The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-06-05
WASHINGTON, d. G..
THIRTY-f0URTH CONGRESS-,
First Session.
Wednesday,, Nay 2S, 1856.
SENATE


after the 4ih Of March next, 1857.
The select committee appointed to inquire
into the circumstances attending the assault
committed upon the person of the Hon. Charles
Sumner, member of the Senate, report:
That from the testimony taken by them it
appears that the Hon. Preston S. Brooks, a
member Of the House of Representatives from
the State Of South Carolina, did, on the 22d
day Of the present month, after the adjourn
meut of the Senate, and while Mr.. Sumner was
seated at his desk in the Senate Chamber, as
sault him with considerable violence striking
him numerous blows on and about the head
with a walking stick, which cut his head and
disabled him, for the time being from attend
ing to his dnties in the Senate. The cause of
this assault was certain language used by Mr..
Sumner, in debate, on the Monday and Tues
day preceding, which Mr.. Brooks considered
libellous Of the State of South Carolina, and
slanderous of his near kirsman, Mr.. Butler, a
Senator from that State, who, at the time, was
absent from the Senate and the city.
The committee forbear to comment upon the
various circumstances which preceded and at
tended this affair, whether Of aggravation or
extenuation, for reasons which will be suffi-
ciently obvious in the latter part of the report.
They have examined the precedents, which
are to be found only in the proceedings of the
House of Representatives, the Senate never
having been called on to pronounce its judg-
ment in a similar case. In the House of Rep
resentatives, though different opinions have at
various times been expressed, by gentlemen of
great sminence and ability, among whom may
be mentioned the late President of the United
States, Mr.. Polk, the late Judge Barbour Of
the Supreme Court, and Mr.. Beardsley, of New
York, yet the Judgment or the House has al
ways pronounced an assault upon a member,
for words spoken in debate, to be a violation
OF the privileges Of the House.
The committee do not consider 1t necessary
10 discuss the question at length, but proceed
to state some OF the precedents, not combining
them, however, to the case OF assault upon
members.
Ir March, 1896, Mr.. Baldwin, member OF
the House OF Representatives., presented to the
House certain correspondence between himself
and General Gum, Senator from the State OF
Georgia, including challenge addressed 10
HIM by General Gum. These were referred
TO a committee, of which Mr. Madison was
chairman, who reported by their chairman that
the same was breach OF the privilege of the
House on the part of Gen. Gum, and of Mr.
Frelingnuysen, Senator from New Jersey, by
whom the challenge had been borne.
In May, 1928, a personal assault having been
made by Mr.. Russell Jarvis upon Mr.. John
Adams, the private secretary Of the President,
just after his delivering a message to the House
OF Representatives, and while on his way TO the
Senate with another message, the matter was
On complaint of the President, referred TO a se.
lect committee. majority of the committee,
by Mr.. MeDufe, of South Carolina, their chair
man, reported that
Upon view of all the circumstances, the
committee are of opinion that the assault com
II
of the President, whatever may have been the
causes of provocation, was an act done in con-
tempt Of the authority and dignity of this House,
involving not only a violation Of its own pecu-
liar privileges, but Of the immunity which it is
bound upon every principle to guaranty to the
person selected by the President as the organ
Of has official communications to Congress. 1t
is OF the utmost Importance that the official in
tercourse between the President and the legis-
lative department should not be liable to inter
ruption. The proceedings Of Congress could
not be more effectually arrested by preventing
the members of either House from going to the
hall of their deliberations, than they might be
by preventing the President from making Off
cial communications essentially connected with
the legislation of the country. The
power in question grows out Of the great law OF
self-preservation. 1t is, no doubt, very liable
10 abuse, and ought always to be exercised
with great moderation. Ina its very nature II
IS not susceptible either OF precise definition or
precise Limitation. Each particular instance
of its exercise must be adapted TO the emer
gency which calls for it. While therefore the
committee deem it matter of great importance
TO maintain the existence of this power as an
essential means of indicating the dignity and
privileges of the House, they are clearly of opin
ION that il ought never to be exercised except
.ofo Il. a..
ishment inflicted under it ought never to b,
carried further than shall be absolutely ant
imperatively required by the existing emer
gency."
In 1892, the House of Representatives, afel
long trial aud thorough discussion of the
question, voted that Gen. Houston, by making
personal assault on Mr.. Stanbery. IA member
of the House, for words spoken in debate, wa.
guilty Of contempt and violation of the priv
ileges of the House.
The committee acknowledge the force Of thes,
precedeRts, aud adopt the reasoning quoted
from DIR McDuHie's report. But, while it i
the opinion of the committee that this assault
was q breach of the privileges of the Senate
they also think that 1t is not within the juris
diction Of the Senate, and can only be punished
boy the House of Representatives, of which Mr.
Brooks is a member. This opinion is in stric
conformity with the recognised parliamentar,
law. Hatsell, in his Plecedents, saws as fol
lows:
'1he leading principle which appears t.
peryade al the proceedings of the two House
of Parliament is, that there shall subsist per
feet equality with respect TO each other. an,
that they shall Ice in every respect totally indie
pendent ole of the other. From hence it i
that neither House can claim, much less exer
clse, authority over member of the other; bu
II there is any ground OF complaint against al
act Of the House itself. against any indiyidu,
member, or against any Of The officers Of eithe
House, this complaint ought to be made to tia
House of Parliament where the offence
charged TO be committed; and the nature an
mode Of redress or punishment, if punishment
is necessary, must be determined upon and in
ficted by them. Indeed, any other proceedin
would soon introduce disorder and confusion
as 1t appears actually to have done in those il
stances where both Houses, claiming powe
independent Of each other, have exercised tbs
po~er upon the same subject, but with difiere,
views and contrary purposes."-(3 HatseU, 6 I
We see, from the several precedents above c
TED, that neither House Of Parliament can tax
upon themselves any breach of privilege ofere
TO them by any member of the other House bu
that In such cases the usual mode of proceedin
Is to examine into The fact, and then to lay
statement of that evidence before the House
which the person complained of is men
ber."-lItid, ~
Mr. Jefferson, ia the Manual of Parliamen
airy Practice prepared by him, lays down tn
following rule:
"Neither House can exercise any authorit
over member or officer of the other, but shoul
complain to the House Of which he is, and lesv
the punishment to them"
A brief examination of the constitutions
privileges of Senators and Representatives wi