Page images
PDF
EPUB

President to nominate for some office a man who already holds the office of governor or judge, I surely would have a right to say I will not vote for him, because I think he has, in the office he now holds, assumed powers he did not possess, and therefore I will not trust him farther.

After having said so, if he is impeached, I cannot be challenged and excluded from sitting as one of his triers. I have charged him with no crime; and, having given an opinion that his conduct was unlawful, does not disqualify me. If this were so, we must reverse the whole order of things; and whenever a judge is called on to decide a cause similar to one he had before decided, we must exclude him, and appoint some other; whereas the common impression has ever been, that the judge is the better qualified for having examined and previously decided the same or a similar question.

In England a peer cannot be challenged because he has previously given an opinion; nor can a Senator here. They are judges, having a right to decide the law as well as the facts of the case.

But the Senate heretofore attempted to exercise this very power in the case of the Panama nominations. Mr. Adams (I beg pardon, the late President), in his message, told us he had the power to have sent ministers without consulting the Senate; but, as they were soon to be in session, he thought it best to delay the appointments, and consult them. A resolution was submitted denying this claimed power, and a long discussion ensued. If we contested this claimed but unexerted power, can any one doubt but, if it had been exercised, we would have denied it by a resolution if we could? For one, I never doubted but the President honestly entertained the opinion expressed.

The subject of removing the deposits had been regularly brought before the Senate by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. It was one on which we had a right to legislate. We had a right to know why it was done, and how it was done, to either approve or disapprove; to legislate upon it: to direct the money to be returned, or to be kept anywhere else; in short, to approve or disapprove what had been done.

We could have thanked the executive for his prompt attention to the public interest; for his efficiency in displacing one Secretary, who would not remove the money, and appointing another who would. Why, then, had the Senate no power to say that, in doing these things, he transcended his power? To me it appears they had constitutionally the power to pass the resolution. But it then was, and yet is, my opinion that, in exercising this power, the Senate themselves erred when they resolved that he had assumed powers not conferred. I believed he had the power to remove the Secretary, and to do every other act then attributed to him, if he believed a proper case was made out for its exercise. Am I to be told by Senators who voted for the resolution that I committed a crime when I voted against them? I hope not. Nor am I at liberty to

[ocr errors]

say they committed a crime when they disagreed in opinion with me. This is everything the resolution charges the President with. He thought he had the power which he exercised; a majority of the Senate thought he had not, and so expressed themselves in the resolution, not questioning the purity of the motives from which he acted. By doing so they did not assume any power not conferred on them by the Constitution.

In Great Britain the House of Lords acts as a court. A writ of errors lies there to remove a cause from the Court of King's Bench. Suppose a cause thus removed, and the judgment reversed, because the judges had assumed powers they did not possess; if they were afterwards impeached for so deciding, because they were bribed, could not the peers try the impeachment? Undoubtedly they could. I cannot vote to expunge or deface our journal, because I think the Constitution forbids it. I cannot assign as a reason for either expunging or rescinding the resolution that the Senate had no power to adopt it, because I do not think so; and because I think it of the last importance we should retain with the Senate those powers vested in it for high and important purposes, and which are, or may be, essential to preserve the liberty of the people; but most willingly can I vote to rescind, reverse, and repeal the resolution; because I think that the Senate erred in adopting it. To say the least, there are doubts of our power to expunge: and no one, I think, ought to be certain the Senate had no power to adopt the resolution. Why, then, shall we cling to the word "expunge," and to this reason, when there is a plain course to pursue, in which what is due to the Chief Magistrate and to ourselves can be accomplished. To me, the reason is obvious. To expunge has become an executive measure. It is now the watchword of a party; and, by its use, those are to be hunted down who will not conform to the will of the party. In March, 1834, when the resolution was adopted, a majority of the Senate was opposed to the Chief Magistrate. His long and valuable services have endeared him to the American people. They are sensitive as to everything which can affect his reputation as a man or as an officer.

My opinion had been expressed, and was well known; I believe it conforms to the opinion of my State and its legislature; and I hold myself especially bound to endeavor to have it effected by the adoption of the resolution which I have submitted. Those who believe that either I or the people of my State are opponents of the Administration, mistake our character. Our politics are as they have been; we now stand on the same ground, advocate the same principles we did in 1828, when sustaining General Jackson to bring him into power. But we are the slave of no man; and when it is attempted to ingraft on our principles a system which does not belong to them, I will not yield my assent, be the consequences what they may. My wish is to rescind, reverse, and repeal the resolution of 1834, because, in my judgment, it is erroneous, and because

I believe such is the judgment of my State. To vote to expunge it, I cannot; because, in my opinion, the Constitution forbids it; and, anxious as my constituents are to vindicate the character of the Chief Magistrate, they will never require me to do so at the expense of that sacred instrument, which we are all under the most high and most solemn obligations to maintain inviolate.

