0^ .-!.4J'% 9. ."Jy*^ . 
 
 «> 
 
 "-^^0^ 
 
 •4 A 
 
 
 ... - . A 
 
 ^^^r 
 
 
A" 
 .O^ « « « 
 
 '^ .'k 
 
 ^' > 
 
 ■ay o 
 
 <> O 'o . » - A, 
 
 
 > 
 
 ^ *. 
 
 o 
 
 .0- 
 
 ,-$. 
 
 
 x^^"-^ 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 IVES, OF VIRGINIA^ 
 
 IN 3UPP0RT OF MR. BENTON'S 
 
 £'K]PUJ%'^IJVG .RBSOIjWTI&A''^, 
 
 IN SENATE, MARCH 23, 183o. 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 3"'- AIR i. RIVES, PRINTERS 
 
 183(i. 
 

SPEECH. 
 
 On Mr. Benton^s Expunglnsc licsolulions . 
 Ih Sesatc, March 28, 1836. 
 
 Mr. CLAYTON moved that the resolutions of 
 the Senator from Miasouri should be taken up, 
 in oi\ler that the discussion tipon them might pro- 
 ceed. The motion being adopted, 
 
 Mr. RIVES then rose, and addressed the Sen- 
 ate, in substance, as follows: 
 
 If no other gentleman, Mr. President, be dis- 
 posed to do so, I will avail myself of the oppor- 
 tunity KflTorded by the motion o tiie Senator 
 from Delaware, to trouble the Senate with some 
 remarks on the subject now under consideration. 
 In doin.^ so, I do not propose, at this time, to po 
 into the wide field of diversified and interesting' 
 matter opened for discussion by the resolutions of 
 the Senator from Missmiri. My purpose will be 
 to confine myself, at present, strictly to the con- 
 stitutional question which has been raised hs to 
 the power of this body to expunge from its jour- 
 nal an entry heretofore made upan it, trusting to 
 the indulgence of the Senate, in a future stage of 
 the discussion, to he permitted to present my 
 views of the other highly important questions in- 
 volved in the general subject. I propose thus to 
 limit my remniks for the present, bec.iuse the 
 constitutional que.stion is naturally and properly 
 preliminary to all the rest, standing first in the order 
 of discussion, as well as first in importance; for 
 however justly obnoxious I deem the resolution 
 of March, 1834, to the various exceptions which 
 have been taken to it, it certainly ought not to be 
 expunged, unless under the constitution we have 
 the rightful .Tuthoriiy to do so It seems proper 
 to confine my remarks, for the present, to this 
 single view ot the subject, for the further re ivon 
 that, as yet, this able and lucid arguments of the 
 Senator from Missouri on the other branches of 
 the discussion, have remained without any an- 
 swer, or even an attempt to answer them. 
 
 A free people, Mr. President, and especially 
 the enlightened people of tliis country, are na- 
 turally and wisely jealous of the observance of 
 their fundamental law, and acutely sensible to 
 any violation, actual or msditated, of its pro- 
 visions. Hence it is that, in the warfare »f 
 parties, appeals are so frequently made to this pa- 
 triotic instinct in the public mind, and alarms, of- 
 ten groundless and artificial, attempted to be raised 
 in regard to the security of the constitution. 
 
 Hence it was, 1 presume, that in the memorable 
 contest of which this chamber was the theatre two 
 years ago, the Presidei.t was denounced as an 
 usurper of un.:,''rantcd power, as a violator of the 
 Gonstit'ition and the laws of his country; when if 
 all that wjs alleged by his adversaries could be 
 su>*tained, it woidd have niide but a case of the 
 misapplication or abuse of power granted both ^-^y 
 the constitution and the hws. Hence it is, too,f 
 suppose, tiuit on the piesent occasion a ii'iu pania 
 is attempted to he raised by huldmg up tiie imae:e 
 of mniilated records and a violated coiistiiuUon, 
 and that the exercise of a lawful discretionary 
 power over their own iournah und isroceedings, 
 which has been known and admitted since the 
 origin of legislative bodies, and is familiar in par- 
 liamentary practice, wherever such bodies exist, is 
 repi-esented as something monstrous, miquitous, 
 antl even feloni'ius. If gentlenien expect, thus, 
 by the use of strong languaire, bold assertion, and 
 vehement denunciation, to ctirry the public judg- 
 ment by storm, V.'.ey will, in ray humble opinion, 
 find tliemselves wofully deceived. 'Die public 
 mind ;s, at this moment, calm, self-b\lavicr'd, scri*- 
 tiniz'mg, inquisitive, and mstead of mere asser- 
 tion ami VHijue denunciation, it will require reason, 
 argument, proof. 
 
 It is In this fspirit, Mr. President, that I shaH 
 proceed to the examinut on of the objection which 
 has been made to the proposition under conside- 
 ration, on the gronnd that it demands an .ict to be 
 done which is for!.idden by the constitution. 
 What, sir, is the argument of g "ntlemen on this 
 subject, so far as argument has been attempted ? 
 It is, that as the constitution requires that "each 
 House shall keep a journal wf its proceedings," 
 <n entry once made upon llmt journal cnn never 
 thereafter be, in any manner, tmiched, altered, or 
 removed — tiiat if we do so, we fail, from that mo- 
 m'='nt, in the language of the constitution, to "keep 
 ajnirnal of our proceedings." The connexion 
 between the premises and the conclu'^ion in this 
 reasoning, is, I must confess, Mr. President, to my 
 mind incomp ehensible. If this body shall, by a for- 
 mal resolution entered on its journal, direct a pre- 
 vious entry ,improvidcntly,wrongfully,or erroneousf- 
 ly made, to be corrected or removed, does it follow 
 from thence that we do not still keep a journ'tl? On 
 the contrary, this very proceeding, in be4ng enter- 
 ed on the journal, and embodying the w lole liis 
 tory of the transaction, is itecif a fulfilment of tbe 
 
4 
 
 constitutional irj unction in its trne and well un- 
 derstood sense — that of writing down, from day to 
 day, our duily transactions ;is they transpire. 
 
 But It is f.ot ray intention, Mr. President, to dis- 
 ctit'S this question on the niceties of verbal criti- 
 cism. 1 ciionse rather to take it up on broad 
 viev.tj of the common sei-.se, and practical mean- 
 inp- and op<" ration of the constitution. Whilethe 
 cons'.itution requires that each Ht-use shall keep a 
 jonnial of its prooeeciirigs it doe? not direct how 
 that journal is to be kept. The oiauner of keep- 
 ing it, whm is to be put upon i1, what not, the na- 
 ture, the form, the fuliiiess of the entries, are all 
 matters left for the regulation and control of the 
 body whose dulv it is to keep the journal. In 
 tbei^e re; pec's, there is great diversity of usae;-e 
 among' Itgi-lative bodies. By some the entire bill 
 presented for its action, is spi'ead on the journal, 
 Bs was done during' the two Hrst Congresses under 
 the present constitution by this hodv . l?y others, 
 the title of tlie bill only is entered on the jour- 
 nal, t^ is now the practice both of this House 
 and the other branch of Cong:ress. By 
 
 doubtless may be committed. But the possibU/'tt/ 
 of abuse is no argument ag.dnst the existence of a 
 powar. Congress has, by express and unequivo- ' 
 cal grant in tht^ constituijon, power " to lay and 
 collect taxes," he. and *'to raise and support nr- 
 mies." [n the exercise of these powers. Congress 
 mififht raise, even in time of profound peace, an 
 army of half a m Ihon of men, and levy upon the 
 people anntially two or three hundred millions of 
 dollars for their support, converting one iialf of 
 liie nation into soldiers, and the other half into 
 paupers. There could be no grosser abuse; and 
 yet the constitutional y>owcr would still be indispu- 
 table. AVhere it has been deemed necessary and 
 proper, for the public good, to vest any particu- 
 lar power in the Governrnent, or a department of 
 it, the constitution grants the power, and provides 
 securities against its abuse in the structure and or- 
 ganization of tlie Govei'nment itself. |'l he periodi- 
 cal election of the public functionaries by the peo- 
 ple, and for the most part for short terns, their re- 
 sponsibility to their constituents, and the constant 
 nfiuence and control of public opinion, are relied 
 
 some, the reports of committees are entere<l upon in our system as conferring every reasonable 
 in lull on the journal, as was done by the j security against the gross abuse of necessary pow- 
 oUl Congress undrrthe articles of confederation, | ers. 
 
 and Vs still practised, I believe, by tlie Legislature i The large dissretionary po'wer which the con- 
 of Virt^inia. By others, the resolutions only, re- [ stitution has left to either House of Congress over 
 ported by committees, arc admitted to a place on I its journals, is strikingly exemplified in the pro- 
 the journal. According to the rules and practice i vision respecting their publication 
 
 of some hgislalive bodies, as, for example, of this, 
 «)roceedings in committee of the whole are entered 
 on tlie journal; while in others, as in the House of 
 RfcTjreseiita'ives, no notice whatever appears on 
 the journal of what has been done in committee of 
 flie whole. 1 might mention, also, as illustrating 
 tie discretloniry powers which evety legislative 
 bodv possesses ovrr its joti.rnal,tneapparentlyano- 
 inalous practice, founded, however, on long usage, 
 of both th s House and the other, to enter on their 
 respective journals the messages of the President, 
 tliougii not forminfT a part of their own "proceed- 
 incs," of whicli only they are required to keep a 
 journal. 
 
