« AnteriorContinuar »
March 18, 1836. }
constitution, involving as it does perjury to his con their conduct then, gentlemen must now stick to the science, treachery to his trust, danger to the country, charge as then made, and maintain the President to have and evil example to all, becomes an offence of the great been guilty of a high crime. To defend themselves est magnitude, inferior only in turpitude and mischief to from the censure of having violated the constitution, high treason itself. In republics the greatest jealousy subverted justice, and set a dreadful example, it is ne. is felt at assumptions of power beyond the law; and the cessary for them to maintain that he committed no crime more exalted the magistrate, the more eminent the citi. at all, not even the petty nffence and venial misconduct zen, who commits that offence, no matter how strong which will constitute a misdemeanor in office. In this the necessity, or how slight the consequence, the voice dilemma, it is not for me to anticipate what course gen. of offended justice is sure to be heard. Why was Cicero tlemen will take; whether they will retrace their steps, banished from Rome? Not for putting Lentulus and or advance further. It is not for me to decide whether Cethegus to death--for these parricides deserved to die it is a case in which the actors, far steeped in blood, may a thousand deaths—but because, in ordering Roman think it safer to go through than turn back; but, solely citizens to be strangled, the Consul had assumed the occupied with my own course, I proceed to establish exercise of a power not granted to him by the constitu- my position, that ihe President was adjudged guilty of tion and the laws of Rome. What was tlie cause of that an impeachable offence, and that the Senate was unimmortal contest in Athens—that contest for the crown, justifiable for proceeding against him without the forms not of royalty, but of honor and patriotism? Not that of an impeachment. Demosthenes did not deserve to wear it, but that Ctesi The sentence against him is for violating the laws and phon had transcended the law in causing it to be con the constitution. I have said that this offence was great ferred upon him. These were excusable, or venial vio- in a private citizen, still greater in a common magistrate, Jations of law; yet their commission agitated the great and greatest of all in the Chief Magistrate of the counrepublics of antiquity, and their memory, at the end of try. Our own Chief Magistrate is laid under the most two thousand years, and in a new hemisphere, is fresh sacred and solemn responsibilities, to God and his counin the recollection of every reader. But why quote ex try, to abstain from this crime. He takes an oath to do amples? Why go to foreign countries? Why quit our so; and here is a copy of that oath which President own soil, this chamber, and this very case, to prove that Jackson actually took, administered by the late Chief the violation of law is the commission of a great crime' Justice Marshall, in the presence of assembled thouDid not every gentleman, in arguing this very case, sands, and on the steps of that Capitol, and at the base treat it as a crime of the greatest enormity? Did they of that column at which he came so near to pay the not denounce the President's conduct not merely as a dreadful forfeit of a supposed violation of his oath: violation of the laws and the constitution, but an actual “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute overthrow of all Government as the establishment of the office of President of the United States, and will, to one man's will in place of all law and government? as the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend, being in itself a revolution? as an act pregnant with the constitution of the United States." every calamity; filling the country with distress and
Preserve, protect, and defend, the constitution! Such alarm, ruining the currency, sinking the price of prop- is the oath.' "The sentence is, that he violated that conerty, paralyzing industry, stopping factories, bankrupt. stitution, and, by consequence, that he violated that ing merchants and traders, destroying all confidence be- oath. Here, then, is the aggravated charge of perjury tween man and man, and striking the whole country upon his conscience, treachery to his trust, mischief to down from a state of unparalleled prosperity to a state the people, and destruction to that which he was bound of unparalleled misery? Did not every speaker against to preserve, protect, and defend. Can such things be, the President assert all this, and infinitely more, and and not imply crime? that high crime for which not only worse? And did not one hundred and twenty thousand impeachmeni lies under our constitution, but indictment petitioners back their assertions, reiterate their denun- and punishment also at common law? Surely, the point ciation, send it here for our information, and call upon is too plain for argument; and I must be permitted to us to undo what the President had done, as the only repeat that I cannot figure to my imagination any thing means of saving the country from utter ruin? And were so strange and wonderful as tbat gentlemen who pushed not these petitions received with all honor, and their the condemnation of President Jackson with such fury, contents made every speaker's own, by the manner in in 1834, should now deprive themselves of all justificawhich he adopted and commented upon them? Certainly tion for what they then did, by special pleading upon all these things were so; and during the six montlis that the verbality of the accusation which they themselves they were going on, the act of President Jackson, in re drew up, and, pointing to the careful omission of impumoving the deposites, was expressly treated as crime ted bad motive, declare that his intentions were not of the direst import, and