Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-02-02
,,r FOR THE ENQUIRER
lie EAPUNGING RESOIIITIDNS

The arguments of the Wings ESQ far as il rn,e IN Tho
Snn, IN opposuon 10 the process OF eapunging the
States as that process is pointed in the
now under in the House of Delegates may be
compressed IN nutshell IL is this "he Constitution
o ihe u States requires the Senate of tho IT, States TO
keep aJourna OF proceedings: "to nxpunse rcsolu-
hon recorded on that Journal destyou the ournaI 10
destroy Inc journal any part thereof violate the
Nonsutnon and therefore The resolution cannot be Goa.
additionally eapnnged."
Now trace them (thc Whps0 from their ,re,,;sas 10
the conclusion 10 keep journal, say they is to tre-
scrre Journal to PreserDe journal they continue is 10
keep 1T untouched for the purpose of arring il and 10
alter is 10 destroy it, Now back and see how they
jump from one position to another kcep is to reserrS
and TO alter is to Destroy and to destroy violates The Con-
stiuiion 10 destroy the journal it IL true would vio
tate uie constitutional injunction "to keep journal
but not true that Keep preserve unaered or
that alter means destroy.
But what does il avail them as recards d.. ,,oos -
e7Punging, To contend that desyoy or oberac The
journal OF the Senate, would violate the Constitution
why, iorso9i, they take another lump and saw III had
aimo5 sa'd they s'oear) that ezangc is to destrov
Now, what is the conclusive answer TO all ,bo, I,
Plainly this: The elpungc in Che resolutions nm
der discussion, is not used in the cxicograpbers
give to H. and which is to erase tJ blot out To oItro.
but II 10 used in that sense which Statesmen given
10 in tlat sense which parliamentary and legislative
usage has given TO 1t; and in which has been nopted
here as 1t has been else where, preference 10 the
reseha because Tie proceeding To be made null and
ana OF no effect, in its inception and consumua
ton, without just and without hori,v
10 make proceeding null and void which at the time
oil ITS adoption, was just in itself and within the consti
tutona competency of the body that adopted it, the an
pcaon of the term yesoind would be proper and apuro
pirate.
Hence is obvious, that the advocates of the use Of the
word e1Punge IN reference to the Senaies resolution of
censuTe are not liable To the charge OF conradicting
themselves, when they say they wish erpunge and do
notinend 10 destroy To oblcrate They use the word
axunge IN IFS parliamentary definition and not in its full
pathological Specification. They use tapunDe in prefer
ence to rescind because is term in IT'S parliamentary
sense, would convey the concession, that the resout;n
oil the Senate was for just ,eLin its cosf,
ttoHa competency all which, the zpunee in lis mar
ma ana in
ought to be denied in the premises Such is the only
difference, (apart from the harmless black lines
e1PuRgtng and resembling the proceeding Legislative
cxpurgaton more conspicuous. Black lines NAV be CO.
pied with as much facility letters, which are but
"scrbbied lines, drawn with pen upon parch.
ment. So II the original manuscript journal of the
Senate, shall be in fearful Of decay or if The
gentleman OF hanotcha shall, at any time want a
copy OF the Journl, there will be no more difficult
~ In getting copy of the eypungcd resolution than
II had not been exPungedit will only cost the scribe
little more labor But no! The writing of The words
"rxpunged by order Of the Senate of the u STATS
across the face OF tue entry will be apt blot out some
oi the letters OF the resolutions stands on the our
nal Then, for mercys sake, all ye who are so tender
OF the Senaies Journal unite direct those words IN
be written across the entry with rcd ink and then Too
there VIII be less danger that shoe brush aud black n
wiil be used! And here beg be understood-I sa y
red INK, and am sure do not mean LoOd for vouId
not on any account have the ears OF the rood peo,
founded with the cry: p -