“I was somewhat surprised at the remark, and, in return, observed that I had always understood that it was on the constitutional ground, that the expunging process could not be effected without destroying the journal, that the opponents of the measure had based themselves.

“’It is true, sir, that that has been the grave and somewhat tenable argument in the Senate; but it is a fallacy, after all,’ he replied.  ’The constitution, sir, it is true, renders it imperative on both Houses to keep a correct journal of its proceedings; and all this can be done, and any portion of it may be expunged, without violating that instrument.  For instance, sir, a resolution is adopted to-day, is entered on the journal, and to-morrow is expunged—­and still the journal remains correct, and the constitution is not violated.  For the act by which the expungation is effected is recorded on the journal; the expunged resolution becomes a matter of record, and thus everything stands fair and correct.  The constitution is a sacred document, and should not be violated; but how often is it strictly adhered to, to the very letter?  There are, sir, some men in the world who make great parade about their devotion to the “dear constitution,”—­men, sir, who make its sacred character a hobby, and who, nevertheless, are perfectly reckless of its violation, if the ends of party are to be accomplished by its abjuration.’

“There was a degree of sarcasm blended with his enunciation of the ’dear constitution,’ which induced me to think it possible that he intended some personal allusion when he repeated the words.  In this I might, and might not, have erred.

“‘In what way, Mr. Adams,’ I inquired, ’is this expunging process to be accomplished?  Is the objectionable resolution to be erased from the journal with a pen; or is the leaf that contains it to be cut out?’

“‘Neither process is to be resorted to, as I understand it,’ he replied.  ’The resolution will remain in the book; black lines will be drawn around it, and across it from right angles, and the word “expunged,” will be written on the face of it.  It will, to all intents and purposes, still stand on the face of the book.  There are precedents in parliamentary journalism for the guidance of the Senate, and I suppose they will be adopted.’

“He then proceeded to give me a very graphic and interesting description of an expunging process that took place in the British Parliament in the reign of James the First, of England, which would repeat, if time and space allowed.  He detained me a long time, in narrating precedents, and commenting on them; and then abruptly bringing the subject to a close, left me to pursue my labors.

“Soon after the House had been called to order, immediately after the chaplain had said his prayers—­for that was a ceremonial that Mr. Adams always observed—­I saw him leave his seat, and proceed, as I supposed, to the Senate chamber.  After an hour or two had elapsed, I went into the Senate, and there found him, standing outside of the bar, listening, with all imaginable attention, to Mr. Felix Grundy, who was delivering himself of some brief remarks he had to utter on the subject.