The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1838-05-10


him. but, as the committee have done in thepesent
ease proceeded 10 the extremity OF trying tlr ques-
ton OF guilty. or not guilty, pronouncng judgment
thereon, and actually recommending The sen4hce 10
| be passed by the House on that Judgment Can
there be possibly conceived more hagrani violation
both OF the letter and spirit Of the rude Than tbs
Lei II be observed here that the operaiionof the
rule does not necessarily suspend the entire aon Of
the committee ON the subject referred TO them They
are only prohibited from proceeding against "a Reai-
Der who may prove 10 be involved" II the inquiry
| admits OF olher action than against memter, the
committee may proceed TO that action by anr proper
course of examination. As IN this ease; AFTER
specially reporting, as contend they were bound 10
TO- under the rule, they might have proceeded with
The general inquiry, involving persons other than
mc1lbers Of The House or, under the reference TO
them OF petitions on the subject OF dualing, might
have proceeded To inquire into the expectancy OF re-
porting bill for the suppression Of that practice
So that white the House should be hearing the inn
plicated member show cause why there should not be
a special authority given TO the committee to In
anire concerning AtR,h the committee might be pro-
/ scouting useful investigation, looking 10 general
prospective legislation upon the subject which the
particular case had brought Ito It's consideration.
| And now sir what can be more reasonable than
| the rule To which have referred Is therea mem
| Der on this foor who does not while thinking Of
case in which he might be involved" feel the pro-
prety otit slhere here who does not perceive
The value to himself personally, and especially to his
constituents otth privilege OF standing up in his
place" aud showing cause why he should not be
proceeded against under process which might ter
inmate in his expulsion OR, II the House should
4 determine 10 grant special authority 10 inquire
concerning him. is il NOT privilege he migl Just.
liz Prize aud which the rue evidently secures him,
10 he heard with regard 10 the powers 10 be given TO
| The committee and the limits which just regard
TO has rights and those OF his constituents impose up
| On us inquiries concerning him Let any Que
attempt 10 answer these questions and he will ind
himself nvoluntalily utcring the reasons on which
1.-THE rule is founded, and an argument against accept
ing and printing the report OF this reanmit,ee. lie
viii lind that the rule Instead Of being "tech-
nicality," il had been termed in bis debate, is
| founded deep in those principles which guard the
rights of the accused At every step in The admnisra
lion Of criminal justice
But, Mr.. Speaker II doubt could beenter,ained,
on reading this rule, as 10 its purpose AMI meaning,
IL would vanish al once, on referring TO the debate
in the British Parliament, in the case inwhch the
rule originated. ltswhoe ground is summed up in
the remarks made in that debate by Nh Hamp-
den "
Whether (said he) you will go to committee for
examination, and whether you will hear il the bar,
how your member is concerned, is question without
question. Nobody viii be willing to be judged at
committee Of seven orr eight persons IN Chamber TO
examine member; or, IN general, when member has
been concerned, 1t done but If nat arse,
ieiH be reported specially il is strange committee
should examine member nheiher guilty not gully.
II you command the committee before the bill
perfection, you may hear your member answer in his
place, and appoint day for it. You yourselves cannot
| empower a committee to examine member II is the
privilege Of the House. and the privilege of every
in 1t. II the member falls in collaersy, II they
hear member named, they stand up and 90 further,
but report to the House. they have done irregp
Il arly will you do so too Let il be recommtsd, and
your member may answer in his place"
/ Mr.. Speaker, If the very case now before rs had
been upon hearing in the British Parliament, no
| thing could have more perfectly described it, or
| more clearly laid down the principles OF common
sense applicable to il than the remarks have quoted
! Might member of Parliament Justly object 10 be
Judged at committee OF seven or eight persons in
| chamber, and may not member Of This Houss pro-
pery urge the same objection Was II then strange
| that q a committee should examine member whe-
Their guilty not guilty r. and it is less strange nowl
Was il "the privilege the House and the privi-
lege OF every member in II 10 examine menber :,
| touchinga question OF guilt involving his right TO
srat in Parliament and is il less the privilege OF
this House, and of every member in i'll Was it
just and right then toaow an implicated member 10
answeri in his place, before a criminal proceeding
should be instituted against him and has il ceased
TO be Just and right now
But avoid the force of this rule, which, lei il be
remembered we soemnly declared at the first session
/ of the present Congress should be the lar of this
House, is said that TO bring the case of an impl-
Gated member within il, il must fall out Incidentally
in the course of general inquiry before commit
tee, that he is involved; and that, inasmuch as ii
was in the present case known, when the resolution
were involved, the resolution must be taken 10 have
been aimed al Them and should have the same effect
| as though they had been named in it, and il had
conferred special authority to inquire concerning
them.
/ Now a moments reflection will enable any one TO
perceive that this is complete evasion OF the rule,
and does really deprive the members Of this House
| Of the privilege il was intended to secure What is
that privilege? 1t is to answer in their places at
the very inception OF proceeding against them, and
show cause why it should not be prosecuted. But
how can this be done, unless they named in the
| resolution as objects of the inquiryl A member
who should upon the introduction of such general
resolution, rise in his place, and contend that pro-
ceedings should not be instituted against him. would
make himself an object of rldicue, and be put down
| as dsorderly, He would, very properly be told
that it would be time for him to defend himself when
he should be accused; that his name not in the
| resolution and he could not be heard And what
/ reply could be made to this None al all Until
the mover OF resolution should introduce into it. or
there should be incorporated it by way of amend
ment, and thus placed on the record, charge
against a member, the preliminary defence contem-
plated in the rule would, as to him, be mere
| nuity
Thus you see, sir that it was in the power of the
mover OF the resolution in this case, to deprive the
members who have proved to be involved as they
were in fact deprived, of the right which the rule
contemplaes do not say the omission was intend
| ed for such an effect. Doubtless il was not But
that such was its effect, none will deny. And that
such effect will, in other cases that may arise be
| intended and, il the course this investigation has
taken be sanctioned, will be produced none can
| doubt The names Of members intended TO be i'm
pcated may be always omitted from the resolutions
| Of inquiry, and they may be thus deprived Of the
benefit OF preliminary defence; while the neglect
of committees following the example of this case
| to g make special report to the House" under the
| rule, will have the effect of utterly excluding the
| implicated members from a preliminary defence