The misconduct of the President, and his obstruction of
important legislation, naturally aroused judgment and
indignation. The question was then raised with regard to
the privileges of the Senate. July 20th, in the debate on
adjournment, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, said: “The time has
come, undoubtedly, when there is a very serious difference of
opinion in Congress upon a very important question. With regard
to the Senate, I have considered that upon that question it
was not proper for a Senator to express an opinion, or even,
if he could avoid it, to form an opinion.” Mr. Sumner never
doubted the complete immunity of the Senate, and its duty to
consider these things in advance of impeachment, and he spoke
accordingly. On the day of Mr. Fessenden’s remarks he offered
the following resolutions, which were ordered to be printed.
Resolutions declaring the privileges of debate in the Senate with
regard to civil officers liable to impeachment.
Whereas it has been asserted that the conduct of a civil officer liable
to impeachment cannot be freely considered and condemned by Senators in
the course of legislative proceedings;
And whereas such an opinion is calculated to impair the just privileges
of debate: Therefore,
_Resolved_, That the Constitution, in providing for the impeachment
of “all civil officers” of the National Government, embracing the
President, members of the Cabinet, diplomatic representatives, and
other civil functionaries, did not intend to limit debate in the Senate
on the conduct of any civil officer, so far as the same may arise in
legislative proceedings; that any other interpretation is inconsistent
with the privileges of the Senate, and tends directly to shield
misconduct in civil office.
_Resolved_, That the Constitution expressly declares, that, when
sitting to try an impeachment, the Senate “shall be on oath or
affirmation,” thus superadding a judicial oath to that already taken
as Senator; that from the taking of this oath the judicial character
of the Senate begins, and until then each Senator is free to express
himself openly on the conduct of any civil officer, and thereupon to
invite the judgment of the Senate and the country; that at times this
may be a duty, and is always a sacred right, which cannot be renounced
or abridged.[240]