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

1cl.
OF external violence, there the freedom of the pco
pie could only bc made to exist by brinpin~ ia con
Gign punishment those who violated their ri,rhts
TIC auVertcd to the rise and progress of the pov,
or exercised by the British Parliament 10 cou,,,;,
contempt, tracing it's growth from the time of Io,c
the First, o England when, he said the Government
OF Great Britain II not an absolalc monarchv yyos
certainly very nearly one. At that period, thc Mem.
hers of the Parliament were frequently He'd io ~,
| count, by the Crown, for words spoken i'm debate
! but from the general extension ofkupwlcdpa which
had spread so widely i'll after times the Parliament
and the People had gradually Untitled these pupu-
lar principles which had led TO the very prorcr con
nocton Of the rights of tic community with the
right of the Parliament TO commit offenders for
contempt breach Of privilege. This he said,
was the case in Parliament; which at best, only
partially represented the People for whom il laws
lated What them ought {" be the case in the House
OF Representatives of the United States identified
Us It Is, 50 closely with the pcopc of the coucdcra.
| ted Rcrunlic?
Bu; the gentleman from Tennessee, Or. poLv,)
had IN fact, given up the whsle argument by I'D
uniting one part OF II. Tie had admitted the pow.r
! OF the House TO punish for con:cmpts committed
| IN ITS lace. Tut even that power was not TO DO
round IN the Constitution, in that instrument it
would nc sought for in vain. 1t was in fact found
ed on the presumption that the House was the Peo
pie and that an insult offered TO Ito People Once
settle the principle said Mr.. D., that YOU can punish
Tor violence offered to individual in the face of
tins tionsc, and you establish the princip!c that
you nave coguiZancc SIMILAR offences commit
ted out of its sight.
Tr POLK here explained. When called upors
by tie gentleman from Pcnus, lvania, (Mr Com,
TERI 10 point out by what authority Tho Uouso,
could punish for contempt committed in lis racc
nc had referred that gentleman to the first article
OF the Constitution, and the twelfth rulc Of,
the House, founded upon it, and pointing out the
manner of exercise. The case of Anderson WAC
distinguished from that before the House: there
was no complaint Of assault and battery i'm that:
1T was an attempt ut bribcry-an attempt TO moi
son the legislation of the House at its very source,
and this was properly considered CONTEMPT of a
most aggravated nature.
| MIR. DRAGTON resumed. He had understood
the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. PoLK) TO ad-
mt that the House had the power 10 punish those
VINO disturbed or impcdcd its proceedings This is
thc flght which the people naturally have to pro-
tcct themselves He asked if the exercise the right
was not as rcfuisct TO prevent disturbance or n;po
dimcnt out the House as in il? Ofcours il was no
thcre was no difference between violence offered
Tor words spoken there in debate, whether the yio
lencc was offered III it, out of it, lie continued
by stating that he was advocate for the invioo
bility OF Il Representative of the Pcoplc cxccnt
IN his representative capacv and, after some
further remarks, he said, that so far as the bower
to PUNISH contempt was concerned, the House
without it. could scarcely be considered MS possess
ing the power of existing; for, if such outrares
were permitted TO pass with impunitv, CONGRESS-
could he insultcd and cocrccd into the adoption of
the most corrupt, wanton, and destructive mca
surcS.
Secondly, lie would speak few words as to the
exercise OF that power. Ii Il general rule that
they had the power TO punish for contempt but
like al; other general rules, it was liable to cyccnt
ION, while the power existed with respect to GER
tam rights, yet it did not extend to in which
they might step out of thcir representative charac
! ter He proceeded 10 comment the distinction
arising from this, and to refer to the nature of the
testimony which was necessary for the purpose of
! the proper substantiaton Of the facts which form
cd the ground Of the complaint. That testimony
ought to conform TO the particular testimoy which
would be required i'll the courts.
Mr.. VANCE here said, that with a view of OBJ
waiting difficulty which might arise from the COM
plaintiff his colleague not being made on oath
he had procured proper vcriication of the state
ment in the letter. lie submitted the following
affidavit, which received by general consent:
| DISTRICT COLUMBIA,
| COHRiy Of Washington, " WIZ
On this 18th day of April, 1892 William Stanberv
personally appeared before me, the subscriber a JUS
tcc OF the peace in and for the said county, and
made oath in due form of law to the truth of the
facts stated III the foregoing letter addressed 10 tho
Speaker OF the House of Representatives, of the
United States. ID. a. HALL, ]. L.
Mr.. DRAYTON said, he willingly asscnted TO
the reception of the affidavit. lis presentation
rendered the remarks which he had been about to
make unnecessary. He referred to the practice in
the British House of Peers of taking the word of
honor of lis members instead of their oaths and
observed that whatever might be the propriety Of
such practice ia a country where there was
distinction of ranks, yet he avcrsc to the intro
ductlon OF a custom here by which any difference
| should be made between any one citizen and ano-
tier In this happy land all an equality,
and without any disrcs Pcct to the gentleman from
ohio or any other member OF that House he wish
cd to see that equality preserved he believed it
ever would be- IN the mode and measure of pre-
scntmg and receiving testimony He concluded by
repeating his satisfaction that the Subject had not
/ been disposed of by the previous question
| Mr. DICKSON called for the reading of the
mr.. f,,n,tr of
which were accordingly read by the Clerk
Mr. PAITON-Ihe precise question before the
House was on the amendment ofthc gentleman from
| North Carolina, (Alr. SPEIGT) Mr.. p. said, the
| House was called OH, in this case, to act i'll the
character Ola judicial tribunal for the protection of
themselves Ill the exercise Of their legislative func-
tons; in the performance ofths judicial duty, they
should be blind to all political considerations, and
hold the scales with an even hand, without regard
to individuals or parties
The offence charged to have been committed
| ought not TO bc looked upon so much as an injury
to the Member from Ohio, his constituents, as
| All outrage on the freedom of debate. The Rcsou-
ton offered by the gentleman from Ohio proposed
that the person by whom The outrage was committed,
should be at taken into custody by the officer
! OF that House. The amendment of the gentleman
! from North Carolina, without denying the power
OF the House TO act in this matter, had proposed
another mode Tor lis investigation and punishment.
Mr.. p said he would submit it TO the consideration
OF gentlemen, whether it was wise becoming in
them acting Judges in this case to lush themselves
INTO the excitement OF passion, and that on a uucs-
ton which did not involve the merits or facts of the
case, but simply an inquiry what course it became
| them 10 pursue, as judges of AN asserted invasion
| OF their rights lie apprchondcd no Member of
that House prepared TO object 20 an inquiry in
! some form or othcr-cvcn the honorable gentleman
! from Tennessee had expressed himself in favor Of
examination. Why the waste tic time Of the House
! A.