Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-01-17
Congress OF The Y. States
tnEronrEu ron rHK n. isrELLicrscER.l
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
DEBATE
ON THE CASE OF col ANDERSON.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 6.

The Speaker bavlng appraised the House,
that the Sergeant at Arms had taken the
body of John Anderson, pursuant TO the
warrant 10 him directed, and held him in
CUSTODY
Mr.. FORSYTH, of Georgia, submitted
for consideration Tire following resolution:
Resoired, That a committee of Privileges, 10
consist of seven members, be appointed. and
that the said committee be instructed to re-
port modeof proceeding in the case of John
Anderson, who was taken into custody yester
day Dy order of the House; and the same com.
mittee have leave TO sit Immediately.
Mr.. BEECHER, of Ohio, rose in oppo-
sitisn to this proceeding. The offenceof
this man, in every sense but legal one,
he was not disposed to deny. But il was
another question, whether the House was
justified in the course ii was about to
pursue Was any authority therefor
given in the constitution? None. Was
any law TO be found OH the statute book
giving it? None. The mode of punish
ing bribery, was, TO resort to a court of
justice, and there only could itbe punish
ed. In this House, he said, it was impes-
sible to proceed correctly in a trial for an
| offence of this character; and the trout
BILE proceedings of this kind would i'm
pose on the House, and the evil of delay
| they would cause III their ordinary legis-
lative business, afforded strong reasons,
if others were wanting, TO consult their
authority, and see whether IN fact the
| House possessed any authority TO act OF
] the case. The fifth section of the first
article of the constitution, he said, pro-
vided, that each House might determine
the Rules of its Proceedings but 10 part
of the constitution gave to the House au-
thority to arrest and bring forward any
individual for improper conduct TO any
member of Ibis House. The courts of
the country had made, i'll their practice,
what is called a common law: but, MIR.
b. said, If there existed any common law
TO justify these proceedings ofthe House,
it was unknown 10 him. The great pow
efs assumed by the Parliament of Great
Britain iii this respect, had been mat
ter of great complaint in that country; and
| he presumed it would not be commended,
that the practice ofilIat body was toform
rule of conduct for this House. Mel
ther, MIR. b. said, did he think il essential
that this House should possess the power
of arresting aud bringing individuals TO
| trial before it; the courts of justice being
open to prosecution and redress for any
injury offhis sort. The House, as any 9TH
er legislative body, possessed inherently
the power TO protect itself from indeco-
rum and insult; but ii had no power TO
confinp and commit individuals for acts
done elsewhere. He did not believe the
| House possessed authority TO arrest an
individual in this case, any more than for
an assault and battery oil member at a
nv distance from the seat of governments;
power which he contcnded, the House
did not possess. In another part of the
constitution, he said, particular privileges
.tpp N q he nd lao
meration of particular powers, in any in
strument of that character, was an eXclu-
sion of all others. Fer other injuries re-
ceived, than those in violation of that
clause of the constitution, Mr.. b. said,
members have the same redress as any
other individuals. Mr.. B. said, he did
not believe the House ought 10 have the
power il was about TO exercise the con-
stitution had not given the House any
such power, nor had it been conferred
upon them by any law.
Mr.. FORSYTH said, if the position of
the gentleman was correct, the House
had already violated the constitution.
The object of the proposed appointment
of committee was to enquire how the
House ought now TO proceed. If the
committee should concur with the gen
tleman from Ohio, they would report that
the individual, now in custody, ought TO
be discharged; if otherwise, they would
report what further course the House
ought to pursue. But, Mr.. F. said, adj
hitting that all the gentleman had said
was true, il was no reason why this com
nittee should not be appointed. Mr. T.
did not wish TO be understood as doubt
ing the power of this House, because he
believed il had full power 10 proceed; and
| L.. a. al, al. a.
branch Of tie Legislature had, in otherca-
ses, exercised tliarpowers. Until he was
convinced, by solemn Investigation, that
the House did not possess tile power, he
would not, for one, consent to refrain
from lis exercise in the present case.
Mr.. LIvERMoRE, of New Hampshire,
hoped, he said, that but one resolution
would pass the House on this occasion,
and that this one should be, that John
Anderson be discharged. First, he said,
on account Of the irrcgularity of the pro-
ceedng III the FIRST instance. Our ideas,
said he, of Congressional privileges APP
pear 10 rest OH our knowledge OF British
Parliamentary privileges: which, lie con
celved, were widely distinct IN Their ma
lures. In Great Britain, the legislature
possesses all power, aud almost every act
of the Parliament becomes part Of the
constitution of the land. That is an
unlimited legislature. The Congress OF
the United States, Inc said, was differ
emily constituted. In a case OF this kind
occurring in Great Britain, an oath would
not be required; bat, said Mr. l.. we are,
! IN this respect, restricted in our power by
fhe express declaration in the consiitu-
| ton, that no warrant shall Issue except
sustained by oath. This provision, he
said, being contained in the fourth srii-
Gle of the amendments 10 the constilu-
ton. had more weigiitwiih him than il