 Itrosiiltsfrom thf se considerations that, although 
 each House of Congress is bound to keep a jour- 
 nal of its proceedings, yet that journal, as to the 
 inannerof keeping it, tiie natvire and character of 
 its contents, what is to be upon it, what not, is ne- 
 cesi^arily sul-jcctcd to the control of the body whose 
 dutv it is to keep it. This control is an inseparable 
 i)ai't of that srlfiriiverninix power, in aU matters of 
 interior economy and parliamontary regime, which 
 the eHHi>titut(m expiessly delegates to either 
 kr.inch of the legislative department. Each House, 
 bv the constitution, is " t-o choo-^ft its own Speaker 
 or Preside'- 1, and other officers." — •* Kmh Houae, 
 tihf), shall be the judge of the elections, returns, 
 »nd iju'alifications of its own mcn.bers " — '^ Each 
 Uoust: mar <ktermine tlie rulr^ of its proceedings, 
 punish its'members tor disordt rly behavior, .ind 
 with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a mem 
 
 Each House 
 is required by the constitution to publish its jour- 
 nal i'vomtlmeto time, excepting such parts as may, 
 in their juda^mcnt, lequire secresy. Now, under 
 the terms of this provision, either House ot Con- 
 gress, if disposed to abuse the trust reposed in 
 them, might suppress and withhold from the 
 knowledge of the people the m.-st important part, 
 if not the whole of their proceediuiis, under the 
 plea that they were such as, in their judgment, re- 
 quired secresy. 
 
 Tn the jealous apprehensions which were enter- 
 tained at the time of the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, of the encroachments and abuses of the 
 new Government, ttiis objection was strongly 
 urged ag»inst the cl.iuse in question; buit it was 
 replied, and with success, that every legislative 
 body must have thepower of concealing important 
 transactions, the publication of which might com- 
 promise the public interests; and as it was impos- 
 sible to foresee and enumerate all the cases in 
 which such concealment might be necessary, they 
 should be left to the sound discretion of the body 
 itself, subject to the constitutional responsibility 
 of members and the otlicr securities provided by 
 the constitution agiinst the abuse of power. 
 These securities have hitherto been found suffi- 
 cient, and, in point of fact, the journals of both 
 Houses have been published from day to day, with 
 such special and limited exceptio.is as have been 
 universally approved by the public judgment. 
 
 This publication, when made, is the practica 
 fulfilment and consummation of the design of the 
 
 |>er."—"Ha'di House snail keep a j nirnal of its pro-j constitution in requiring a journal to be kept, by 
 cecdinf,s, and, from time to time, publish the same, either House, of its proceedings. It is agreed on 
 exeep'iiig -iich parts as may, in their judgment, | all hands, that the great object for which a jour- 
 rtqiiire secrecy." I n regard to al! these powers and I nal is required to be kept, is to give authentic in- 
 huictioH'f, a very l^rge discretion is necessarily left| formation to our constituents of our proceedings 
 (t) either House, in the exercise of which abuses i and that information is to be given, as the consti; 
 
tution providis, by means of a publication, from 
 time to time, of the journal itself. Tlie requisition 
 to Ae^j) a journal, on wliicli gentlemen have laid so 
 niucli strt-s.-i, is therefore merely inlrodu:to)'y, or 
 what the lawyers call matter ot inducement only, 
 to that which forms the life and substance of the 
 jjrovision, to wit: the pub/icalion, from time to 
 time, of the journal. The whole structure and sc- 
 {jiience of tlie sentcr;ce sustains tliis interpretation. 
 " Each House shall keep a journal of its proceed- 
 ings, and, from time to tinie, publish tlie same" 
 It is evident thit the whole practical virtue and ef 
 feet of the provision is in the latter member of 
 the sentence, and that the former would have 
 been implied and conip-ehendi-d in it, though iu)t 
 e.^pressed- It will be seen, that the correspond- 
 ing provisi(m in the articles of confederation was 
 founded explicitly on this idea; for, presupposing 
 the keeping of a joiu'ital as a matter of cour^^e, it 
 proceeded at once to require tiiat "Congre.ss shall 
 publish (he journal of their proceedings montli'y, 
 excepting ^uch parts thereof re!ati;ig to treaties, 
 alliances, or military operations, as, in their judg- 
 ment, require secrecy." 
 
 Nothing was said of /re^/jiVi^r a j'>urnal, that be- 
 ing presupposed, atid necessarily implied; but can 
 any one doubt, tliongh the articles of confed' ra- 
 tion were silent as to keeping a journal, tiiat Con- 
 gress was as much bound to keep a journal of 
 their prHceedings umler that instrument, as each 
 H>>use is now bound to do under the existing con- 
 stiiu'ioni' How coidd they make the required 
 monthly publication oftheirjouriial,u!deS9 a journal 
 were kept by themi* The requisition, therefore, in 
 the present constitution to keep a journal, is but 
 an expressio ), for the sake of greater fullness, of 
 whitt would otherwise have been impl ed, and 
 serves only as a more formal introduction to the 
 practical end and substance of the constitutional 
 provision on the si;bject, and that with which it 
 emphatically concludes, to wit: the publicadnn 
 from time to time of the journ..!. That publ ica- 
 tioii once made, and the people put in pos'^ession 
 of the authentic evidence of the proceedings ol 
 their agents, the purposes of the cons'itution are 
 fulHlled, and the jireservation of the original 
 nianucr'pt journal become thenceforward an offi- 
 cial form.iliiy.* 
 
 Even if the true and only meaning of the 
 requisiiiim to fe:eju a journal were that which has 
 
 *It is a remarkable fact, that there i-; no original 
 mmuscript journal oft he House of Representa'ives 
 ii\ existence from the da'e of the adoption of the 
 constitution to the lirst session of the I8tli Congress, 
 1823, '24. As soon as the jouruLd was printed 
 anfl published, it ws supposed there was no longer 
 any practical motive for retaining the original man- 
 user. pt journal, which wa«, therefoie, never taken 
 care of, or preserved. Such was the practice du- 
 ring the whole pe-iod of tlie clerksliip ol'tl^eccle 
 brat'd John Beckley, thin whom there never was 
 a more accomplished clerk, and but few abler 
 men; and i;' there hn i)ropriety in the maxim, 
 cuilibet in sua nrtt creilendum es/, such a practical 
 cottstruction of the constitution, in this regard, by 
 a man so conversant with his business, must be 
 admitted to be entitled to no slight consideration. 
 
 been so much Insisted on, that is, to preserve, do 
 not gentleman perceive that the preservation of 
 the jourii:d is fully and most siirely accomplished 
 in its publication'' The thousand and teti copies 
 which the Secretary has twld us are regularly 
 printed and distributed by order of the Senate to 
 the members of C<ingress, to the various public 
 functionaries, to tlie 5>tai(j Governments, to public 
 in.stitutions and societies throughout the Union, 
 fm-nish a far better security for the preser^'alior* 
 of the journal thMU tlie most scrupnlous care and 
 vestal guardianship of the original manuscript^ 
 which, ia s[)ite of every j^reraution, might yet be 
 lost or destroyed by inevitable accident. These 
 iHidtiplied printed copies, while plicing tlie pre- 
 servfitiou of the journal beyond the reacU of coiv- 
 tingency, are, at the s.«me time, for every practical 
 public use, whether of legal evidence or politic:il 
 accountability, on a footing of equal validity witU 
 the manuscript original. 
 
