A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 3, part 1: Andrew Jackson (Second Term) by James D. (James Daniel) Richardson
page 135 of 583 (23%)
page 135 of 583 (23%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
resolution. It carefully abstains from averring in _which_ of "the late
proceedings in relation to the public revenue the President has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws," It carefully abstains from specifying _what laws_ or _what parts_ of the Constitution have been violated. Why was not the certainty of the offense--"the nature and cause of the accusation"--set out in the manner required in the Constitution before even the humblest individual, for the smallest crime, can be exposed to condemnation? Such a specification was due to the accused that he might direct his defense to the real points of attack, to the people that they might clearly understand in what particulars their institutions had been violated, and to the truth and certainty of our public annals. As the record now stands, whilst the resolution plainly charges upon the President at least one act of usurpation in "the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue," and is so framed that those Senators who believed that one such act, and only one, had been committed could assent to it, its language is yet broad enough to include several such acts, and so it may have been regarded by some of those who voted for it. But though the accusation is thus comprehensive in the censures it implies, there is no such certainty of time, place, or circumstance as to exhibit the particular conclusion of fact or law which induced any one Senator to vote for it; and it may well have happened that whilst one Senator believed that some particular act embraced in the resolution was an arbitrary and unconstitutional assumption of power, others of the majority may have deemed that very act both constitutional and expedient, or, if not expedient, yet still within the pale of the Constitution; and thus a majority of the Senators may have been enabled to concur in a vague and undefined accusation that the President, in the course of "the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue," had violated the Constitution and laws, whilst if a separate |
|