of the most calamitous conse impugned; and defend themselves from the consequences quences. Having personally witnessed all these things, of pronouncing him a criminal then, by intrenching and too well remembering them, it is incomprehensible themselves behind his innocency now! Far from it. to me, and my mind will remain incredulous to the ap- The justification of gentlemen for what they did to agiparition until I shall behold it, that any one of the sup tate the country rests upon the conscientiousness of their porters of the proceedings against President Jackso: belief that the President was in reality the lawless and will now take a position in the rear of President Jack- dangerous criminal which they described him to be; son's innocency, and rest the success of their defence and the moment they give up 'thal—the moment they now, upon the overthrow of their attack then. I say admit that innocency of motive, without which crime upon his innocency! for every denial of the criminality cannot exist that moment they condemn themselves, of his conduct is an allegation of bis innocence; and and admit that they were factious agitators, unjust judges, every attempt to sink the charge against him below the and relentless persecutors of an innocent man. Instead degree of a high crime is an admission of the injustice of this, they and I should now act together, both mainof those who then denounced and condemned him; for taining that a high crime was charged upon the Presi, nothing can excuse them for the course they then pur. dent; but as I have not conferred with gentlemen, and sued, and for the alarm and agitation in which they in- do not know upon which horn of this dilemma they prevolved the country, but the reality of their belief in the fer to hang themselves, I must proceed in my own way, high crimes which they then imputed to the President. and make out my case upon its own strength, without Here, then, lies a dilemma.
To justify themselves for reference to their weakness.
(March 18, 1836.
The great position which I take is, that an impeacha | extension of the non-committal policy to the high and ble offence has been charged upon the President, and sacred functions of Senators and judges, and exhibiting that he has been adjudged guilty of that offence, with a gubtle contrivance for condemning the victim without the forms of an impeachment, and without the ben out committing the judges. They show that this is not efits of a trial.
a case for common law avermenis, not a case for set. Suppose gentlemen undertake to arrest me at the ting out with legal verbosity, that the aforesaid Andrew threshold, and say, we did not impugn bis motives, we Jackson, yeoman, not having the fear of God before did not attribute bad intentions, we merely charged the his eyes but being moved and seduced by the instigafact.
tion of the devil, he first dismissed Mr. Duane from the To this I answer:
Treasury; and, aster that, appointed Mr. Taney to the 1. If there was no allegation there was no denial of Treasury; and, after that, he took upon himself the rebad motive; and the charge of the crime implies the sponsibility of removing the deposites; and, finally, he wicked intent.
perfomed a certain lale proceeding in relation to the 2. That the speeches of gentlemen supplied what the public revenue. All this, though eminently pictuform of their charge omitted; and that the imputation resque, and even quite dramatic in a common law inwithheld from the record was proclaimed fiom the dictment, happens to have no place in an impeachment; mouth, and incorporated into every speech.
and I might safely rest my case where it now stands; 3. That the criminal averment, « dangerous to the but I choose to go further, to rise higher, and to place liberties of the people,” was inserted in the first and my cause upon loftier and nobler grounds. I take the retained in the second form of the charge, and only true position, that the impeachment of a magistrate difdropped from the third and last form after having been fers from the indictment of a citizen; and that a magisrepeatedly pointed out, and fully relied on as showing trate may be impeached under our constitution, tried, the criminal and impeachable character of the accusation. convicted, and subjected to every penalty known to an
4. That no legislative use was made of the condemna- impeachment, not only without the allegation of bad lory resolve, after it was passed; that no such use could motives, but without the fact of such intentions, or even then or can now be made of it, because in its nature it the possibility of possessing intentions of any kind, is a criminal accusation, and presents a case, not for either good or bad. And, first, I show what the judglegislation, but for punishment.
ment on impeachment is; and for that purpose refer to 5. That gentlemen in the opposition drew the charge article 1, section 3, of the constitution: themselves, and altered it themselves; and may have “ Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend had a reason, not yet explained, for omitting those im- further than to removal from office, and disqualification putations of criminality in the record which were so to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, profusely and conspicuously used in their speeches. under the United States; but the party convicted shall
6. That even a regular and formal impeachment re nevertheless be liable to indictment, trial, judgment, and quires no allegation of corrupt motive.
punishment, according to law.” 7. That the offence being stated in the article of im. Upon this provision in the constitution I have to repeachment, the conviction will be valid; and the only mark that impeachment lies against nobody but an offisentence known under our constitution will be pro cer; and, in its judgment, is official and not personal. nounced without reference to the quo animo.
