Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1835-02-20
IN .sENATE-FEBRuARY ls.

Reso(ped, That the reS0luuon aoopteo ny
the Senate on the 2Sth day OF March, IN the
wear 1894, in the following words; ResOtred,
THat the President, in the late Erecmire pro
ceedings in relation TO the public receue, has as
sumed upon himself authority and poaoer not con-
ferred 6y the Constitution and laTs, but az dero-
cation of both" be, and the same hereby is, or
dered to be expunged from the journals OF tpe
Senate because the said resolution is illegal ana
unjust, of evil example, indefinite and vague,
expressing criminal charge without speciflca-
ton and was irregulary and unconstitutional
ly adopted by the Senate in suoversion OF the
rights of defence which belong to an accused
and impeachable officer: and at a time, and I'M
der circumstances, to involve peculiar injury 10
the political rights and pecunlary interests OF the
people of the United States.
MIR. Poindexter objected to the reception OF
the resolution on the ground that 1t was out OF
order The Constitution made 1t the duty OF
the two Houses to keep journal OF theif pro-
ceedings. Each House, therefore, IN refusing 10
incorporate its proceedings in the journal, would
be guilty OF an unconstitutional act. ine oe
nate might be occupied in an unconstitutional
action or might pass an unconstitutional law
But IL did not follow that, because the action OF
the body was not in conformity 10 the Cons'itu-
ton, that the matter of the proceedings should
not be placed on the journals. Ii would De a
violation of the constitutional requsllloh, II ell
Their House were not to spread their proceedings
on their Journal although they might relate to
matters which the body might afterwards fegIet;
This resolution refer ed merely 10 record Oh
proceedings. That record involved no primer
pie The act itself which was recoroeu' III
volved the principle. and 1t might De Gone away
Inv repeal. How could the Senate fulfil Its con-
sttutionaI obligations, if, after it had done an
act of which il felt disposed to repent, II shoniu
expunge the record from its journals, so that
the country would have no evidence OF the
fact, that an act had been done by the BODY
which posterity could never know! lie under
stood. according TO the rules of the Senate,
that a motion to amend the journals must be
made on the morning on which the journal OF
the preceding day was read. Would it be in
order to move to expunge from the Journals the
record OF acts done under the presidency OF
John Adams2 If it We're, there were many
things there which he would be glad to have eX-
plunged. Would it be in order to move to ex-
punge the records Of any Of the proceedings un-
der the administration OF Thomas Jeferson?-
If that would not be in order, equally out OF or
der would it be to amend the journal oil the last
session, by expunglng the record OF any oil the
proceedings. The motion to amend the journal
must be made on the day on which it is read;
In this view he regarded the present resolu-
ton as one which was out of order, and could
not be received by the Senate; and he would
nut il to the Chair, whether any motion could
be in order, to amend the record OF matter OF
fact involving no principle, which mad peen
done by the Senate, and in pursuance OF Its
constitutional obligation placed upon the jour
nal Being OH the journal, was it not due to the
several sovereign States which the Senators
represented on this floor, that they should see
the record2 If the Senator from Missouri was
of opinion that the Senate had committed an
error in the adoption of the resolutions OF the
last session, let him offer countervailing resolu-
tons. If he then can convince the senate that
a wrong course had been taken, the error might
be corrected by making up new fact which
might be put on the journal to counterVall the
other The present motion was to do that which
would destroy the record OF fact The ACT ma
wing been done, it would be unconstitutional to
withhold knowledge Of it from the people,
Without offering an opinion upon the character
of the resolution, he would merely take the
ground that it was the duty Of the Senate to
preserve its journal as a record ofmatter OF facts,
and no motion to correct this record was in or
der, except on the day when it was read: TO
admit the principle claimed in this resolution
would be to open the journals to correction from
the commencement of the Government With
these views he was opposed to the reception OF
the resolution, as out OF order.
Mr. Brown rose and said that it appeared to
him, with great Difference to the Senator from
Mississippi, that the remarks which had fallen
from him, and the course which he had lndica
ted, was at once novel and indeiensioie. When.
ever a proposition stated any thing which was
derogatory to the character OF the Senate, or
was indecorous in its language, ii might be ar
rested in its incipient state But it was not pre-
tended that this resolution contained any thing
which was derogatory to the Senate, or indeco-
rous in itself What then was The objection urs-
ed against the reception of the resolution? The
Senator from Mississippi said thatit was uncon-
stitutona to alter the journal. This was antici.
pating a conclusion which could only be reached
through an investigation. 1t must be decided,
after an examination Of the subject whether the
act would be unconstitutional or not. Yet the
Senator from Mississippi would arrest the in
qury in its incipient stage.
But there was another question which might
well address itself to the Senate, before it gives
its assent to the adoption Of the extraordinary
course which was now desired. Several of the
States, he believed as many asfour or five, had,
by their Legislatures, sent to their Senators in
struc,ions on this point. Would the Senate, in
defiance of this action of so many sovereign
States refuse to entertain proposition, in favor
of which these instructions had been adopted2
the Senator from Mississippi persisted in this
,hota mi ht ha no nd