Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1836-04-28

| full effect, unchecked, unembarrassed,
| by any manner accommodation which
the Legislature can constitutionally de
wise and provide. Sir, ifthis doctrine
that the Senate, and, by parity of rea-
soning, the House Of Representatives
also, are incompetent, in their legIsla-
tive capacity, to examine and deter
mine upon the constitutionality or legal
ity of Executive acts shall be establish
| ed, then | say that the Executive is,
really and truly, the Government, and
the whole Government; that the Pre-
sident is, in every practical view, alb.
solutely irresponsible that he is
more absolute potentate than any
prince, king, or emperor, in Europe,
except, perhaps, the Autocrat of all
the Russias, and the Grand Signior Of
Turkey. And this process ofexpunc.
ton of our resolution Of March, 1884,
is TO be resorted to on the suppostion
that this doctrine is just and true, and
to establish it asa constitutional princi
pic ofthis Federal Republican Govern.
ment.
During the same session Of 1884,
at which the resoluticn concerning the
Presidents conduct in relation to the
revenue was adopted, there was an in
o.lry into the state of the Post Office
Department, and the administration of
its affairs by the then Postmaster &C.
neral, Mr.. Barry; and that proceed
ing Of the Senate resulted in the follow
ing resolution, passed on the 9th Of
June, 1894: "That it is proved and
admitted that large sums of money
have been borrowed at different banks
| by the Postmaster General, in order TO
make up the deficiency in the means Of
carrying on the business of the Post
Office Department, without acthority
given by any law Of Congress; and
that, as Congress alone possesses the
power to borrow money on the credit
Of the United States, all such contracts
for loans by the Postmaster General
are illegal and void" This was at
least as strong condemnation of the
conduct ofthe Postmaster General, as
the resolution concerning the conduct
of the President in relation to the pub
lie revenue contained. | should GER
tainly have voted for it myself bad |
been in my place at the time, because
the proposition it asserted was true in
fact, and just in law but, in giving that
vote, ] should not have been influenced
by any opinion, that the illegal con
duct Of the Postmaster General was
imputable to criminal motives and de-
signs. Enough had appeared to sa-
tisly my mind that the grossest abuses
and corruptions had crept into the ad-
minstration ofthe Department; enough
to convince me that Mr.. Barry was
wholly unfit for his office but the We.
ry circumstance of his un6tness, and
much more besides, that came to my
knowledge, inclined me to take cha
rtable view of his conduct and charac-
ter; and | more than once publicly |
intimated this sentiment. And now !
that he has gone to his grave, find a
real pleasure in saying that saw no
evidence to implicate him in any in
territorial guilt. The resolution con-
corning his conduct was adopted by |
the unanimous Votes of the Senators !
present. 1t is manlestly upon its face
liable to exactly the same objection
now made to the resolution of March,
1S34-namely, that it imported cri-
minal charge against the Postmaster
General, an Improbable officer; and
therefore, it was not within the com
peteucy of the Senate in its legislative
capacity to entertain and act upon it.
The gentleman from Missouri voted
for it; and, to avoid the charge of in
consistency, he now tells us, that the
proceeding against Mr.. Barry was
objected TO, and that in the first stages
Of it, upon the same grounds on which
we now stand in the case of the Presi-
dent" (and of this he adduces proof,
"and the vote which was given by me
and my friends, was a vote forced on
us by the majority Of the Senate, and,
being so forced upon us, was given, as
we believed, according to the truth
and the fact. well recolect that vote,
and the conversation among us to
which it gave rise. Some thought we
should vote against it on the ground
that the proceeding was unconstitu-
tional, and that vote in its favor
would commit US on that point others,
of whom | was one, objected to the ne
gative vote, because it would be against
evidence, and would subject us to the
imputation of voting as partizans and
not as Senators, and because a negative
Uote admitted the jurisdiction just as
much as an affirmative one"
| Now | ask if q nannfIva vote nd.