CONGRESS, U. S. 



233 



tin* case. It has already been amply done by 

 others. On former occasions I have done it at 

 length. And yet I will not leave it without 

 protesting again that it is absolutely inapplica- 

 ble to the present occasion. If that case were 

 out of the way, nobody would have thought of 

 saying that a ' Senator ' was not an ' officer in 

 the civil department of the public service.' 

 Xow, what did this case decide ? Let another 

 give the summary. I quote the words of Mr. 

 Wharton, in the notes to his edition of the 

 State Trials : 



In, a legal point of vine, all that this case decides is 

 that a Senator of the United States, who has been 

 expelled from his seat, is not, after such expulsion, 

 subject to impeachment ; and perhaps from this, 

 the broader proposition may be drawn, that none are 

 liable to impeachment except officers of the Govern- 

 ment, in the technical sense, excluding thereby mem- 

 bers of the national Legislature. Page 317, note. 



" The case of Mr. Blount has no application 

 to the present question. It is not an interpre- 

 tation of the statute, and so far as it illustrates 

 the Constitution, it simply concerns the liability 

 to impeachment. But even this case has often 

 been drawn into doubt. And if we look into 

 the proceedings of the time, we shall find that 

 the decision, such as it was, encountered an 

 able and earnest opposition. 



" But whatever may be the signification of 

 this word in the Constitution, even conceding 

 all that is claimed for it there, the instance is 

 entirely inapplicable to the interpretation of 

 the statute in question. If there be any doubt 

 on the Constitution, there is none on the stat- 

 ute. The latter is plain, and there are no asso- 

 ciate words to interfere with its natural and 

 unequivocal signification. 



" I conclude this branch of the subject as I 

 began, by putting aside all irrelevant matter 

 all supernumerary questions all surplusage 

 all topics which are not properly germane to 

 this debate. There is no question of the Con- 

 stitution no question of ex post facto but a 

 simple question on the meaning of a statute. 



" The oath has been prescribed by Congress. 

 It is too late to debate its constitutionality thus 

 incidentally. It only remains for us to obey 

 it; promptly, swiftly, patriotically. The pro- 

 crastination of this debate is of evil example to 

 the country. How can we expect the alacrity 

 of loyalty among the people if the Senate hesi- 

 tates ? " 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, in reply said : 

 ; Xow, Mr. President, there are two questions 

 upon which I have but a single remark or two 

 to make before ceasing to trouble the Senate at 

 all in this debate. The first is, whether the 

 act of July 2, 1862, embraces a Senator. The 

 honorable member from Massachusetts bolsters 

 up, or seeks to bolster up, his view of that 

 question by referring us, to the constitutions of 

 the several States, and. the laws of the several 

 States which have been passed in pursuance of 

 those constitutions not a legitimate source of 

 argument, as I think, as far as the particular 

 question is concerned. T^he question before 



the Senate is, what is the meaning of the words 

 ' civil officer,' as found in the Constitution of 

 the United States, with reference to this ques- 

 tion ? That must be ascertained, as I humbly 

 suggest to the honorable member from Massa- 

 chusetts, by looking to the Constitution itself ; 

 nor is it to be ascertained by going to Webster, 

 and conning from Webster the various signifi- 

 cations that he attaches to the particular word. 

 The interpretation of that word is in the Con- 

 stitution. The Constitution is its own inter- 

 preter, and must be its own interpreter, 

 unless we are williug to run the hazard 

 of being wrong. The reason why, as I sup- 

 pose, and those who agree with me have sup- 

 posed heretofore, that the words ' civil officer ' 

 do not embrace a Senator, as those words are 

 used in this act of Congress, is, that a Senator 

 is not an officer under the Government, but 

 above the Government ; he does not derive his 

 authority from the Government, but from the 

 creators of the Government ; his commission 

 comes from his State, and his State issues the 

 commission to him under the authority of the 

 Constitution. He is a part of the Government, 

 and not an officer holding a commission or 

 exercising any authority under the Govern- 

 ment in the sense which this debate involves." 



The resolution was adopted by the following 

 vote : 



YEAS Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, 

 Collamer, Conness, Dixon, Fessenden, Foster, 

 Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Lane 

 of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Ramsey, Sherman, 

 Spra^ue, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van "Win- 

 kle, Wade, Wilkinson, Wflley. and Wilson 28. 



XATS Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, 

 Doolittle, Harris, Howe, Johnson, Powell, Saulsbury, 

 and Wright 11. 



In the Senate on the 26th Mr. Bayard, of 

 Delaware, came forward and took the oath 

 prescribed, after which, resigning his seat in 

 the Senate, he said : " Mr. President, in the 

 course of the debate upon the rule adopted 

 yesterday by the Senate, I stated that the 

 body having exclusive jurisdiction over the 

 subject, I should hold myself bound by its 

 action, and that but one alternative remained 

 if the rule was adopted : either to comply with 

 the decision or relinquish my seat in the Sen- 

 ate. Subsequent reflection has convinced me I 

 was partially in error. Another course is 

 open : to submit to the decision and resign. 



" The gravest consideration has induced me 

 to pursue this latter course ; and in a brief 

 period my connection with this body, which 

 has lasted nearly thirteen years, will cease. 



" I desire to assign the reasons which con- 

 trol my action. Without any decision upon 

 the constitutional validity of the act of July, 

 1862, all the members of the Senate and House 

 to whom it applied belonging to the political 

 party with which I have acted have voluntarily 

 taken the oath prescribed by that act, deeming, 

 doubtless, that the constitutional questions in- 

 volved were of less moment and the precedent 

 made less dangerous than they seemed to my 



