The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-08-30

war with he idea that either house q Congress can sxe
else criminal jurisdiction by virtue Of the parliamentary
law which ID only branch OF the common law of Eng
land the courts cannot punish without express stat
ute, how either house do SoR
The Of Anderson Dunn (6 Wheaton 2o4l Is re-
lied upon authority for the House punish for
tenpts generally but the point of thar decision is very
much misapprehended. The court in that case say
The pleadngs have narrowed the question down to the
staple inquiry whether the House Of Representative can
take cognanee OF contempts under any creumstances
1t might be conceded that the House could punish for
contemps in its presence but that would fall far short of
the power claimed in this case the assault in the
not committed in the presence of the House. while
il in session This then in my opinion does not
touch the point of the controversy now raised
have not time to enlarge upon the danger of the claim
of prerogatve raised for the House. | will content
myself with quoting the opinion of Mr. Hallam this
point in reference to the action OF the House OF Commons
lie says;
alt surprise those who have heard of the happy bal
OF the English constitution of the responsibility OF every
the law and Of the security Of every subject from all
unlimited power especially to personal freedom that this
power of awarding the discretion of the houses
Of Parliament is generally reputed be universal and
1t has beeh several times brought into discus
sion before the ordinary tribunals and the result has been
that if the power of Parliament unlimited in right
there at least remedy provided against its Not
wanting oas who have thought that the doctrine Of
oabe privilege is both emnenty dangerous in free
try and repugnant to the analogy of our free
cannot do than allude to the opinion of Mr. JEFF
erson this point 10 be found at the 9th page OF the
Manual prerogatve considered dangerous in Eng
land, doubtful here should certainly give us pause
have hitherto argued the if the assault had been
upon a member OF this House. but it not; it was
senator, which makes all the difference imaginable. ut
ery deny that this House has any power to punish for
assault upon senator If this be an offence against Ell
ther house. it ID offence against the Senate and the
Senate alone have power to punish. If the Senate can
punish private citizen for assault of it's menu
hers why cannot il punish Mr. BRooKs2 His constitutional
privilege of freedom from arrest does not extend to breach
of the peace If the Senate have jurisdiction such
offence there is nothing to prevent it from proceeding
against Mr. Books. Assuming the general jurisdiction
such of Offences the Senate have declined
erse against Mr. Books the authority OF the Eng
lish precedents
But in following the English presidents, the Senate
have, submit with Difference but with entire confidence
entirely overlooked the grounds upon which the English
precedens rest In of offence by member of the
House of Commons against the House of Peers the House
of Peers does not take jurisdiction, but complains to the
House of Commons because it is fundamental principle
of the constitutional law of England that every man has
right to be tried by his peers This principle would be
violated if the House of Lords undertook 10 punish men,
Der of the House of Commons or any other commoner
So likewise the House of Commons cannot proceed against
Ferrals Law of Parliament, s This distinction does
not hold in this country, for all peers 1t is familiar
maxim of the law that the reason OF the rule ceasing the
tce OF the House of Peers proceeds not being operative
here the practice cannot exist
conclude the efore, with entire confidence that il
either house has jurisdiction in this case it is the Senate
that the House take jurisdiction could the House
of Commons for defect of power in the upper House. be-
the ground upon which that defect Of power in the
House of Peers restsnecessiy OF trial by ones peers
does not in point of fact exist here invite attention to
this point consider it settles the case conclusiVey
against the jurisdiction of the House especially when
consider that the committee their claim of jurisdiction
upon the ground "that the Senate for breach OF It's
privileges cannot a member of the House" The
committee, after a brief recital of the facts say:
49, That this assault breach of the privileges of the
Senate
That the Senate for breach of its privileges cannot
arrest a member of the House of Representatives and
oori try and punish him that such authority de-
wolves upon the house which hes member therefore
that within the Jurisdiction Of the Senate and
only be punished by the house Of which Mr. Brooks
ber,'"
1t was my purpose to have gone into the facts of the
but having been cut off by the expiration of hour
do feel at liberty pursue this line of argument