The objections thus made were ultimately evaded by so wording the resolution as to make it define the mode of performing the proposed operation; and after a desperate resistance by the opposition, which at last, in the words of Mr. Webster, as recorded by Mr. Benton in his "Thirty Years' View," had "degenerated into a question of nerves and muscles," the expunging resolution was passed, March 16th 1837. Upon that day the secretary, in the presence of the Senate, produced the original journal, and (in the words of the resolution) "having drawn a square of broad, black lines around the 'obnoxious censuring resolution,' wrote across its face in strong letters these words: 'Expunged by order of the Senate, this 16th day of March, 1837.'"

CHAPTER XI.

SENATORIAL CAREER-ABOLITION-PUBLIC LAND DISTRIBUTION-SUB

TREASURY-TARIFF-DEMEANOR-BUSINESS HABITS-SURNAME.

UPON the disturbing question of slavery, which has since grown so portentously in importance, Judge White's sentiments were loyal to those of his native State, and were characterized by the solidity and prudence which were such important elements in his character. These sentiments he expressed March 2d, 1836, upon occasion of the presentation of one of the petitions then so frequently presented by some northern members for the abolition of slavery within the District of Columbia. Upon that occasion he spoke as follows:

Mr. President: I address you under the solemn conviction that if this government is to continue to accomplish the great purposes for which it was established, it can only be, by administering it in the same spirit in which it was created.

When the Constitution was framed, the great and leading interests of the whole country were considered, and in the spirit of liberality and compromise were adjusted and settled.

[ocr errors]

They were settled upon principles that ought to remain undisturbed so long as the Constitution lasts, which I hope will be for ever; for although liberty may be preferable to the Union, yet I think the Union is indispensable to the security of liberty. At the formation of the Constitution, slavery existed in many of the States; it was one of the prominent interests that was then settled. It, in all its domestic bearings, was left, exclusively to the respective States, to do with, as they might think best, without any interference on the part of the federal government. This, it is admitted, by every gentleman who has addressed you, is now the case, in every slaveholding State; therefore, it is only urged that Congress has the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. It should never be forgotten that when the Con stitution was formed and adopted, what is now the District of Columbia, was then comprehended within two of the slaveholding States, Maryland and Virginia.

Suppose when all the details of the Constitution had been adjusted, it had been foreseen, that the District of Columbia would be formed out of a tract of country ceded by those States, and situated in the centre between them, it had been asked of the members of the convention, what do you intend as to the district? You have placed the question of slavery in the States, entirely under their control within their respective limits, do you intend that Congress shall have the power. to abolish slavery in the district? Would not every man have answered in the negative?

It has been said that when petitions to abolish slavery are presented to either House of Congress, those who demand the question whether they shall be received, and thus produce discussion, are agitators, and produce excitement on this delicate subject. To me it seems this is unfair. Let us for a moment consider the circumstances of the country, and the situation in which we are all placed.

There are twenty-four States, several Territories, and this District. Thirteen of these States have no slaves, the other eleven have slaves; in fact, their slaves constitute a large item of all the property they own. During the past year, it has so happened, that many newspapers, pamphlets, and pictorial representations made their appearance, and through the mail, and by other means, extensively circulated in the slaveholding States. By these means, a spirit of discontent was created, which occasioned much excitement and disorder in various places, and rendered it necessary, in a summary manner, to put to death several white persons, and a number of slaves. In various quarters of the Union there were assemblages of people, who expressed their opinions with great freedom, In the course of the fall and winter, many of the State Legislatures have been in session-they have been addressed on this subject by their respective governors. They have expressed publicly their opinions-the President, in his message, has invited the attention of Congress to it-the Senate has referred that part of the message to a special committee, which has made a lengthy report, accompanied by a bill, which is now upon our docket, and must, in due course, be discussed, and either passed or rejected. Are all these to be called agitators, and charged with unnecessarily producing excitement? If not, how is it that members of Congress are to be thus charged when petitions are presented that we must in some mode dispose of? Each of us must suggest, such mode as we think most correct, and none can justly be liable to any such charge. If there is any wrong, it is found in those, who, in such a state of public feeling, will press their petitions upon us. The petitions are forwarded to members who feel it their duty to present them; when presented, others think it their duty to demand the question whether they shall be received. Is it true that on this delicate subject, every officer of the federal or State government,

« PreviousContinue »