How does the Senate

deal with those who break the rules?

The creation of rules also requires their enforcement. The Constitution gives the Senate authority to govern its own members and to punish those who violate the rules. Absence from the chamber to deny the Senate a quorum to conduct business is one infringement of the rules for which the Senate may constitutionally compel attendance. Senate sergeants at arms have been given the authority to arrest absent senators and accompany them to the floor. Senate rules prohibit senators from imputing to other members any conduct unworthy or unbecoming to a senator, or referring offensively to the home state of another member. Any senator who violates these rules can be called to order by the presiding officer and prohibited from speaking without the permission of the Senate for the remainder of the day.

From time to time, senators have been accused of breaking the law, or of otherwise acting in a manner that offends the Senate. Under these circumstances, the Senate has the ability to censure or expel a member. These are severe penalties, applied infrequently; the Senate has generally preferred to allow voters on election day to determine the ethical standards of those who represent them. In two hundred years the Senate has censured only 8 members, and expelled 15—most of the latter withdrew when their states seceded from the Union during the Civil War.

The first major disciplinary case arose in 1797, when President John Adams sent Congress a message accusing Senator William Blount of Tennessee of conspiring to instigate Indian attacks to seize New Orleans from Spain. The Senate found the president's evidence conclusive, and on July 8, 1797, it expelled Blount by a vote of 25 to 1. But when the House voted to impeach Blount, the Senate declined to convict him on the grounds that he was no longer a civil officer of the government, and therefore not impeachable. On January 11, 1799, the Senate dismissed the charges against Blount by a vote of 14 to 11.

The first Senate censure occurred in 1811, after Senator Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, an unpopular member of the minority Federalist party, referred in debate to secret documents relating to the purchase of the Louisiana territory from France. Senator Samuel Smith of Pennsylvania immediately interrupted to ask whether the Senate had ever made these documents public. It was only then that Pickering realized that he had violated Senate rules by read

Originally, both the Senate and House allowed their members unlimited debate on any issue, but as the House of Representatives grew in membership, it became necessary to place constraints on the length of members' speeches. In 1841, the House limited members to one hour for each speech. One outraged representative complained that "no gentleman can acquit himself well in debate, whether physically or intellectually, while confined in a strait jacket." An appalled Senator Thomas Hart Benton, famous for his own lengthy speeches, judged this rule "the largest limitation upon freedom of debate which any deliberative assembly has ever imposed upon itself." However, even one hour proved too time-consuming for the House, which in 1847 further restricted debate with a "five-minute rule."

By contrast, the Senate continued to tolerate, even glorify, unlimited debate. Not until 1917 did the Senate adopt its first cloture rule, designed to cut off filibusters. But even this rule proved hard to apply. For years, many senators refused to vote for cloture on principle, making it impossible to obtain the necessary two-thirds vote. Later this was changed to a three-fifths vote. Yet as a delaying tactic, the filibuster remains very much alive within the Senate.

Lengthy debates focus national attention upon issues, articulating the details of the issue for the press and the public, and rallying forces on either side. Such debates eventually help in finding some common ground for compromise or lead to defeat of the measure through protracted delay. Generally these debates have involved a number of senators, but the most famous debate of the early 19th century took place between two senators, Daniel Webster and Robert Y. Hayne.

On January 19, 1830, Senator Hayne of South Carolina rose in the Senate chamber to denounce the northeastern region of the United States for pursuing policies, specifically high tariffs, to the detriment of the South and West. The following day, Senator Webster of Massachusetts delivered a brief response in which he deplored the tendency of some southerners to speak of the Union in terms of disparagement. "The Union is to be preserved while it suits local and temporary purposes to preserve it," Webster observed, "and to be sundered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes." Senator Hayne accepted Webster's challenge, letting it be known that he intended to reply the next day. The following morning, those onlookers who crowded the Senate galleries were rewarded by

Hayne's passionate, often sarcastic assault upon the North and his defense of the theory of state nullification of offensive federal laws.

On January 26 and 27, Webster delivered his famous reply to Hayne. "We do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling," he insisted. He went on to exclaim that every state had an interest in the development of the entire nation, and senators must rise above local and regional narrow-mindedness. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any doctrine that allows states to override the Constitution would surely lead to civil war and a land drenched with "fraternal blood," he warned. The motto should not be "Liberty first, and Union afterwards," Webster concluded his oration, but "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"

The Webster-Hayne debate made a national hero of Daniel Webster, but it failed to resolve the tensions between the North and South. For the next two

The Capitol, attributed to John Plumbe, Jr., circa 1846. This is the earliest known photographic image of the Capitol, taken about 1846. The daguerreotype shows the copper-sheathed wooden dome designed by Charles Bulfinch. (cat. no. 49)

Henry Clay, Thomas Ball, 1858. "I don't like Clay," said his frequent adversary, John C. Calhoun. "He is a bad man, an impostor, a creator of wicked schemes. I wouldn't speak to him, but, by God! I love him." (cat. no. 38)

Daniel Webster, Thomas Ball, 1853. "The Godlike Daniel," a 19th century journalist wrote, "had broad shoulders, a deep chest, and a large frame. I have seen men taller than Webster; I have seen men larger; but I never saw anyone who looked so large." (cat. no. 36)

decades, members of the Senate fought over economic and territorial issues that barely masked the true source of tension, the existence of a slave labor system in the southern states and its spread into the western territories. These issues became inescapable after the American victory in the Mexican War added a vast new territory from Texas to California. In 1850, when the Senate debated the organization of this territory, many northerners took the attitude that slavery was a crime against humanity, while southern defenders argued that owning slaves was a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Moreover, southerners. demanded that they had the right to carry slavery into any new territory acquired by the United States. Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky led the effort to achieve a compromise between the sections. He introduced an omnibus bill to organize the western