Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-03-24

memorials of Hcssrs. Ogden and Smith were actuay're
turned TO them, lie said that such the fact The
resolution of Mr. Early waS adopted, in one resolve
butFrcr Icy piece. Divisions called and separate
votes taken upon esry separate menhcr Of the iesou.
uon making i've sets Of votes and all carried in the af
rmauye by yss varying FROM 40 To 20; mugs varying
from 10 To The fast list OF nays were: usssrs Sias
Betton Christopher Clark, Samuel w Dana, Caleb
Eis, william Ely Joseph Lewis, it,, Jonathan o.
Mosey, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, ir., Josiah
quincy, Benjamin Ialmad,e. Samuel Penney, rhemas
w Thompson, William r. Van Rensselaer,, aud Pcleg
Wadsworth
MIR. b. then remarked upon the passages which he
mad read from the Senate and House Journals lie said
mat thcy established every point which material to
oe maze out IN support OF his motion; they establish
both the rtgM to exPunge and the d,Sy expungc in
case as rs now presented in the proceedings against
President Jackson. the memorials which were present
ed In the Senate and in the House of Representatives
Contained criminal charges against President Jefferson
iny went TO crimnaie him as conniver at violation
OF the laws, and To stnaze him for bad faith To those
who had been his dupcs The petitions were in dupl
cate, and were presented Simultaneously in the two
Houses In the House of Representatives they were
instantly met by resolve denying their truth declaring
them TO be unfit matter TO be presented 10 the House.
and ordering them TO be returned To the petitioners
IN the Senate they were FIRST ordered be returned but
no reason assigned they then ordered to be ex
plunged from IL; and expunged in the most eiectu
al ana rrecoverable manner They dropped from
the volume The very pages which contained them
were dropped and omitted. For the journal being still
IN loose sheets the sheets which contained the o5nox
GUS proceedings were left out of the bound volume
ana thus all trace OF their existence disappeared -
~ Is only by looking TO the minutes the journal of
.ne house OF Representatives. that find out
what these petitions ) UGH is the case of fsO6
IL Is complete aud perfect precedent for the case
OF 1886 The memorials were attacks upon Mr.
Jefferson They contained mpeachable matter nu,;ns,
him They charged him with con and
tcpaton in the unlawful disastrous and tragcol xne
aiuon OF Miranda The charges which they contained
nad hiied all the opposition newspapers of the day and
had been used for every purpose of party warfare ans
hlm. 10 get these criminal charges on the journals
was the next object In the Senate, and in the House
oil atves, they presented by the poltca
enemies of Mr. Jefferson and so far as they received
supporter countenance it from The ranks of the
Opposition So OF the proceedings against President
Jackson. They are attacks upon him They cLorge
nun win violating the laws and the Constitution =
they go TO criminate and TO sgmatize him. The
charges which they exhibit universally circulated
In The opposition newspapers before they were
in the Senate. The Bank of the United States had
accused the PRESIDENT and all the publications
OF the day, periodical diurna and what not that es-
poused the cause of the Bank, were filled with The
charges Party warfare had used them to the utlermost
IN the iali elections of 1883 but that not
the same party SPIRIT and the party-the Bank Fe
derai party, which in 1906 wished have its CHARGES
PRESIDENT jefferson transferred from the
PeIs 10 'e Journals oil Congress- thence To be transmitted
to postery part of the legislative history of The
coun'ry-thot same spirit and that party has wish
ca TO 90 the same thing with the against Pre-
sueht Jackson The Congress of 1906 both House and
Senate, met this ATTEMPT as il deserved
ne rouse refused the memorial and voted TO be un-
sustained ny evidence and Feprehensbe its Character
the Senate ordered the whole proceeding and
ana letter OF IT. to be expunged from the Journal 1t is to
no purpose, MIR. President that any one nav ota,nn, 10
draw distinction where there is no difference /, ~ 10
no purpose that any one may attempt draw distinction
between expunglng at the session, and at sub.
seqaent one There IL difference between the cases
The night to expunge upon the right to keen tbe
journal clear OF what ought To be upon il II res,o
upon Tue right 10 purify It from any thing improper
winch ihddvertence mistake the Injustice yirnlence
ana Jury oil party spirit may have put upon it, To this
purhcaton there is no limit of time either in law or in
morals. II is not for u statute of Limitations =
nus irom lis very nature, the publication the Jour.
