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…

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

You raise, for the first time in this Chamber, one of the great questions of the times.

I ask the Senator if the Senate of the United States, in this investigation, as long as it exists, has not all the authority of a court?

I have already stated that it has not,--that it has not the authority of a justice of the peace.

The Senate proposes to break into the telegraph-offices of the United States.

That was a system which the people of this country would not bear, which they ought not to bear; and he hoped, after the exposure which had taken place, that some means would be adopted for counteracting this insidious conduct of her…

It was disgraceful to a free country that such a system should be tolerated.

The letters of a man might be opened, and he might not have the slightest intimation that he was betrayed.

Now is such a state of things to be tolerated in a civilized country?

You see how, if you persevere, you will shock the conscience and the sensibilities of the American people.

I make these remarks with a view of opening to the Senate the importance of the question before them, that they may once more hesitate and withdraw to the safe ground of the Constitution and the Law; for there is nothing in the…

Even suppose your proceedings have been from the beginning in all respects just and proper, even suppose that you can vindicate them, in regard to which I beg leave to express a sincere doubt, you cannot vindicate the attempt to continue…