230 



CONGRESS, II. S. 



immediate succeeding section, which gives the 

 power to impeach, we find the language to he 



The President, Vice-President and all civil officers 

 of the United States, shall be removed from office on 

 impeachment. 



Why were the President and Vice-President 

 included in this impeaching clause ? What was 

 the necessity for it ? If it he true that they 

 were civil officers, why would it not have heen 

 sufficient to say, ' All civil officers of the United 

 States shall be removed from office on im- 

 peachment ? ' Can any other reason he given 

 than that which I have suggested in relation to 

 the other clauses ; that it was hecause the Con- 

 vention did not esteem the President and Vice- 

 President civil officers; but intended by the 

 term ' civil officers,' as here found, to exclude 

 all who are not appointed officers under the 

 Constitution ; and because the President of the 

 United States is elected by the people, and the 

 Vice-President 4s elected by the people, and it 

 was desirable, upon grounds of public policy, 

 to subject them to the impeaching powers of 

 Congress, they are inserted; but the insertio 

 unius est exclusio alterius is a familiar rule of 

 interpretation. Their insertion demonstrates 

 that in the intendment of the Convention they 

 were not civil officers, and the omission to in- 

 sert Senators and Representatives in the same 

 clause demonstrates that it was not the purpose 

 of the Convention to subject Senators or Rep- 

 resentatives to the same clause ; and we can 

 very readily, as I think, see the reasons for the 

 distinction. 



" How do we get here ? By any appointment 

 under the Government of the United States ? 

 Certainly not. We owe our appointment to 

 our respective State Legislatures by the very 

 terms of the Constitution, and we could not 

 derive it from any other quarter. How do the 

 Representatives get into the opposite Cham- 

 ber? By the election of the people, and in no 

 other way. They are therefore a part of the 

 Government, to administer the Government, 

 holding their offices paramount to the Govern- 

 ment, by a title superior to any thing to be found 

 in the Constitution which creates the Govern- 

 ment, and they are intended to be responsible 

 only to the appointing power the Legislatures 

 in the first case, the constituents of Senators ; 

 and the people in the other case, the constitu- 

 ents of the members. 



"What is the Senate of the United States? 

 Is each member of the Senate the Senate ? Cer- 

 tainly not. In what, then, does the Senate con- 

 sist ? What is it ? It is a body of men (and 

 so of the House) ; numerous because obliged 

 to be numerous, but constituting but one body 

 a Senate deriving their powers not under 

 but by the Constitution ; holding them not sub- 

 ject to any other power except the restraints to 

 be found in the Constitution ; bound to yield 

 obedience to no other department of the Gov- 

 ernment, except so far as they are made im- 

 mediately amenable by constitutional provision. 

 Has the President of the United States any 



authority to call in question the conduct of the 

 Senate? Certainly not. Have the Hor.se of 

 Representatives any authority to call it in 

 question ? Certainly not. Why ? Because we 

 constitute a coordinate department of the Gov- 

 ernment, existing by virtue of a higher power, 

 or as high a power as that which brings into 

 existence the President or the House of Rep- 

 resentatives, and entitled to stand exempt from 

 all right of challenge. 



" I have said now, Mr. President, as much a* 

 I propose to say on the first of these questions. 

 Next as to the second. I do not know why the 

 Senator from Massachusetts thinks it is neces- 

 sary to incorporate the provisions of this law 

 in the form of a rule. If he supposes that the 

 law would have no operation until it becomes a 

 rule of the Senate, the proposition which he 

 presents is more liable to objection than the one 

 which I am about to argue ; for, however true 

 it may be that Congress in its legislative capa- 

 city may impose an oath other than that which 

 the Constitution proposes to Senators of the 

 United States, I suppose no one will contend, 

 except the Senator from Massachusetts if he 

 holds that opinion, and I do now know that he 

 does that it is in the power of the Senate by 

 any such rule to require any such additional 

 oath. If it is not, then your proposed rule is 

 altogether unnecessary. If the law does not 

 operate by its own terms it cannot operate at 

 all. If, as the Presiding Officer of this body, 

 it is not your duty, sir, to administer this oath 

 because of the law, as it is to administer the 

 oath prescribed by the Constitution, you cannot 

 get the authority to administer it by the mere 

 adoption of a resolution. 



"Now, what is the oath required by the Con- 

 stitution? An oath to support the Constitu- 

 tion of the United States. When? Then, 

 when taken, and for all time thereafter. Not 

 an oath that they had from the beginning sup- 

 ported it. Not an oath negatively denying 

 that they had committed any act which would 

 have been hostile to the Constitution of the 

 United States in the past, but an oath dealing 

 with the present and the future, that now and 

 hereafter I will support the Constitution. Sup- 

 pose the oath is taken ; that is one way to test 

 it. Suppose the oath is taken and the man is 

 loyal now, repentant of his past offence, aroused 

 to the necessity of allegiance, loyal now and 

 continues loyal, would you turn him out by an 

 indictment for perjury for the violation of that 

 oath upon proving that he had at some antece- 

 dent time committed the offence of treason 

 against the United States? Everybody will 

 say not. Whether they were wise or unwise 

 in making the oath of allegiance to commence 

 at the period when it is taken and to date 

 thereafter, or whether it would have been 

 better to make it retroactive, is a matter with 

 which the Senate have nothing to do. That 

 was a question before the Convention. The 

 Convention had a right to decide for itself, and 

 the people had a right to decide for themselves 



