Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1834-05-22

tions; hrstIy, when the deposites are ur
safe, r when the bank fails to compl
with tie positive requirements of III
chartG, in transferring the public mon
1eys whenever and wherever it may b
requird by the government. will no
detair you by repeating the unanswere,
reaso's repeatedly given, TO show tina
it isinpossible congress could ever hav,
consulted 10 part with the public fund
upon such grounds. If congress intend
ed to confine the action Of the secreta
ryto these two contingencies, would i
no have done SO? That body was com
po.ed of men who could read and writ,
AM express their will. Yet we find
geieral power given, instead of this lin
ite& restrained power.
The giving this limitation by the sen
ate, required virtual Interpolation by
one branch Of congress, Of regularly
established law Of the land. Here
lheI, was truly an act of usurpation.-
Ont house ofcongress, amending law
of he U. S.
Having thus made law to suit them.
selves, gentlemen declare that the pres.
idelt has violated it, and the constitu.
ton also, because of the part he has ia
ken to accomplish the removal of the
pubic funds. Now, sir, 1t is easy to
male charge of usurpation upon a
mother, if you first usurp authority suffi-
Gent p lay the foundation of the charge.
1t is teralIy charge Of usurpation
founded upon usurpation. Having in
this manner laid the requisite foundation
the senate passed the resolution against
which the president thinks it his right
and dutyto protest, and defend himself.
That resolution declares that the presi-
dent, in the late executive proceedings
in relation to the public revenue, had
assumed upon himself authority and
power not conferred by the constitution
and laws, but in derogation Of both; &
it is because he has sent us "A defence
against this declaration, in the mildest
and most respectful terms. that he is
charged now with making war upon this
body. That the principles and argu
ments upon which his defence rests, arc
at war with the grounds assumed in sup
port Of the resolution, there can be no
doubt. In this sense, and in this sense
alone, does war exist, and the decla~-
ton Of it came unqnestionably from the
senate. The senate first charge him
with violation of the constitution, and
all that he has done has been to send us
his vindication. He has not only been
accursed and found guilty by this body
Of violating the constitution and laws,
without an opportunity Of defence, but
the resolution itself implies design and
intentions. The fact Of viola
ton is averred. in terms without qualif
cation; AMI what is the legal inference
to be draw, from the finding Of the fact,
the naked fact, without extenuation?
Was it intended to say that he did SO in
nocently q ignorantly? If SO you have
drawn distinction unknown to our con
stitution md laws, between the highest
officer inlhe government, who is snppo,
sed 10 bewell acquainted with the laws
Of the l;nd, and the lowest Of our citi-
zens. The rule universally applied to
crime i, that ignorance does not excuse
it. II his were not SO, few crimes
would ,e punished. The senator from
Virginia MIR. Leigh was understood to
say thai indictments for crimes always
charged criminal intent; and from
thencelhe inference was drawn, that
the resolution in question Was not a
charg,of designed violation. Is this re,
solutbh Of the nature Of indictment?
The senate has no power 10 originate
prosecutions Of any kind. 1t is the jury
whicl fui de the fact, and the court
whicApronounces judgment. When a
crimds proved to have been committed
the Inference is necessarily drawn, that
the inent was criminal, and the accused
is thrwn upon the necessity Of proving
facts Inconsistent with the inference. II
the speeches made by legislators in favor
Of the passage Of laws, or Of the adoP-
ton ofresolutions, may be referred to
as evidhce Of their meaning, need moi
remind The senate that a most prolific
source d proof is before US, to show
that the violation charged was meant t
be wilhl, arbitrary, and tyranica
one.
But slr,will any man. after examin
ing precedents, say, that had the house
of representatives, sent US an imPeach
ment againt the president in the very
words of fila re.olution. so far as tn,