New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-14
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.

The House proceeded 10 the consideration Of the
special order being the resolutions reported back from
tie Committee on Expenditures in the Navy Depart
nent which declare that the Secretary Of the Navy
has with the sanction of the President, abused his
discretionary power in the selection OF coal agent
and for the purchase Of fuel for the Government; that
the contract with Swift for ve-osk timber was in ylo-
laton of law that the distribution Of the patronage OF
the Navy-Yards among Members of Congress Is de-
structive of discipline and injurious to the public SER
vice; that the President and Secretary OF the Navy In
considering the party relations Of bidders and the effect
of awarding contracts pending elections, are deserving
of the reprobation of this House; that Daniel H. Mar
tin member of the Board of Engineers, TO report on
proposals for construction of machinery, he being per-
sonaly interested therein is hereby censured by ths
House.
Mir. BOCOCK CDem., Va in opposing the resolu-
tons and after few preliminary Remarks, sand: LOOK
Sir at these resolutions submitted by the member from
Tennessee Mr. Hsttonl, and tell me If | am mistaken
in my appreciation Of them? Examine them pariicu-
ary and it will be that they have references
whatever TO legislation They contemplate in no way
procedure before the Senate for an impeachment OF
this House these high officers. They are nothing
less than condemnation of the Chief Exec
utive of the country, and an inietion OF punish
ment upon him. Look at the first Of the res
ouiions, and it will be that il relates to an
abuse that longer be pactced, If it be AN abuse
at all. Ii pracced, however under the old sys-
tem already abolshedby law, cannot be again intro
duced. But the resolution il not directed against that
upon the President of the United States and the Sccre-
tary OF the Navy. Is il not, in fact, punishment that
is called for Is not the House asked TO nfic punish
meDt upon the President and the Secretary Of tue
Nayy7 One of the resolutions directly charges that a
particular act Of these gentlemen demands The reproo
of the House of Representatives; aud another resou-
ton says that particular act Of tho President OF the
United States and the Secretary of the Navy deserves
the censure of this House. And Sir, is not this in
itself punishment-sn infection of eensure ? Look
at your military system, and you Will lind IN
the list of punishments enumerated and de-
scribed in the code the punishment of censnre
upon officers | need not remind gentlemen that
to high-minded, chivarous honorable man, that
censure calmly and deliberately visited, is the most
grievous punishment that could be inflicted. Why, Sir,
taking this, in connection with the doctrine pronul-
gated by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Ono
would not be surprised to them follow up their doc
trne, and demand that the Sergent-at Arms he or
dered TO arrest the President of the United States IN
his apartments, and bring him 10 the bar of this House,
that the House might publicly administer reproof to
him. Why, Sir, the gentleman from Pennsy lvania
asserts that the President of the United States has
no more protection than the humbest in the land,
and according 10 ms doctrine you can send the
SeTgean-at-Arms TO arrest the President and bring
him here and set up the gentleman from Ohio to
administer censure upon him. This proposition III
wolves some points which l Will briefly discuss.
The first question il involves is the question
raised BY my colleague few days ago, whether
it is right aud proper in the House Of Representatives
TO form itself into judicial tribunal, and proceed To
pass sentence and inct punishment upon the President
Of the United States, upon tho ex parte testimony
taken before Select Committee Of past House OF
Representatives 1t might be said that the action Of
past Houses was frequently acted ON by succeeding
House. This is true TO q certain extent but IN snel
an important matter as this when you come to inves-
tgate the rights and privileges Of ireemen, and TO cOu-
slider tie prOpriety of passing judgment and ntiictng
punishment, then ask you, have you right to AXE
the teetmony given before Committee OF past ses-
sionl If you have right to do this, where will it
end? Ii yOu have right 10 60 back 10 the
last session IL establish this case why not 60 further
back-go back 10 the Congress before that-aye, and
rake up the oldest archives Of the land and 60 back TO
the DAYS Of Jefferson and Adams 10 make charges.
submit TO the consideration of the House another ques-
ton, which Is, has the House of Represenatives the
right 10 pronounce judgment and lnfilct punishment
upon the Executive authorities! Here we are with
striking fact that here now, from the very beginning
of the Government in 1873 down 10 the present time,
this is the first proposition Of the kind ever made by
the House of Representatives that it should resolve
itsef into judicial tribunal aud pass Judgment and
infct punishment upon the highest Executive mags-
irate Of the land. If we have or ever had the
right to act TINS, il is very strange that m days
when the utmost political excitement prevailed all oyor
the land, when ordinations and determinations were
the order OF the day, that no man, that this House
never claimed the right to nilict punishment upon
those in executive authority. | ask gentlemen who
claim this power for the House of Representatives TO
tell me one single instance where IN our past history
such right claimed before. In 1854 series
the act OF Gen. jackson in removing the deposits from
the Bank and in which act the President had not only
precedent in law 10 sustain HIM, but III TACT acted III
deTOgation of the law Of the land. But III these
resolutions there no censure proposed, no DC
claraiion set forth that he deserved the repro0i
of the Senate-no, it was a simple declaration
that the act not in conformity with the ~"
of the land. Gen. jackson, who was very scnsi-
tive considered that an indirect reproof, and he
answered it with a solemn protest against the action OF
the Senate, III which he denounced that action oil le
Senate an improper encroachment upon HIS Prcrogd-
tives as a coordinate branch of the Government WHAT
was the conduct of tire leading Senators OF the day
Clay. Calhoun. Webster, Lee OF Virginia, and several
others-who drew up the resolution, in view or this
protest of President .Jscksonl They only objected
to the protest so far thai the President pressed
his protest on the ground that the declaration
OF the Senate was an Impeachment OF ms
motives, and, IN fact, ccnsure upon him
accordingly. Now, if gentlemen on the other
side could accept these resolutions OF the Senate a.
conveying a censure ON President jackson, and a. a
precedent OF the right OF this body 10 nct ccnsre II
would indeed be valuable 10 them IN this matter. But
they cannot. II was exactly the reverse. Mr.. Clay
denied that any indirect eesure was conveyed,
and declared that the resolutions were drawn W IN
general terms pufposey with view TO avoid an eH-
preston of opinion us the motives of the Executive,
aud limited 10 the fact that he had assumed power
neither conferred upon him by the Constitution OF tue
laws Here then, is the case President jackson de-
MED the power OF the Senate to mpcach hls motives,
or 10 pass censre upon him such impeachment YET
Notwithstanding that the Senate denied that they IN
tended to impeach his motives, yet failed otake issue
with him on the point, rather coneedng indeed t nc
wac right but that they merely expressed an opinion
in their legislative capacity upon the nature OF tue act
This il the sentiment and doctrine Of the Constitution
that the respective departments of the Government
are independent Of each other their different spegs,
legitimate sphere is Independent of the President
am not denvpg the right and the power of the House
Of Representatives making investigations into corrupt
itpos Nle nV
come 70 light with the view Of impeaching the Pres
ideut by the Senate; but I deny the right OF this