as the Constitution describes "constitutes a high crime-one of the highest, indeed, which the President can commit-a crime which justly exposes him to an impeachment by the House of Representatives; and, upon due conviction, to removal from office, and to the complete and immutable disfranchisement prescribed by the Constitution." It also asserts: "The resolution, then, was an impeachment of the President, and in its passage amounts to a declaration by a majority of the Senate, that he is guilty of an impeachable offence." The President is also of opinion that to say that the resolution does not expressly allege that the assumption of power and authority which it condemns was intentional and corrupt, is no answer to the preceding view of its character and effect. "The act thus condemned necessarily implies volition and design in the individual to whom it is imputed; and, being unlawful in its character, the legal conclusion is, that it was prompted by improper motives and committed with an unlawful intent." "The President

of the United States, therefore, has been, by a majority of his constitutional triers, accused and found guilty of an impeachable offence.”

Such are the deliberate views, entertained by the Presi dent, of the implications, effects, and consequences of the resolution. It is scarcely necessary to say that they are totally different from any which were entertained by the Senate, or by the mover of the resolution. The Senate carefully abstained from looking into the quo animo, from all examination into the motives or intention with which the violation of the Constitution and laws was made. No one knows those motives and intentions better than the President himself. If he chooses to supply the omission of the resolution, if he thinks proper to pronounce his own

self-condemnation, his guilt does not flow from what the Senate has done, but from his own avowal. Having cautiously avoided passing upon his guilt by prejudgment, so neither ought his acquittal to be pronounced by antici pation.

But, I would ask, in what tone, temper, and spirit does the President come to the Senate? As a great State culprit who has been arraigned at the bar of justice, or sentenced as guilty? Does he manifest any of those compunctious visitings of conscience which a guilty violator of the Constitution and laws of the land ought to feel? Does he address himself to a high court with the respect, to say nothing of humility, which a person accused or convicted would naturally feel? No, no. He comes as if the Senate were guilty, as if he were in the judgment-seat, and the Senate stood accused before him. He arraigns the Senate; puts it upon trial; condemns it; he comes as if he felt himself elevated far above the Senate, and beyond all reach of the law, surrounded by unapproachable impunity. He who professes to be an innocent and injured man gravely accuses the Senate, and modestly asks it to put upon its own record his sentence of condemnation! When before did the arraigned or convicted party demand of the court which was to try, or had condemned him, to enter upon their records a severe denunciation of their own conduct? The President presents himself before the Senate, not in the garb of suffering innocence, but in imperial and royal costume-as a dictator, to rebuke a refractory Senate; to command it to record his solemn protest; to chastise it for disobedience.

"The hearts of princes kiss obedience,

So much they love it; but to stubborn spirits
They swell, and grow as terrible as storms."
$11-Vol. VI.-Orations

We shall better comprehend the nature of the request which the President has made of the Senate, by referring to his own opinions expressed in the protest. He says that the resolution is a recorded sentence, "but without precedent, just cause, or competent authority." He "is perfectly convinced that the discussion and passage of the abovementioned resolutions were not only unauthorized by the Constitution, but in many respects repugnant to its provisions, and subversive of the rights secured by it to other co-ordinate departments." We had no right, it seems, then, even to discuss, much less express any opinion on, the President's proceedings encroaching upon our constitutional powers. And what right had the President to look at all into our discussions? What becomes of the constitutional provision which, speaking of Congress, declares, "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place"?

The President thinks "the resolution of the Senate is wholly unauthorized by the Constitution, and in derogation of its entire spirit." He proclaims that the passage, recording, and promulgation of the resolution affixes guilt and disgrace to the President, "in a manner unauthorized by the Constitution." But, says the President, if the Senate had just cause to entertain the belief that the House of Representatives would not impeach him, that cannot justify "the assumption by the Senate of powers not conferred by the Constitution." The protest continues: "It is only necessary to look at the condition in which the Senate and the President have been placed by this proceeding, to perceive its utter incompatibility with the provisions and the spirit of the Constitution, and with the plainest dictates of humanity and justice." A majority of the Senate assume