Charles Sumner

And you have now in this usurpation of the Senate an attempt to break into the telegraph-offices of the United States.

Only in mere inference, mere deduction,--the merest inference; but surely you will not take away the liberty of the citizen on any such shadowy, evanescent apology, which is no apology, but a sham, and nothing else.

But where is the legal authority for the imprisonment of these witnesses?

The practice of a ruling power in the State is but a feeble proof of its legality.

Where do you find any other text authorizing you to institute this proceeding? or if you institute the proceeding, must it not come within the limitations of this prohibition?

There, Sir, is a living text of the Constitution of the United States, binding upon this Senate.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

And now I ask you to show me any text of the Constitution, and to show me any text of Law, which authorizes the detention of these witnesses by the Senate.

I have said, Sir, that our powers here are limited by the Constitution: I may add, also, and the Law in pursuance of the Constitution.

If there be any doubt, then do these authorities cry out to you to stop.

I do not undertake to say to what extent the Senate may go; but with these authorities I warn it against proceeding on any doubtful practices.

I adduce them for a more moderate purpose,--simply to put the Senate on its guard against any assumption of power in this matter.

Now the question is directly presented by these decisions, whether under the written text of the Constitution of the United States you can ingraft upon our institutions the Law and Custom of Parliament.

They held that the power of the House of Commons in England was part of the Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti; and the existence of that power in the Commons of Great Britain did not warrant the ascribing it to every Supreme Legislative…

You will see, Sir, that by this decision the powers of a Legislative Assembly created by a Charter are limited to the grants of the Charter, and that the mere creation of the legislative body does not carry with it the Law and Custom of…

I have reminded you, Sir, that our powers, whatever they may be, are under a written Constitution, and in this important respect clearly distinguishable from the powers of the House of Commons, which are the growth of tradition and…

The Senator never spoke truer words: the Senate has not the power of a justice of the peace.

I doubt whether such an assumption can stand an argument in this Chamber; I doubt whether it can stand a discussion before a court of justice.

I am very clear that it has not the power by compulsory process to compel witnesses to testify in aid of legislation, as was once attempted in what was known familiarly as the Harper’s Ferry Investigating Case.

It is a mere implication, and, being adverse to the rights of the citizen, it must be construed strictly.

There is also a third power which the Senate possesses, judicial in character: it is to determine the election of its members.

The Senate also, by express terms of the Constitution, has the power to expel a member.

In the case of impeachments the Senate becomes a judicial body, and it is reasonable to infer that it may have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses,--in short, the powers of a court.

The Constitution says nothing about contempt or punishment for contempt.

It is this: that, whatever may be the power even in England by Parliamentary Law, it by no means follows that the Senate of the United States has that power.