It affects the officer, not the man. The object of the 8. That this is not a case of regular impeachment, judgment is preventive, not penal justice. It is not but of irregular condemnation without impeachmeni, punishment for past offences, but prevention of future and a charge on which the House of Representatives misconduct, that is intended. Removal from office and might frame an impeachment in form, and send it to disqualification to hold office is the ultimate penalty us for trial. It is precisely the preliminary resolution, wbich can be inflicted under it. If the offence for the general charge, without specification and technical which the impeachment was made should amount to a averments, which is the incipient step and opening pro crime at common law, or by statute, then a criminal cess to the preferment of an impeachment in form. It trial might ensue, and the punishment provided by law is the initiative to impeachment. So say the books. for that offence might be inflicted. The difference Listen to Jefferson, in his Manual of parliamentary prac. between indictment and impeachment lies in the differtice, drawn up by him for our especial guidance, and ence between preventive and penal justice. The im. printed by ourselves for our convenient snd constant peachment is to prevent the officer from doing further reference. He says: “The general course is to pass a mischief; the indictment is to punish the man for the resolution containing a criminal charge against the sup. mischief he has done. A man can only be punished for posed delinquent, and then to direct some member to crime, and wicked intention is necessary to constitute impeach him by oral accusation at the bar of the House crime; but the officer may be deprived of his office for of Lords." This is the way to begin an impeachment acts not amounting to crime, for want of the corrupt inin the House of Representatives, and this is the precise tention; for these acts may be detrimental to the commanner in which we began it in the Senate. We passed munity, and the welfare of the community may require the resolution as the book directs, and we passed it with that these acts should cease, whether they proceed from the criminal charge in it. We began the impeachment a wicked heart, or a weak head, or even a mistaken regularly, but we began it in the wrong place, and our principle of action. Hence, impeachment lies for the proceedings ended where those of the House of Repre. act, without regard to the criminal intention; and in. sentatives begin; we ended with the adoption of a gene- dictment lies for the crime of which criminal intention ral resolution, containing a criminal charge against the is the essence and the touchstone. From this fair supposed delinquent.
analysis of the impeachment process and judgment, in These brief answers I hold to be sufficient, Mr. Presi- contradistinction to indictment, results the inference dent, to set aside any defence which could be bottomed that criminality of intention is no way essential to the on the omission, accidental or designed, of formal aver. validity of impeachments under the constitution. So ments of bad motives in the sentence pronounced against distinct is the trial by impeachment from that upon in. the President. They show that the impeachable na. dictment for the same offence, that one cannot be plead ture of the charge is not affected by that omission; on in bar of the other, under the clause of the constitution the contrary, the very circumstance of the omission which protects the citizen from iwo prosecutions for may aggravate the conduct of the Senate by showing an the same offence.
Mancu 18, 1836.]
