Is any such proceeding as that of actually expunging the journal, proposed by the resolution of the Senator from Missouri? I answer, no such thing. If the Constitution had, in express terms, directed us to record and to preserve a journal of our proceedings, there is nothing in the resolution now before us which would be inconsistent with such a provision.
Is the drawing of a black line around the resolution of the Senate, of March, 1834, to obliterate or deface it? On the contrary, is it not to render it more conspicuous,—to place it in bold relief,—to give it a prominence in the public view, beyond any other proceeding of this body, in past, and I trust, in all future time. If the argument of Senators were, not that we have no power to obliterate; but that the Senate possessed no power to render one portion of the journal more conspicuous than another, it would have had much greater force. Why, sir, by means of this very proceeding, that portion of our journal upon which it operates will be rescued from a slumber which would otherwise have been eternal, and, fac-similes of the original resolution, without a word or a letter defaced, will be circulated over the whole Union.
But, sir, this resolution also directs that across the face of the condemnatory resolution there shall be written by the Secretary, “Expunged by the order of the Senate this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 1837.”
Will this obliterate any part of the original resolution? If it does, the duty of the Secretary will be performed in a very bungling manner. No such thing is intended. It would be easy to remove every scruple from every mind upon this subject, by amending the resolution of the Senator from Missouri, so as to direct the Secretary to perform his duty in such a manner as not to obliterate any part of the condemnatory resolution. Such a direction, however, appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. The nature of the whole proceeding is very plain. We now adopt a resolution, expressing our strong reprobation of the original resolution; and for this purpose we use the word “expunged,” as the strongest term which we can apply. We then direct our Secretary to draw black lines around it, and place such a reference to our proceedings of this day upon its face, that in all time to come, whoever may inspect this portion of our journal, will be pointed at once to the record of its condemnation. What lawyer has not observed upon the margin of the judgment docket, if the original judgment has been removed to a superior court, and there reversed, a minute of such reversal? In our editions of the statutes, have we not all noted the repeal of any of them, which may have taken place at a subsequent period? Who ever heard, in the one case or the other, that this was obliterating or destroying the record, or the book? So in this case, we make a mere reference to our future proceeding upon the face of the resolution, instead of the margin. Suppose we should only repeal the obnoxious resolution, and direct such a reference to be made upon its face? Would any Senator contend that this would be an obliteration of the journal?
But it has been contended that the word expunge is not the appropriate word; and we have wrested it from its true signification, in applying it to the present case. Even if this allegation were correct, the answer would be at hand. You might then convict us of bad taste, but not of a violation of the Constitution. On the face of the resolution we have stated distinctly what we mean. We have directed the Secretary in what manner he shall understand it, and we have excluded the idea that it is our intention to obliterate or to destroy the journal.
But I shall contend that the word expunge is the appropriate word, and that there is not another in the English language so precisely adapted to convey our meaning. I shall show, from the highest literary and parliamentary authorities, that the word has acquired a signification entirely distinct from that of actual obliteration. Let me proceed immediately to this task. After citing my authorities, I shall proceed with the argument. First, then, for those of a literary character. I read from Crabbe’s Synonymes, page 140; and every Senator will admit that this is a work of established reputation. In speaking of the use of the word expunge, the author says: “When the contents of a book are in part rejected, they are aptly described as being expunged; in this manner the free-thinking sects expunge everything from the Bible which does not suit their purpose, or they expunge from their creed what does not humor their passions.” The idea that an actual obliteration was intended in these cases would be manifestly absurd. In the same page there is a quotation from Mr. Burke to illustrate the meaning of this word. “I believe,” says he, “that any person who was of age to take a part in public concerns forty years ago (if the intermediate space were expunged from his memory), could hardly credit his senses when he should hear that an army of two hundred thousand men was kept up in this island.” I shall now cite Mr. Jefferson as a literary authority. He has often been referred to on this floor as a standard in politics. For this high authority, I am indebted to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Nicholas). In the original draft of the declaration of independence, he uses the word expunge in the following manner: “Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government.” Although the word alter was substituted for expunge, I presume upon the ground that this was too strong a term, yet the change does not detract from the literary authority of the precedent.—Jefferson’s Correspondence, &c., 1st volume, page 17.
I presume that I have shown that the word expunge has acquired a distinct metaphorical meaning in our literature, which excludes the idea of actual obliteration. If I should proceed one step further, and prove that in legislative proceedings it has acquired the very same signification, I shall then have fully established my position. For this purpose I cite, first, “the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Federal Convention.” In page 118, we find the following entries: “On motion to expunge the clause of the qualification as to age, it was carried—ten States against one.” Again: “On the clause respecting the ineligibility to any other office, it was moved that the words ‘by any particular State,’ be expunged—four States for, five against, and two divided.” So page 119: “The last blank was filled up with one year, and carried—eight ayes, two noes, one divided.”
“Mr. Pinckney moved to expunge the clause—agreed to, nem. con.”[nem. con.”] Again: “Mr. Butler moved to expunge the clause of the stipends—lost, seven against, three for, one divided.” Again, in page 157: “Mr. Pinckney moved that that part of the clause which disqualifies a person from holding an office in the State be expunged, because the first and best characters in a State may thereby be deprived of a seat in the national council.”
“Question put to strike out the words moved for and carried—eight ayes, three noes.”
It will thus be perceived that in the proceedings of the very convention which formed the Constitution under which we are now governed, the word expunge was often used in its figurative sense. It will certainly not be asserted, or even intimated, by any Senator here, that when these motions to expunge prevailed, the words of the original draft of the Constitution were actually obliterated or defaced. The meaning is palpable. These provisions were merely rejected; not actually blotted out.