the function which belongs to the House of Representatives, and "convert themselves into accusers, witnesses, counsel, and judges, and prejudge the whole case." If the House of Representatives shall consider that there is no cause of impeachment, and prefer none, "then will the violation of privilege as it respects that House, of justice as it regards the President, and of the Constitution as it relates to both, be more conspicuous and impressive." The Senate is charged with the "unconstitutional power of arraigning and censuring the official conduct of the Executive." The people, says the protest, will be compelled to adopt the conclusion, "either that the Chief Magistrate was unworthy of their respect, or that the Senate was chargeable with calumny and injustice." There can be no doubt which branch of this alternative was intended to be applied. The President throughout the protest labors to prove himself worthy of all respect from the people. Finally, the President says: "It is due to the high trust with which I have been charged, to those who may be called to succeed me in it, to the representatives of the people whose constitutional prerogative has been unlawfully assumed, to the people and to the States, and to the Constitution they have established, that I should not permit its provisions to be broken down by such an attack on the Executive department, without at least some effort 'to preserve, protect, and defend them.'"

These are the opinions which the President expresses in the protest, of the conduct of the Senate. In every form, and every variety of expression, he accuses it of violating the express language and spirit of the Constitution; of encroaching not only on his prerogatives, but those of the House of Representatives; of forgetting the sacred character and impartiality which belong to the highest court of justice

in the Union; of injustice, of inhumanity, and of calumny. And we are politely requested to spread upon our own journal these opinions entertained of us by the President, that they may be perpetually preserved and handed down to posterity! The President respectfully requests it! He might as well have come to us and respectfully requested us to allow him to pull our noses, or kick us, or receive his stripes upon our backs. The degradation would not have been much more humiliating.

The President tells us, in the same protest, that any breach or violation of the Constitution and laws draws after it, and necessarily implies, volition and design, and that the legal conclusion is that it was prompted by improper motives and committed with an unlawful intent. He pronounces, therefore, that the Senate, in the violations of the Constitution which he deliberately imputes to it, is guilty; that volition and design, on the part of the Senate, are necessarily implied; and that the legal conclusion is that the Senate was prompted by improper motives, and committed the violation with an unlawful intent. And he most respectfully and kindly solicits the Senate to overleap the restraint of the Constitution, which limits its journal to the record of its own proceedings, and place alongside of them his sentence of condemnation of the Senate.

That the President did not intend to make the journal of the Senate a medium of conveying his sentiments to the people is manifest. He knows perfectly well how to address to them his appeals. And the remarkable fact is established, by his private secretary, that, simultaneously with the transmission to the Senate of his protest, a duplicate was transmitted to the "Globe," his official paper, for publication; and it was forthwith published accordingly. For

what purpose, then, was it sent here? It is painful to avow the belief, but one is compelled to think it was only sent in a spirit of insult and defiance.

The President is not content with vindicating his own rights. He steps forward to maintain the privileges of the House of Representatives also. Why? Was it to make the House his ally, and to excite its indignation against the offending Senate? Is not the House perfectly competent to sustain its own privileges against every assault? I should like to see, sir, a resolution introduced into the House, alleging a breach of its privileges by a resolution of the Senate, which was intended to maintain unviolated the constitutional rights of both Houses in regard to the public purse, and to be present at its discussion.

The President exhibits great irritation and impatience at the presumptuousness of a resolution, which, without the imputation of any bad intention or design, ventures to allege that he has violated the Constitution and laws. His constitutional and official infallibility must not be questioned. To controvert it is an act of injustice, inhumanity, and calumny. He is treated as a criminal, and, without summons, he is prejudged, condemned, and sentenced. Is the President scrupulously careful of the memory of the dead, or the feelings of the living, in respect to violations of the Constitution? If a violation by him implies criminal guilt, a violation by them cannot be innocent and guiltless. And how has the President treated the memory of the immortal Father of his Country? that great man, who, for purity of purpose and character, wisdom and moderation, unsullied virtue and unsurpassed patriotism, is without competition in past history or among living men, and whose equal we scarcely dare hope will ever be again pre