In England, on the contrary, the sentence on convic. criminal intentions. Judge Chase was impeached upon tion under impeachment extends to legal and actual eight articles; five of them charged corrupt and wicked punishment--to punishment in person and in property, intentions, three charged no intentions at all, being for the party may be both fined and imprisoned. On wholly silent on the question of motives, and merely indictments both in England and our America, as every alleging the commission of the acts and the violation body knows, the direct object of the prosecution is of the law. The three articles thus silent on the punishment--punishment in life, limb, person, or prop question of motives were distinct and substantive erty; and preventive justice is only an incident. When. charges in themselves, not variations of the same ever, then, punishment would follow conviction, wheth charge in other articles, but containing new and distinct er on indictment or impeachment--whenever the life or charges; and, therefore, to stand or fall upon their own limb of the party was to be touched--whenever his body merits, without being helped out by a reference to the might be cast into prison, or his property taken by fine same charges in another form, in another part of the proor forleiture--in every such case, the quo animo, the ceedings. They were the articles first, fourth, and fifth. state of mind, the criminal intent, was of the essence of Mr. B. would state them particularly; for if the least the offence, and must be duly averred and fully proved, doubt remained on the mind of any one after seeing the or clearly inferrible from the nature of the act done; but case of Judge Pickering, the tenor of these three arti. in the case of impeachment under the constitution of cles in the impeachment of Judge Chase would entirely the United States, where the sentence could extend no remove and dispel that doubt. The first of these arti. further than merely to prevent the party from using his cles, which is number one in the impeachment, relates power to do further mischief, leaving him subject to a to the trial of Fries at Philadelphia, and charges the future indictment, then the intent of the party, whether judge with three specific instances of misconduct in congood or bad, innocent or wicked, became wholly im. ducting that trial; and concluded them with the allegamaterial, not necessary to be alleged, nor requiring to tion, “that they were dangerous to our liberties," and be proved or inferred, if the allegation should chance to “ in violation of law and justice;" but without the slight. be made. Every averment relative to the intention est reference to the quo animo of the judge, or the state would be surplusage; for the mischief to the public was of mind in which the acts were done. The article is the same, whether a public functionary should violate wholly silent with respect to his intentions. The fourth the law from weakness or wickedness, from fully or article contains four specifications of misconduct, all from design.
charged to have occurred on the trial of Callender, in Mr. B. said that the cases of the Judges Chase and Richmond, Virginia, and alleged them to be “subverPickering were evidences of the truth of his argument; sive of justice" and "disgraceful to the character of a for in one of these there could be no corrupt or wicked judge;"" but they were wholly silent as to the intenintention, for the party was insane, and therefore incapa- tions of the judge, and left the quo animo with which ble, both in law and in fact, of being either corrupt or he did the acts entirely out of the record. The fifth wicked; and in the other of which the mere naked article charged a specific and single violation of law, in violation of law was charged, without the slightest ref ordering the arrest of Callender upon a capias, instead erence to the intentions, or quo animo, of the party. of directing him to be called in upon a summons, but Mr. B. then went into a detailed statement of the im. without imputing any motive or intention whatever, good peachment of these two judges, to sustain the view he or bad, to the judge, for preferring the capias to the had been taking, and to apply historical facts and judi
The only averment is, “that Callender was cial decisions to the legal doctrines which he had laid arrested and committed to close custody contrary to law down. Judge Pickering, a district judge of the United in that case made and provided.” Such were the three States for the State of New Hampshire, was impeached articles which charged violations of law upon Judge for acts of flagrant illegality, and which, in truth, im Chase, without imputing criminal intentions or corrupt plied great wickedness: the articles of impeachment motives to him; and upon which the judge was as fully charged wicked and corrupt intentions; yet it was tried, and made as ample a defence, both upon the law proved that he was incapable, in law and in fact, of and the facts, as he did upon the five other articles which wickedness or corruption; for he was utterly insane, contained the ordinary averments of wicked and corrupt both at the time of committing the acts, and at the time intentions. Neither the learned judge himself, nor any he was tried for them, and could not, and did not, ap. one of his numerous and eminent counsel, made the pear before the Senate to make any defence. His un. least distinction between the articles which charged, and fortunate condition was both proved and admitted, and the articles which did not charge, corrupt intentions. the Senate was moved by counsel to stop the proceed. They went to trial upon the whole alike; put in no deings against him, and to remit or postpone the trial; but murrers, made no motions to quash, reserved no points, the Senate took the clear distinction between a proceed but defended the whole upon the law and the facts of ing which could only go to removal from office and a each separate charge. This, sir, should exterminate disqualification for holding office, and a prosecution doubt and silence cavil. It should put an end to all idea which might involve a criminal punishinent; and they of getting out of the dilemma in which the Senate is proceeded with the trial, heard the evidence, found the placed by intrenching themselves now behind ibe inillegal acts to have been committed, and pronounced nocency of President Jackson's intentions. the sentence which the good of the community required, Mr. 3. continued. Thus far, Mr. President, I have and which the unfortunate judge was a proper subject argued this point upon principles of law and reason, supto receive, that of removal from office. They did not ported by precedents drawn from our own history, and add a sentence of disqualification for holding future i trust have fully established my first proposition, name. offices, for he might recover his understanding, and ly, that the offence charged upon President Jackson again become a useful citizen. The Senate limited was an impeachable offence, and that as a high crime, itself to a sentence which the good of the community though it would be sufficient for my argument that it demanded, and which was applicable to misfortune and charged conduct amounting to misdemeanor only; and, not to criminality, which was suited to the acts of consequently, that the conduct of the Senate, in prothe judge, without regard to the absence of intentions. ceeding against him without the forms of an impeach
The case of Judge Chase was a case of a differentment, was illegal, irregular, unconstitutional, and subkind to prove the same point. It was a case of various versive of the fundamental principles of law and justice. articles; some witb, some without, the averment of | But although my case may be made out, and my propo
(MARCH 18, 1836.
