Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-04-20


In mind that this was question not merely affect
ing the liberty of speech In that House, but they
should rccolcct also, that the safety and the dgni
ty ofth people were in their hands. The dignity
of the country had boon msultcd in the outrage of.
fcrcd to one of the members of that House: tho
facts were agreed upon all hunds--thcy were now
proven on oath, 10y the same course ofteSimony AS
would cntitc the humblcst individual in the country
if assaulted by the most exalted to warrant, la
king the latter before public tribunal to answer
for tho offence.
MIR. b. proceeded TO review the foundation and
the oxlcut of the power of the House to punish
for contempt breach of privileges and said, that
the American people would view with shame and
indignation any indifference which the House
might manifest in tho course which they ought TO
adopt with promptitudc and effect on this occa-
sion. What the doctrine and the practice of
the British House Of Commons in relation To its
privilcgcsl What made every subject of England
glow with resentment and indignation at an insult
offered TO member of that bodyl 1t was because
the lower House of Parliament was emptatcallv
the embodied commons of England; and an oni
rage upon ii was Justly considered viola,ionn of
the most sacred public rights. Tho only cues
ton now before tic House, was, whether possess
ing those rights which had been so fully demon
stratcd, and so ably vindcatcd, by gentlemen who
had before addressed thcm-whc,hcr, he said, they
were prepared to exercise them by Furnishing the
offender, To prevent the commission of the like
offence in future? Would the House sit by, and
tamcly permit rutlian, in the darkness of the
night not only TO inilict indignity on one of
the Representatives of the People, but commit
such brute violence, also, deprived him of the
power of rendering those public services for the
discharge of which he had been here by forty
thousand free citizens of the United States? If
they did, he could assure them that the American
teopic, IN Just requitol of such lame and
degrading forbcarancc, would hiss them to
But let the justice be done in the
case, as the law requires. They had been
told by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PArroN)
that they ought not to act upon this matter with
passion; they ought not to lash themselves into
state Of excitement in regard to it, The gentleman
had further contcndcd, that it contrary to law
to punish for contempt, until rule had been served
on the party, calling on him to show cause why an
attachment should not be issued against him. He
(lr. ~ III reply to this, would suppose a case at
the very contemplation of the possibility of which
there was not one who heard him whose heart would
not thrill with horror. Suppose, said he, that the
supreme Court should, through their venerable
Shlcf Justice, pronounce Judgment for the de-
livery of which that exalted and vcneratcd patriot
should DC waylaid by the person against whom the
Judgment had been pronounced? Suppose said
MIR. H.. that venerable man should bc-but no, he
could not pronounce even the tcrms-hc would say
suppose he should be treated the gentleman from
Ohio had becn-would the other Judges of that
august court stop to deliberate to whether they
should issue rule for the party to show cause? For
dsrcspecttui or contcmptuous words, perhaps Il
rulc to show cause might be thought suiicicnt but
for an outrageous assault and battery, very differ
cnt course indeed ought to he taken. Why should
they not proceed as III an ordinary of this de-
.scription before Justice of the peace in Il rapid
and right-forward manner?
Mr.. Is. argued, in continuation, that Justice to
the offending party required that he should be pre-
sent at the investigation of the mattcr-that the
parties should be contronted-that trial of il
ought TO be had in his absence. He, Mr. b..
would never forget the rights of Il fellow citizen,
though that citizen had outraged the rights of his
tcllow-lcgslator and friend. He contcndcd that
the only process, where Il breach of the peace had
n In he in
stance, the party might, perhaps await their action
even though warrant should not now issue
against him; but that was not the always. 4
ruffian may flee from the Justice which his offences
had called down upon his head and should il be
the duty of the House to send summons to tell
him to hide himself? He went on by Observing
that the hardship of incarccrating before
trial had been dcscanted upon; but, he asked them
II every member of that body not liable, if alb
SAINT at call of the House, to be taken into custo-
dy by the Scrgcant-at-Arms? 1t was the allotment
OF every man in this free land however high or
low has station might be, 10 be subject the call
and within the power of the law, whenever char
ges of breach of the public peace were preferred
against them 1t was not, then, hardship, on
this individual; it was part of the common tribute
which all were called upon TO pay to the majesty of
justice and the laws. After brief reorganization
of the principal arguments in favor of the resou-
ton of MIR. VANCE, he concluded.
Mr. DAVIS thought the question one of
binary moment. lie surprised to hear that
any Member should doubt the power of the House
vested in them by the Constitution, to punish for
contempt. What were the facts of the case? A
Member of that body had informed them that he
had been wayaid, by ruan, in the streets of this
city, and knocked down by bludgeon. And what
further was added TO this statement! 1t was, that
the statement received was in consequence of
words uttered on that floor. Now what said the
Constitution? The fathers of that Constitutions
forcsccng that Members of that House would re-
qurc protection from individuals of the class of
the person now accused, provided that they should
not even be questioned elsewhere, for what they
spoke i'll that House. Was it Il less infringement
of the rules than questioning, to knock Il Member
down, for words spoken there, and disable him
from dlScharglng his duties on that floor? But it
was said that the courts of law furnished a remedy
remedy for what? For the personal injury sus-
tanned, Tor the breach of the peace; but did they
furnish remedy for the blow inflicted on the free
dom OF debate in this body, and through them on
the rights of the people Of this country? II was
an attack of the most gross and daring characters
but the INJURY inflicted the country was another
and 1T was the latter injury they called on to
repair. The only question was, had the crime
been pcrpetratcd, and it done for words uttered
III that housc! III these points were established
the evident object of the offender was to intinidatc
one OF that body III the exercise of his powers as
representative of the people. What, nc would ask
was Government good for, if its legislators were
to be controlled, its laws made, by armed ruflians
in their streets? lie would ask gentlemen who
had been earnest in their appeal for the rights of
a citizen whether the violation of the laws, of the
right of debate, and of the Constitution of the
country, were matters of moment? Whether
1hey would stop there, to rule man who had en-
hcavorcd to suppress debate by the power of the
club, and TO direct how Member should act, or
what lie should say there. 1t was Il higlhandod
offence, ana as the gentleman FROM Ohio had OBJ
served, they knew not who might be the next vic
I'm OF the bludgcon; but be that as it might ho
should always icarlcssly express his sentiments on