North Carolina Newspapers

ERN CAMOI PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY: AS3321D131L SSHUma &Y!E jJCD3I3l?ia Wo mASIlPaiSJa I?IEI?2iai2WIB3 Vol. 15, No. 41 Whole No. 771 AT TWO DO 1.1. AJRS A YEAR, If Paid in Advance. Or Two Dollars and Fifty Cent, After the expiration of 3 month. TH2E WIS STI ,INIAN. SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA, MARCH 14, 1835. LEGISLATIVE DEBATE. SPEECH OF MIL OUTLAW, of Kkrtie, On the Resolutions instructing Senator Mangum. Mr. Speaker: I a in fully sensible of the dis advantages under which I rise to address this House. Its attention has already Ijeen wearied by the length of this discussion, and many are anxious to bring it to a close. I am also aware that many of those whom I am addressing have so far prejudged the subject, that there is little hope that any thing which can be said, will produce any change in their opinions. Notwithstanding all" these discouraging circumstances, so important do I regard the prin ciples involved, that I shall proceed freely to ex press my sentiments; and whilst I shall Ik restrain ed, lioth by a proper self-respect and respect for the body of winch I am a member, from violating either the rules of propriety or deconim, I shall yet speak with Incoming freedom the words of soberness and truth. We were told, at an early period of the session, by the gentleman from Warren, (Mr. Bragg,) when the projhisition was made by him to go immediate Iv into an election of Senator, that it was necessary to dispose of that distracting question, in order that our minds might be properly qualified for a dis charge of our legislative duties. Scarcely, how ever, is that triumph achieved, scarcely are the hearts of the democracy gladdened, before the kit tle shout is again heard, the lanner of party un furled, and all faithful lieges called ujxin to rally under its standard. The hearts of the democracy are again to be gladdened ; our idol is not satisfied with the re-election of Mr. Brown ; the most dis tinguished of our public men must lc sacrificed ; and we are called upon to officiate at the altar. Yes, that miserable policy of dragging down our eminent citizens as soon as they attain any distinc tion, that policy which has peopled the South, the South-west, ami the West, with your most able and enterprising young men, is still to be continued. I took occasion, Mr. Sjeaker, upon a firmer occa sion, when we were told that the Hon. Mr. Brown was the Administration candidate, to inquire whe ther orders to that effect had been received from the upper or nether Cabinet. Were it not perfectly unnecessary, I would again repeat the inquiry. We can, however, be at no fault upon this occasion. The official paper of the Administration has called ujxn us, in terms very much like a command, to pass these resolutions; and why? Because Mr. Benton desires it, and (Jen. Jackson has an almost filial regard for North Carolina! Yes, the foul and filiv organ of the Kitchen Cabinet has dared to lec ture us upon our duty- We are to degrade and disgrace, in public estimation, one of the distinguish ed sons of this State, to minister to the gratification of Mr. Benton and General Jackson. Are we pre pared to register, this edict at which the most degraded of the Roman provinces would have felt itself dishonored I Sir, have we so far forgotten the dignity of our stations, the honor of our con stituents, as to submit to this dictation? Have the people of North Carolina commissioned us to do this deed? Have we any, the slightest authority to sacrifice our citizens for the gratification of any man, in or out of office? M r. Speaker, these resolutions have in view three objects. One is the expulsion of Judge Mangum from the Senate, fjecause he neither is, nor will he become, the instrument to aid the elevation of Mar tin Van Buren to the Presidency, or the introduc tion of his abominable and detestable system of party tactics and proscription. They have another object. I am aware that I may apcar to speak harshly, and if so, I regret it, but I am in the dis charge of a high public duty, and I cannot mince inv words. I say they have another object, which des not meet the eye. Some ambitious aspirant of the party, some friend of the democracy, their friend, lecause he w ishes to use them, wishes Judge Mangum's place. Yes, sir, and so keen are his desires, so eager are his palpitations, that he can not wait until Mr. Mangum's term expires. Shall we minister to this unchastencd ambition ? But, Mr. Speaker, these resolutions have another object, vastly more important than either of these to which I have adverted, and which, I confess, fills my mind with profound alarm. They aim a blow, through the Senator from this State, at the Senate of the United States. They are designed to prostrate; that body, the principal barrier against arbitrary power, at the footstool of the Executive of the Uni ted States. It has dared to say to the President, thus far shalt thou go, and no farther; and it is either to Ik: made to bend, or to be rendered odious nnd eontenintible in oublic estimation. This is ohm? f a series of measures having in view the saine .object, that is, the subserviency of the Senate, or iinjKjrtant changes in its very constitution. This as a rave charge, and ought not to !e lightly made. J)oes any man doubt the fact ? If he does, 1 direct Jiim to the President's Protest. Are not the aris lcratic features of the Senate held up in bold re lief in that document to the public gaze, either to xcite popular prejudice or to produce popular dis trust? Does not that paper mkhk ot us irrespon nihility, its long term of service, its not being the ' ,r..i:oto t-iii-ftit.