sition established, yet my magazine of argument is not mark, that the severe reprobation which it expresses is exhausted, and I still have in reserve a most potential many ten thousand times more applicable to the Senate argument to be used in this case. It is the argument of of the United States, for its conduct towards President authority, and is drawn from the legislative history of Jackson, than to the Kentucky Legislature for its proone of the States of this Union-the State of entucky; posed conduct towards Judge Innis. In that case the and a brief introductory narrative may be necessary to Kentucky General Assembly was not the tribunal for the develop its origin and to elucidate its application. trial of the federal judge in the event of his impeach
It is a matter of history, Mr. President, that some ment, and their prejudication of his case did not affect forty years ago, a judge of the court of appeals in Ken the bosom of his constitutional triers. In President Jack. tucky had the misfortune to be a pensioner on the son's case his prejudgers were his constitutional judges, Spanish Crown, and held a secret correspondence with and judges who would have a legal right to sit in judg. the Governors General of Louisiana for the separation ment upon bim, notwithstanding their moral disqualifi. of the Western from the Atlantic States. A legislative cation for that duty by their prejudication of his case. inquiry established these facts, and the unhappy judge In Judge Innis's case there was no great national event avoided the stroke of justice by retiring from the judg. connected with his fate;
no change in the ascendancy of ment seat. The same inquiry implicated another judge political parties to be effected; no political prophecies in Kentucky, not of the State courts, but of the federal to be accomplished by the prophets themselves; no great Judiciary; and at a succeeding session of the General moneyed power to be gratified; no barrier to be struck Assembly, a member of that body, Humphrey Marshall, down from between the people and their eternal foe; no Esq., introduced a resolution condemning the conduct obstacle to be removed from before the onward march of that federal judge, and recommending an inquiry to of a political and moneyed confederacy which was ad. be instituted into it by the House of Representatives of vancing to the conquest of the Government, and only the Congress of the United States. This proceeding stopped in its course by the invincible courage and inwas resisted by distinguished members of the Kentucky corruptible integrity of one man. Judge Innis's case Legislature; and another resolution was brought in, ut. was different from all this. It affected no one but himterly reprobating the motion of Mr. Marshall, and severe. self. It was individual and personal; his prejudgers were ly condemning the attempt to procure from a legisla. not his triers; and, whatever wrong might be done him, tive body the expression of an opinion upon the guilt or his country at least was safe, and her free institutions innocence of an officer who was subject to impeachment might survive and flourish; yet, even in this case of mitbefore the Senate of the United States. After several igated wrong and contingent injustice, how keen was day's discussion, says the historian, the following resolu the scent that snuffed the approach of danger in the tion was offered by Mr. Clay.
