The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-08-14

gated sovereignty of their mssters-is not sub
ject for invasion upon slight pretences 1t is no
safe precedent, in civilized countries, where law
prescribes the punishment of offences, for the
citizen to usurp the redress provided by law,
and to Judge for himself of the character of an
offence and deal out castigations and punish
ments by any standard of his own. Society is
organized to restrain such conduct, not to aid
and foster it. Men form civil communities, and
submit to laws and regulations, because social
order is preferable to anarchy and disorder. If,
then, this be true as to The citizen, in my judg-
ment, the offence becomes one of the first mag
nitude, when levelled at one clothed with the
character Of Representative or Senator, where
freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, and per-
sonal safety, are essential to faithful exercise
of delegated power.
| But, sir, am clear as to the course / shall
pursue. believe it is sustained by the Oonsti
tuition, by legislative precedent, and by sound
reason. NY reading of the Constitution enables
me to see my way in this matter without diff
Guilty. choose to take its letter and spirit for
my guide, and not to fritter away or weaken its
plain provisions by distractions. But, sir,
propose more, in the time that remains to me,
to review the report of the minority of the com
mittee, than anything else in these remarks
We are asked what warrant we have for this
L
tuition; and if not, where is it found ? answer
this committee, that we do find it in the Consti
tuition, in the fundamental as well as the clear
| ly-establshed and well-acknowledged law OF
this country, as applicable to parliamentary
bodies.
What, sir, are the immunities of member OF
the Senate or House of Representatives Sec.
ton six of the Constitution says:
"They shall, in all cases excepttreason, felony,
or breach of the peace, be privileged from ar.
rest during their attendance at the session of
their respective Houses, and in going to and
returning from the same; and for any speech
or debate in either House, they shall not be
questioned IN any other place."
cussion is one of the rights of an American citi-
zen most highly priced. We know this well.
1t is a right for which revolutionary. blood was
shed. 1t is right asserted here as often as it
has ever been questioned. And the sanction
of great names has given it character that
the ephemeral discussions of the day cannot
weaken or destroy.
If it be true, then, Mr.. Speaker, that the Con.
stitution protects the member for words spoken
in debate, land of this, apprehend, there can
be no question: the inquiry arises, How is the
member withdraw from the protection thus af
forded him? l know of but one mode. On
page SO of our Manual, find: "For any speech
or debate in either House, they shall not be
s., l-6; s. p Protest of Tie Com. to James 1,
1921, I'd Rapin, No. 81, I'll, 2l2.) But this
is restrained to things done in the House in a
parliamentary oourt.-Q Rash, 663.) For he
is not to have privilege contra mOrem parlid-
naentarium, to exceed the bounds and limits OF
his place and duty.
It is usual, sir. in justification of this assault,
and in the assault upon the majority report, to
constantly assert that the speech which provoked
the difficulty was, in itself, an invasion of the
privileges of debate. have, sir, alluded to this
matter before, and 1 do so now again, to put at
rest even that attempt at justification.
Section five, second clause Constitution OF
the United States, says: each House may
determine the rules of its proceedings" Sc
that is, each House adopts rules for its govern
ment, which, so far as the House adopting them
is concerned, are absolute. Each House is the
Judge of its own order of debate, of the propri
cites and Legislative courtesies to be observed
there. So necessary, 80 Indispensable is this
power and privilege to the independence of CO.
ordinate branches of the same National Legs-
lature, in their legislation, that we find, in the
general parliamentary law, the following:
at is highly expedient, for the due preser-
walton of the privileges of separate branches
of the Legislature, that neither should encroach
upon the other, or interfere in any matter de-
pending before them, so as to preclude, or
even to influence, that freedom of debate
which is essential to a free council They
are, therefore, not to take notice Of any bills,
or other matters depending, or of votes that
have been given, or of speeches which have
been held, by the members of either of the
other branches of the Legislature, until the
same have been communicated to them in the
usual parliamentary manner."-Hatsel.
Then, sir, if this be true, the Senate was the
judge of parliamentary proprieties in reference
to the speech of Mr.. SUMNER. That body had,
by tacit consent passed upon it; had endorsed
it as within the scope of their rules as unob-
jectionable according to the standard set up in
that august body. AS speech made in fair
debate it was protected-protected not only by
the Constitution of the United States, but by
the rules of the Senate, and by the law of the
land. 1t was not, SO far as law and the privi-
leges of Legislative bodies are concerned, ques-
| tionable anywhere, except in session of the
Senate, in fair debate. Any attempt to change
the responsibility was not only violation of
the Constitution, but it was still more viola
ton of Legislative courtesy; an invasion of the
majesty of sovereign State; a violation of
natural rights.
But am told, sir, that any notice of this
| hndiT, III ZIG moiHcr pIopOscu VIII Ue Ill luFd-
sion of the rights of the citizen that the privi-
leges of Legislative bodies are so vague and i'll
defined, that we cannot mark their boundaries,
or safely resort to them for justice. We are
told that there Is safety, save within the pro-
visions of the Constitution.
1t appears to me, sir, that the minority report
is based upon a Misrepresentation of this case !;
that in the argument its assumptions are nat
supported by the Static of ths proceeding. What
is it we propose to do2 Do we propose an i'm
prisonment of any person? No, sir. Or do
we threaten the life or property of any gentle
man? Not at all. How, then, the rules of
trial, in criminal cases, can have any applica.
tion-how the right Of trial by jury, the pre-
sentation by grand jury, or the machinery of
criminal Jurisprudence, can be invoked in this
proceeding, do not know. In my Judgment,
our proposed action involves no breach of any
of these welsettled rights or obligations. The
House is called upon to manifest its senae of
the conduct of one of its own members to pass
upon thepfopriety of the action of gentleman,
which action is admitted on all hands to have
been an infraction of the laws of the land, and
which, | think, was an infraction of legislative
right. But how is it proposed that we shall
act? By Imprisonment, fine, or any corporal
or pecuniary punishment? Not at all, cir.
The resolution is that RgEsros s. BRooks be
expelled fsoIa this body" And, sir, if we go
to the Constitution, it appears to me that we
find the power for this proposed action very
clearly given. Section five of the Constitution
says:
"Esch House may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its members for disorderly
behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two
thirds, expel a member"
Now does anv peutlensn nratand tbat The