they would reject it. To him it was plain that, if the house pursued the object of the resolution, it led them on forbidden ground. In the first place, it took from the citizens a right which, by their Constitution, they had secured themselves, to wit, the right of free elections. Do what the resolution contemplates, and no man can hold a seat here who ever fought a duel, or gave or carried a challenge, although he may be the choice of the people. No such thing is said in the Constitution. The people, in that instrument, have already defined the disqualifications to office; that charter of their rights declares that no person who has been impeached and found guilty shall hold an office; and I contend that Congress cannot impeach a person for any offence done by him as an individual. Two things are requisite to ground an impeachment. First, the person must be an officer of the United States: secondly, he must have been guilty of some malfeasance in the discharge of the duties imposed on him by that office. If an individual who does not hold an office under the United States commits murder, I deny the right of Congress to impeach him. He is made amenable to the state laws. While we were busy in impeaching him, he might be executed by the statute laws of the states. My observations disclaim the right we have to act on it. The resolution was negatived.

On the Amendment to the Constitution.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 9, 1804. Mr. JACKSON. The fate of the other little republics warranted the idea that the smaller members would be swallowed up by the larger ones, who would, in turn, attack each other; and thus the liberty achieved by the blood of some of the bravest men that ever lived would pass away without leaving a trace behind it. They, therefore, yielded every thing to the little states, knowing they were not numerous, and naturally jealous of the large ones. If we examine the Constitution, we shall find the whole of the great powers of the government centred in the Senate.

On the Impeachment of Judge Chase.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 21, 1805. Mr. HOPKINSON. What part of the Constitution declares any of the acts charged and proved upon Judge Chase, even in the worst aspect, to be impeachable? He has not been guilty of bribery or corruption; he is not charged with them. Has he, then, been guilty of "other high crimes and misdemeanors"? In an instrument so sacred as the Constitution, I presume every word must have its full and fair meaning. It is not, then, only for crimes and misdemeanors that a judge is impeachable, but it must be for high crimes and misdemeanors. Although this qualifying adjective "high" immediately precedes, and is directly attached to the word "crimes," yet, from the evident intention of the Constitution, and upon a just grammatical construction, it must also be applied to "misdemeanors." If my construction of this part of the Constitution be not admitted, and the adjective "high" be given exclusively to "crimes," and denied to "misdemeanors," this strange absurdity must ensue that when an officer of the government is impeached for a crime, he cannot be convicted, unless it proves to be a high crime; but he may, nevertheless, be convicted of a misdemeanor of the most petty grade. Observe, sir, the

crimes with which these "other high crimes" are classed in the Constitution, and we may learn something of their character. They stand in connection with "bribery and corruption" - tried in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties. But, if we are to lose the force and meaning of the word "high," in relation to misdemeanors, and this description of offences must be governed by the mere meaning of the term "misdemeanors," without deriving any grade from the adjective, still my position remains unimpaired - that the offence, whatever it is, which is the ground of impeachment, must be such a one as would support an indictment. "Misdemeanor" is a legal and technical term, well understood and defined in law; and in the construction of a legal instrument, we must give words their legal significations. A misdemeanor, or a crime, for in their just and proper acceptation they are synonymous, is an act committed, or omitted, in the violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it.

-

[Note. In the few cases of impeachment which have hitherto been tried, no one of the charges has rested upon any suitable misdemeanors. It seems to be the settled doctrine of the high court of impeachment, (the Senate,) that though the common law cannot be a foundation of a jurisdiction not given by the Constitution or laws, that jurisdiction, when given, attaches, and is to be exercised according to the rules of the common law; and that what are, and what are not, high crimes and misdemeanors, is to be ascertained by a recurrence to the great basis of American jurisprudence. Story's Comm.]

Mr. Madison's Motion for Commercial Restrictions.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 14, 1806. Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that the interest of the United States would be promoted by further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases, on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations employed in the commerce of the United States, than those now imposed.

1. Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that an additional duty ought to be laid on the following articles, manufactured by European nations having no commercial treaty with the United States:

On articles of which leather is the material of chief value, an additional duty of per cent. ad valorem.