lainted breeze! How sharp was the eye that detected "Whereas the General Assembly did, at their last the lurking mischief in the remote contingency of a bare session, order transcripts of the evidence taken before possibility! How pointed, how cutting, how strong, and the committee appointed to examine into the conduct of how just, the rebuke that was lavished upon a legislative Benjamin Sebastian to be transmitted to the President body" for setting the example of pronouncing an opinion of the United States and to the Senators and Representa- upon the guilt or innocence of an officer subject to imtives from the State in Congress; and as the present peachment before the Senate of the United States! Assembly has entire confidence in the general adminis. Every word of it is a two-edged sword cutting into the tration, and in the Congress of the United States, among vitals of the Senate, and leaving that deadly wound for whose duties is that of arraigning the public officer, or which there is no healing in the art of surgery. To private citizen, who may have violated the constitution comment upon such a case is impossible; to amplify, is or the laws of the Union; and whereas the legitimate to weaken it; to repeat, is to destroy; yet at how many objects which call for the attention of the Legislature are points must the minds of Senators instinctively halt, themselves sufficiently important to require ihe exercise catch up the cutting phrase, apply it to their own case, of all their wisdom and time, without engaging in pursuit while the small, still voice of conscience whispers, ten of others, thereby consuming the public treasure, and thousand times more applicable to us than to them! the time of the representatives of the people, in investi. Mark a few of these phrases: “The constitutional right gating subjects not strictly within the sphere of their of Congress to arraign the public officer who may have duty; and inasmuch as the expression of an opinion by violated the constitution;" the waste of time and pub. the General Assembly upon the guilt or innocence of lic money in pursuing subjects not within the sphere of Harry Innis, Esq., in relation to certain charges made their duty;" “the injustice of prejudging an impeachagainst him, would be a prejudication of his case-if in able officer;" he stigma upon an innocent man, if unone way, would fix an indelible stigma upon the charac- justly condemned;" " the impediment to justice, if the ter of the judge, without the forms of trial or judicial guilty should be absolved;" 'the flagrant enormity of proceeding, and if the other, might embarrass and pre pronouncing an opinion upon impeachable charges withvent a free and full investigation into those charges; out the forms of trial or judicial proceeding;" the towherefore,
tal impropriety of even indicating an opinion upon the “Resolved by the General Assembly, That it is im. truth or falsehood of the accusation;" che constitutionproper in them to prescribe to Congress any course to al and legal security of each citizen to have a fair and be taken by that body in relation to the said charges, impartial trial, both by impeachment and at common or to indicate any opinion upon their truth or falsehood. law;" “the subversion of the fundamental principles of
“ Resolved, that the constitution and laws of the land, justice, and the dangerous example of a legislative body, securing to every citizen, whether in or out of office, a before the commencement of any prosecution, expressfair and impartial trial, whether by impeachment or at ing an opinion upon the guilt or innocence of an implicommon law, the example of a legislative body, before cated individual.” All these expressions apply directly the commencement of any prosecution, expressing an and with infinitely more force to the case of President opinion upon the guilt or innocence of an implicated Jackson than to that of Judge Innis. The Bank of the individual, would tend to subvert the fundamental prin. United States, through all its organs, had appeared as ciples of justice."
the accuser of President Jackson. It had sat in judgMr. President, I seize, with confidence, and appropri ment upon him for a violation of the laws and the conate without abatement to the present occasion, every stitution in dismissing Mr. Duane and appointing Mr. word that is contained in this resolution, with the re Taney; for taking upon himself the responsibility of re
MARCH 18, 1836.]
moving the deposites, and for his proceedings in relation end, by their votes, to the administration of the “ ty. to the revenue. It had demanded his impeachment, rant” that was destroying their country; the “insane" foretold it, and named the member of the House of Rep. went to the portico of the Capitol to put an end, with resentatives whom it presumed to say would bring it for his pistol, to the life of the same “tyrant.” But thanks ward. The public press in the service of the bank bad to God and to the people! his providence held back been for many months preparing the public mind for the the bullets; their confidence sustained him at the polls, event; and, just at the commencement of the session, and their justice will find the means of expunging from the bank itself, in its own person, and in the most im our journals that unjustifiable sentence which should posing form, stepped from behind the curtain, and appear never have been put upon it. ed upon the stage as the responsible accuser. It caused Sooner or later, expunged it will be. At this session, a manifesto of some fifty pages to be drawn up by a com if the voice of the people is obeyed; after the next genmittee of its directors; adopted by a vote of the board; eral election, if it is not done now. There is no room ordered 5,000 copies to be printed; a copy to be laid for mistake. Two years' past history, and the issue of upon the table of every member of Congress, and the the elections, had developed the will of the people. rest distributed all over the Union. It was that famous Far from believing in the truth and justice of the sen. manifesto, from