Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1848-05-05

body, by which it may vindicate its own
honor, and protect itself from assault. He
referred to the case Just cited by the gentle
man from South Carolina to illustrate; and
added, that If we were advised of an attempt
to invade the personal liberty and safety of
an individual member-such a case as he
might suppose, namely he supposed a ques-
ton was pending here, in which the interests
OF the south were deeply involved, and a
member known to be ad to those inter-
ests about which so much distrust is felt,
and such a menber is waylaid, and an at
tempt is made to prevent him, from coming
here to exercise his privilege as a legislator,
1t occurred to Mr.. |. that the prerogatiyes of
the House included the power to prevent the
success of such an attempt as that. lie
would undertake to say, that the House pos
sessed the same power to send the sergeant
alarms and raise a force in such a case as
he had supposed, as in the case where a man
comes into our presence to interrupt the pro-
c~eedings of the House. 1t would be unreal
sonable in the case supposed, to require the
House to wait the tedious process of legisla-
ton for the redress of such an indignity.
Without knowing any thing Of the charac-
ter OF the rumors upon which the resolution
seemed 10 be founded, he believed the deci-
sion of the Speaker 10 be substantially cor
rect. 1t was clear TO his mind, that il a MEM
Der should be protected in what he has said,
he should also be protected in what he IN
tends to say. If menaces of the character
indicated in the resolution can be made out,
it ought to pass and he would suggest, that,
if the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.. Giddings,l
or any other gentleman, knows himself to be
liable to insult out of doors, he should get
up in his place and say SO.
Mr.. Deur, calling for the reading again
of the preamble and resolution,) said he did
not wish to argue the question at length
lie only wished for himself and others to un-
derstand what the question presentad really
is. The case presented IN this preamble he
considered to be different from the privilege
contemplated in the constitution. The pre-
amble says a lawless mob; (Mr. d. did not
vouch for the fact y has threatened the per-
sonal safety of certain members Of this House.
The question, then, if he understood it, was,
whether the House has a right to interfere
for the purpose of enabling members TO come
here and take their seats-whether a lawless
mob may threaten the life and safety of MEM
bers with impunity in short, whether this
House may sit here, having the power to
protect itself, or whether its sittings may be
interrupted and prevented by a lawless mob!
If such was the question he did not mean to
discuss it here or elsewhere. He asked gen.
tlemen to consider whether such was the re-
al question; but he hoped that, on account
of mere rumor; the House would not suffer
itself to run into a discussion Of so grave a
question.
Mr.. lnge said we were now acting in the
dark. We had no facts upon which TO base
our opinions. We know that insidious eff
forts had been made TO deprive citizens of
this District of their property. He would
like TO know whether any member had been
concerned in those attempts. The resolution
alledged that a lawless mob had assembled
but the laws were competent to provide for
/ the correction of that abuse. But he might
take issue upon the fact that there is a mob.
He did not believe there was any. 1t might
/, be that members of this House had commit
ted acts which had drawn upon them the in
dignation Of the community it might be
t that they had made themselves accessory to
4 felony.
, Mr.. Vinton argued that the Speaker could
, not be permitted TO decide upon the right OF
I any member. The Speaker had LETT it to the
i, House to decide upon that question. He had
\ decided that 1t was a privileged question,
and that the House was to decide whether to
entertain it. Upon this, an appeal had been
ldhtll' LUIS kCpGdhbT NdS uNQutSllOudUIy
right. There was no question Of privilege
now, but whether facts should be inquired in
TO.
Mr.. HARRISON and Mr.. Barringer thought
the question ought not to be entertained.
Mr.. Stephens said this was a question
merely of order. AS far as the merits of the
case were concerned, he concurred with his
two colleagues from Georgia. AS far as the
d acts spoken of had been alleged, he was pre-
pared to Justify those acts. But the causes
of the acts spoken of, and their merits, were
6 not now before US. But a proposition hav,
ing been made for an inquiry, it ought to be
o entertained /; and, if a member had been me
naced, the House could then Judge whethe
! they should act. But it was for the House
y and not the Chair, TO decide both privileged
questions and questions of privilege. If ru
! NOR was true, some members of this HOUSE
y ought to be expelled from this floor.
e Mr.. II. Cobb said he had misunderstood
the decision of the Chair. He now under
stood that the Chair did not decide that THU
" was a question of privilege. He hoped the
gentleman from Pennsylvania would with.
draw his appeal. and let the question come
fully before the House, whether a question
of privilege can arise.
Mr.. Brodhead insisted on his appeal.
% Mr.. Cobb held that this was not such q
paper as on its face presented a case that the
Speaker was obliged to lay it before the
House in preference 10 any business.
The Speaker said the paper was not relied
upon by him: but the mere suggestion of the
fact that a member complained Of the breach
of his privilege.
d MIR. Cobb explained, that he did not con
cur in the distinction taken by the Chair
Should the resolution come before the house
and the previous question be ordered, thu
" question would be on its adoption. There
n fore the Chair, in deciding that the resolu
d lion is in order, decides the question that thu
|. paper presents a privileged question.
NJ M,,Jo ,rral .ha, &c ,k;e ,Y.s n,a,