Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-05-17
Mr.. CALHoUN's SPEECH,
On the Presidents Protest coNcLusIoN.l

Of all the surprising events, said MIR. c., in
these surprising times, none has astonlshed me
more than that there should be any division OF
opinion even the slightest as to the Taght OF the
Senate to pass the resolution which has been
seized on as the pretext to send us this protest.
Before the commencement OF the discussion, 1
would not have believed that there was single
Individual in our country, the least conversant
with parliamentary proceedings, who entertain
ed any doubt ofthe right Of any free and delibe-
rative body, fully and freely to discuss and eX-
press their opinion all subjects relatlngto the
public interests, whether IN reference to men or
measures or whether in appreciation or dsap-
probation | venture the assertion, that such
rightshas never been questioned before in this
country; either here or in the State Legislature;
or in Great Britain, for.the last century, by any
party, Wing or Tory Nor is my establishment
diminished by the distinction, which has been
attempted to be taken, between the expression
of an opinion, in reference to the conduct OF
public officers, intended to terminate in some
Legislative act, and those not so lntended-a dis
tnction without example or precedent and
without principle or reason. Nor am less sur
prised that it should be gravely asserted, as 1t
had been in debate that the resolution III ques-
ton was not intended to terminate in some III
terror legislative measure. How this impress
sion was made or could be ventured to be ex-
pressed, am at loss to conceive as 1t was
only waited for the proper moment to carry the
resolution into effect by giving it the form OF
Joint act of both Houses. Nor is the attempt to
limit our legislative functions by our judicial, IN
reference to the resolutions less extra ordlnary.
had supposed that our judicial were in addi-
ton to our legislative functions, and not in di-
minuton; and that we possess to the full extent,
without limitation or satisfaction, all the legis-
.lative powers possessed by the House of Repre-
sentatives, with single exception, as provided
in the Constitution. Were it possible to raise a
rational doubt on the subject, the example OF
the English Parliament would clearly prove that
our judicial functions impose no restrictions on
our legislative. 1t is we'll known that the House
ofLords, like the Senate, possess the power of
trying impeachmentS; and venture to assert,
that, in the long course Of time in which it has
exercised this power, not single case can be
pointed out, in which it was supposed that its
indicial functions were diminished in any de-
gree by its legislative; and when we reflect that
this portion ofour Constitution is borrowed from
the British, their-eXample must be considered
as decisive, as to the point under consideration.
But let us reflect moment to what extent we
must necessarily be carried, if we once admit
the principle. IF the Senate has no right, in
consequence of their judicial functions TO eX-
press an opinion by vote or resolution, in refer
ence to the legality or ilegalty Of the acts of
public functionaries, they have no right to ex-
the objection, if it exists at ALL goes to the eX-
preston of an opinion by individuals as well as
by the body. He who has made up an opinion
and avowed it in debate, would be as much dis
qualified to perform his judicial functions, as
Judge on a trial of impeachment as if he had
expressed it by vote; and, of course, whatever
restrictions the judicial functions of the Senate
may be supposed to impose, would be restric-
tons on the liberty of discussion, well as that
of voting; and consequently destroy the free
dom of debate secured to us by the Constitution.
am indeed, (said Mr.. CALHOUN amazed that
so great misconception Of the essential pow
ers of deliberative body should be formed, as
to deny to legislative assembly the right TO ex
press its opinions on all subjects of public ma
ture freely, fully, and without restriction or limi
tation. Inherently belongs TO the law making
power-the power to make, repeal and to mo-
dify the laws-to deliberate upon the state of
the union-to ascertain its actual condtlon-the
causes of existing disorders-to determine whe-
Their they originated in the laws, or in their exc
cution, and to devise the proper remedy What
sort of legislative body would 1t be, that had
no right to pronounce an opinion, whether
law was or was not in conformity to the Con-
stitution and whether it had OF had not been
violated by those appointed to administer the
laws? What could be imagined more absurd?
and yet, if the principle commended for be COR
rect such would be the character of the Senate.
We would have no right to pronounce law un-
constitutional, or to assert that it had been vio
lated, lest it should disqualify us from perform
ing our judicial functions.
There seems to be (said Mr.. Co. great mis-
conception in reference to the real motive and
character of the legislative and executive func-
tons. The former is in its nature delberative,
and involves, necessarily, free discussion and a
full expression of opinion on all subjects of pub
lie interest. The latter is essentially the power
of executing, and has no power of elaboration
beyond ascertaining the meaning of the law and
carrying its enactments into execution; and
even within this limited sphere, its constructions
of its powers are formed under responsibility,
not only to public opinion, but also to the Legis-
lative Department of the Government.
But wherever the Executive is vested with
any portion oflegislative functions, SO essential
ly do those functions involve the right of delibe
ration, and full and free expression of opinion,
that they transfer with them, to the Executive,
the right offreely expressing his opinions on all
subjects connected with such functions Thus
the President the United States, who is vested
by the Constitution with the right of commune
eating to Congress information on the state of
= =