Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-06-08

resentatiyes in cases OF contempt, which are,
in our opinion, utterly fallacious and unten-
able; doctrines, which carried out, strike
ut the root of the conservative powers ofCon-
gress, and degrade the House Of Representa-
tives into an assembly ofmere mummerss-
body assembled to gesticulate and make
faces at one another, without the right TO ut
ter a word, but under the pains and penal
ties Of Clublaw. These doctrines are sum-
med up in the declaration that "the arrest
and confinement OF Houston, by the House
OF Representatives., was an act OF usurpa-
ton" Ii members OF the House, as the
President is said to maintain, when il is NOT
in session, are "upon footing with other
citizens" and have no other rights or privi-
leges, what is the sense eff that clause of the
Constitution, which says, that &c they shall
" in all cases, except treason, sc. be privi-
legged from arrest during their attendance
=" at the session of their respective houses,
- and in going to or returning from the
same - Unless the case ofCasimir Perrier,
so happily brought in to illustrate and fortify
the Presidents idea of Congressional pryi-
lege, be understood to nullify the Constitu-
ton, it must be admitted that Members of
Congress have rights that other citizens have
not, and especially the Privilege, that sc for
any speech or debate in either House thew
shall not be questioned in any other place
How does the doctrine Of the President that
the power of self-protection is confined to
the walls OF the Capitol' consist with this
positive provision 10 the contrary? To us
| il is clear, that the President does not hold
| his right as Commander in Chief of the Ar
my and Navy of the United States, tremend-
Gus as the power which that right carries
with 1t, by any stronger tenure than that
by which the Senators and Representatives
in Congress hold their right 10 protect the
| freedom of debate not only " in either
House." but " in any other place"
live protest against the doctrine of the
President as TO the power of TIE Rouse of
| Representatives TO protect its Members, his
opinions, as TO the respect practically due to
the right OF Members of Congress TO suggest
abuses in the administration ofthe Govern
ment, are not less exceptionaHe We re-
fer to that passage, in which tits represent
ed, that che asked whether Members of
Congress could be justified in slandering
"priyate citizens, and in viol,ting the rules
OF the House by departing rom the topic
in discussion for such purpose :" And
further maintained that tn. slanderer was
worse than the murderer The sort of
SANDER here referred TO is suggestion of in
| tended fraud in relation to 4 certain public
contract, whether we'll or i'll founded we
suppose will soon be ascertained by tho re-
port of committee. in that sense, every
suggestion ola may be held 10 be SLAM
der: which goes at once to the root of the
power OF Congress to enquire into abuses in
the Government. As 10 the SANDER deserY-
ing punishment when it touches " private"
citizens, surely TO man is private in refer
ence to public concerns. The distinction
between private right and public RESPONSE
bliity is as clear as betwe black and white.
II Member Of Congress, for example, I'M
der cover of his privilege, examines your
private dealings and pecuniary transactions,
he manliestly violates your right as private
citizen but if he comment upon or ex-
anime your conduct touching a contract
with the Public, he may perhaps do you
injustice in the promises as private citizen.
There is another ingredient in this supposed
sianoer by Members OF Congress, viz: that
in uttering it, " they violate the rules ofthe
House" la this part of the imputed Ian
guage OF the President, the right is assumed
| for private citizen" TO consider oepar-
| lures from the rule of order, by Members of
Congress, as grounds for his own action to-
wards them personally a doctrine utterly
lnadmissible as well as directly adverse to
the constitutional provision that " Each
House may lshall] determine the Rules Of
proceeding, and punish its Members for
= dlSorderiy behavior" If there can be any
one thing utterly beyond the control or au-
thority of any private citizen, Otherwise
than through the ballot box, } it is a question
whether any thing said or done in either
House be or be not departure from its
Rules when, however, in connection with
Inc sentence we have analysed, the Presi-
dent IS made further 10 say that " the SLAM
derer was worse than the murderer" we are
| lost IN astonishment, not that such an intima
ton should be hastily and inconsiderately
uttered (for every man is at some time off
his guard but that it should be deliberately
set down and promulged in the government
paper. as if it were an axiom in morals We
iOrbear to render it in other language. or
give 1t the Interpretation of which it is sus-
ceptible. We cannot, however, mentally
apply it 10 the case which was the subject of
consideration, without being shocked and
and grieYed at the construction which il
bears.
EXceptionable as we hold this passaqe.
there are several in the conversation imputed
TO the President by the Globe which are
more so. We will particulariZe only one
where the President is made TO speak as
follows: " On the suggestion that the course
taken a remarkable phrase] towards Mr.
" Stanbery would lead to scene of violence
= at Washington City, he observed that the
C mischief wsuld cure itsel-that when
" Members OF Congress became sensible. bv
g q few such cases." &c. This expression
alone, we are sorry 10 see it and say it, adj
mlts all that has been imputed generally 10
the President, viz fhat he used in con yer