-iti v tf llie neonle ? Is this nil ? Has not the party press waged against it a constant war? Has it not leen called the factious Senate," the irresponsible Senate I Have not some of them boldlv advocated the most important cluin res in its organization ? Have not resolutions, of which these are a mere copy, been introduced into the New Jersey Legislature, and passed I fcir, all these are significant indications, printing to tle cime object, which it becomes this House solemnly to consider. I ask the members of this Ivxly, if their constituents have sent them here to participate in this nefarious and wicked conspiracy against one of the departments of the Federal Government ? I ask them, as they shall answer it to ineir con fences and their country, to withhold the sac rile frious blow uplifted against that Senate, in which he federative character of our government is pre served that Senate to w hich we must look for a defence of the rights and sovereignty ot the siuios I had originally intended, Mr. Speaker, to say nothing on the first resolution of the gentleman from Edgecomb, (Dr. Potts.) Upon further reflec tion, however, I will express briefly my views upon the proposition therein affirmed, lest it should be supjMjscd I shrink from an avowal of my opinions. The subject is one to which my attention has not lecn directed until recently, and I had taken it for granted the Legislature had the right to instruct, simply lecause such had liecn the practice. But, sir, I deny that there is any thing in the Constitu tion which, either directly or by implication, clothes the General Assembly w ith this high power claimed for it. The gentleman from Halifax, (Mr. Daniel,) if I understoKl him, claimed this as resulting from our legislative owers. Sir, this will not stand the slightest examination. The right of instruction is not a legislative power in any sense of that word. If the Legislature have a right, by reason of their legislative powers, to instruct in matters of legisla tion, by parity of reasoning, the State Judiciary have a right to instruct the Senators in regard to their judicial duties, and the State Executive as to their executive duty. So far as our Constitution speaks of instructions at all, it is in the Bill of Bights. What is there said ? Is not the power in question in express terms reserved to the people themselves ? Under what pretence, then, do this body arrogate this power to themselves ? Sir, the j)ower of electing a Senator w as conferred after the adoption of our State Constitution, by the Consti tution of the United States, upon this Assembly. But I am to be told that we elect, that we are the constituents of the Senator, and, therefore, have this right. True, sir, we do elect, so do the elec tors chosen for that purpose elect a President. We are an electoral college tor one purpose, as they are for another. Yet who ever heard, what politi cal madman ever dreamed, that those electors had any right either to instruct or censure the Presi dent? But are wc the constituents of the Senator? No. I deny the proposition in the most unqualified terms. What says the Federal Constitution ? That each State shall Ikj entitled to two Senators, to I e elected by the Legislatures thereof. Sir, the Senators represent the State, the Sovereign People of North Carolina, and when I speak thus, I speak in the words of the Constitution. They are, when chosen, the agents of the people, to effect certain si)ccific purposes, as we are their agents to eflect certain other puriMses. We the constituents of the Senators ! We the Sovereign State of North Carolina ! The proposition need only to be stated, to be laughed to scorn. Sir, I put this case to those who support the first resolution, which asserts, in broad term., this right, and I call upon them to answer it : Suppose the Senate, sitting as a court of imeachmei)t, under the solemn obligations required by the Constitution, and our Senators express an opinion or give a vote, in the propriety and correctness of which the wise men of this IxxJy do not concur. I ask, can it be pretended that this Legislature has a right to in terfere in the slightest degree with the high judicial luties of their station ? Again : Suppose the re- natc is in the discharge of its executive duties. Can it Ikj supposed that the framers of the Consti tution ever intended that the manner in which those luties were to lo performed was subject to our re vision and control, when that instrument has placed it completely within the power of the Senate to place the seal of secrecy on its proceedings, and forever veil them from the public view? Can we, when the President and Senate have formed a trea ty, within the scope of their constitutional powers, with a foreign nation, whereby the public faith is pledged, bid them rescind it, and violate the faith of the nation? The most bigoted, blind, and furi ous partizan will scarcely contend for such mon strous propositions ; and yet we are called upon to vote