Mr. MCDOUGALL. Mr. President, that is very much after the fashion of the Senfrom Massachusetts. He has no sponsors for his letters. He has correspondents from all parts of the world, but nobody ever heard what were their sign manuals. And now, under taking to offer an amendment after the discussion has been engaged in, he declines to make one remark until something has transpired that is worthy of his steel, holding himself to be Brian deBois Gilbert, I suppose, or else Ivanhoe, who touched his shield, for nobody equal to him in point of arms exists in or about the Federal Senate. The agony of his self admiration must give him great trouble in the midnight hours. Sir, this question is a question of office. I undertook to state yesterday whether I stated it well or not I am not exactly certain; I think I did state it exactly there was an eminent French author, from whom the men who established our institutions derived their great est light, because when Montesquieu wrote his Spirit of Laws, he, in his adaptations, gave reference to everything there was in the old Greek and Latin days. They were familiar with the history of the intermediate States with the republics of Rome and Venice, and with free institutions as they were developed in Germany, and free institutions as they were developed on the northern shores of the Med iterranean, and as they were developed every where. It has seemed to me a singular thing that I cannot find at the present time any goin back to the wisdom. P our. i fathers. It is true that when I was a lad I thought I knew more than my grandfather did; but as I grew older I found I did not. There is a sort of aspiring spirit that is common to our American people, particularly to those who have got any of the Celtic or Gothic blood about them, and they are disposed to affirm that they know all. My friendfrom Oregon, [Mr. WILLIAMs,) who is very much of a Celt, is confident he knows it all; and the Erse Gentfrom Missouri, Mr. BRowN, ] with his golden locks he perfectly knows it all. [laughter] Now, it was some time said in the days of old antiquity that the high elevation of the soundest philosophy was to know thyself, and I think that was inscribed in the temple at Delphos by one of the wise men of Greece. In the consideration of these grave questions it is well for us really to consult. How many consultations have there been in this Chamber during the 6 years that I have had the honor to be here? There have been belligerent controversies. The Senfrom Missouri constitutionally affirms what he thinks himself. He does not ask whether any other person thinks differently, and is not prepared to accept any modification upon fair and just consideration. I have seen the time when great men, grave men, wise men sat in this Senate Cham ber, and they would ask of each other, what is right about a matter; what should we do; is for the interest of the State, speakin of the State as the Union, that is the U.S., because when we speak of the State here we mean all the States. That has not been done for 8 years in this Senate Cham ber. This is not Senatus consultum while partisan considerations can control this council, which was designed to be the most conservative of the elements of this Government equal with the supreme judiciary. There is no consultation now, and has not been, except consultation in caucus. We who live in the northwestern part of the world, where the ice freezes very deep, are not in the council at all, for we are if subject to their judgment. They sit down, a portion of the Senate, and hold their councils and determine what they will do, not understanding that it is the common right of every Senator here to be considered and have his opinions canvassed and his best judgment rendered on the Senate floor. This uever occurred until the inauguration of a series of proceedings within the last 6 years. There never was such a thing as a caucus upon political questions in the Federal Senate before that time; there never was such a thing as a caucus upon political questions in the HoRep, nor in any HoRep, or Senate of the U.S. of which I have heard. It is now determined by the force of an overwhelming majority that the minority shall have no voice. I have some recollection of its having been said long ago, and well said, that the tyranny of a majority was the most terrible tyranny in the world. What is it? The tyranny of the raging mob; of such men as hung up to lanterns men in Paris during the 100 Days; such men as have been asserting the power o a majority the cruelest, most sanguinary, and desperate ruler of a people. The mostter rible tyranny in the Joã is the tyranny of majority. So it has been proclaimed from the time when the shells were assigned to the voters of Athens and they sent their great men into banishment. It is false to say of this Republic that this is a Government of exact majorities and that majorities must rule. That never was the idea of the men who created our foundation. They undertook to balance our institutions. There were both popular and conservative forces; there were the Senate, the lower branch of the Legislature, and the judiciary; and we have much depraved ourselves by falling off from the old lessons and making the judiciary subject to popular influences; for probably above all influences, as it was once thought by the masters whom we have studied, or should have studied, the judiciary was the great anchoring ground of the Government. I never knew the time that I was willing to have a judge hold his term short of good behavior, so that he should be properly tried; and that should be the rule now throughout the country. If he is guilty of any offense he may be accused of the offense; and, by the way, I may say