 The numerou'-i parliamentary prcced-nts in 
 England, as to the power '>f legislative bodies 
 over their journals', are not denied; but it is coi»- 
 tended that those precedents sUould have no 
 weigiit heie, beciuse the constitution of the 
 United States expressly reejuires that each House 
 of Congress sha 1 keep a journal; while, in Eug^- 
 l.-ind, it is said, no sucli recjuisition exists in regard 
 to eilhur House of Parliainent. The requisition 
 m the constitution of the United States, I h.'ive 
 already shown, is but declaratory of the natural 
 and jire-existing law of ait legisliitive bodie^Jof 
 whose organizati III and functions it is a necessary 
 and invariable incident to keep a journal of their 
 jn'oceedtngs; and in this view I am borne out not 
 only by the example of th'-- articles of confed' ra- 
 tio;), but by that of several of the State constitu- 
 tions, which, presupposing the keeping of a jour- 
 nal as a matter of course, provide only, aftt-r 
 the m-itnier of the articles of coiifederalion, for 
 the periodical puhlicatiun of it frcnn tirne to time. 
 But, without dwelling firtber on thi.-J view of the 
 inattrr, it is alc< gether a mistake to say that there 
 is no positive requisition th it either House of Par- 
 liament in England shall keep a journal of their 
 proceedings. 1 find the cla'^sic hisioiian of tliat 
 country stating that, in 1607, when the na:<cent 
 pretensions of the Stuarls, and the spirit of the 
 age, fust made the House of Commons sensible 
 both of its importance and responsibility as a 
 guardian of the pubhc libeny, that body entered 
 a formal order for " the regular kcepini; of their 
 jiiurnals." Subi-'quently, iu 1621, as I learn from 
 another authority not less authentic, (Hatsell,) 
 an entry was made in the journnl of the House of 
 Commons, Oil the motion of Sir Edward Sackville, 
 ill the^e words: " Tnat all our proceedings may be 
 entered here, and kept as records. " Now, sir, it ia 
 very remarkable that these two orders of the House 
 of Commons contain the identical language of the 
 constitution of the United States, to wit: that a 
 journal shall be kept of their procted-naa. In 
 each of them, the magic word to keep, which seems 
 to have exerted so potent a spell on the imagina- 
 tions of gentlemen, is found; and yet we know 
 it has never been held to be a violation ot, or in- 
 con.sistent,witb this order to Ae^jo a journal of their 
 proceedings for the House of Commons, in certain 
 
cases, t!) apply an efTtctual correc;ive to wrorg-- 
 fiil or inipriivideut entries previouslv made in it. 
 It ma> be said, however, that thi'i Order, being- 
 made by the body itst-lf, is lot obl'palory on its 
 own action. To this,! reply, thnt the rules pre- 
 scribeii by parliamentary bodies for their Govern- 
 ment, are always binding- upon tliem. till rescinded 
 or repealed; and while a nil- or order is retained, 
 nothing- inconustent with it can be done.un'ess the 
 rule be first suspended by a vote of the body. 
 Such is ihe invariable practice, both of this 
 and the other House of Congress, hs of Itgisla- 
 tive bodies elsewhere. 
 
 But this mutter stands on yet higher ground. 
 An act of Parliament, which all vvil! udinit u 
 binding- on the respective Houses, and wliich 
 neither House can rept-ai or control by its sepiirate 
 action, virtually requires a journal to be kept by 
 the House of Consmons, in requiring certain en- 
 tries to be made in it. I refer to the statute of 6 
 Henry VIII, which provides, "that the license 
 for members departing- from their service, shall 
 lie entered of record in the book of the cleric of 
 the Pari ament, appointed, or to be appointed for 
 the Commons' House." The book of the clerk 
 for the Common.s' House, here referred to, and 
 in which certa;n thiiig-s are requiied to be entered 
 of record, is of course the journal of the House, 
 P.ut how can these entries b - made in the ionrnal, 
 unless a journal be kept. This act of Parliament, 
 therefore, requires, and viriudly commands the 
 keepmx of a journal by the House of t;ommons; 
 just as the articles of confederation, already refer- 
 red to, in providing- that Cong-ress "slmilpiil-Jivh 
 
 the question in that discussion, had referred to the 
 Engiish laws and doctrines, on the subject of the 
 light of petition, and that he made use of the par- 
 liamentary ])recedents from H:ttsell, to show that, 
 in the British parliamentary practice, it was held 
 HO violation of the right of petition, to refuse to re- 
 ceive a petition. 
 
 Mr. Rives Slid he had not had the pleasure of hear- 
 ing the speech oft he gentleman from South Carolina, 
 but he inferred from reading" it, that he consi lered 
 the parliamentary practice of Great Britain as, at 
 least, hii,'h authority in reference to the question 
 then under discussion. I am not at all disposed, said 
 Mr. Ji., to question the propriiety of the applica- 
 tion then made by the Senator from South Caro- 
 lina, of precedents from the Eng-lish parliamenary 
 practice. I mean only to say, that however appli- 
 cable they may have been on that occasion, they 
 are, at least, as much so on the present. 
 
 The precedents in the Britisli parliamentary 
 practice, (which, it must be admitted, has furnish- 
 ed the model, and, to a great extent, the law of 
 the procpfdinfijs of our legislative bodies here, and 
 in every State of the Union,) are, on the subject 
 now under consideration, full, unequivocal, and 
 conclusive. Som^i of them have been mentioned on 
 this floor, anil are familiar to the minds of gen- 
 t'emen. I wid not repeat them; but there are 
 two cases, which, I believe, have not attracted the 
 notice of gentlemen, and which, from the peculiar 
 g-roundson which they stand, illustrate so forcibly 
 tha hig-h supervisory and controlling pov/er of 
 parliamentary bodi' s over their journals, that I will 
 take the liberty of detaining- the Senate a few mo- 
 
 the journal of its proceedings monthly," vu-tually I menis with their recital. fn'l668, Skinner, an En? 
 
 requires Congress to keep a journal; for other 
 wise, the lequired publication could not take place. 
 The di.stinction, theref )re, which has been re- 
 lied upon to justify the rejection of the British 
 precedents on this subject, is not founded in a 
 just view of the constitutional or parliamentary 
 history of that country. The two Houses of Par- 
 Jiament are, in fact, bound and required to keep 
 a journal of their proceeding.s, as well as the two 
 
 lish merchant, presented a petition to the King, 
 complaining-ofvariou-^wrong-i! and outrages he had 
 sustained from tiie East India company. The 
 matter was considered not cog-nizable by the or- 
 dinary tribunals and was referred by the King to 
 the HoiiS' of Lords. Strong objections were urged 
 to the jurisdiction of the House of Lords; but they, 
 nevertheless, took cognizance of the affair,and final- 
 ly entered a judgment in favor of Skinner, against 
 
 - y „ ^" t" ">->->. uiiifj.^, na well ab lue iwo IV emereci a jiuigmem. in lavor oi oitinuor, againsi 
 
 Houses of Congre.ss. They are bound to do .so by the Ea.st India company, for £5,000 dam;iges.' 'I his 
 the very nature of their institution, by their own proceeding was immediately and earnestly resisted 
 rules and orders, and by the virtud command ol by the House of Commons, as contrary to the law 
 act of Parliament. If, therefore, a similar.tv, or I of the land, aid an invasion of the riglits of the 
 
 commmuty.f principle could, in any ca^.-, jusii- 
 tyarguuiLr from the institutions and usages of the 
 one country, to those of the other, it is certuinly 
 upon a question Ike the present. I find tlia't 
 much use was made on another and recent occa- 
 sion in this body, of British parliamenti-u-y prece- 
 dents, by gentlemen who seem now inclined to 
 disavow and reject them altogether. It I am not 
 mistaken, the Senator from South Carolina, (M,- 
 Calhoun,) on the qupstion which was so earn si Iv 
 RHd ably debated here recently, as to the right oV 
 tilher House to refu.se to receive a petition, mtro- 
 oiiced liatsell's work, the great repository ol 
 liritish p.i-liamentary precedents, and tlrew large- 
 ly from It in support of the position he maintained, 
 that It would be no violation of the light of peti- 
 tioning, as guarantied by the constitution, to re- 
 fuse to receive a petition alter presentstitm. 
 
 Mr. CALHOUN here explained, and was under 
 stood to s:iy that gentlemen on the other side of 
 
 " » " • --0 • 
 
 people. A viol-nt and protracted controversy en- 
 sued between the two Houses; and the Lords be- 
 ing compelled, at last, after a struggle of eigliteen 
 i-Tionihs, and repeated prorogations of both Houses, 
 to yield their claim of juri^-diction, they expunged 
 from their journal the judgment they had entered 
 in favor of Skinner against the East India com- 
 pany, and tin; vvhole of their proceedings connect- 
 er! with it; whereupon the Commons, in like man- 
 ner, expungedi'rom their journal the vnious reso- 
 lutions and proceedings they had adopted. In 
 this instance, we see a proceedii g even of a jutii- 
 cial character, under which private rights might 
 be claimed, rxpum^ed, in virtue of the high discre- 
 tion-irv authority of parliamentary bodies over 
 their journ.-jls; and in such a case, perhaps, the ex- 
 pnnction is admi-isible, mainly on the ground that 
 the obnoxious proceeding took place in the exer- 
 cise of an 77/f'o-«/jurisdiction, at last admitted to be 
 such, and intended to be renounced, as in fact 
 
was finally abandoned, by the act of expon^M^? the 
 judgement, which was its fruit. 
 
