The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-07-24

stering his rebuks to my friend from Ohio,
Mr.. BINGHAM, for his eloquent denunciation
of the aggressions of Slavery in Kansas, should
have turned around to the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr.. CLINGHAS, and commend
ed the teachings of that Gospel which he preach
es, the teachings of that Gospel which liberates
the souls of the slaves, and makes them happy,
and had said to the gentleman from North
Carolina that that Gospel has power to allay
the widest passions of men, and do away with
the necessity of that personal chastisement,
which, the gentleman from North Carolina
would have US believe, was alone capable OF
producing that orderly conduct and digni6ed
department which are necessary for a legisa
tive assembly. That would have been a more
pleasing exhortation to me, than the reason
given why the slaves were made happy. 1t was
the Gospel, and not Slavery, which made the
souls OF the poor enslaved men rejoice it was
the Gospel which qualified them for a happy
state, and enabled them to count their present
Affections light in view of an eternity of glory
and that same Gospel would qualify US all to
discharge our duties better, and bid every slave
, go free.
If the gentleman from Georgia had admin
istered some such lectures, it would have been
appropriate, and we all would have received il
from him In good temper, and with becoming
thankiulness, because it is true that that is
what Is wanted among men. And it is because
the teachings of this Gospel, which can make
even slaves happy, is so much disregarded by
men In the various positions in society, and in
the legislative halls, that we have to enforce
the proprieties and decences of life by penal
laws. L stand here as the advocate of that
higher law, which, if universally obeyed, would
better qualify men for all stations in life, whether
humble or exalted
l desire now to say few words upon the
subject more Immediately before the House.
consider it one of great Importance, not SO much
ON account of the personal bearings of the cues
ton, as on account of the importance of the
principles involved. We have before US two
reports IRON the committee appointed to invest
lgate the subject, but there appears TO be nc
difference as to the main facts of the case
That an assault was made upon Senator Sum
NER, on the 22d May, while sitting at his desk
IN the Senate Chamber, shortly after the Senate
had adjourned, by p. s. Brooks, a member 81
this House, for words spoken in debate by the
Senator, is not disputed.
But the majority and minority do not arrive
at the same conclusion. The majority recon
mend one course of action; the minority rec
ommend no action at all, for the reason "that
the assault upon Senator SUMNER was not q
breach of privilege" and that the " House has
no jurisdiction over the assault alleged to have
been committed and therefore deem it improp
er to express any opinion upon the subject
After reading the report of the minority with
some care, must say that in my opinion, they
have failed to sustain the position which they
have taken-that is, "that it ia no breach Of
privilege, and that the House has no jurisdic
ton" The necessity Of immunity from person
al responsibility of the members of the Senate
and House, for words spoken in debate, was
fully appreciated and provided for by the fra
mers of the Constitution, so far as it could be
leaving to the highest legislative body known
to the country the discretionary power which
every Legislative body must have for its preser-
walton and protection. BY article first, section
ak, they are exempt from arrest in all cases
except for treason, felony, and breach of the
peace, during the session of Congress, and go.
ing to and returning from Congress- and, for
any speech in either House, they "shall not be
questioned in any other place" This last clause
is said by some to refer to legal responsibility,
and thst it was Eot designed to meet cases OF
personal responsibility, and to clothe the mem
bers with absolute immunity, as is contended
for by others. 1t strikes me as being designed
to cover both classes of cases, and clothes the
two Houses with that immunity called "priv-
ilege."
stitution at all, claim that we have the power
to vindicate the freedom Of speech, and the
immunity of members of either House from
personal responsibility. If we have not the
power to protect the rights and privileges Of the
members of the Senate and House, then are we
In deplorable condition indeed. Clothed with
all power to legslate for this great country, and
yet impotent to vindicate a right essentially
necessary to independent legislation-that of
free speech-this would be an anomaly. We
have an inherent right, arising from the neces-
sity of selfpreservation and protection, to be
exercised as occasion may require, at the dis
cretion of the House. 1t cannot he fully de
fined, but muat be equal to the object which
would call forth its exercise in the protection
and yindication of the rights and privileges Of
this House. The minority agree that a law
might be passed, defining the privileges of the
House and Of the Senate, and providing for the
punishment of those who might violate them,
but deny us the power to dc SO without such
law. A lay elacted by Congress, defining
the privileges of the two Houses, and providing
for their protection or vindicatop, would, Of
course, lodge that power with the courts, and
we would thereby part with it; because every
one prosecuted under the law would have the
constitutional right to demand a trial by jury.
Such law could only emanate from Congress,
and any one will see the impossbility OF pso
vlding for all cases of t.aa9les o, privilege or
OF defining them, in such a way as to safely
lodge their vindieation in the courts.
| Mr.. Mcputfie, in May, 1928, in his celebrated
report In the Russell Jarvis case, says
The power in question grows of the great law CT
sefpeservaon IL 10, no doub liable 20 abuse and
ought always TO be exercises with great moderation In
its very nature i not susceptible eher OF precise def
niton or precise limitation Zach particular instance Of
us exercise must be adapted 10 the ewsrgeEcy which calls
! for lrD zee
Here we have a clear and express recognition
of the power in the two Houses, as being neces-
sary to selfpreservation, one of the higher laws
recognised in all the departments and ciscum.
stances Of life. The House and Senate could
rot safely part with this power, so necessary TO
the yindication Of their rights and privileges,
without becoming demoralized.
The general argument urged by the minority
| OF the committee, that the House ough. aot t.
decideihe questions aris;ps out Of its privileges,
and thS ftna and fasasure of punishment for
the breach or violation Of them, because it would
be q dangerous assumption Of power over the
liberty of the citizen, is not well founded. Sup.
pose you submitted this ccss unoer a law which
would meet the case, who would be the triers
Twelve citizens who would alike be interested
in the vindication of the laws, and also inter.
ested in protecting the liberty of the citizen.
Who are the triers here? Some two hundred
and thirty members-jurors if you please-all
alike interested in the vindication, not ONLY Of
the privileges Of the House. but a,s OF the rights
O. c. each ind;;y;aIa.i member Of the House. In
ioorn cases, power may possibly be abused and
the same argument may, with the same force,
be urged against the exercise of power in all
human affairs. But, is there greater liability
to abuse of power in the vindication of its priv.
ileges by the House against q member VINO is