The Protest labors strenuously to show that the Senate adopted the resolution of the 28th of March, under its judicial authority.  The reason of this attempt is obvious enough.  If the Senate, in its judicial character, has been trying the President, then he has not had a regular and formal trial; and, on that ground, it is hoped the public sympathy may be moved.  But the Senate has acted not in its judicial, but in its legislative capacity.  As a legislative body, it has defended its own just authority, and the authority of the other branch of the legislature.  Whatever attacks our own rights and privileges, or whatever encroaches on the power of both houses, we may oppose and resist, by declaration, resolution, or other similar proceedings.  If we look to the books of precedents, if we examine the journals of legislative bodies, we find everywhere instances of such proceedings.

It is to be observed, Sir, that the Protest imposes silence on the House of Representatives as well as on the Senate.  It declares that no power is conferred on either branch of the legislature, to consider or decide upon official acts of the executive, for the purpose of censure, and without a view to legislation or impeachment.  This, I think, Sir, is pretty high-toned pretension.  According to this doctrine, neither house could assert its own rights, however the executive might assail them; neither house could point out the danger to the people, however fast executive encroachment might be extending itself, or whatever danger it might threaten to the public liberties.  If the two houses of Congress may not express an opinion of executive conduct by resolution, there is the same reason why they should not express it in any other form, or by any other mode of proceeding.  Indeed, the Protest limits both houses, expressly, to the case of impeachment.  If the House of Representatives are not about to impeach the President, they have nothing to say of his measures or of his conduct; and unless the Senate are engaged in trying an impeachment, their mouths, too, are stopped.  It is the practice of the President to send us an annual message, in which he rehearses the general proceedings of the executive for the past year.  This message we refer to our committees for consideration.  But, according to the doctrine of the Protest, they can express no opinion upon any executive proceeding upon which it gives information.  Suppose the President had told us, in his last annual message, what he had previously told us in his cabinet paper, that the removal of the deposits was his act, done on his responsibility; and that the Secretary of the Treasury had exercised no discretion, formed no judgment, presumed to have no opinion whatever, on the subject.  This part of the message would have been referred to the committee on finance; but what could they say?  They think it shows a plain violation of the Constitution and the laws; but the President is not impeached; therefore they can express no censure.  They think it a direct invasion of legislative power, but they must not say so.  They may, indeed, commend, if they can.  The grateful business of praise is lawful to them; but if, instead of commendation and applause, they find cause for disapprobation, censure, or alarm, the Protest enjoins upon them absolute silence.