 The other case to which I have alluded, oc- 
 curred in the proceedings on the recognition 
 bill in 1690. A clause was introduced into 
 that bill, on the motion of the Whig party of 
 that day, and the friends of the revolution, declar- 
 ing that the acts of the convention Parliannent, 
 though assembled without the formality of a royal 
 summons, were good and valid. This was strong- 
 ly objected to by the tory lords; a number of 
 whom, by the leave of the House, entered their 
 protest against it on the journal- 
 
 The Senate well know that it is a distinctive and 
 fundamental principle in the constitution of thi 
 House of Lords, that any member or numbtr of 
 members, dissenting from a measure which has 
 passed that body, have the right, with the leave of 
 the House, to enter a formal protest against it on 
 the journal. In this case, the leave of the House 
 was granted. The right of the pi-otesting lords 
 became thereby vested and complete; and yet it 
 appearing, on a subsequent examination of i\\e,pro- 
 <es/, that" the grounds of objection taken in it, as- 
 sailed, and were subversive of, the principles of the 
 revolution, and settlement of the Government just 
 accomphshed, the House ordered it to be expun/s;- 
 ed from their journal; which order was carried in- 
 to execution, and gave rise to another protest lor 
 expunging the former protest. 
 
 But the precedents of parliamentary expunging 
 are by no means confined tu the land of our ances- 
 tors, from which we derive the model of our par- 
 liamentary institutions and proceedings. Similir 
 instances have occurred in our own country, both 
 before and since our revolution, subsequent, as 
 well as previous, to the adoption of our present 
 federal constitution, both in the State and in the 
 national Legislatures. There is a case in the his- 
 tory of my own State, which, as there appears to 
 have been singular misconceptions about it, the 
 Senate will excuse me for mentioning some- 
 what in detail. I refer to the expunging of 
 a resolution of Mr. Henry, which took place in 
 the House of Hurgesses of Virginia in 1765. Th 
 transaction has been referred to as an odious and 
 abortive attempt at expunging made by the 
 King's party \n the House of Burgesses, which 
 was defeated by the energy and talents of Mr. 
 Henry. Such, sir, are not the facts, as transmitted 
 to us by the most unquestionable cotemporary tes- 
 timony. The attempt to expunge was not defeat- 
 ed. The proposition, on the contrary, was car- 
 ried. It was carried, not by an odious King's 
 party, but with the concurrence, as we are autho- 
 rized to believe from the only account extant of 
 the transaction, of men who were, and who prov- 
 ed themselves to be among the brightest cham. 
 
 rights of the colonists. The four first of these 
 resolutions merely re-affirmed what had been 
 earnestly asserted, only six months before, by 
 the House of Burgesses in three several docu- 
 umentsof the most solemn character; an adJress 
 to the King, a memorial to the House of Lords, 
 and a remonstrance to the Commons. The fifth 
 resolution, however, went somewhat further, and 
 seemed to tender at once an issue of force with the 
 mother country. These resolutions were opposed 
 by Messrs. Ka'ndolph, Bland, Pendleton, Wythe, 
 and other gentlemen, as devoted andfirm friends of 
 the rights'of America as any of the great states- 
 men and patriots of that day, but who deemed 
 Mr. Henry's resolutions inexpedient at that mo- 
 ment, inasmuch as the sentiments and princi- 
 ples they contained had already and very 
 recently 'been expressed in other proceedings, to 
 which the expected answers from the govern- 
 ment in England were not yet received. The 
 fifth resolution was deemed especially inexpedi- 
 ent in the then feeble and defenceless condition 
 of the colony, as it might provoke a conflict of 
 force, for which time and forecast were necessary 
 to prepare. The resolutions, however, under a 
 powerful display ^f Mr. Henry's eloquence, were 
 passed by one or two votes only ; but on the fol- 
 lowing day, on a motion made for that purpose, 
 and carried, the fifth resolution was expunged 
 from the .Journal. These are the facts as vouch- 
 ed by the testimony of Mr. Jefferson, and the 
 elder Judge Carrington, (both witnesses of the 
 transaction,) and as recorded by tlie tloquent bi- 
 ographer of Mr. Henry himself. There was 
 then, no odious and abortive atte,mpt to expunge, 
 made by a King's party, in the House of Bur- 
 gesses. The attempt was not d featcd, as has 
 been said ; on the contrary, the proposition to ex- 
 punge was carried — and carried, as we are autho- 
 rized to believe, by the only authentic account 
 which has reached us of the transacti^in, by the 
 influence and with the concurrence of high-souled 
 American patriots; of Peyton Randolph, presi- 
 dent of the first Congress; Hichsrd Bhnd, one of 
 the chosen delegates of Virginia, to that glorious 
 assembly; Edmund Pe.idlcton, another delegate; 
 and George Wythe, whose name stands proudly 
 at the head of the Virginia signatures to the De- 
 claration of Independence. The two last named 
 gentlemen, Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Wythe, af- 
 terwards and for a long period, respectively pre- 
 sided in and adorned the highest courts of law 
 and equity in the State; and it will be no dispar- 
 agement, I humbly conceive, to the pretensions of 
 the highest here, to say, that they understood as 
 well, and felc as religiously, the sanctity of a re- 
 cord, as any gentleman on this floor. 
 
 Examples of the like character have occurred 
 in the other States. In the Senate of Massa- 
 
 pions of American freedom and independence — i chusetts, as is well known, a few ye .rs after the 
 
 such men as Peyton Randolph, the President of 
 the first American Congress; George Wythe, 
 Edmund Pendleton, Richard Bland, Richard 
 Henry Lee, all of whom, afterwards put their 
 hands to the declaration of Anieric^n indepen- 
 dence, or bore a conspicuous part in the delinera- 
 tions which led to and establishtd it. The cir- 
 umstances were these: Mr. Henry moved a series 
 f resolutions, five in number, declaratory of the 
 
 close of the late war with Great Britain, a reso- 
 lution was triumphantly carried for expunging 
 from its Journal, the anti-American sentiment 
 which the baleful spirit of party had recorded 
 there, in the very mid.st of the conflict, that it 
 was unbecoming a moral and religious people, to 
 rejoice in the successes of our arms. At a more 
 recent period, some seven or eight years ago, the 
 Senate of another highly respectable State, (Ten- 
 
8 
 
 nessee,) as I learn from undoubted authority, di- 
 rected a formal and important entry on its Jour- 
 nal to be stricken out,- which was done in the 
 very manner proposed by the resolution on your 
 table, by drawing a black line around the con- 
 demned entry. But without dwelling on these 
 instancas, let us descend to cases which come 
 more immediately home to ourselves. The case 
 which occurred in this body in 1806, and which 
 has been already noticed by the Senator from 
 Missouri, has been in vain attempted to be parried 
 or evaded.* In tliat case, a formal entry made on 
 the Journal,' in pursuance of the standing rules 
 of the Senate, and in strict conformity to the truth 
 ©f facts, as they transpired, was ordered to be ex- 
 /)u?jgecf, and actually expunged. The entry reci- 
 ted the substance of two memorials presented by 
 a member of the Senate, containing grave and 
 criminal insinuations against the Executive, and 
 stated also the proceeding of the Senate, which 
 took place on their presentation. This entry, as 
 I have already remarked, was in strict pursuance 
 
 *In that case, the following are the facts: On 
 the 21st day of April, 1806, being the last day of 
 the session, Mr. Adams presented two memorials, 
 which are thus noticed on the Journal: 
 
 " Mr. Adams communicated two memorials, one 
 from Samuel G. Ogden, and the other from Wm. 
 S. Smith, stating that they are under a criminal 
 prosecution, for certain proceediu^rs, into which 
 they were ted by the circumstance that their pur- 
 pose was fully known to, and approved bv the 
 Executive Government of the United States;' that. 
 