here, and I say it just simply because I am looking at this old, reverend gentleman, [Mr. JOHNson] “Reverdy” means “reverend” I believe that Lord Bacon, according to our present information, has been long maligned. After he has been dead and rotten now since Queen Elizabeth's time, it has been found out that he was an excellent gentleman, a noble man, and did not steal; but because that red headed girl who was then Queen of England begged of him to do so he allowed himself to go into ignominy. That is a better piece of stubjection than I could submit to. Probably I could have done it if I had been an Englishman. However, I desire to come back again to the main consideration of the 3 depts of our Government. I would be pained to have that division forgotten by thoughtful men. It will not belong before part your company, and shall have no opportunity of expressing even a sentiment or an opinion. When we forget the true distinction between the 3 depts of Government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial depts, and do not learn how to define them, and do not have the definitions taught in our schools to our boys, we are on the down grade of ruin, and we shall fooi.nto Iatchaotic mass, or chaotic confusion at is not possible to conduct a Government without executive power; it is not possible to conduct a Government without legislative power; it is not possible to conduct government without judicial power; the 3 are involved. This is a very old story. It has been taught to us for more than 5,000 years. It has been determined by the wisest that they should be entirely separate and distinct. If the executive and the judicial office were combined in one man it would enable him to be a tyrant. If the executive and the legislative were united in one it would enable that power to tyrannize. If the Legislature of the Government should claim, by virtue of its power to pass laws, power to administer laws, power to judge of laws, it would be most tyrannous. All careful, considerate students of the philosophy of republics have said, Let the legislative power be held in check. Senators, who have no particular personal influence, and who are not joto be popular politicians, and members of the HoRep, have no power to topish results except this: they can pass aws. Now, if the Legislature has a mind to say, regardless of the Constitution of the U.S., “This is the law of the U.S.;” to say, as a Senator once said to me in this Hall, “If it is not constitutional, it is right, ” and then claim, by virtue of legislative power, executive and judicial power, that would make the most terrible tyranny because they represent an irresponsible majority. I presume there is no Senator who is not conversant with this discussion, as I am myself. Certainly every well informed man in this Senate should have o read this full discussion of the relations of the 3 depts of Government. It was well discussed in the organization of our Republic. It is well put in the Federalist. It is well stated in Montesquieu, and better referred to by the text he furnishes from the ancient authors. If we cannot maintain the independency of the 3 powers in this Government, we must abandon it and seek a new organization; and there comes a grave question, and perhaps it may be the gravest question of the age: if the 3 elements, each intended to be exactly in dependent so that they should make an equi oise, cannot be maintained in their integrity, if they cannot balance themselves, if the executive can go to the judiciary or the judiciary to the executive, or the executive to the legislative, and combine power, if the moral sense of the country will not correct any such bad, evil, terrible conclusion, we are in chaos. We shall then have to lie at midnight like a vessel in a stormy sea, without hope of the morning, and he who shall see the 1st star that rises in the eastern horizon will be a prophet of God; for when we are involved in that chaotic condition there is no rule of philosophy, there is nothing in the ja!". the integral calculus that can solve that proposition so far as it has been communicated to mankind. It is in this aspect of the question, that I speak of our solemn duty to maintain the the ory of our Government as advised by the men who hunted it up from old antiquity. No senator has read the Federalist who does not know that Hamilton and Jay and Madison hunted everything from the ancient masters, and then they relied principally upon Montes quieu as an index, but they hunted them all, and they framed the only system of a republic that can last. If this Republic does last, it must last upon the proposition of the division of power in 3 depts of the Government. If they cannot be maintained intact in their integrity, the Republic cannot be main tained. I am confident the Republic cannot be maintained if we cannot maintain those 3 elements independent of each other, so that we have no right here to question the power of the Executive, and the courts have no right to question our power. We must, upon consultation, inquire what our power is and exercise it only to the limit of our author.ity; and so of the other branches of the government. I have said enough to communicate my opinions, and I say my advice, if you please. If it is not considered today it will be considered at some future time, perhaps by more thought ful and more careful men. I did while I have the floor propose to pursue a branch that is not germane to this question; but from what I see about me I do not care to pursue the subject. I desire now, as a mere concluding sentence, to say that the safety, the continuance, the maintenance of our institutions as a free Government depend upon the maintenance of the 3. of Government intact.