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

NJ n nnUD
nouneed judgment upon H. that il is hgl,.handed. un.
constitutional act, and base SANDER ON the Pre-
sdent, aud Is dsgraceul 10 the Senate and the only
question now Is, how shall this Judgment be- executed
The Object OF the Constitution having complied with
by the Senate in this instance in keeping aud publisl
ing their journal, the que ston arises what farther us
can be- made oil II, and 10 whom docs belong. would
answer, that belongs the peoples that IL il
OF no value, but US record Of their history aud as
s"ch only Is worth prcserving that il contains
luton such they have decided that tie under con
sderaton s) unconstitutional aud disgracefu To
the Senate aud the country, they have the right to have
IL expunged in such way, that the Journal may CONT
nue. true history, both of its proceedings and of their
opinion IN relation To il; which would be completely
compshed the resolution the Journal ofthe Senate
was literally expunged, the cxpunging resolution
would recte rerLattm The resolution expunged. But
the gentleman from Wythe asks where is the const
uonal power to expunge! would answer that have
shown its not contrary 10 the Constitution, and that il
Is night derived from tho principles of Representa-
i've covernncnt that the sovereignty resides the
people, and they have power do any thing which is
not ioDidden by the Constitution when for the pur
pose on correcting papabie and fragrant violation OF the
constitution Sir tins argument applies with irresistible
force TO the present case because The Senate not only
violated the Constitution in adopting this resolution but
they did IN open violation of expressed to
sufficient number Oft the Senators from the Legislatures
OF the States to have defeated its adoption Now sir
agreeably to the State Rights doctrine that the Sena
tots are the mere agents of the States
sovereignty in the Federal Government and that their
votes are the votes OF their Stales the States
by their Senators for this resolution which had
ed them beforehand TO against it, were null and void
40 'n'o and consequently the adoption Of the resolution
y
rendered the act ITSELF a5 iait;o null aud void
but the right to expunge is opposed upon the ground
that it will be greatly abused The exercise of the RIG hi
OF instruction, OF the elective franchise, and all other
rights might be objected to with much proprety on
the same ground for each of these rights is subject 10
as much abuse the right expunge Sir this obec-
uon Is founded upon the principle, fear, common
10 he party that made it, that the people are ncompe
lent Tor segovernment, either for Of sufficient
intelligence or virtue or both When the Repre- senta-
ives and Senators CAM with impunity, expunge their
'ouna Tor the corrupt purpose indicated by the gentle
PRAYED and corrupt that they will longer be fit to be
free, and II will then be quite immateria whether they
expunge or not, or what form OF government they may
nave. such state Of things, trust and believe never
VIII exist IN tins country; but if il did the pung-
ing could do no personal injury, for the gentleman
Knows nat there is legal principle, as old the
mon law, That when the best evidence is DESTROYED or
cannot be procured secondary evidence can be resort
ed to; and in country like this where thousands of
copies OF the journal printed, personal injury can
oeiue rom ehpunging the manuscript journal, the
printed copies could and would be used Courts of Jus
as e next best evidence But sir suppose for the
sake oil argument, that it is unconstitutional oberate
any part OF the journal literally expunge it, The
resolution IN your hand is not obnoxious objection
because II shows plainly its face that not con-
template literal expunging of the journal IL is true
hat II instructs Senators and vote for
resolution to expunge the obnoxious resolution from the
journal oil the Senate but prevent its being literally
expnnged 1t directs how it shall be done "by causing
black lines TO be drawn around the said resolution as il
suihds on the original manuscript Journal and these
words written plainly across the face of the said
on and entry Ezpunged by order of the Senate of the
oned states Now, all will admit, presume, that this
can DE zone without defacing rendering legble one
word OF this resolution the journal the Senate and
that the Senate have right place resolution on their
Journal declaring that this resolution is expunged re-
scinded annued repealed. If they have this right
winch no one deny who claims Tor them the rioht
TO place The obnoxious resolution their Journal it ne
cessary follows, that they have the right make an
entry IN any part of their Journal that il does not
oohteIate or render iegbe, that which had been pre-
Viousiy entered; consequently, they have the rpht TO
cause black lines be drawn around this resolution ana
the words exPunged by order of the Senate to be writ
zen across It's lace and the date of this entry, say March
olh, 1896, added. Would not the Journal then sir be
literally true record Of the proceeding the Senaes-
he resolution condemning the President will remain
perfectly legible, (and word changed from what
1t was originally wrtten) with the date Showing
when 1t was originally entered and il will also ex.
oil me United States Senate, March 25h 1885, written
across ~ and on turning the journal of that day
you WIN ind the exPungng resolution entered.
ihe gentleman from Norfolk objects this resolution
on Tue ground That 1t contains its face falsehood
'hat IL Purpors TO expnnge when actually it does not
e. ms seems to me very fallacious objection
Is wen known that the mode of expunging has varied
at different times In the British Parliament it has been
done sometimes by cancelling OF drawing black lines
across each other, and other times by literally erasn
or rubbing out; and in the Massachusetts eSisIatur
the expungng resolution simply entered upon their
!outhai, and the one proposed TO be expunged left un
touched. NOW the gentleman could say with equal pro-
Puety, that the Massachusetts, resolution contained
asehood because it declared resolution TO be exuuno
ca, when u really in point of fact expuneede
Does not he gentleman see that the object in that
case as is in this to stgmaze the obnoxious resolution
WIN e strongest mark of reprobaon, and produce the
consequences oil exPurgation, although it
literally expunged? Words also frequently used in
parliamentary technical not in their literal sense
10, instance the word Iescnd, is strong i'm lis lite
RAJ sense as The word expunge, it being derived from
he ath word resctnderc, to cut off out vet il is
USED IN our courts OF justice in different sense techni
caiy is used anonymously with the words reneal
and annul is the word expunge sometimes used in
technical or parliamentary sense, believe that il is
somelms USED IN parliamentary proceedings TO express
win great strength what is by the words repeal
"u ahnui; ana the Virginia Legislature in using this
WORD, nave right 10 define what they mean or intend
by it, This sir, is all they have DONE and there is no.
hg inconsistent improper or false, in this resolution
have established, that the resolution adopted by the
oehate Is Doth unconstitutional and false that the
lDsucung resolution you hold in your hand both con
suluuohai and ProPer-tlat the parliamentary mode is
e1Puhge ta the peculiar circumstances under which
The Senate adopted that resolution mperously call for
such means to destroy its effect will ahix to il the
strongest mark of reprobaion especially in its adop-
uon, both the Constitution and the sacred right Of in
suction were palpably and lagrantly violated il il
essential that such means should be adopted as will most
great right of instruction Here will remark that al
though believe that of the Senators from this State
was recently elected by the most paIpabe violation of
written instructions, the last Spring elections clearly
proved, ana both OF them opposed in principles and
feelings to minority Of the people of virginia vet do
not support these nslrucng resolutions for the burmese
OF diving them from their seats; but for the purpose
alone OF having that obnoxious resolution expunged 1
am perfectly willing that they shall continue in their
seats they viii represent the wishes and scntime ns of
majority OF the people Of the State; and if | were 10
consult the Interests of my party alone, would say to
both OF them to continue in their and dsobey their
of this kind would destroy anv
party, in this State at least.
Sir, have TO suggest to the Senate only one other
reason why that obnoxious resolution should be expung