nal Is to be effected when be- aud that always inn,
pes Tune Poslerior TO the wrong; and in the case OF
n n finn fa..x- ~.
iaction The precedent of 1906 meets the objection OF
ioo IL meets II full and fair in the face The obiec-
w H al the Senate Is bound TO preserve its proceed
gs' that IL must write down all its proceedings in the
Journal and then preserve them forever; never SternT
changing or ehdcns one word letter. one iotn one
ttte, OF the sacred work from the moment i, il don 10
the end OF time. This the objection; and il has boon
repeated rather Too often be itself changed or altered
yoiu me operpowering authority of the precedent of
Louisiana, (Alr. Porter) tell him. the expunging was
not only at the session. but on the same div to,
the proceeding took place.
would here drop this head of my argument but il
seems That something has in our own hisorv nm
wnch gentlemen rely either Justify or o
csilhinale Their OPPONENTS allude the case of Mr.
parry, VINO was Condemned for violation Of the laws
ny me unanimous vote of the Senate This was done
al te same session. aud few months later than the
PRESIDENT was condemned Both parties voted for tina,
concentration OF Mr. Barry and it is argued this must
sacoh the proceeding against the President or
an an Inconsistency, those who voted for that condem
nation, wiuiou. Objection, and object to the pro.
ceedng IA the case of The President Not so the fact
or ne consequence. The proceeding AGAINST All
DAIRY was objected to- and that in the very first stages
~ upon the same grounds OH which we now stand in
the case OF The PRESIDENT end vote which was yivsn
by me and my friends, was vote forced mon us b lie
majority OF the Senate, and being forced nnon ne
was given as we believed ACCORDING to the trnth md
the iact well Tecocct that and the conversation
"ohg ourselves to witch ii gave rise. Some thought we
snoud vote against H. the ground that the
was unconstitutional and that vote i'm IFS favor von1
commit us on that point others, Of whom was oue oh
Jeced to The negative vote, because it woud m gan,
eVdence and would subject the impntation Of VIZ,
nf as PduZahs ana not as Senators, aud because me-
8auVe vote admitted the jurisdiction Jus; as ,nncb ne n
affirmative one Upon these grounds and beoause ,,,,
majority had The power and enforced H. To connel n
'ote we TOOK the alternative, which truth scpncd Ia
require ana acted upon the same principle in botb
cases, that OF Mr.. Barry and that of President ,cLso
voting according what we believed r., I've ,h c, 49,,
euch case. But let no one delude himself with the M
ZION tnat te proceeding against MIR Barry was not oh
Jecteo 10! Let no one suppose that the difference in
i"A' mas maoe difference lE the opinions held in fh
Eases ne proceeding against Mr.. Barry was OBJ
Jeced to- and fully aud unequivocaIly in omen deLa,
anu upon all The grounds assumed afterwards in The
PRESIDENT Jackson Here is the proof taken fo, H.,
ueoate oil February 10, 1881 and preserved in te
IeSsiohai history OF that period The debate was ON
the adoption OF resolution of crminatjye asnecf on
eernDg the examination OF witnesses as ia Inc c,,sc
ther removal by the Postmaster GencraI from Office
ahu the speaker the same that addresses you
benton 'hen rose and said, that he appear Oh , floor
he ,, ~ 49, ~ Johg ~ tic debate, opinion on
Senul lilo had no opinion nsiter, aud J
one, except Il that prosumptivo ooino3 of 10 nave
lave awarded to all ace,se adj j ~, winch no
vated character Of N Barry ernineniIy claims N
night be BIS duty TO cit In Judgment UPON bio,a, ~ H.
opinion the case, to retire from Tho nc had an
ns,thor reconcile IL 10 the dictates No. ~
OF the accused, TO take the oath Judge with
hIon w ne bosom, 10 be dropped soon ~ L cn L
lo Ioso 10 repeated. 10 asolyo NJ narrS
but 70 express his opinion Of character Of te
vas carrying on against him, intimate mn Iea ~