for a resolution which claims tor tins body this high prerogative one which would introduce infinite confusion and mischief. Sir, we have no authority whatever to instruct Mr. Mangum, unless the people have sent us here for that purpose. If we undertake to do so, we hall le guilty of that usurpation which some gen . . . ... tleuien allege against the Senate. Sir, I appeal to the candor of the members here, and confidently ask them, have vou been delegated for any such purpose? Did you of course I address the great mass ot the party, not their leaders uui you ever hear of this movement until you reached this city, and until Mr. Brown was re-elected ? Was the proposition to expunge this resolution of the Senate discussed in five counties in North Carolina? No man ean have the hardihood to make such an as sertion. cir, 1 put it to the gentleman irom ualr fix, (Mr. Daniel,) to answer me, which represents that county correctly, him or ins colleagues I it is my misfortune to lie in the same predicament as that gentleman. My colleagues differ with me in nolitics. There is the same diversity of sentiment in Northampton, Hertford, and many other counties I mention these facts to prove, as they do most con clusively prove, that these resolutions have not originated with the people ; that the elections were not made with a view to this matter ; and that, therefore, wo are assuming unauthorised power. Sir, mv ideas upon this subject are simply these : This Legislature has an undoubted right to express its opinions upon any subject. It not only has the riht, but it is its solemn duty to do so, when the. public liberty is endangered, when the rights of its constituents are invaded, or when any "great pub lic emergency 1 demands it. I his opinion, ex pressed by the immediate representatives of the people, so far as it may le supposed to express their sentiments, should be listened to by our Senators with the most resprctful attention, and, when it re lates to a matter of exjcdiency, ought to be gene rally olieved. But, sir, whilst I go thus far, I am further bound to say, that, upon constitutional questions, neither the people nor the Legislature have any right what ever to instruct. They have imposed restrictions upon themselves and upon the Senator, which he nor they can throw off. These resolutions, even if we have a right to in struct, are not such as I could vote for. What is the only legitimate object of instruction? I have always understood that it was to enlighten the mind of the representative, in regard to some great ques tion of public policy then actually pending, or upon which it was expected he would be called to act. f this be not, then I confess I have always been aboring under a delusion upon this subject, and I am utterly unable to appreciate its value. Is that the object of these resolutions? ill any man say it is? Is not the object an entirely different one one w hich the friends of this measure are ashamed to avow in plain terms, and which they have not the slightest right to eflect, viz: Judge Mangum's expulsion from the station which he now fills with so much honor to himself and credit to North Ca rolina ? Another question involved in these resolutions is, lad the Senate a right to pass the resolution which las given so much offence? I confess, sir, that it is with some degree of astonishment that I have leard the negative of this proposition allirmed. The facility with which politicians and public men change their principles, is even now the theme of scorn and ridicule. And, sir, it is one of the most ominous and fearful signs of the times, that whole communities of men, without any conceivable rea son, should suddenly change their most cherished and deep-rooted opinions at the bidding of one man. It argues either such deep corruption m the people, or such a spirit of idolatry, as seriously to threaten our institutions. Have we not seen the great State of Pennsylvania, as if by magic, entirely changing ler Kihtical principles at the command of a Presi dent ? It is really astonishing how forgetful we are when in the pursuit of a favorite object ; for I cannot supjMse that the well informed members of the Jackson party in this House, can be ignorant of the precedents on this subject, or that they would wilfully mislead those who are Charity, sir that charity which, from the infirmity of my nature, I so frequently need, and am, therefore, willing to extend to others forbids me to make any such supposition. The case of the Postmaster General was men tioned by my friend from Rowan, (Mr. Craige,) where, by an unanimous vote, it was declared that, in borrowing money, he had violated the Constitu tion. 1 defy any man to point out any distinction in principle in the two cases. If this resolution, which we wish expunged, was a judicial act, so was that. If the Senators had disqualified themselves to sit as judges in one case, they had in the other. But, sir, this is not the only precede!. , It will le recollected, by those familiar with Mr. Adams's ad ministration, that, in his message nominating to the Senate ministers to Panama, he claimed the power to have commissioned them without the advice and consent" of that body. The honorable Sena tor from Halifax, at that time a Senator in Con gress, then, as now, opposed to usurpation, then, as now, on the side of