 of the standing rules of the Senate, the 52d arti- 
 cle of which expressly requires that "a brief 
 statement of the contents of each petition, memo- 
 rial, or paper, presented to the Senate, shall be 
 inserted on the Journal;" and, in general, that " a 
 true and accurate account of the proceedings of 
 the Senate shall be entered on the Journal-" — 
 Now, sir, how is the force of this precedent in the 
 annals of our own body attempted to be parried? 
 Why, sir, by the circumstance that tlie order for 
 expunging the obnoxious entry, was adopted on 
 the same day (the last of the session) that the en- 
 try itself was made, it being contended that the 
 Journal is not complete, 1 11 it is read over in the 
 Senate, as it usually is, the following morning, 
 for the purpose of correcting any mistakes which 
 may have been made in it ; and that, till that cere- 
 mony lias been gone through, it is ufider the per- 
 fect control of the Senate, and full)' open to re- 
 vision and correction. This is the argument of 
 the honorable Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. Porter.) 
 It is obvious to remark upon it, in the first place, 
 that it confounds two things entirely distinct in 
 their nature, and wholly different in the princi- 
 ples on which they rest — the correction of mis- 
 takes in a Journal, and the expunging of matter 
 therefrom, in which there hais been no mistake, 
 but which is otherwise and intrinsically objec- 
 tionable. Tlie purpose for which the Journaii> 
 ordinarily read over in the morning, after it is 
 made up by the Secretary, is simply to correct 
 any mistakes which may have been made in the 
 entries upon it. This is explicitly declared by the 
 
 - , - , standing rules of the Senate, the very first of which 
 
 on this prosecution, 1 hey have been treated by ! provides that the "President having taken the 
 the .Judge of the District Court of the United ! chair, and a quorum being present, the Journal of 
 
 States at New York, Mathias B. Talmadge, Esq, 
 m such a manner, that the same grand jury which 
 found the bills against them, made a presentment 
 against the Judge himself, for his conduct in tak- 
 
 the preceding day shall be read, to tlu end that 
 any mistake shall be corrected that shall be made in 
 the entries." 
 
 Now, sir, in the precedent of 1806, there was 
 
 »"g the examination and deposition of the said I no mistake in the entry which was ordered to be 
 Samuel G. Ogden. And the memorialists, consi- 1 expunged. It recked' truehr, and in compliance 
 
 dermg Congress as the only power competent to 
 reheve then), submit their case to the wisdom of 
 Congress, and pray such relief as the laws and 
 constitution of this country, and the wisdom and 
 goodness of Congress, may afford them; and the 
 memorials were read, and, 
 
 On motion. 
 
 Ordered, That the memorialists have leave to 
 withiU-aw iheir memorials respectively." 
 
 with a positive injunction of the rules of the Sen- 
 ate, the subSitance of the memorials presented, 
 and the proceeding of the Senate on their presen- 
 tation. There was and could be no allegation of 
 any error in these respects. The entry was or- 
 dered to be expunged, not because of any mis- 
 take in it, but because the mailer of it was unj ist 
 and wrong; because it v/ent to criminate the Ex- 
 ecutive administration of the country, without 
 
 These memorials appear to have been present- j proof or probability; and for that reason, ought 
 «u m the morning.. After disposing of them, and | not to stand upon the Journal of a co-ordinate 
 a variety of other business, the Senate took a re- 
 
 cess, and met a-ain at 5 o'clock, P. M. The very 
 last entry on the Journal of the evening session is 
 the following order, adopted on ayes and noes, for 
 expunging every thing in the Journal relative to 
 the aforesaid memorials: 
 
 " On motion, that every thing in the Journal re- 
 ative to the memorials of S. G. Ogden and Wm. 
 S. Smith, be expunged therefrom," it pn.ssed in 
 the affirmative. Y);as: Messrs. Adair, Condict, 
 Gdman, Kitchel, Logan, Mitcliell, Smith of Md. 
 8n.ith of N. V. Stone, Thruston, Worthington, 
 and Wright— 13. PJats: Messrs. Adams, Bald- 
 win, Hillhouse, Pickering, Plumer, Smith of Ohio, 
 Tracy, and White 8." 
 
 department. It is in vain, therefore, to endeavor 
 to resolve the precedent of 1806, into the orilina- 
 ry power of revising and correcting the Journal, 
 before it is finally made up. It was a far difter- 
 ent thing. It was no process of correcting ww- 
 fakes m entries on the Journal, which is ordinarily 
 done the morning after the entries are made, aiul 
 without the formality of an order or resolution. 
 It was the ex'rrcise on the part o*" this bod}', of a 
 higher and more important power — a jiower not to 
 correct mistake, (for there was none,) but to re- 
 dress wrong — to purge its Journal — not of erro- 
 neous entries, but of improper matter, in the en- 
 try of which there had been no error or mistake; 
 a power which, frcm the nature of it, and thfc 
 
9 
 
 principles on which it is founded, must exist in 
 as full force the next year, as the next tuorning 
 after the objectionable entry has been made. 
 
 No ingenuity, Mr. President, however great, no 
 effort of mind.however gis,'antic, can ever succeed 
 in the attempt which is made to reconcile the Sen- 
 atorial precedent of 1806, with the doctrines of 
 gentlemen who oppose the resolution now under 
 consideration. On what, sir, is their whole argu- 
 ment built? Is it not the assumption that each 
 House of Congress, in being rcqtdred to "keep a 
 journal of their proceedings," is bound to preserve 
 to all futiu'e time the record of each, and all of their 
 proceedings; that every act or proceeding of either 
 House should be entered on the journal, and once 
 !■)••«/?/ entered there, that entry can never thereafter 
 be touched, altered or removed, but must remain 
 us it is, without tlie change of a letter or a conima, 
 to the •' last syllable of recorded lime." Now, 
 sir, can it be contended, that the presentation of 
 the memorials of Messrs. Smith und Ogden by a 
 member of the Senate, the reading of those me- 
 morials, the action taken upon them by the Senate, 
 were not proceedings of which the constitution re- 
 <-juiros a journal to be kepti* We have already 
 seen that the rules of the Senate, adopted for the 
 purpose of fultiliing ths injunction of the constitu- 
 tion, expressly require all these things to be en- 
 tered on the journal. Can it be pretended that 
 tnese matters were not /ru/y; i: > ■ ed .' By no 
 means! In every possible aspect,: \en, in which 
 the proceeding' of this body In 180(3 can be view- 
 ed, it utterly prostrates the whole fabric of tecluii- 
 ca/ refinement on which the arguments of gentle- 
 men against the power to expunge have been 
 raised. 
 
 A case of expunging, involving precisely the 
 same principle and leading to the same conse- 
 ([uence, occurred in the House of Representatives 
 not many years ago. On the 25th of February, 
 1829, Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, being informed 
 tliat Mr. Pinckney had just died in this city, 
 (where he then was,) rose and announced the 
 event to the House, with the impressive eloquence 
 which the loss of such a man naturally drew from 
 a genius of kindred inspiration, and moved un im- 
 nied;;>te adjournment of the House. It afterwards 
 appeared that Mr. Pinckney was not dead at the 
 time tluit Mr. Rand dph communicated the 
 event to the House, though he died some few 
 hours after. The fact, however, of Mr. Ran- 
 dolph's having announ'ied the event, and the con- 
 sfquent adjournment of the House, were necessa- 
 rily entered on the journal as a [)art of its pro- 
 ceedings; and the following day, Mr. Randolph, 
 alter au explanation of the <:ircumstances, moved 
 that the entry on the jcurnul of the preceding day 
 should be expunged, which was ordered, and ac- 
 cordingly done. Now, sir, if the extreme, and I 
 might well call it, superstitious strictness which is 
 now inculcated in regard to the sanctity and invio- 
 lability of entries or.ce made on om- journ.ils h id 
 prevailed then, this expunctlon, however'simple 
 a^d proper in itself, could not have been made. 
 It will be remarked that there was no mistake in 
 tiie entry made on the journal. The entry w:is 
 not of Ml . Pinckney's death, but of t!ie fact that 
 Mr. Randolph on a given day announcsi to the 
 
 Hfuse that Mr. P. was dead, and then moved an 
 adjournment. That fact was truly entered,^ pre- 
 cisely as it occurred. If there had been a mistake 
 in the entry, the motion would have been t'le ordi- 
 nary one, to correct, and not the extraordinary 
 one, to expnnge it. If, moreover, the doctrine now 
 so earnestly contended for by gentlemen were 
 well founded, tliat a transaction or proceeding in 
 either House once truly entered on its journal, the 
 entry must stand there to all future time, and can- 
 not be touched or changed in a letter or a comma, 
 without a violation of the constitution, then Mr. 
 Kandolph, instead of the short and obvious reme- 
 dy of an expunction of the entry of the prece- 
 ding day, could have constitutionally attained his 
 object only by a distinct entry of his explanation 
 on the journal of the succeeding day. 
 
