In this country the power to imprison is either incidental to or expressly conferred upon all our legislative assemblies; and in some of the States it is also regulated by express constitutional provision.

Here you have the authentic words of this special authority, interpreting the English Parliamentary Law, and also declaring our law.

What Senator will set up his research or his conclusion against that of this exemplar?

Who is there here that will venture to claim for the Senate a prerogative which this American authority disclaims for legislative bodies in our country, unless expressly sanctioned by Constitutional Law?

I have shown that this power to commit beyond the session does not exist in the House of Commons, from which we derive such prerogatives or privileges as we have.

But the stream cannot rise higher than the fountain-head.

If you undertake to detain these prisoners beyond the expiration of this session, you become usurpers, the Senate of the United States usurps power that does not belong to it; and, Sir, this is more flagrant, when it is considered that it…

When I state this conclusion, I feel that I stand on supports that cannot be shaken.

Even according to the census of 1860, such new apportionment would transfer some sixty million dollars from banks that enjoy it to other parts of the country; it would take away from those banks what they want, and transfer it where it is…

The rule is fixed and positive; and I now have no hesitation in declaring that it will be the duty of the judge, on a writ of Habeas Corpus, as soon as this Senate closes its session, to set these prisoners at liberty, unless the Senate…

I am sure that no judge worthy of a place on the bench will hesitate in this judgment.

The credit of the nation is behind them; and everybody knows, when he takes one of them, that he is safe.

When I say this, I do not speak vaguely; for I am sure that every student of this subject will admit that a judgment like that which I have adduced on a question of Parliamentary Law, and in favor of the rights of the subject, is of an…

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.

The Constitution says nothing about contempt or punishment for contempt.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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…

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…

Therefore, I ask, how can the proposed requirement be carried into execution? how can you bring back these runaways, when once in circulation on their perpetual travels?