Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-06-14


the ground il has taken. We are, in
deed, told that the reports Of the presi-
dents conversations which have found
their way to the Public, are "monstrous
abrications;" but this declaration is fol-
lowed by a statement of the conversations
referred to, substantially confirming all
that has been reported Oftheun. We say
substantially, for we hope that, in the ar
ticle OF the Globe, the President is not
literally reported; ns there are some phra-
ses in II which it would be an outrage on
all probability to suppose the President
to have used.
The article in the Globe makes the
President maintain, in the first place,
doctrines on the subject Of the power of
the House OF Representatives, in cases of
contempt, which are, in our opinion, ut
terly lallacious and untcnablo; doctrines,
which, carried out, strike at the root of
the conservative powers of Congress,
and degrade the House Of Representa-
tivcs into an assembly of mere mummerss
Ia body assembled to gesticulate and
make faces ut one another, without the
right to utter word, but under the pains
and penalties of CLUB-LAw. These doc
trines are summed up in the declaration
that "the arrest and confinement of ilous-
ton, by 'the House of Representatives,
was an act of nsupoiion" If 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 privileges, what
is the sense of that clause of thc Cnusti-
tuition, which says, that ''they shall in all
eases, except treason, SO. be p,1riledSed
from arrest during their attendance at
the session Of their respective houses, and
in going to or returning from the same? 7"
Unless the case of Casimir Perrier, so
happily brought in to illustrate and forti-
fy the Presto ent's idea of Congressional
privilege, be understood TO nullily the
Constitution, it must be admitted that
Members of Congress have rights that
other citizens have not, and especially
the privilege, that "for any speech or
debate in either House they shall not be
questioned IN any other place" How
does the doctrine of II G President that
"the power of self-proteoiion is confined
this positive provision to the contrary p
To us it is clear, that the President does
not hold his right as COMMANDMENTS Chief
Of the Army and Navy OF the United
States, tremendous as is the power which
that right carries with it, by any stronger
tenure than that by which the Senators
and Representatives in Congress hold
their right to protect the freedom Of de-
bate not only Gin either House," but
Sin any other place"
If we protest against the doctrine OF
the President as to the power of the
House of Representatives to protect its
Members, his opinions, rs 10 the respect
practically due to the right of Members
Of Congress to suggest abuses in the ad-
minisi ration of the Government, are not
less exceptionable. We refer TO that pas
asked whether Members Of Congress
could be justified in slandering private
citizens, and in violating the rules of the
House by departing from the topic in
discussion for such a purpose" And
further maintained that the sfanderer
was worse than the murderer" The
sort of SANDER here referred to is q sug-
gestion of intended fraud in relation to a
certain public contract, whether well or
ill-lounded we suppose will soon be as
certained by the report Of u committee.
In that sense, every suggestion Of abuse
may be held to be SANDER: which goes
at once to the root OF the power of Con
gress to inquire into abuses in the Gov
ernment. AS to the SANDER deserving
punishment when il touches "private'
citizens, surely no man is pirate in re-
ference to public concerns. The dstinc-
ton between private right and public re-
spOnsibility is as clear as between black
and white. II a Member Of Congress
for example, under cover of his privilege
examines your private dealings and pc
cuniary transactions, he maniiestly viz
lates your right as private cittzen:f bu
If he comment upon or examine you
conduct touching contract with th'
public, he may perhaps do you injustice
in the premises, but he certainly violate
10 right which you possess as private
citizen. There is another ingredient il
this supposed SANDER by Members o
Congress-, viz: that in miering it, <'the,
violate the rules Of the House" In thi
part of the imputed language of the Pre-
sident; the right is assumed for n "privat
citizen" to consider departures from th'
rules of order, by members of Congress
as grounds for his own own action toward
them personally; n doctrine utterly mad
missible as well as directly adverse t
the constitutional provision that "Eac
House may shall determine the Rule
Of proceeding, and punish its member
for disorderly behaviour" If there ca
be any one thing utterly beyond the cor