I know as well as you the absurdity of those who call Antislavery a party of one idea, of abstraction and transcendentalism, &c.,--as if the one idea of Humanity did not absorb all others of practical legislation.

Who shall say that God has not spared him from the bludgeon of the murderer, not only to defend the poor negro in his God-given rights, but to vindicate our country from the insolence of England, and pronounce judgment against her past…

The country will feel proud, in these times of trouble and doubt, of such an advocate.

And now that we have had that speech, everything else that has been said on the subject seems of little worth.

Everywhere I hear the same judgment; so that your friends may well congratulate you on what is doubtless one of the most brilliant successes of your life.

Yet the leading men of all parties will read it, and I am sure it will greatly help our cause.

Nobody better than these volunteers represented the intelligence and conscience of the country.

Until he took the oath at your chair, Sir, he was Senator in title only, not in function.

It is clear that the member elect is not invested with the office until qualified by taking the oath.

The conclusion is irresistible, that, until the oath was taken, General Lane had not entered upon his functions as Senator; and here the argument of the Senator from Connecticut, with regard to the effect of the oath, is strictly…

An oath in public, at your chair, Sir, being at once of record and sealing the acceptance of an office, is very different from the informal oath taken in private, at a distance, before a local magistrate, which is in the nature of an…

Even if General Lane had been Senator, invested with the functions of the office, and completely qualified by taking the necessary oath, it is still clear that the military duties he had undertaken did not operate as a resignation.

And here I remark, that, when it is proposed to unseat a Senator, to deprive him of a place in this body,--I might almost say to deprive him of his rank,--the evidence must be complete.

It must be, according to that old phrase of the Common Law, “certainty to a certain intent in every particular.” If there be doubt, either in law or fact, the interpretation should be in his favor.

But I am at a loss to understand how it is supposed that this proceeding can be made effective to oust a Senator of his seat.

The act of the President was proper, just, and patriotic; but clearly, and beyond all question, it needed the sanction of Congress to be completely legal.

So much, at least, I do know: the Senate is judge, without appeal, with regard to the seats of its members; and I am sure it will not unseat a Senator by a strained application of an ex post facto statute.

President, I most humbly submit that the clause of the Constitution just quoted is entirely inapplicable.

I say, with all respect to the Senator, he might as well have quoted anything else in the Constitution.

Those are the words, Sir, governing this case, and they conduct us directly to the question, when and at what time a person becomes a member of either House.

Clearly he becomes a member of this body, so as to discharge his duties as Senator, and to be affected with the responsibilities of Senator, only when he has taken his oath at your desk, Sir,--not one minute before.

There is nothing in the Constitution, there is nothing in the practice of any parliamentary body in this country, or in any other country, I think, pointing to any different conclusion.

PRESIDENT,--The expulsion of a Senator is one of the most solemn acts which this body can be called to perform.

The sentence of a court in a capital case is hardly more solemn; for, though your judgment cannot take away life, it may take away all that gives value to life.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.