The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-09-14
WHY NOT "EXPUNGEn?

In case less fragrant than the recent outrage
which was committed on the Journal of the
House Of Representatives, the Senate of the
United States felt that it was not only due to
Andrew Jackson, but TO the People of this
country that resolution merely declaring that
the President had acted in derogaton of the
laws" should be ''ExpUNGED"
say now, Mr.. Editor, why should not the
Report of Mr.. Adams be erpunged also? If
there was, IN the first case, color Of pretext
why the Senate should have undone their act,
is there not reason, paipahte and clear, why
the House should retrace their steps and undo
theirs also?
When moving to eject the Presidents Pro-
test from the House, Mr.. Bolts endeavored to
show, as his justification therefor, that it was
precisely similar, in all respects, to that of An
drew Jackson. Now, Mr.. Editor, presume, if
it should so turn out that these cases are not ST.
milar, but wholly unlike one another, that then
Mr. Bolts will admit the Presidents right to
protest-and more especially, if it should like
wise he shown that the proceedings objected to
have no legislation in view, but merely had
to CRAFTY the personal anmosity of a political
party.
In the first case, the Senate adopted resolu
tlon not impugning the motives of the Presl-
dent, though charging violation of the claws
and Institution" This they should not have
done and the resolution was e.rpunged. The
Senate, however, claimed the right TO express
an opinion of the acts of the Executive, because
tod tafp nd fh,,
judges of the President in case an impeach-
ment should be sent up from the House. AT
most, this action the part of the Senate
could only be regarded in the light of an invita-
ton to that body to mpeach the President.
In the second case, The House not only adopt
ed resolution, but a long report assailing the
private honor of the President and charging
him with high offences against the laws and
Constitution. They not only charge viola
ton of the laws, without prelerring an inpeach-
ment in form. but they usurp the jurisdiction
of the Senate and try the President upon his
motives also For this Tn have not the least
prete.rt whatever. Their act was downright
usurpation. They impeach without daring to
say so-or, rather, they would impeach" if
they dared. Upon this quasi Impeachment,
they enlpannel suborncd jury Of their own
body-assume the character and function, OF
the Presidents constitutional jury of the Senate
deliberately condemn him, and place the con-
demna,on on their journals for this, they can
not plead epen color of right in any resort, to
try him, and in this, particularly, is the House
case worse and more indefensible than the Sc
nate case.
The course which the House has taken to-
wards the President, is worse than Ale, and
Scdltiou law federalism. 1t assumes that the
President shall not open his mouth against the
vesI and most wanton calumny uttered by CO.
ordinate branch of the Government. That
branch may abuse the President without stint,
and he will not be allowed TO say anything in
his def nee, though couched in language the
most respectful.
This principle is too monsjrous TO be borne
with, and | say, let the Report and proceedings
connected with it be "erpunged" from the
journals, as containing and publishing that
which is false against the President and I'M
warranted by the Constitution.
Had Mr. Bolts not called the previous ques-
ton, as he meaniy did after making remarks Of
his own and reading the speech of Mr..
Webster upon General Jackson's protest
in 1884, he would have been replied to,
and the assumption he took, of similarity be
tween the case then and now, fully and tri-
umpbanlly refuted, but fearing exposure before
III, House aud the nation, he refused TO do so,
aud was content TO "head" the President by
taking an advantage hich every honorable
mind must condemn.