which I have read some passages, in tence pronounced by the Senate, and returning a House which the President of the United States was compared of Representatives to impeach the President in form, to counterfeiters, and the first place in the comparison they have gone on increasing in their confidence and assigned to him. The Senate and the country would affection, returning larger and larger majorities in his remember that manifesto. It was the authentic act of favor; and in primary meetings, legislative resolves, the bank, and contained the identical charge against the and a thousand different modes, have testified their will President which was immediately afterwards brought that this unjust sentence should be expunged from the into the Senate—and, what is more, it contained every journal. The will of the great majority of the people argument which was used in the Senate in support of of these States is known; it is in favor of expurgation. the condemnatory resolution. The President, then, the famous Mr. Fox voted in favor of expunging the was an implicated and accused individual at the com record of Wilkes's expulsion from the journals of the mencement of the session of 1833–'34. He was accused House of Commons, against his own opinion, and against by the bank; and, being thus accused, the Senate took his previous votes, and in professed obedience to the cognizance of the charge without the intervention of the will of the people. His example is worthy of imitation; House of Representatives, debated it for a hundred and I trust (said Mr. B.) that the expressed will of the days, and adopted it. The resolution brought into the people will be obeyed in this case. For or against the General Assembly of Kentucky, in the case of Mr. In- expunging, I trust it will be obeyed; and that the nis, strong as they are, are yet described by the histori- voices of the State Legislatures will be equally respectan,* from whom I have read them, as being "temperate ed, work which way they may; and just, and respectful to the sacred rights of every pri
Mr. B. concluded what he had to say upon this part vate citizen to enjoy an impartial trial without the de- of the case with expressing his deep regret that the nunciation of influential men in office.” I concur in this General Assembly of Kentucky, in 1834, should have sentiment, Mr. President, and so did the General Assem. so sadly and lamentably forgotten their own example of bly of Kentucky concur with the mover of the resolution 1807. In 1807, as has been shown, they deprived the which I have read; for, although that resolution was not resolutions of Mr. Marshall of their criminating characadopted, yet it had the effect of changing the resolutions ter before they would adopt them; in 1834, and in the of Mr. Marshall
, and to deprive them entirely of their month of February of that year, while the proceeding criminating character.
against President Jackson was in full blast, it adopted Such were the sentiments entertained in Kentucky, resolutions against him of the most violent character, such the jealous and sensitive delicacy of the feeling upon the very points in discussion, and ordered them to against the prejudication of an impeachable officer; and
be transmitted to their whole delegation in Congress. all this generous feeling, watchful jealousy, and cutting the following is a copy of these resolutions: rebuke, was called forih in a case of most remote and “ Resolved, that the President of the United States, contingent mischief, where the prejudgers were not the by causing to be withdrawn the public money from the triers, and where the prejudication could have but a place of safe deposite, where it had been made by law, most indirect operation upon the minds of the actual and placing it in local banks under his control, of the judges. If just there and then, how much more so now solvency of which the people at large know nothing, and here! When the Senate of the United States, and into whose affairs their representatives have no right upon charges put forth by the Bank of the United to examine, has violated the laws and constitution of the States, sits in judgment upon the President of the Uni United States; that he has assumed a responsibility' ted States, condemns him unheard, fixes a stigma on his dangerous to liberty, and which tends to the concentraname, rouses one hundred and twenty thousand people tion of all power in the hands of the Chief Magistrate to petition against bim-more than ever appeared at the
of the United States." bar of the national convention against Louis the XVI “ Resolved, That, by the frequent exercise of the veto gives an audacious institution a triumph over him, and power, and that still more arbitrary and dangerous one subjects his life to imminent deadly peril. Yes, sir, of withholding bills passed by both Houses of Congress, puts life itself in danger; for it is inconiestable that the thereby preventing the opportunity of a reconsideration denunciations of the Senate had the effect of putting | by that body in the mode prescribed in the constitution, the pistol in the hands of the assassin. Yes, sir, these the President has, to a great extent, crippled and paradenunciations! for while rational, intelligent, and in- lyzed the legislative department of our Government, formed people saw the injustice of the charge against and, in some instances, has prevented the exercise by the President, and the folly of believing that the remo. Congress of their essential constitutional rights.” val of the deposites had made the distress; yet, with the “ Resolved, That the Clerk of this House transmit to ignorant, the uninformed, and the insane, it was quite each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, different. They believed it all, and acted according to copies of the foregoing resolutions." their belief. The ignorant went to the polls to put an 11. Having shown, Mr. President, that the proceed
ing against President Jackson was illegal and unconsti*Mann Butler, Esq.-Note by Mr. B.
tutional, I take up my second proposition, which affirms