CHAPTER V.

SPEECH ON THE PROPOSED EXPULSION OF MR. BRIGHT, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JAN. 31, 1862.

THE Senate having under consideration the following resolution, submitted by Mr. Wilkinson on the 16th of December, 1861, and which had been reported upon adversely by the Committee on the Judiciary:

"Whereas, Hon. Jesse D. Bright, heretofore, on the 1st day of March, 1861, wrote a letter, of which the following is a copy:

"MY DEAR SIR: Allow me to introduce to your acquaintance my friend, Thomas B. Lincoln, of Texas. He visits your capital mainly to dispose of what he regards a great improvement in firearms. I recommend him to your favorable consideration as a gentleman of the first respectability, and reliable in every respect.

'Very truly yours,

"To His Excellency JEFFERSON DAVIS,

JESSE D. BRIGHT.

"President of the Confederation of States.'

And whereas we believe the said letter is evidence of disloyalty to the United States, and is calculated to give aid and comfort to the public enemies; therefore,

“Be it resolved, That the said Jesse D. Bright is expelled from his seat in the Senate of the United States."

Mr. Johnson said :

"Mr. President, when this resolution for the expulsion of the senator from Indiana was first presented to the consideration of the Senate, it was not my intention to say a single word upon it. Presuming that action would be had upon it at a very early day, I intended to content myself with casting a silent vote. But the question has assumed such a shape that, occupying the position I do, I cannot consent to record my vote without giving some of the reasons that influence my action.

"I am no enemy of the senator from Indiana. I have no personally unkind feelings towards him. I never had any, and have none now. So far as my action on this case is concerned, it will be controlled absolutely and exclusively by public considerations, and with no reference to partisan or personal feeling. I know that since the discussion commenced, an intimation has been thrown out, which I was pained to hear, that there was a disposition on the part of some to hound down the senator from Indiana. Sir, I know that I have no disposition to 'hound' any man. I would to God that I could think it otherwise than necessary for me to say a single word upon this question, or even to cast a vote upon it. So far as I know,

there has never been any unkind feeling between the senator and myself from the time we made our advent into public life down to this moment. Although party and party associations and party considerations influence all of us more or less-and I do not pretend to be free from the influence of party more than othersI know, if I know myself, that no such considerations influence me now. Not many years ago there was a contest before the Senate as to his admission as a senator from the State of Indiana; we all remember the struggle that took place. I will not say that the other side of the House were influenced by party considerations when the vote upon that question of admission took place; but if my memory serves me correctly, there was upon one side of the chamber a nearly strict party vote that he was not entitled to his seat, while on the other side his right was sustained entirely by a party vote. I was one of those who voted for the senator's admission to a seat upon this floor under the circumstances. I voted to let him into the Senate, and I am constrained to say that, before his term has expired, I am compelled to vote to expel him from it. In saying this, I repeat that if I know myself, and I think I do as well as ordinary men know themselves, I cast this vote upon public considerations entirely, and not from party or personal feeling.

“Mr. President, I hold that under the Constitution of the United States we clearly have the power to expel a member, and that, too, without our assuming the character of a judicial body. It is not necessary to have articles of impeachment preferred by the other House; it is not necessary to organize ourselves into a court for the purpose of trial; but the principle is

broad and clear, inherent in the very organization of the body itself, that we have the power and the right to expel any member from the Senate whenever we deem that the public interests are unsafe in his hands, and that he is unfit to be a member of the body. We all know, and the country understands, that provision of the Constitution which confers this power upon the Senate. Judge Story, in commenting upon the case of John Smith, in connection with the provision of the Constitution to which I have referred, used the following language:

"The precise ground of the failure of the motion does not appear; but it may be gathered, from the arguments of his counsel, that it did not turn upon any doubt that the power of the Senate extended to cases of misdemeanor not done in the presence or view of the body; but most probably it was decided upon some doubt as to the facts. It may be thought difficult to draw a clear line of distinction between the right to inflict the punishment of expulsion and any other punishment upon a member, founded on the time, place, or nature of the offence. The power to expel a member is not, in the British House of Commons, confined to offences committed by the party as a member, or during the session of Parliament; but it extends to all cases where the offence is such as, in the judgment of the House, unfits him for parliamentary duties."*

"The rule in the House of Commons was undoubtedly in the view of the framers of our Constitution ; and the question is, has the member unfitted himself,

* Story's Commentaries on the Constitution.

has he disqualified himself, in view of the extraordinary condition of the country, from discharging the duties of a senator? Looking at his connection with the executive; looking at the condition, and probably the destinies of the country, we are to decide-without prejudice, without passion, without excitement-can the nation, and does the nation, have confidence in committing its destinies to the senator from Indiana, and others who are situated like him?

'If we were disposed to bring to our aid, and were willing to rely upon the public judgment, what should we find? When you pass through the country, the common inquiry is, 'Why has not Senator Bright, and why have not others like him, been expelled from the Senate?' I have had the question asked me again and again. I do not intend, though, to predicate my action as a senator upon what may be simply rumor and popular clamor or popular indignation; but still it is not often the case that when there is a public judgment formed in reference to any great question before the country, that public judgment is not well founded, though it is true there are sometimes exceptions.

"Having shown our power in the premises to be clear, according to the general authority granted by the Constitution, and the broad principle stated by Judge Story in its elucidation, I next turn my attention to the case itself. The senator from Indiana is charged with having written a letter, on the 1st of March last, to the chief of the rebellion, and this is the basis of this proceeding against him. What was the condition of the country at the time that letter was written? Did war then exist, or not? for really