If one or both the other branches of the government happen to do that which appears to us inconsistent with the constitutional rights of the Senate, will any one say that the Senate is yet bound to be passive, and to be silent? to do nothing, and to say nothing?  Or, if one branch appears to encroach on the rights of the other two, have these two no power of remonstrance, complaint, or resistance?  Sir, the question may be put in a still more striking form.  Has the Senate a right to have an opinion in a case of this kind?  If it may have an opinion, how is that opinion to be ascertained but by resolution and vote?  The objection must go the whole length; it must maintain that the Senate has not only no right to express opinions, but no right to form opinions, on the conduct of the executive government, though in matters intimately affecting the powers and duties of the Senate itself.  It is not possible, Sir, that such a doctrine can be maintained for a single moment.  All political bodies resist what they deem encroachments by resolutions expressive of their sentiments, and their purpose to resist such encroachments.  When such a resolution is presented for its consideration, the question is, whether it be true; not whether the body has authority to pass it, admitting it to be true.  The Senate, like other public bodies, is perfectly justifiable in defending, in this mode, either its legislative or executive authority.  The usages of Parliament, the practice in our State legislatures and assemblies, both before and since the Revolution, and precedents in the Senate itself, fully maintain this right.  The case of the Panama mission is in point.  In that case, Mr. Branch, from North Carolina, introduced a resolution, which, after reciting that the President, in his annual message and in his communication to the Senate, had asserted that he possessed an authority to make certain appointments, although the appointments had not been made, went on to declare that “a silent acquiescence on the part of this body may, at some future time, be drawn into dangerous precedent”; and to resolve, therefore, that the President does not possess the right or power said to be claimed by him.  This resolution was discussed, and finally laid on the table.  But the question discussed was, whether the resolution was correct, in fact and principle; not whether the Senate had any right to pass such resolution.  So far as I remember, no one pretended that, if the President had exceeded his authority, the Senate might not so declare by resolution.  No one ventured to contend that, whether the rights of the Senate were invaded or not, the Senate must hold its peace.