Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-04-20

rouse uin possess me power but that the presented
was not one in which it ought TO act Mr. p contended
that That exhibited gross violation of priveoe
f such could be called) the present The exemp.
tons conferred by the Constitution upon members of Com
gress were personal i'm their nature. There Mr. p ouot.
ed that clause OF the Constitution which provides that
members should be exempted from arcs i'm all coses ex
cept treason felony and breach the peace during their
attendance at the session of their respective houses and m
going TO, and returning from, the same i
This clause, he said perfectly understood ne beno
altogether personal TO the member in its scope and nen
uon as excmpng him from arrest by legal process ex-
cept Tor crimes committed, and conlerrng any now.
or on the House TO punish for contempt
Mr. p then went farther quote the Constitution in
ose Clauses Inch confer upon the House of Representa-
yves inc power furnishing its members and deter
mining The rules Of its proceedings Under the anhor
y oil this clause the House had rule for the pun
shment OF dordery conduct in its presence and of dis
urbances in the gallery-Tho House had not made and
promulged any law warning the citizens that any thing
else would be viewed contempt oits pri voges And
Mr. p inferred, that the power now claimed was NOT
enumerated amongst those conferred upon the House by
he constitution and as the House, under the power to
determine the rules of its proceedings" had enacted
and promugcd rule declaring any thing happening ont
OF the presence of the House and connected with lis
sessed by the House. ~
What was this cuse' The deliberations of the House
had not been interrupted What were the circumstances
oil the transaction, Mr. p. did not know Still less did he
desire to be understood usiiying expressing any
opinion in relation 10 it, -
lie did not appear there The advocate of the person
charged with the assault He regretted that the event
mad occurred But he spoke of only i'm rcercncoto
the power of the House i'm the premises The House nor
Deg In session. of its members had been assaulted in
the streets Was not the law of the District of Columbia
open The member Was not the individual who had as
saued nm punishable by laws and not that indvidu-
all whatever his conduct might have been guaranteed bv
The Constitution in trial by jury? On what ground could
The House make distinction between that person and any
other individual Had member of their own BODY becn
accused of similar offence, would they DENY him urv
oil MS peers 1t was SAID that the House aggriev-
ed body and ii this the case did il thereby obtain the
right oil taking inoits own hands the Judicial Legislative
ana Executive power? Might it, by a summary process
call citizen before it and ncarcerae him An analogy
might be drawn TO illustrate this from the proceedings
IN our courts Suppose judge should be concerned in
private quarrel and engaged in a renconre in the streets
with of the citizens might he call that Individual me-
lore HIM and punish him for a contempt Or sun,
pose person summoned as witness, should, IN tile
courtyard, get into quarrel fight could the man
with whom he quarrelled be attached for contempt9
he doctrine OF contempts had been deliberately examined
IN me case oil Judge Peck it true Judge had bee NJ
acquitted by majority of but he believed that il
was matter well understood the time that MANY of his
the'ess ofopnon that he had exceeded his authority; but
a lie ad not done this corrupy, but only through
ror OF Judgment that ground they discharged him. but
Congress had Immediately thercupon passed law (Which
Mr. r. here ready declaratory OF what the law of con-
tempts providing that offence should be punished
as contempt in any court othe United States unless it
committed in the presence of the cour or so near To-
ITS presence whilst in session. disturb its
Ii then there was any analogy between the proceedings of
court and those OF that House, the rule would APP
ply in the present casc appeared him that the analo-
gy was very strong The opinion of Congress had
been expressed Immediately the heel of a most able
and elaborate argument-an argument which had poured
1000 oil hght on all who witnessed It, and, according
the principle of that law, the House would have no RIGHT
ed i'm its
sence, and not inerruptng its proceedings.
One word on the doctrine of conempts, as held In the
British Parliament That body punished as concmpts
great variety OF actions-s power TO punish dcclar-
ed TO be underlined and MISUNDERSTANDING had been
punhedb by transportation, and by fine Imprisonment
for even threatening assault upon Commoper lie
humbly conceived could not be so under our Const
tion But, Mr. r. would ask, whether il was not equally
contempt of the House for citizen TO coenco one ~
ITS members TO mortal combat Was that not as much
breach OF its privilege the present case? Should a
member of coordinate branch call member of that
House into the field to mortal combat would not that be-
as much contempt also as ths' And has not that been
done, aud been passed by without notice? Or the head
! oil an executive department should do the thing,
would not the breach OF privilege be great? And was
not that done few years ago? Where was the limit TO
such power, if you take cognizauce of such as
this! How 1t was TO be defined restrained Mr. p could
not perceive and he therefore considered il as totally
inconsistent with the spirit OF our institutions. lie would
put another or two by which TO test tho mower
! oil The Rouse If the House possess the power to
punish citizen for assault committed upon one OF
It's members, in the streets of this city, when it is
not in session. it possesses also the power TO permit
citizen for assault upon member on his way
from his residence TO take his seat in this body. II
eiher be- they are both conempts of the authority of the
House. Inc assault IN each case is upon member Of
the House Neither is committed in Ire presence of the
House, or during its session, disturb lis pro-
ceedings case OF the latter kind had actually
just before the meeting Of The session of Congress
member when on his way 10 this city, had been en-
gagged in fight with of his own constituents the cf
ects of which had detained him for some time from his
seat The House did send for that constituent and
punish him for contempt. Suppose member his
II,
knocked down by him. would the House issue s capias
bring the offender 10 the bar of the House, and punish him
for contempt Or would he be left TO the laws of the
land ana me usce' What ought to be done in the
case! But first let him ask another question Suppose
member of the House should be the aggresso-and unfit
the facts in each examined cannot tell but he
may bcan should beat buise, and maItreat private c~
zenwould this House take cognzanee OF the case? or
would 1t leave il TO the judicial tribunals and TO the laws
OF the land? Certainly the latter. great constitutional
question of the powers of this House was involved
! by this resolution, and which ought hastily
TO he decided Mr. P's opinions, first Impressions
(or he had but short time to consider the subject and
had looked thoroughly into it) that the House had
nothing TO do with this matter contempt the affair be-
onged TO the courts and the offender ought TO be proceeded
against by indictment Mr. p. could consent that
the immense unlimited power claimed by Tie British
House OF Commons this subject Of cOnempts, should
be held as precedent binding the American Congress.
They were told that the powers Of the House of Commons
must be sought through long range of presidents
tending through centuries but he TO be told that in
country where ii unconstitutional 70 pass any post
IpctO law, these prccedens TO be held ustfyng
a similar of conduct towards citizensl The
British doctrine had force within those walls than
the common law of England, such, had force in the
courts Of the United States
! The cases named by the gentleman from Ohio CMr.
Vance) might well be distinguished from that now before
the House; in those there direct attempt interfere
with the legislation of the House, bbe members in the
discharge OF their official duty buy their support Of par
tcular measures with money land-such attempt by
forced construction might possibly be held 10 be at
tempt 70 the House itself and poison lis lCIisla