Such, at any rate, is my conclusion, after the best reflection that I have been able to give to these words of the Constitution; and I feel it my duty to make this protest, to the end that what we now do may not be drawn into an example…

We cannot, by agreement or understanding, divest ourselves of these responsibilities, being nothing less than to transact the public business,--not simply one item or two items, but the public business in its sum total, whatever it may…

So long as his administration continues, it is the duty of Congress to be on guard, perpetually on watch against him; and this must have been obvious when Congress adjourned, as it is obvious now.

I did not doubt, then, that it would be our duty to be here in our places to make adequate provision against his misdeeds.

It is hard, I know, to provide against him; but nevertheless you must do it.

This Republic is too great, too vast, and too precious, to be left in the hands of a bad man.

One of the greatest masters in the art of war tells us, as the lesson of his great military experience, that the good general always regards that as probable which is possible.

Now, with a President such as we have, anything in the nature of disturbance or interference with the public security is possible through the Executive arm.

We are here, and I now insist that it is our duty to go forward and discharge all our duties, without exception, under the National Constitution.

The practical question, then, is, What shall we do, being a Congress assembled as any other Congress, with all powers and all duties?

And here Congress must act, not partially, nor timidly, nor in the interests of the few only, but impartially, comprehensively, firmly, and in the interests of the many.

I think, therefore, petitions should be presented and referred, bills introduced and take their proper destinations, and business of all kinds be brought before the Senate.

But I go further, and I say, that, even if there were a precedent, I would reject it; for I much prefer to follow the National Constitution.

I do not say that the text of the Constitution positively forbids the proposition, but I cannot doubt that the spirit of the Constitution is against it.

How often, in other times, have we all throbbed with indignation at the resolution in the other House, also in this Chamber, to stifle discussion on a great question!

Should these sacrifices be continued when the exigency has ceased?

That was justly offensive, because it violated the right of petition; but you propose not only to interfere with the right of petition, but also with all possible measures concerning the public welfare, except as they may relate to one…

I appeal to my associates to reject it, that it may not pass into history as a precedent of evil example to be employed against Freedom.

The sound of the war-whoop has broken even into this Capitol.

The corpses of fellow-countrymen lie unburied on the roadside, and their memories haunt us.

And yet we fold our hands, and decline to supply the needed protection.

You must govern the territory; you must provide protection for the property and the other interests there.

There is also the immense fur-trade, which has been the exclusive Russian interest ever since the discovery of the country, which will be left open, without regulation, unless you interfere by appropriate law.

There is that most important fur, the origin of wealth on that whole northwestern coast, the sea-otter, which will be exposed to lawless and destructive depredation, unless the Government supplies some regulations.

You certainly will not show yourselves worthy to possess this country, unless you provide at once a proper government.