liliertv, the law, and the Con stitution, introduced a resolution solemnly denying the doctrine asserted by Mr. Adams, and protest ing, in the name of the Senate and of the States, against this unconstitutional assumption. The sub ject was debated, and so far as I know, and I have examined the debates upon that subject with some attention, not one individual pretended to question the right of the Senate to pass such a resolution. No, sir, that profound discovery in political science and constitutional law was left Car the Solomons of the present day. It was left to that foul cabal who, unfortunately for Gen. Jackson, and for tli3 prospe rity of this nation, practically control its destinies. Sir, am I to Ikj told that, as this was a defence of the Executive powers of the Senate, it is not analagous to this case ? Sir, are we children ? Do we view this matter with the enlarged views of statesmen, or the narrow spirit of special pleaders? Have not the Senate as much right to defend their judicial or legislative powers as their executive? It is an insult to the understanding of this body to argue such a question. But I will not stop here. I know the force of names, and I invoke to my aid "clarum et venera bile nomen," a name which makes this State re spected in ever' other in this Union the name of Nathaniel Macon a man, sir, not just washed white from his sins of Federalism by Jacksonism, but one of the fathers of the Republican church. In the debate on the resolution to which I have re ferred, he thus expresses himself: "If every department of this Government, the Sen ate, the House of Representees, ami the President, did not watch trie imwer which the Constitution has given them, but let it be taken from them by piece-meal, who could tell where it would endr It had often been said that, in this Government, the Departments were to balance each other. How was this balance to be kept up: Aot hv constantly increa sin" the power of one Department of this Government; but the House of Representatives should take care ot the portion committed to them, the Senate theirs, and the President his. Was this House, when their rights were, as they supposed, infringed, to waic for the inter ference of tfie House of Representatives? There was, Mr. M. said, a tendency in every Government to create power. "Governments were made on the suspicion that all those who had power would go wrong. He would go further, and suppose it a doubtful question, whether the Executive, in his message, had claimed this power or not. Most of the gentlemen who had contenued lie did not, had contended he had a right to do so. If the ma iority of the Senate thought differently, was it not pru dent in them to express their opinion J Had they not the same right to express their opinion on their powers ! And was it not as much their duty to do so as for the President to declare his .Vr. Macon' Speech, Re gister of Debates, 18-2. and '2b, pages Ml and It is impossible for him to have been orem ex plicit. Among those who acted with the Senators from North Carolina on that occasion, were the Senators from Tennessee, the bosom and confiden tial friends of (ion. Jackson, Mr. Van Buren, the present Secretary of the Treasury, and Mr. Benton, whose lugubrious notes on the cruel impeachment of the President, we have heard so much, and to gratify whom we are to degrade one of our distin guished citizens. Yes,. Mr. Speaker, that very party who are so shocked at this judicial resolution, have themselves furnished a precedent precisely in point. In the absence of all precedents, however, I hold that it is not only the right, but the duty of each department of the Government to defend its own peculiar rights and previleges, against either or all the others. They were designed as checks upon each other. That was the very object sought to be accomplish ed by the division of power among them ; yet if this new tangled doctrine is to prevail, this object will be wholly defeated. If the Senate had no right to pass this resolution, where did the Presi dent obtain the right to make a Protest ? Do the special guardians of the Constitution require that paper to be expunged ? Yet, sir. the right to send it might, with infinitely more reason, be question ed. Why, sir, let us see to what consequences this doctrine will lead. The President takes it up on himself to commission a public minister in the session of Congress without the advice of the Sen ate. Sir, is that body bound to acquiesce, lest, by possibility, the President may be impeached, and they become his judges? Am I supposing an im probable case ? It is what has actually occurred during this Administration in more instances than one. The case of commissiners to the Ottoman Porte is familiar to us all. Again : suppose, by some means or other, the House of Representatives has become subservient to the Executive, and that functionary, having seized the public money, is sur rounding himself w ith a band of hired mercenaries to overthrow the Constitution and liberties of the country. Are the Senators to sit like the Roman, when Brennus and his Gauls invaded and entered Rome, and see the barriers of the Constitution clo. ven down without offering any resistance? Sir, this very right, which is denied the American Senate in this free, representative, constitutional Govern ment, has been