Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-04-08


nate, aud fully open revision and correction This is
the argument OF the honorable Senator from Louisiana
(Nr Poier) II is obvious to remark upon it, that il
coniounds two things entirely distinct in their nature,
and wholly different in the principles hch they
the correction of mistakes in journal, and the
pungng Of matter thereironl, in which there has been
mistake, but which is otherwise and ntrns cilly OBJ
jec,onabe The purpose for which the Journal is or
dnary read over in the mornings after ii is made up by
The Secretary is simply to correct any mistakes which
may have been made in the entries upon it, This is ex-
picity declared by the standing rules Of the Senate
the very first of which provides that the President
having taken the chair, and quorum being present. the
Journal OF the preceding day shall be read The end
that any mistake shall be corrected that shat te adt The
entries
Now, sir in the precedent of ls0G, there was no mis-
take IN the entry which ordered expuncrd L.
reciled truly aud compliance with positive ,nunc
ton OF the rules Of the Senate the substance Of The me-
MORALS presented, and the proceeding the Senate on
their presentation. There aud could be no allega.
ton OF any error in these reports he entry or
deed 10 be expungcd, not b of any mistake in H.
but because the matter of il unjust and wrong be-
cause II went 10 crminae the Executive Administration
oil the country, without proof probability and for that
reason, ought not to stand upon the Journal of co.or
dinac department. II is in vain therefore to endeayor
to resolve the precedent of lSU6 the ordinary power
of revising and correcting the Journal before il IS finally
made up. 1t far different thing. II was no pro-
cess OF correcting mistakes in entries the Journal
which is ordinarily done the morning after the entries
are made and without the ormaty of order or re-
solution IL was the exercise the part of this bod
OF higher and more important powcr-a power not 10
correct mistake, (ior there nonc but redress
wrong-to purge its Jourual-not of erroneous entries
put oil improper matter, IN the entry of which there had
Deeh no error or 'nstake-a power which, from the
ture oil IL, and the principles which it is founded
must exist in as full force the next year, the ne xt
haorniag after the Objectionable entry has been made
No ingenuity, MIR President, however great 10 efforts
OF mind, however gigantic, succeed in the at
tempt which is made 10 reconcile the Senatorial nrsc
dent OF loOO, with the doctrines of gentlemen who op-
| pose the resolution now under consideration On what
SIR, is their whole argument but' Is the assump
ton, that each House OF Congress- being required TO
keep journal of their edings is bound to pre
serre TO all future tne the record of each all of their
proceedings; that every act proceeding of either
House should be entered the Journal once truiv
entered there that entry thereafter touch
Cd, altered or removed but remain as il is with.
out the change of letter comma, TO the last sy
liable of recorded tineS" Now sir can il be contend
ed, that the presentation of the memorials of Messrs
Smith and Ogden by member of the Senate the read
ing oi those memorials, the action taken upon them by
the Senate not proceedings of which the Const
ton requires journal TO be kept? We have already
seen, iat the rules of the Senate adopted for the pur
pose OF fulfilling the injunction of the Constitution ex-
pressly require all these things to be entered the Jour
nal Can it be pretended that these matters were not
tfMy entered! by no means In every possible aspect
then, IN which the proceeding of this body in 1906 can
be viewed utterly prostrates the whole fabric of tech
neat refinement which the arguments Of gentlemen
against the power TO exp1ng0 have been raised
a case OF expungng, involving precisely the same
principle and leading to the consequences occurred
In The House OF Representatives. not many years ago
On The 18th OF February, 1922 Mr.. Randolph of Vir-
ginia being informed that Mr. Pnckney had lust died
IN this city, (wheTe he then was rose and announced
the event to the House, with the impressive eloquence
which the loss of such naturally drew from a gc-
MUS OF kindred inspiration, and moved immediate adj
Journnent ot the House IL afterwards appeared that
Mr. Pinckney not dead The time that Mr. Randolph
communicated the event TO the House, though he died
! some few hours after The fact however of MIR Ran
dophs having announced the event, and the consequent
adjournment of the House, where necessarily entered
ON the journal part of its proceedings the fol-
lowing day, MIR. Randolph, after explanation of
the circumstances moved that the entry the jour
nal OF the preceding day be elpunged, which was
ordered, and accordingly done. Now sir, if the ex-
trcme, and might wen call it, superstous x,rctness
which IS inculcaIed in regard sanctity and
involabily of entries once made journals had
prevailed then, tins exPunctOn however simple and pro-
per in ITSELF could not have been 1t will be re
marked that there mistake in the entry made on
the Journal The entry was not of Mr.. Pnckney DEATH
but Of The Jaet that Mr.. Randolph gren day announ
ced to The House that Mr.. p. dead and then moved
adjournment. That fact truly entered precisely
as 1t occurred II there had been mistake in the entry
e io,en wouo nave neen me ordinary one 10 correct,
and not The extraordinary one 10 erpunge it. If
over, the doctrine earnestly contended for by gen
tenen were well founded, that transaction proceed
ing in either House truly entered ON its journal
the entry must stand there all future time and cannot
be touched or changed in letter a comma without
violation OF the Constitution then Mr.. Randolph instead
OF the short and obvious remedy of expuncon of the
entry of the preceding day, could have
attained his object only by distinct entry of his explana.
ton on the journal of the succeeding day
But, sir, the Senator from Louisiana, concedne
the power OF each House entries made on
its journal, contends that this power is limited to the
current Congress, and that the Senate or House of
Representatives Of succeeding Congress has no control
whatever over the journal of the Senate House of
Representatives OF preceding Congress. Without
stopping TO show that this argument, even correct
in Its principle, would be wholly inapplicabe 20
the Senate, which, from the successive partial re-
newas of its members, Zone third of the whole being
replaced by new elections every second Year, is pef.
peuai body, choose rather to the principle of
the objection at once by demonstrating its utter incon-
pa6ilily with the nature of the legislative trust 1t
IS fundamental principle in regard legislative bodies
that, IN tier ordained successon by virtue of ne.
rodca elections, Legislature has precisely as much
one Legislature, or in session of Legislature may
be repealed by another during subsequent session
What one resolves another may rescind; and i'm like
manner and on the principle one Legislature has
as much and The same power the Legislative Ie-
cords as another In this respect, there is obvious
and important distinction between Legislative and Judi
ciai bodes supposed analogy in whose functions and
proceedings has doubtless misled The honorable Senator
Alter the adjournment close Of the term of court
Its proceedings lis orders, its Judgments its DEGREES
are final and irrcvocabe, far depends on its own
action has power, legislative bodies have at a
subsequent term or sessions to revoke change or set
aside any thing done by at preceding term or session
III error has been committed that be corrected
after the expiration OF the term only by higher tribunal
aud certain limitations Of time are prescribed within
which even these appeals TO higher tribunals must be
prosecuted So imperative is the maxim interest rel
pulitzer at SIT iaS Hnnl, the public repose requires
limit to Le fixed 10 judicial controversies The nature
OF the legislative trust, however being altogether differ.
emit and requiring that the exercise and expression of
the public will should be- all times unletered in mat.
leIs OF general concern every Legislature session
Legislature, hes unlimited over The acls po-
ceedngs, or resolutions Of preceding Legislature or
session.
Gentlemen have been misled as il seems TO me-
through the whole of this discussion by su d.
posed analogy between legislative and judicial pro.
cecdngs, when in fact, none exists Either from Inc
f.Faa fi. f...t