Litchfield enquirer., 1832-04-26

person iS, when tne sdieayAuOetAy auu ui&Hl> iy oft are insuIted. It IS out Ofquestion that a member Of this house, Tor words spoken in his nlace in debate, has been assaulted in the streets, by certain person whom l will not mention, Ii is proved by testimony which would 1entitIe the most humble iBdividual in this country to call for the arrest of another. This house has power to protect it's own members when beaten in the public streets do consider the privileges of us who sit here, eouaI ro those of inc members of the British Parliament. And what is more dear to En- gfshmen than the freedom of debate? such 0utrages as this attack, freedom. It is not the member alone, or chiefly, who is injured. Every man in this nation is wounded in Rim. Ii is a violation of the whole nation. Shall we, the representatives of the people, sit here, while one of our members is not only treated with indignity, but is disabled for the dis. charge off,is duty? believe if the American people should see us, they would thrust us from our stations, as unworthy of them, for sitting here to question about this case.
 Twill suppose case in which the Supreme Court should be called upon to pronounce judgment in an important cause-would an inquiry be made before the accused is brought up orearrested? Would there be any such great danger apprehended of dishonoring him with the charge, because it wss not known until tried whether he would certainly be found guilty Of not {? Shall we raise doubt about cause of our own, where an outrage ous attack has been made which would enti- tie man, in civil case, to an action for as- sault and battery!
 Shall committee be appointed, and re- port too, suppose whether we have power, when each of US can judge for himself W heih- erwe have or not! Some are afraid of not being polite to men who are violent in their attacks upon others. I will be just to men who do not respect the rights even of my brother representatives. The accused should not be tried without confronting the witness es against him, and producing bis own. That we have power to arrest will not be denied {; and we should certainly exercise it.
 MT. Davis from Mass. would detain the House but a moment. He contended tlIe question was one ofimportance, ,and deep con- cernment. He was disposed to act eoolly and dispassionately, and to take no step that was moi right. He had been surprised to hear any gentleman deny the power fthis House to punish for contempt. The framers of the Constitution had secured the freedom of debate.-they understood the subject upon which they were deliberating; no niember,by the Constitution, is to be questioned for any thing said here. We have been told that the remedy is by appealing to the Courts of Con- mon Law. That will answer as to the injury the member has sustained. but does that heal the wound received by the House, by a ruff fan who has attempted to put down the freedom of debate? The remedy should be summary. He had made up no other opinion than that the facts were prima .facie proved.
 MT. Foster was for making an arrest, and hoped the gentleman from N. Carolina would withdraw the motion.
 Mir. EUerett did not rise to prolong the de- bate. as every thing had been said that he could say, and muchabetter by other gentle- men; and he should not have said a word. but for remark made by the gentleman from 5. Carolina, MT. Drayton, who was al- ways listened to with attention and interest. He had said that he was glad the previous question was not sustained and fit had been. he should have considered it as treason against the freedom of debate. MT. Everett said he was one who seconded that motion, with 90 or 60 gentlemen. and he was not con- scious of having committed treason against debate. He. had seconded the motion to protect the freedom of debate. The gentle man from Tennessee had denied the power Ub tue A1UuSC tO puDtSn IOT nT gentleman from Virginia, MT. DOddridge.) had very pertinently said, the question was, whether the House could protect itself He thought that question was not debateabie.-
 MT. Everett continued his remarks to some length.
 Mr. Wayns did not like the mode propos- ed by the resolution, or amendment. He de- nied the power of the house to arrest for contempt, unless it was committed in the presence ofthe house. He drew compar- ison between the powers of the House. and the powers of a court of justice. In Courts of justice, if the contempt was committed in the presence of the court. an attachment issu- ed; but ifout of court, a rule mist was made, which became absolute. if the person did not purge himself of the contempt.
 Mir. Beordsley, wished the attention of the house for few moments. When the resO- lution was first offered, he was in favor of it, but on looking into the constitution. and into the report made a few years since. he had changed his opinion. He then reviewed the several parts of the constitution that had been referred to.
 He thought the powers of the house to punish for contempt, extended no further than to pInish man who should come into the house. and remove member with intent to prevent him from performing bis duty. or perhapsifa member was coming to the house, and man should stop him, it might be a breach of privilege, and the house might pro ceed, and relieve the member hut lift had nn