CONGRESS, U. S. 



231 



was ready to go for them ; and why were they 

 not passed ? It was because the whole Repub- 

 lican side of the Senate put their faces against 

 them. With the exception, perhaps, of the dis- 

 tinguished Senator from Oregon, I do not be- 

 lieve they got a vote from that side of the 

 Senate. My friend from Connecticut [Mr. 

 Dixon] I know made 'a gallant and patriotic 

 speech, but I do not remember that he voted 

 for one of those resolutions^ though I will do 

 him the justice to say that I believe, if he 

 thought they would have passed, he would 

 have done so. We did every thing in our 

 power, by proposing constitutional amend- 

 ments, to avert the difficulty, and to restore 

 harmony to a distracted country. "Why was it 

 not done ? 



" Senators, you on that side of the chamber 

 are responsible for it ; and when the passions 

 of men shall have abated, and this wild fanat- 

 icism, this warlike spirit that now sweeps over 

 the land, shall have subsided, the people of this 

 country will calmly and dispassionately look 

 into the history of these times, and if it shall 

 be, as I fear it will be, that this Union is for- 

 ever destroyed, that this mighty fabric of our 

 fathers is torn, this great Government over- 

 thrown, history, impartial history, will hold 

 you responsible for it ; for yon could have set- 

 tled the controversy ; you could have settled it 

 peaceably ; you could have settled it without 

 impairing any rights of any man or any State 

 in the Xorth, by granting proper guarantees to 

 the South which would have done you, your 

 property, or your States, no harm. You de- 

 clined to do it ; the responsibility is with you.'' 



Mr. Breckinridge on a subsequent day re- 

 sumed the debate. He said that Congress, by 

 a joint resolution, had no more right to make 

 valid a violation of the Constitution and the 

 laws by the President, than the President would 

 have by an entry upon the executive journal to 

 make valid a usurpation of the executive power 

 by the legislative department. Congress had 

 no more right to make valid an unconstitutional 

 act of the President, than the President would 

 have to make valid an act of the Supreme Court 

 of the United States encroaching upon exec- 

 utive power; or than the Supreme Court would 

 have the right to make valid an act of the Ex- 

 ecutive encroaching upon the judicial power. 



To say that Congress, by joint resolution, 

 might indemnify the President against a breach 

 of the Constitution, is substantially to declare 

 that Congress may alter the Constitution in a 

 manner not provided by the instrument ; may 

 add to it or take from it. If a bare majority 

 of the two Houses of Congress can, by reso- 

 lution, make that constitutional and valid which 

 was unconstitutional, by the same authority it 

 may confer upon the President in the future 

 powers not granted by the Constitution ; so 

 that, sir, in whatever aspect the subject may 

 be viewed, it appears to me the principles in- 

 volved in this joint resolution are utterly sub- 

 versive of the Constitution, and contain the 



very essence of a government without limit- 

 ation of powers. He had supposed that these 

 general principles were too clear and too well 

 recognized in this country to need statement or 

 illustration. 



He then proceeded : " "What is the excuse : 

 what is the justification ; what is the plea? 

 Necessity. Necessity ? I answer, first, there 

 was no necessity. "Was it necessary to preserve 

 the visible emblems of Federal authority here, 

 that the Southern coast should have been block- 

 aded ? Did not the same necessity exist when 

 Congress, at its last session, refused to pass the 

 force bill, that existed at the time the President 

 assumed these powers? As Congress refused 

 to do it, and adjudged that there was no ne- 

 cessity at that time, what was the additional 

 necessity afterwards ? "Was it necessary, until 

 Congress should meet, to the existence of the 

 union of these States, and of its Constitution, 

 that powers not conferred by the instrument 

 should be assumed ? Was there any necessity 

 for overrunning the State of Missouri ? Was 

 there a necessity for raising the largest armies 

 ever assembled upon the American continent, 

 and fitting out the largest fleets ever seen in an 

 American harbor ? 



" But, Mr. President, I deny this doctrine of 

 necessity. I deny that the President of the 

 United States may violate the Constitution 

 upon the ground of necessity. The doctrine 

 is utterly subversive of the Constitution ; it is 

 utterly subversive of all written limitations 

 of government ; and it substitutes, especially 

 where you make him the ultimate judge of 

 that necessity, and his decision not to be ap- 

 pealed from, the will of one man for a written 

 constitution. Mr. President, the Government 

 of the United States, which draws its life from 

 the Constitution, and which was made by that 

 instrument, does not rest, as does the Consti- 

 tution in many other countries, upon usage or 

 upon implied consent. It rests upon express 

 written consent. The Government of the 

 United States may exercise such powers, and 

 such only, as are given in this written form of 

 government and bond which unites the States ; 

 none others. The people of the States con- 

 ferred upon this agent of theirs just such pow- 

 ers as they deemed necessary, and no more ; all 

 others they retained. That Constitution was 

 made for all contingencies ; for peace and for 

 war. They conferred all the powers they 

 deemed necessary, and more cannot be as- 

 sumed, to carry on the Government. They 

 intended to provide for all contingencies that 

 they thought ought to be provided for, and they 

 retained to the States all the powers not granted 

 by the instrument. If in any instance it may 

 be supposed that the powers conferred are not 

 sufficient, still none others were granted, and 

 none others can be exercised. Will this be de- 

 nied, sir ? Or is the doctrine to be advanced 

 that all constitutional questions are to be made 

 entirely subordinate to the opinions and ideas 

 that may prevail at the hour in reference to 



