But this argument confounds two cases which are wide apart as the poles.

While denouncing an outrageous statute, and refusing to play the part of slave-hunter, I never joined in rebellion against my country, or uttered one word except in loyalty.

Such persons will be justly brought to the test of an oath, and they can claim no immunity from the example of those patriot citizens who, recognizing the crime of Slavery, refused to become in any way its tools.

At present I choose not to be diverted from the issue before us.

Putting aside irrelevant questions, and presenting the single point in issue, the case becomes too plain for argument.

That the Senate will openly refuse obedience to an existing statute, recently enacted, in support of loyalty, is not to be supposed without impeachment of the loyalty of the Senate.

It is, then, on the statute alone, and nothing else, that any question can arise.

But who are substitutes and agents of the people more than Senators?

The post of Senator is an office of honor or profit, and a “Senator” is an “officer.

To say that a Senator is not included under this comprehensive, but distinctive term, is simply an absurdity.

It is evident that Congress adopted the words of the statute because they were comprehensive and distinctive.

If I am supported in this principle, I shall be able to show, by strong cases under the Constitution, that its undeniable intention must be frustrated, if a Senator be not considered an officer of the United States.

And yet can it reasonably be contended that the policy which incapacitates a citizen, if convicted on impeachment, from holding an office the most mean and humble, does not apply to the case of a Senator?

The wisdom of the Constitution, Sir, has considered a conviction as an evidence of moral unfitness for public trust.

And shall such an offender, degraded from the capacity of even being doorkeeper of this Chamber, yet retain the capacity of being a member of a body of the most dignity, trust, and power in the country?

This is a solecism in politics, an absurdity in reason, which I trust this honorable court will not willingly by their act attach to an instrument so highly and justly revered as the Constitution of our Government.

Can it be possible that a public functionary, of all others the peculiar object of this jealous restriction, is, in fact, the sole object of exemption from its operation?

Can it be imagined that a Senator, upon whom the Constitution has heaped the powers and trusts of legislator, judge, and executive magistrate, is the only person who is left exposed to the seductions of foreign influence?

It can never be admitted that a situation which from its trust and importance most invites corruption is the only one which the Constitution has not guarded against.

If, Sir, a Senator be not an officer under this clause, it might happen that the Senate of the United States might become a House of Lords.

It would be in the power of any king in Europe to change our free government, and to convert one branch, at least, from a republican into an aristocratic form.

You will not suffer an ensign in your army to accept the humble title of Chevalier, and yet you will allow an integral part of the Government to be composed of earls and dukes.

And let me pray the honorable Court to remember, at the same time, that the Constitution has provided that a member of either House shall not be allowed to retain his seat and hold any commission, civil or military, under the United States.

In view of these emphatic words, it is difficult to see how any person can insist that a “Senator” is not a “civil officer,” even according to the text of the Constitution.

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