 But, sir, the Senwtor from Louisiana, even con- 
 ceding the power of each House over entries pre- 
 viously made on its journal, contends that this 
 power is limited to the current Congress, and that 
 the Senate or House of Representatives of a suc- 
 ceeding Congress has no control whatever over 
 the journal of the Senate or House of Represent-, 
 ativtrs of a preceding Congress. Without stop- 
 ping to show that this argument, even if correct 
 in its principle, would be wholly inapplicable to 
 the Senate, whicii, from the successive partial re- 
 newals of its members (one third of the whole be- 
 ing replaced by new elections every second year,) 
 is a perpetual body, I choose rather to meet the 
 principle of the objection at once by demonstra- 
 ting itsutter incompatibility with the nature of the 
 legislative trust. It is a fundamental principle in 
 regard to legislative bodies that, in theirordaiued 
 succession by virtue of periodical ehctions, one 
 Legislature has precisely as much and the sanie 
 power as another; a law enacted by one Legis- 
 lature, or in one session of a Legislature, may be 
 repealed by another or during a subsequent session. 
 What one resolves, another may rescind ; and in 
 like manner and on the same principle, one Legis- 
 lature has as much and the same power over the 
 Legislative records as another. In this respect, 
 there is an obvious and important distinction be- 
 tween Legislative and Judicial bodies ; a supposed 
 analogy in whose functions and proceedings has, 
 doubtless, misled the hsnorable Senator. After 
 the adjournment or close of the term of a court, its 
 proceedings, its orders, its judgments, its decrees, 
 are final and irrevocable, so far as depends on its 
 own action. It has no power, as legislative bodies 
 have, at a subsequent term or session, to revoke, 
 change or set aside any thuig done by it at a pre- 
 ceding term or session. Iferror has been committed, 
 that error can be corrected after the expiration of the 
 term only by a higher tribunal, and certain limita- 
 tions of time are prescribed within which even these 
 appeals to higher tribunals must be prosecuted. So 
 imperative is the muxm^'inlcrest reipublicse ut sit fi- 
 nis Idium," the pubic repose requires a limit to be 
 fixed to judicial controversies. The nature of the 
 legislative tru'^t, however, being altogether differ- 
 ent, and ri-quiring that the exercise and expression 
 of the public will should be, •.\t all times, unfettered 
 in matters of general concern, every Legislature, 
 or session of a Legislature, has an unlimited con- 
 trol over the acts, proceedings, or resolutions of a 
 preceding Legislature or session. 
 
10 
 
 Gentlemen have been misled, as it seems to me, 
 through the whole course of tiiis discussion, by a 
 suppos'd analog-y between legislative and judicial 
 proceedings, when, in fact, none exists. Either 
 from the force of professional habits, or from a 
 hasly consideration of the subject, we have heard 
 legislative journals and judicial records constantly 
 confounded, when no two things can be more dis- 
 tinct. The security of private rights, titles to 
 property, real and personal, repose on the judicial 
 records of the country; and hence those records 
 are everywhere guarded by proper penal enact- 
 ments, against unauthorized interference, or any 
 alteration whatever. But in regard to legislative 
 journals, while they are necessarily confided to 
 the sound discretion of the respective bodies wkose 
 duty it is to keep them, private rights and the se- 
 curity of property can never depend upon them. 
 Impotant rights and interests may sometimes be 
 claimed or acquired, I know, under legislative 
 actsj but those acts, if laws, are never spread upon 
 the journal; or if joint resolutions, they are enrolled 
 and preserved, like the laws, out of, and indepen- 
 dently of, the journal; and both are included in 
 annual and authorized publications of the acts of 
 Congre^.s, which are received in evidence in all 
 the courts, without further proof of authenticity. 
 Disrnlsslng for the present, Mr. President, the 
 authority of precedents, there are cases in which, 
 upon the mire reason oC the thing, I think all 
 would agree that the right of this body to expunge 
 an entry from its journal would be unquestionable. 
 The constitution requires each House to keep a 
 journal of its ''proceedings,-" tint is, I presume, 
 its proceedings as a constVtuti-jnal body, acting in 
 discharge of its appropriate constitutional func- 
 tions. On this point, I beg leave to read a passage 
 from Mr. Jefferson's Manual, the authority whicli 
 especially governs our proceedings in this body; 
 a passage which seems to me to have an important 
 bearing on the question we have been considering. 
 He says, "Where the constitution authorizes 
 each House to det<yrmine the'ruies Qr\{sproceedinirs, 
 it must mean in those cases, legislative, executive, 
 or judiciary, submitted to them by the constitu- 
 tion, or in something relating to these, and neces- 
 sary towards their execution. But orders and res- 
 olutions are sometimes entered in the journals hav- 
 ing no relation to these, such as acceptances of 
 invitations to attend orations, to take part in pro 
 cessions, &c. These must be understood to be 
 mere ly conventional d^mon^ those: who are willing 
 to participate in the ceremony, and are, therefore, 
 perhaps improperly placed among the records of the 
 House.^' 
 
 The result of this, as it seems to me, very clear 
 and just distinction is, that nothing is to be re- 
 garded as properly a proceeding of either House, 
 of wiiich -K'-rsi,, nal U required to be kept, but such 
 acts as are done in discharge of the legislative, ex- 
 ecutive, or judicial functions respectively com- 
 mitted to them by the constitution. If any act be 
 done by either House, not appertaining to'the dis- 
 charge of its constitutional functions, that act 
 ought to be considered as extra-official, or, as Mr. 
 JefT'c-rfon expresses it, as merely conventional 
 among the members participating in it; conse 
 quently, not as a proceding of the body to be 
 
 entered on the journal, and if improperly placed 
 there, may be, and ought to be, taken off. With 
 this distinction as my guide, let me suppose a case. 
 Let us suppose that this body, imitating the irre- 
 gular practice which has obtained in some of the 
 State Legislatures, should, while still organized as 
 a Senate, proceed to the nomination of a President 
 of the United States: let us suppose that the verj- 
 resolution which is now proposed to be expunged 
 had been used, as it well might, an a preamble to 
 such a nomination: let us suppose that the Presi- 
 dent had been in his first term, and then the pre- 
 mble and nomination woulo have run thus — 
 " Whereas Andrew Jackson, ' the President of the 
 United Statas, has, in the late Executive proceed- 
 ings in relation to the public revenue, assumed 
 upon himself authority and power not conferred by 
 the constitution and laws, but in derogation of 
 both,' and has thereby proved himself unworthy of 
 the confidence of a free people: Resolved, there- 
 fore, as the opinion of the Senate, that 
 
 be, and is hereby, recommended to the good peo- 
 ple of the United States, as the most fit and proper 
 person to replace the said Andrew Jackson in the 
 office of President," &c. 
 
 Suppose, Mr. President, that such a resolution 
 had been adopted by the Senate, organized as it is 
 at this moment, yourself in the chair, all the Se- 
 nators in their seats, the Secretary at his tabh', the 
 yeas and naj's called upon it, and the resolution 
 finally entered on the journal; could such a re- 
 solution, notwithstanding all the Senatorial forms 
 which might have accompanied it, bi2 considered 
 as a proceeding of the Senate within the meaning 
 of the constitution' Can any one doubt that 
 there would be full authorit)'- in this body, when it 
 should see the error and evil tendency of its act, 
 to expunge such a resolution from its journal? If 
 so, the question of powe?' is settled; and the pro- 
 priety only of its exercise would then depend up- 
 on a question, which I will not anticipate the dis- 
 cussion of, but which it may be well to suggest for 
 the consideration of gentlemen, whether the reso- 
 lution actually adopted on the occasion referred 
 to, had more relation to the functions, legislative, 
 executive, or judiciary, entrusted by the consti- 
 tution to this body, than the resolution supposed, 
 would have had. 
 
 While, therefore, Mr. President, I cannot doubt 
 that there are cases in which an entry improper- 
 ly placed upon our journals may be removed or 
 expunged therefrom by actual erasure or oblite- 
 ration, it must yet be borne in mind that no such 
 obliteration or erasure is contemplated or requir- 
 ed by the resolution now under consideration, it 
 contemplates a wjora/, not a pZ/j/stco/ expunction ; 
 an expunction of the act, without expunging the 
 record. It seeks to deprive that act of all legal 
 force and validity by ajiplying to it the appropri- 
 ate and significant language of parliamentary con- 
 demnation ; and without erasing or obliterating 
 the original entry of it on the journal, to affix to 
 that entry a visible mark, which shall show, in all 
 time, that the act there recorded had been revo- 
 ked, annulled, and repudiated by the solemn 
 judgment of the Senate and the nation ; so that if 
 in any future search for precedent, the act be 
 found, its condemnation be found inseparably as- 
 
