Reason here is in harmony with authority. From the necessity of the case I must swear to support the Constitution either _as I do understand it_ or _as I do NOT understand it_. [_Laughter._] But the absurdity of dangling on the latter horn of the dilemma compels me to take the former, and there is a natural end of the argument. [_Great laughter and cheers._] Is there a person in Congress or out of it, in the National Government or State Government, who, when this inevitable alternative is presented, will venture to say that he swears to support the Constitution as he does _not_ understand it? [_Laughter and applause._] The supposition is too preposterous. But let me ask gentlemen disposed to abandon their own understanding of the Constitution, and to submit their conscience to the standard of other men, By whose understanding do they swear? Surely not by that of the President: this is not alleged: but by the understanding of the Supreme Court. In other words, to this Court, being at present nine persons,--represented by a simple majority, it may be of _one_ only,--is accorded the power of fastening such interpretation as they see fit upon any part of the Constitution,--adding to it, or subtracting from it, or positively varying its requirements,--actually making and unmaking the Constitution; and to their work all good citizens must bow, as of equal authority with the original instrument, ratified by solemn votes of the whole people! [_Great applause._] If this be so, the oath to support the Constitution is hardly less offensive than the famous "et cætera" oath devised by Archbishop Laud, where the subject swore to certain specified things, with an "&c." added. Such an oath I have not taken. ["_Good! good!_"] An old poet anticipates my objection:-- "Who swears _&c._ swears more oaths at once Than Cerberus out of his triple sconce; Who views it well with the same eye beholds The old half serpent in his numerous folds Accursed."[136] [136] Cleveland. See Hudibras, ed. Grey, Part I. Canto 2, Note to v. 650.