most obdurate. Yet I almost forgot their misery and pain destined, as they believed, to do so much more? Yet I in the all absorbing consideration of the interest and liberam against idolizing any man. I have heard of a celebra- ties of my country. It has been roundly asserted on this tion of the last eighth of January, the anniversary of a floor, aye, in the Senate of the United States, (and would single victory. The cases were very different; one had that I could blot this last fact from my remembrance for saved a city after a peace, and the other had conquered a ever,) that the President of the United States may, at his peace, and saved his country. Here, too, was a spacious unlimited and illimitable discretion, remove officers in the palace, a splendid dome. At one end was erected a recess, and appoint others to fill the vacancies, and that throne," and over it was "a canopy," which was sur- it is his right, and even his duty, to conceal his reasons and rounded by the ladies of the palace. This palace was motives. This is his own doctrine: for this power is filled to overflowing with youth, elegance, and beauty; claimed for him by his personal and confidential friends. they were engaged in the mazy dance, when the word It has, moreover, been exercised to an extent unprece |