sociated with it. Tliat this is the meaniuR' and in- 
 tention of the resolution, is thown by its own ex- 
 press declaration. But it is objected that, in that 
 sense, the lerm expunged cannot be properly used. 
 The question, tiien, becomes one of mere verbal cri- 
 ticism ; and surely g' ntiemen will admit that it is 
 the privilege of public bodies, as well as private 
 Individuals, to dffinp the sense in which they use 
 terms susceptible of a difference of signification. 
 This is explicitly don(? by the resolution under con- 
 sideration, and all objections founded on the as 
 sumption of a meaning, different from that in 
 which the resolution interprets and defines its own 
 language, must, of necessity, fall to the ground. 
 But I willingly meet gentlemen on the question 
 they have made, and maintain that the use of the 
 word exptwgfi, in the sense in which it is employed 
 on the present occasion, is perftctly correct and 
 consistent ii\ itself, and justified by numerous par- 
 allel examples in the nsHge of language, both in 
 juridical and parliamentary proceedings. I will 
 call the ;ittention of my learned coHleague espe- 
 cially,(Mr. I.eigh,)to a striking illustration furnish- 
 ed by tlie decisions of the highest courts in our own 
 State, with which he is far more familiar than I can 
 pretend to be. We all know, Mr. President, that in 
 law, a deed is an instrument signed, sea/fc? and deli- 
 vered — that it isaM essential and indispensable ele- 
 ment in its legal character that it should be aealed, 
 and that a seal, in the common understanding of 
 the word, and as d-rfined, I believe, hy Lord 
 Coke himself, is »n impression inade on wax or 
 wafer; and yet the Court of Appeals in Virginia, as 
 have more recently,! believe,the courts in a majori- 
 ty of the other Stales, decided on principles of com- 
 mon sens." :ind common kw, independently of any 
 statutory provision on the subject, that a scroll or 
 Ijlack lines drawn in any shape to suit the fancy of 
 the drawer, when declared to he inlinded for a seal, 
 does, in fact, constitute a seal, and makes the pa- 
 per to which it is attached, to all intents and pur- 
 poses, a sfa/ti? instrument. Now, .sir, \? black lines 
 can thus be made to constitute a, ?fif;/, athiiip; which, 
 in its ffrdinaiy sense, is formed of wholly different 
 materials, surely they may be made to stand for 
 expungiiijj;, which, in its strictest and most literal 
 sense, demands only the u^e of the same materials. 
 In either case the declared intention stands in place 
 of, anil is equivalent to, the thing itse'f 
 
 Again, sir, the term cancel, if not of precisely 
 the same, is certainly of very analogous impor*^, to 
 the woid expuni(fi. Its etymological meaning, as 
 well as that which is given to it in the legal drfini- 
 tion, is to destrfjy a deed or other writing by 
 drawing lines acro'.s it in the form of lattice ivork. 
 It is a principal branch of the conimon law juris- 
 diction of tile Court of Chancery in England to can- 
 cel letters yiaUi-ni, (which are records) obtained 
 from the Kitig upon false suggestions,or otherwise 
 void. In both legal and popular phraseology we 
 speak of a deed or will (-dso matters of record) 
 being cancelled hy the decree of a court. Now, 
 sir, in these cases, I presume the Lord Chan- 
 cellor does not actually draw lines in the 
 form of lattice work on the letters patent 
 which he cancels; nor does the court run the 
 pen across the will or deed, which is cancelled 
 and set aside by its decision. On the contrary, 
 
 it is the decision of the chancellor or the decree 
 of the court pronouncing the patent, will, or deed, 
 to be fraudulent and void, which, per ic, cancels 
 it; that is, des'roys its legal validity and efftct, 
 while leaving the record of its material existence 
 unimpaired. In like manner, the word expunge, 
 in the present instance, exerts its whole force on 
 the legd actor precedent itself, without impairing 
 the written entry of it upon our journal. 
 
 'the illustrations furnished by familiar parliamen- 
 tary proceedings, are not less forcinlt-, while they 
 have the advantage of coming still nearer home to 
 us. When amotion is made and carried toslrike out 
 a clause or section in a bill, it is not, as I under- 
 stand, actually stricken out or erased with the pen, 
 but the portion voted to be stricken out is indi- 
 cated by suitable marks, with a corresponding no- 
 tation on the margin of the bill, or on a separate 
 paper, and is considered as stricken out by the 
 mere force of tlie vote. What is directed to be 
 done, is, by a ])ar!iamentary fiction, if you choose, 
 considered as actually done. It is a singular co- 
 incidence that, in the earlier period of our parlia- 
 mentary history, this very word expunge, which 
 has of late furnished such a fruitful theme of com- 
 mentary, was habitually used instead of the phrase 
 to .strike out, in reference to amendments, and in 
 the sense in which the latter phrase has just been 
 explained. During the two fir.st Congresses un- 
 der the present constitution, I find that in the 
 journal of this body especially, the word expxmge 
 IS of constant recurrence; and that in proposing 
 amendments to bills, the motion was to expunge, 
 instead of strike out,- and when carried, the clause 
 or section which was the subject of the motion, 
 was said to be expunged, tlieugh, as in the case of 
 striking out, there was no actual erasure, which it 
 is now contended the word necessarily imports. 
 From its frequent recurrence in the same applica- 
 tion, in Yates's report of the proceedings of the 
 convention M'hich formed the constitution, we are 
 authorized to infer, that its use in the same sense 
 was also familiar among the learned statesmen 
 who composed that illustrious assembly. 
 
 Hut there is an example of its use which I cannot 
 forbear to mention. 
 
 In the draft of the declaration of independence, 
 this significant word is used in the very sense 
 which is assigned to it on the present occasion. 
 After stating the fundamental principle of the 
 right (f the people to alter or abolish their 
 institutions, a right, which prudence requires 
 .should not be exercised for light and transient 
 causes, and accordingly, that all expanence hath 
 shown mankind more disposed to suffer, while 
 evils are sufferable, than to abolish the forms 
 to which they are accustomed, the following 
 pregnant sentence occurs: 
 
 ''Such has been the patient endurance of these 
 colonies, and such is now the necessity which con- 
 strains them to expunge their former systems of 
 government." Now, sir, as Mr. .TefTerson was 
 what Lord Clarendon, I think, called .John Hamp- 
 den, a root and branch man, he might be con- 
 sidered, perhaps, both in temperament and princi- 
 ple, as an expunger. It may not, therefore, be 
 improper to add that this word stood in the decla- 
 ratian of independence, not only as it canae from 
 
the pen of Mr. Jefferson, but as it was reported I In the case of the protest of tlie tory lords in 
 to Congress, and sanctioned by the rest of the 1690, to which I have also had occasion to 
 committee, by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, refer, the principle involved antl finally vindi- 
 RobertLivingston, and Rog-er Sherman. What, sir, cated by this odious process of expwigi.nq, was 
 did these great men and illustrious patriots mean even of a deeper and more vital character. The 
 by expunging eur " former systems of goTern- Senate will recollrct that the clause in the recog- 
 
 ment'" Did they mean that the roi/al charters, in 
 whicii those systems of government existed and 
 were delineated, were to be erased and obliterated 
 with the pen, as modern commentators would have 
 us believe the word expunge can only mean? No, 
 sir, they meant as we meaji on the present occa- 
 sion, that the institution, the oct should be ex- 
 punged, leaving tiie record of it unimpaired. 
 
 Having thus, sir, I hope, satisfactorily establish- 
 ed the true parliamentary sense of expunging, per- 
 mit me to say something of the thing itself. At- 
 tempts have been made here and elsewhere to re- 
 present it as something very odious and iniquitous. 
 Now sir, I take upon myself to say that, from the 
 nature of the thing-, implying necessarily a delibe- 
 rate change in the public councils, it never can be 
 resorted to in a representative government, but 
 with the sanction, and under the authority of the 
 people, and in their hands will never be used but 
 for the vindication of their rights and of the princi- 
 ples of their fundamental law. In the history of 
 our British ancestors, sir, it comes down to us, 
 through a long line of glorious traditions. In that 
 country.it has been the instrument by wliich every 
 great principle of civil and political liberty has 
 been successfully vindicated and established. How 
 was expunging used, sir, in the celebrated case of 
 John Hampden and ship-money, in 1640? We 
 all know, sir, that in that case, the King claimed 
 an arbitrary power to levy upon the people, at 
 his own discretion, whatever imposition he might 
 deem necessary for the support of the Govern- 
 ment, and the defence of the kingdom. This 
 enormous usurpation was sanctioned by the 
 Judges, not merely in an extra judicial opinion 
 irreguLrly obtained from them, but in their solemn 
 judgment rendered in the Exchequer Chamber 
 against John Hampden, for his refusal to pay the 
 odious tribute exacted of him. These iniquitous 
 proceedings were afterwards exnnnged in the high 
 court of Parliament; and by that expunction, the 
 great principle of free governmi-nt, that the peo- 
 ple can be taxed onl-y with their consent given 
 through their representatives, that principle which 
 gave birtli to our own glorious revolution, was, 
 for the first time, successfully and irrevocably 
 established. In the case of Skinner and the East 
 India company, in 1669, to wliich 1 have hereto- 
 fore referred, what was the great principle involv- 
 ed? In addition to that ultimate appellate juris- 
 diction in questions of law, of which the House of 
 Lords in England has been long possessed, itclaimed 
 on that occasion, cognizance of original suits 
 in utter subversion of the trial by jury. By being 
 forced at last, by the noble re-^istance of the 
 House of Commons, io expunge thejudijment they 
 had pronounced and their other proceeding in that 
 memorable case, they renounced, finally, this 
 dangerous claim of original jurisdiction, and the 
 glorious institution of our Anglo Saxon ancestors, 
 the great bulwark of British and American free- 
 dom, the trial by jury, was tiius triumphantly 
 rescued and maintained. 
 