On all manufactured iron, steel, tin, pewter, copper, brass, or other articles, of which either of these metals is the material of chief value, an additional duty of per cent. ad valorem.

On all articles of which cotton is the material of chief value, an addi

On all cloths of which wool is the material of chief value, where the estimated value on which the duty is payable is above duty of per cent. ad valorem; where such value is below per cent. ad valorem.

additional duty of

an additional

an

On all other articles of which wool is the material of chief value, an additional duty of per cent. ad valorem.

On all cloths of which hemp or flax is the article of chief value, and of which the estimated value on which the duty is payable is below

additional duty of

per cent. ad valorem.

an

On all manufactures of which silk is the article of chief value, an additional duty of

per cent. ad valorem.

2. Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that an additional duty

of

per ton ought to be laid on the vessels belonging to nations having no commercial treaty with the United States.

3. Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that the duty on vessels belonging to nations having commercial treaties with the United States, ought to be reduced to per ton.

4 Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that where any nation may refuse to consider as vessels of the United States any vessels not built within the United States, the foreign-built vessels of such nation ought to be subjected to a like refusal, unless built within the United States.

5. Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that where any nation may refuse to admit the produce and manufactures of the United States, unless in vessels belonging to the United States, or to admit them in vessels of the United States if last imported from any place not within the United States, a like restriction ought, after the day of , to be extended to the produce and manufactures of such nation; and that, in the mean time, a duty of per ton, extraordinary, ought to be imposed on vessels so importing any such produce or manufacture.

6. Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that where any nation may refuse to the vessels of the United States a carriage of the produce and manufactures thereof, while such produce or manufactures are admitted by it in its own vessels, it would be just to make the restriction reciprocal; but, inasmuch as such a measure, if suddenly adopted, might be particularly distressing in cases which merit the benevolent intention of the United States, it is expedient, for the present, that a tonnage extraordinary only of be imposed on the vessels so employed; and that all distilled spirits imported therein shall be subject to an additional duty of part of the existing duty.

one

7. Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that provision ought to be made for liquidating and ascertaining the losses, sustained by citizens of the United States, from the operation of particular regulations of any country, contravening the law of nations; and that such losses be reimbursed, in the first instance, out of the additional duties on manufactures, productions, and vessels of the nation establishing such unlawful regulations.

Contractors.

March 23, 1806.

Resolved, That a contractor, under the government of the United States, is an officer within the purview and meaning of the Constitution, and, as such, is incapable of holding a seat in this house.

Mr. EPPES. I do not believe Congress have power to pass this resolution. The words of the Constitution are, "No person holding an office under the United States shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office."

These words are plain and clear. Their obvious intention was, to have officers excluded, and officers only. It would certainly have been equally wise to have excluded contractors, because the reason for excluding offcers applies to them with equal force. We are not, however, to inquire what the Constitution ought to have been, but what it is. We cannot legislate on its spirit against the strict letter of the instrument. Our inquiry must be, is he an officer? If an officer, under the words of the Constitution, he is excluded. If not an officer, we cannot exclude him by law.

An extensive meaning has been given to the word office. How far such a construction of the meaning of this word is warranted, I leave for others to decide. That all contractors are not officers I am certain. A man, for instance, makes a contract with government to furnish supplies. He certainly is not an officer, according to the common and known acceptation of that word. He is, however, a contractor, and, under this resolution, excluded from a seat here. A carrier of the mail approaches very near an officer. The person takes an oath, is subject to penalties, the remission of which depends on the executive.

Public Lands. On the Resolution for investing a certain Portion of the Public Lands in Shares of the Chesapeake Canal. SENATE, February 13, 1807.

Mr. BAYARD. It is admitted that the Constitution does not expressly give the power to cut canals; but we possess, and are in the daily exercise of, the power to provide for the protection and safety of commerce, and the defence of the nation. It has never been contended that no power exists which has not been expressly delegated.