exercised by the English House of Commons in the most arbitrary reigns of the most arbitrary princes of the House of Stuart. And, sir, have we made so little progress in the princi ples of free Government, that what was done in the reign of the first Charles again and again, is little short of high treason under the administration of Gen. Jackson ? "In the name of all the Gogs at once Upon what meat doth this our Cae-sar feed : That he is grown so great." Why, sir, "he bestrides this great republic like a mighty Colossus, and we small men must peep through his hint? legs to look for ourselves dishon orable graves." How far is this devotion to an itulivKiu.il fn carry us : Is it to unsettle an tu ancient and undisputed principles undisputed at least until recently, of our government ? The House cannot assert its rights, because it is its pro vince to prefer articles of impeachment; nor the Senate its rights, because the impeachment is to be tried by that body. Sir, they derive the power from the great principles of self-defence and self preservation, and should they cowardly shrink from its exercise when they deem it necessary, they would basely betray the high trusts confided to them, and justly incur the abhorrence and scorn of the people. I maintain that, inasmuch as the Sen ate possesses this right, they must judge what act does constitute a violation of the powers granted to them; and that, to deny this, would render the right itself perfectly idle and nugatory ; and that we have no authority to revise their decision, or sit in judgement upon it in our official character. But I affirm that the propositions contained in the resolution are true ; that it was an unauthorised assumption of power on the part of the Executive, to remove the deposits himselt, or to interiere wun the discretion reposed in the Secretary of the Treasury by Congress. Y ho, in fact, removed the public money ? Who took the responsibility? Sir, we are at no fault on this subject. It is most distinctly stated by the Executive that the act was us that he assumed the responsibility he arran ged the details, and, whilst Duane was yet in office, ic announced, in the public papers, that they would be removed at a particular time. Sir, did the Constitution clothe him with any such power? Did the laws of the land? No, the deposites were to be made in the United States Bank and its bran ches, unless "the Secretary of the Treasury should otherwise order and direct. The gentle man from Halifax tells us this is a reservation not a grant of power- Admit it. It is a reserva tion, by whom, to whom, and for what purpose hv, sir, by Congress to the secretary. In the removal, the Secretary acts as the agent of the law-making power. I he discretion is his discre tion not the President s discretion. His acts are to le the result of his iudgement. His reasons for the act are to be rendered, not to the President, ' - - - - , c but to the representatives of the people, to whom, by the Constitution, the management of the public revenue is entrusted. It is admitted the money was safe the Banks had complied with its engage ments. But it is contended that, inasmuch as the President possesses the power of appointment and removal, he has a right to supervise and control all the subordinate officers of the government. Admit that he has the right to remove, still it will not sustain the position. For I hold that if this power, is exercised to effect an illegal and unconstitutional nnroose. it as much violates the Constitution as I f though he did not possess it at all. The Congress of the United States have the power without limitation to borrow money ; yet, if thev exercise that power to accomplish an object not-warranted by the warrant of attorney under which they act, they as much violate the charter of our liberties as if they did not possess it at all. The President has, by law. the power of removal, to be exercised for good cause, for the benefit of the count rv, and not an arbitrary discretion a despot ic power, to le wielded to gratify bis passi uis. I repudiate, altogether, the monstrous pretension claimed bv himself and his minions, to supervise and control the officers of the Government in the Sir, it may he said this position has been abandon discharge of the duties entrusted to them by tie" ed. Yet, the fact that any President has dared to laws of the land. Sir, it is a power which is dan- avow it, shows how far the views of his advisers gei ous to our liberties, repugnant to our institutions, have extended, and is well calculated to awakea and which deserves puhlic and unqualified reproba tion. How is it derived I ''The Executive pow er," we are told, is vested in the President. True ; but what Executive power ? The terms which I have quoted are a mere designation of that func tionary's title of office. For immediately after, the instrument goes on to point out the manner in which he shall be elected. Then, sir, it defines and limits the powers which are intrusted to him. He has the powers and no more than are there specifically enumerated. He does not even possess power by implication to carry into execution those expressly granted. For "all power necessary to carry into execution" any given power is, in express terms confided to Congress. Now, sir, 1 challenge any man to show me where, in express terms, or