 nition bill, to which the tory lords objected, and 
 against which thev entered their protest, was owe 
 asserting the validity of the acts of the conven- 
 tion Parliament — that Parliament, under whose 
 auspices the glorious revolution of 1638 had just 
 been achieved. The tory lords were unwilling to 
 recognize the validity of its acts, because it was 
 called together, in tiie emergency of a great cri- 
 sis, by the voice ((f the nation itself, speakiny; 
 in the person of the Prince of Orange, and withou t 
 the formality of the King's writ, which t'nese lords 
 held wa5 indispensable, und^^r all circumstan- 
 ces, to constitut-e a lawful Parliament. This ob- 
 jection, formally recorded in their protest, struck 
 at the vital principle of the revolution wii'ch i»ad 
 just been accomplished — the sovereign riglu of 
 the people to alter or abolish their institutions 
 without a sl-ivish submission to pre-existing forms. 
 The House, therefore, ordered their protest, which 
 had been reguh«rly entered on the journal, to be 
 expunged, and in doing so, worthily vindicated the 
 vital principle of the right of the people to 
 change, modify, or abolish their institutions, 
 whenever it shall seem to them good, a principle 
 which stands in the very front of the declaration 
 of American independence, and is even more es- 
 sential to American than British libert}. 
 
 The case of the Middlesex election, which gave 
 rise to another instance of expunging in 1782, is 
 perfectly familiar to the minds of the Senate. 
 There the great right of the people freely to 
 choose their own representatives, was vindicated 
 and established by expunging a resolution of the 
 House of Commons, adopted fourteen years ago, 
 and which was justly described as " subversive of 
 the rights of the whole body of electors in the 
 kingdom." We have seen, then, this denounced 
 and calunmiated process of expunging, thro'itrh 
 two centuries of British freiidom, used as the effi- 
 cacious instrument by which every great consti- 
 tutional right, every cardinal principle of popular 
 liberty dear to the hearts of fre<*men, hts becu 
 successfully vindicited and redeemed — in 164-9, 
 the right of the people to be taxed oidy willi 
 their o^'n consent — in 1769, the right to jury trial 
 in 1690, that right, which is the mother of all 
 others, the right of the people to organir.e, mo- 
 dify, or abolish thtir political institutions at their 
 own pleasure — in 1632, that nght, which forms 
 the practical security for the res% the right of the 
 neople freely to choose their own r?presentativfs. 
 In view of these facts, it is no exaggeration to say 
 that every cardinal principle of British and Ame- 
 rican freedom has, at one period or anothcf, been 
 vindicated and estabhshed by this remedial but 
 calumniated process of expunging. 
 
 I 'h;ive already remarked, Mr. President, thitt 
 this remedy fo ■ the abuse of delegated power can 
 never be resorted to, in a representative go\ern" 
 ment, but with the deliberate sanction, and under 
 tht> formal authority, of the people. Expunging 
 is, in fact, the embodied and potential voice of the 
 people, bursting, by its legitimate power, the 
 
13 
 
 noors of Irglslative assemblies, and correcting', in 
 the in«st solemn form, the deviutions and assump- 
 tions of their servants. It necessarily implies a 
 change in the public connc'ls by the operation oF 
 tiie public wilt; i'ur the bodr, wliich h:is commit- 
 ted an error or been ginlty <>f a'' usurpation, re- 
 maining- constituted na i: w^s, will not be the wil- 
 ling" instrument of correcting or expun(;ing its 
 own wrong;. Accordingly, in every one of the 
 cases Avhich I have mentioned, the final parlia- 
 mentary action has beCH preceded by the ma- 
 tured, the settled, the irreversible judgment of the 
 public raind. In ^he case of Hampden and the 
 Hhip-mnney, the prnceechngs which were expuriir. 
 rii, to»k ])iice in 1637; the expunctlon followed, 
 three years after, in 1540. \n the meantime, the 
 public mind had been anxiously and intensely ex- 
 ercised on the f-ubject; the question hid been 
 liublicly an\d solemnly argued beforeall the. Judges 
 in the Exchequer chamber, from time io time, 
 tlirough a period of six months. After tlielr de- 
 cision was pronounced, the merits of" that decision 
 continued to furnish the theme of able and earnest 
 discussion, at the liar of public opinion; and final- 
 ly, the settled jud^mt-nt f^f the nation was car- 
 ried into exec.utinn, by the order of the high court 
 of Par isment, for expunging \.he rolls of the ob- 
 noxious proceedings. In the case of Skinner 
 and the East India Company, in like manner, the 
 question between the two Houses was pendiner, 
 and earnestly debated before the nation, for 
 eighteen months; and the House of Commons 
 was but the organ of the settled public ojiin'.on of 
 the country, in finally wresting from the lords, 
 the expunclion of their dangerous and illegal pro- 
 ceedings, (n the case of the protest of the tory 
 lords, in 1690, the great principles involved, bad 
 been kept constantly before the public mind, by 
 the prf)found interest awakened by the revolution 
 of 1688, and the faithful and p«triotic wh'gs of 
 that day but acted out a deliberate and foregone 
 conclusion in the public judgment, by fTpun^xing 
 a protest which assailed the vital principle of pop- 
 idar sovereignty. In the case of the Middlesex 
 election, the question had been pending- before 
 the nation for fourte-^n long years; during which 
 time it had been the subject of puijlic discussion 
 
 in every possible form — popular, parliatnentary 
 and legal; in meetings of the people, in betU 
 Houses of Parliament, and incidentally before the 
 judicial tribimals of the country. Public opinion 
 was never more maturely formed, more fully ex- 
 pressed, p>r more faithfully represented, than in 
 the order for exinmirins; the unconstitutional and 
 obnoxious resolution in that case. 
 
 So it is, sir, on the present occasion. It is this 
 day precisely two years since the resolution now 
 proposed to he expunged was adopted by tiiis 
 body. During the whole of tliat period, the pub- 
 lic attention has been constantly recalled to it by 
 able and eloquent debates hen- — by the searching 
 discussions of the press — by tlie cslm and self-di- 
 rected inquiries of the public inind. The subject 
 has been constantly under the consideration of the 
 people, in one form or another. Every temporary 
 and artificial excitement has passed by, and the 
 public judgment has been left to its own self- 
 balanced wisdom to pronounce on the is5ue joined 
 before it. Its decision, I believe sir, has bten 
 made up, and, in creat part, pronounced. Eleven 
 of the sovereign States of this Union have spoken, 
 and spoken authoritatively, demanding the expunc- 
 tion of this resolution frora o'.:r journ ds. There 
 can be but little hazard in saying, that four or five 
 more desire and would approve it, iliough they 
 have not yet spoken in an authoritative form, 
 probably because they have supposed it to be un- 
 necessary to do so. The judgment of our constitu- 
 ents, then, of the people and of the States, has 
 passed on this transaction — I believe, irrevocably 
 passed upon it. They consider the resolution 
 adopted by this body on the 28th March, 1834, as 
 irregul-ar, as illegal, as unjust, a* unconstitutional; 
 and the more alarm mg, as proceeding from that 
 branch of the Federal Legislature which is the 
 most irresponsible, and as tending dangerously to 
 increase its power, already sufficiently great. On 
 these grounds, they demand that that resolution 
 be expunged from our journal; and seeing not the 
 slightest constitutional impediment to the remedial 
 process for which they have indicated their prefe- 
 rence, I for one, Mr. President, will cheerfully 
 obev tlieir voice. 
 

 
 w 
 
 : It) 
 
 ■^0 
 
 ^ ". 
 '^o. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.0^ 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 aV 
 
 
 
 
 ^' V 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 '^' ■^^'^: 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 c » " " t "^O 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 :^5m-5K:'. " 
 
 ^o 
 
 v' 
 
 
 - 
 
 > 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^. 
 
 ,0- 
 
 
 -^( 
 
 .^ 
 
 n c 
 
 
 r\> ft N o _ f^^ '^ 
 
 « o - •>\ 
 
 .V . V . » . %i». 
 
 -^ V ft « o '^ 
 
 
 rv^ , « o . "^r^