There is no express power given to erect a fort or magazine, though it is recognized in the delegation of exclusive legislative powers in certain cases. The power to erect lighthouses and piers, to survey and take the soundings on the coast, or to erect public buildings, is neither expressly given nor recognized in the Constitution; but it is embraced by a liberal and just interpretation of the clause in the Constitution, which legitimates all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers expressly delegated. On a like principle, the Bank of the United States was incorporated. Having a power to provide for the safety of commerce and the defence of the nation, we may fairly infer a power to cut a canal -a measure unquestionably proper with a view to either subject.

To suspend the Embargo.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, April 19, 1808. Mr. QUINCY. The Constitution of the United States, as I understand it, has in every part reference to the nature of things and necessities of society. No portion of it was intended as a mere ground for the trial of technical skill, or of verbal ingenuity. The direct, express powers with which it invests Congress are always to be so construed as to enable the people to attain the end for which they were given. This is to be gathered from the nature of those powers, compared with the known exigencies of society, and the other provisions of the Constitution. If a question arise, as in this case, concerning the extent of the incidental and implied powers vested in us by the Constitution, the instrument itself contains the criterion by which it is to be decided. We have authority to make "laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution" powers unquestionably vested. Reference must be had to the nature of these powers to know what is necessary and proper for their wise execution. When this necessity and propriety appear, the Constitution has enabled us to make the correspondent provisions. To the execution of many of the powers vested in us by the Constitution, a discretion is necessarily and properly incident; and when this appears from the nature of any particular power, it is certainly competent for us to provide, by law, that such discretion shall be exercised.

Mr. KEY said, all the respective representatives of the people, of the states at large, and the sovereignty in a political capacity of each state, must concur to enact a law. An honorable gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell) admitted that the power to repeal must be coëxtensive with the power to make. If this be admitted, I will not fail to convince you that, in the manner in which this law is worded, we cannot constitutionally assent to it. What does it propose? To give the President of the United States power to repeal an existing law now in force:- upon what? Upon the happening of certain contingencies in Europe? No. But in those contingencies which they suppose in his judgment shall render it safe to repeal the law, a discretion is committed to him- upon the happening of those events to suspend the law. It is that discretion to which I object. I do not say it will be improperly placed at all; but the power and discretion to judge of the safety of the United States, is a power legislative in its nature and effects, and as such, under the Constitution, cannot be exercised by one branch of the legislature. I pray gentlemen to note this distinction, that whenever the events happen, if the President exercise his judgment upon those events, and suspend the law, it is the exercise of a legislative power: the people, by the Constitution of the country, never meant to confide to any one man the power of legislating for it.

Renewal of the Charter of the United States Bank.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, April 13, 1810.

Mr. LOVE. The question of the constitutionality of the bank solely depends on the question, whether it is necessary and proper for conducting the moneyed operations of government. So great a change has taken place on that subject within twenty years past, that it is supposed the question is now settled. Not only the moneyed transactions of the United States, but, it is believed, of all the state governments, are carried on through the state banks, as well as commercial transactions, and other moneyed negotiations.

Mr. TROUP said, gentlemen might pass the bill but for the constitutional question. If they did pass it, he hoped they would not permit themselves to become the retailing hucksters of the community, for the sale of bank charters. There is a power in the Constitution to sell the public property; but there is certainly no power to sell privileges of any kind. I, therefore, move to strike out the bribe, the douceur, the bonus, as gentlemen call it, of 1,250,000 dollars.

Mr. KEY said, to him it clearly appeared within the power and limit of the Constitution to establish a bank, if necessary, for the collection of the

revenue.

Mr. TROUP observed, that some gentlemen had said that the power to incorporate a bank was derived from the power to lay and collect revenue; and that the power ought to be exercised, because banks give a facility to the collection of the revenue. If the power be exercised, it must be necessary and proper. If it be necessary to the collection of the revenue, the revenue cannot be collected without it. The gentleman from Maryland might say a bank institution was useful. He might say it would give facility to the collection of the revenue; but facility and necessity are wholly different, and the Constitution says that a power, to be incidental, must be necessary and proper.

Mr. ALSTON. In the 10th article, 1st section, of the Constitution, it