I object to the proposition of my friend from Rhode Island, which I cannot but think he has introduced hastily and without sufficient consideration, or at any rate under influences which I think his own better judgment should have rejected. I am against it on several grounds. If I said it was contrary to precedent, I should not err; for the attempt made the other day to show that there was precedent for such a proceeding, it seems to me, signally failed. Attention was then called to a resolution adopted at a session of Congress convened by the President of the United States for a declared purpose, announced at the time in advance. I think the course taken by Congress was regarded as questionable, even under the peculiar circumstances. But the two cases are different. The present session is not like that. It is a continuing session of a Congress begun on the 4th day of March last, being simply a prolongation of that session; and the practical question is, whether you will limit the business of Congress in a general session called under a statute of the United States. Clearly there is no precedent for any such proceeding. You plunge into darkness without a guide.
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! You do not forget the odious rule by the name of the “Gag,” attached to which was the name of its author, beginning with the letter A.[229] I hope there will be no other gag of a larger character to be classified with the letter A. 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 single business, and that in its narrowest relations.
I object to such a proposition as in its spirit unconstitutional. 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. You may see, Sir, how obstructive it is, if you will glance at certain matters within my own knowledge, which, I submit, it is our duty to consider, and my duty as a Senator to press upon your attention. No relations with political associates can absolve me from official responsibility.