by any the remotist implication, this monstrous assumption is supported. Let us examine it still further ; for it deserves to be stripped naked and exposed in all its hidiousness. Suppose a judg ment is obtained in the District Court of North Carolina. A writ of execution is placed in the hands of the marshal ; but the President believes the Court has erred that the decision is unconsti tutional. Has the President a right to command the marshal to suspend his proceeding ? To con trol and direct him in the manner of its execution? Is he not the officer of the law, responsible to the law for the discharge of his duties? Sir, the Pre sident has the right to appoint, because the power must reside somewhere ; but when the appointment is made, the officer is not his officer, nor responsi ble to Aim, but to the laws of the country. Sir, this power claimed for the President is repudiated by the plain meaning, if not by the very terms, of the Constitution. All civil officers are liable to impeachment ; and can it be pretended that, upon Inung arrainged, it would be sufficient defence that the President commanded the deed to be done ? Would not such an excuse be laughed to scorn? In my opinion, though I express it with great diffi dence, the Constitution does not clothe the President w ith the power of removal even. lie has power to fill all vacancies which shall happen in the recess of the Senate, and to nominate when that body is in session. Can it be said that a vacancy has hap pened, when that vacancy is created by the act of the President himself? The expression used, plainly intimates that the vacancy is to be the result of accident not design. 1 know that the Congress of 'S9 decided different ly, and that decision is entitled to great respect ; but it is by no means conclusive. A man was then at the head of the Government, who had given the ctronpoct pr-rf-i bis wisdom, moderation and patriotism. How far the decision mnj nave ix.i.n influenced by these considerations, I know not ; but many of the ablest statesmen of that Congress en- tertained a different opinion ; and, with graphic power, depicted the consequences which we have experienced. The celebrated numbers of Publius written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, hold a dif ferent doctrine. Sir, 1 deny the binding efficacy of precedents upon great questions of constitution al law. Are the members of this House not aware that we have equal authority for the sedition law, and still higher authority for the constitution ality of the United States Bank ? Clothe the President with this power of contro- ling all the subordinate agents of the Government; go with him one step farther, and say that he is to execute the laws as he understands them, and you convert this republican, representative Government into the simplest of all machines. 1 on remove all the checks and barriers with which our ancestors fenced in the public liberties, and substitute the ar bitrary will of one man in the place of the law and the constitution. A great deal has been said, in this debate, of the enormities of the Bank its interference in elec tions its corruption of the press and the public morals. I wish it distinctiy understood, I am not the advocate or defender of that institution. I am now, and always have been, opposed to the present Bank, or any other Bank of the United States, un less the Constitution shall be amended. But who has made the President of the United States the guardian of the public morals, or of the public press? Who has made him the special guardian of the freedom of elections ? Or whence does he derive the power to control the management of the Bank, or interfere with it in any way ? Does not the charter, in express terms, prescribe the degree of influence which the United States are to have in that institution ? Does it not likewise, with equal precision, point out the powers of the President ? And, according to all rules of construction, is not the naming of one thing the exclusion of every other? Grant that the Bank was guilty. Was it not the right, sir was it not the duty of the President to issue a jSYi. Fa. and bring it to pu nishment? Had he a right to proceed in any other way ? Was he afraid to trust the judges and juries of the country ? I ma- see a man kill another. Have I any right, though his life is forfeited to the laws, because I deem the process of justice too slow or uncertain, to step in as an arbiter, and be come the judge, witness, and executioner? But, sir, there is another view of this subject which de serves consideration. It is the open contempt manifested by the Executive for the people's repre sentatives. Thev, to whom the spirit of our insti tutions, no less than the express words of the Con stitution, confides the control and management of the public money, had declared it was safe. let the Executive, niu tv davs before the meet in r of Congress, thrusts himself between the constitution al guardians of the public treasure, seizes it, and sets up a claim so monstrous that I can scarcely speak of it with moderation. What are his words 1 They are substantially that the custody of the pub lic money belongs to the Executive Department ; and that Congress aye, sir, Congress have no right to deprive him of it without a violation of j the fundamental principles of the Constitution.