Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1837-01-26

b
vote, whatever may have been his opin-
ION Of the resolution proposed 10 be ex-
punged. IL was. in his view OF the
Constitution. rs much n duty To keep
aEd preserve the Journals Of unconsti-
tu.ional proceedings. If such there be.
rs OF any other. Our constituents have
as much right 10 know our bad acts as
our good ones: because ~ IS for these
they will call US IN account. and II would
be strange doctrine. ,ha, wc could shield
ourselves from responsibility by ex-
pnnging the Journals. The Argument,
then. OF the Senator from Pcnnsylva-
ri1. that the resolution OF ls3. was un-
constitutional. and therefore ought To
Ne expunged. did not in the least re-
licve hrs mind. lie understood too.
that this was the basis Of the votes OF
other members az tho Senate in favor
st expnneing. Much "a he disapprov-
ed oi the resolution OF 1881, he belle we'd
that 1t WAS constitutional. and tha, il
wa' such 4 proposition rs the Senate
might entertain and adcp.. He s,w
/ nothing unconstitutional about IL. II
might. or It might not. he considered an
abstract proposition. IL had, indeed.
remained as a mere drclaratory express
sion OF the Senate, but u might have
been The basis Of egisla,ion. Whether
It be true or false. is matter OF opin-
ion. Those who voted for it, unlue.-
'iona5ly believed its al,irma,ions TO be
true. They believed that the Presi-
dent had. IN relation To the revenue,
exercised authority and power not con-
ferred by the Constitution and laws,
bu: in derogation of both. lie. who
voted against IL. believed that the au-
thoriiy and power exercised by the
President was not an deroga;ion or the
Constitution and laws; and, however
much he dissen,ed on the ground or
eyPediency from that which has been
done. he never doubted the cons,i,u-
tional and legal powc. OF the President
10 do what he did.
u had been said (coniinrcd Mr.. H.
that the resolution Of 1891 contain,
impeac enable matter against The Presi-
dent. and that on this account. is not
entitled to place on the journals. He
cid not think. however, tha, IT con
tanned any impeachahic matter. II,
charged no evil or corrupt intention.
which was the essential Ingredient of
ImCcac halle matter. lie referred To
.he case Of Pecks trial before the Sc
nate. and stated that the absence o.
proof Of corrupt intention was the basis
of his acqui,tal by the Senate. This
had hccn the reason of his own vote OF
acqUi,;al. AMI this he h,i good reason
20 believe, was the ba.is Of votes OF
-scquittal generally.
In voting against cxpungin he did
not vote TO affirm the truth of the reso.
luton Of 1891. He had already stated
the reverse. He believed that the
President had the power. whatever he
nigh. think OF its exercise, under the
circumstances Of that case. But his
opinion that the resolution proposed 70
be cxpungeI was. and is untrue, had
nothing 70 do with his duty in the pre-
sent case, and could not, in any de-
gree, influence his Eote. The senate
had no power 10 expupge the Journals.
lie could, without the least difficulty,
vote upon the journals Of the present
session, a resolution IN rescind that Of
1884, or TO affirm a contrary PROPOSE
ton. This, while it would clearly s.
scrt the opinion Of the Senate in rcla-
ton to the proceedings Of lS3t, would
not obliterate the journals OF 'ha; day
and would have all the elIcc, Of the
mode proposed.
Mr.. ii. here referred to the ConsIi-
. - - a~k
shall keep a journal Of lis proceedings,
and from time to time publish the
same. excepting such parts a. may ~
their opinion require secresy." and
said, that the obligations Of his oath to
support the Constitution OF the United
States made. in his conscience and
judgment, bis duty on the rrescu; oc-
caeion clear and imperative. The
Constitution required the journal to be
kept. lie could not vote 20 destroy.
or expunge. or oblitcra'e Il. But il j.,
con.endcd (said MIR. n } ihst;he black
lines proposed 10 be drawn around the
journal If 1891 will not cNpuuge II
IN reality; that they will take nothing
away from IL. II will ne.s however. be
'ebA'hNta AhoN VIC NDsA5 iF
qnired 10 be written across the lace OF
u will not defsce, and to a certain ex-
tent. obli,era'e il. But suppose these
black lines and this writing Upon the
journal Of 1884 takes nothing away
from that journal. it will surely not be
denied that n material addition will be
made 20 it. The Constitution require,
The journal to be published, but how
was this TO be publishedi Could II be
published as the journal 81 1877 No.
That had been published three years
ago. There were in ;hat publication
no black lines, no writing across the
face Of the record II you publish it
As the Journal Of 1891. you Elsify the
former publication. You cannot pub
li.h il as the journal Of 1884. There.
md there only, are the black lipcs and
iabellous writing TO be found. Nopage
Of the journal Of 1897 contains any
thing like il. In what shape. or form.
or manner then, will You obey the
Injunction Of the Constitution. IN pub.