The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-07-09
FRIDAY, JULY S, 1850.


| Mr.. GIDDINGS rose to a question Of privilege Ir
certain wing papers, he remarked there were charges Of
official misconduct against himself II his intention
the House to lake such action the subject
was due to their own honor. He would send 10 the
Clerks desk OF the articles in question in the Boston
Alias, charging Mr. GIDprEos with having abstrscted
papers file the appointment Office OF the Post Oct
Department relative to the postmaster Obern, OHIO
and then sending them there.
Mr.. JONES denied that this was question OF priv
The SPEAKER explained that before the 2sth and the
30th Congresses, similar questions had arsen when the
House, not the Speaker, decided them Under this pre-
ceden he should leave II TO the House TO saywhethe
or no: this was privileged question.
Mr.. TOOMBS appealed from the decision Of the Chair
and argued TO show that the House could lake cogn
an appeal from a decision OF The Chair
Mr.. T. then approaching the particular case, went on
show that this newspaper article violated none Of Mr.
should no, be arrested Tor debt or ques,ioneds fol
words spoken in debate here. He Mr. GDpIScsl should
60 the courts for his remedy where every other class
OF citizens compelled TO GO This paper said nothing
more Of Mr. GIpDrsos than was said BY newspapers d
dishonest and honest daily The privilege" oil the
member OF Congress was very different from that OF the
at length To treat this question Of privilege would
be to set dangerous precedentone which threatened
the rights Of the people, which would very properly be
resisted by them. sN@kf
Mr.. BAKER next spoke for some molAents, arguing
that the position assumed by Mr. TOXINS correct
and declaring that il this question OF privilege,
which he denied II would be inexpedent TO take any
| MIR billiard concurred in the views OF Mr. TooMBs
wherein that gentleman argued that question OF pvi-
lege could be ente rained by the House until the Chair
had previously decided point; and also in the argument
that this not question OF privegeno IN any man.
ner coming within the rule upon which the House should
Mr.. SWEE TSER addressed the House for a few min.
ues arguing that grave charge had been made against
his colleague Mr. GIpDrses] which i was due TO that
gentleman and the House should be investigated.
Mr. Gfnn feald Ar ~ wa w 70 r e.
suit OF the examination and TO Withdraw from the House
II was decided that he amenable TO the charge
MIR. billiard urged that IL this case was acted on,
there might be two similar applications tomorrow, and
ten next week lie moved the previous question on the
appeal but the call for the previous question not being
| sustained,
Mr. HARRIS, Of Illinois. argued for few minutes to
show that the involved question OF privilege
Mr. VAN DYKE moved to lay the appeal on the table;
The SPEAKER, addressing the House. explained that
he did not regard the question affecting the prvi-
ege OF the member but Of the House, which must decide
whether II would or would not lake cognzance Of the al
Mr.. WINTHROP endorsed the Speakers statement
concerning the action before the 29h and 30h Congresses
and remarked that he conceded in the judgment OF the
Chair.
The question on laying the appeal the table being
put, that motion was agreed TO.
The SPEAKER then stated that the question was,
whether the House would take cognizance OF the cues.
ton OF privilege raised BY Mr.. GIDDIscs.
Mr.. ALLEN argued in favor Of the apponiment.of a
select committee 10 examine INTO the truth OF hs alega
ton against MIR GDpIScs, found in Washington letters.
II had not only been circulated the press but in pri-
yate conversation, from member to member for weeks
past.
Mr.. McCLERNAND held that the virtual felony
charged the gentleman from Ohio related TO him
private individual, member OF Congress But the
letter also aeg that he had used his ranking privilege
as member circulate the abstracied papers On that
ground only would he vote 10 entertain the question Of
privilege The Publisher was, in legal point OF view,
responsible Through the cours) for what published
| in his paper.
Mr. MORSE argued against the idea that this charge
involved breach OF privilege. He opposed 10 the
manner in. which public bodies like Congress were
usurpng power. The constitution defined what were
the privileges OF the member An accusation OF theft OF
one member against another would be question OF
privilege rwoud such question arise II some one
met the member from Ohio Mr. GfDDSos1 and cudsIed
him for an offence not connected with his in the
| hall That act would be business Of the House.
The House had the right to examine into such matters
no further than TO protect ts own ntegy not 10 aci az
special court TO protect the private reputation OF mem
beTs.
| Mr.. SwEETSER held that this was fair case Of
breach Of privilege, and that due to the House that
is members be protected from such gross newspaper as
sapIts.