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

1 ana loss Oh property. 90 not OOuDt that, sir
but it occurs to me that the minority have made
most unfortunate selection of dates to establish
their position. The cases cited by the commit
tee begin in l547, and, with the exception of
single one, end in 1895. The exception is the
case of Sir Francis Burdett, committed to the
Tower in 1911, for libel upon the House of
| Commons; and, as an offset to this latter case,
it may be said, that the Senate of the United
| States, within few years past, arrested man
for an alleged breach of its privileges, and held
him in custody for number of days; and that,
for alleged ibels upon its character, that body
has frequently Withdrawn its privileges from
various persons connected with its deliberations.
| Discarding those precedents which have aris-
en- under our own Constitution, in the legislative
| history of our country, the minority of the com.
mittee have adopted those drawn from the rev.
dictionary history of country where contin-
ual conflict was maintained between the mon-
arch and his subjects, before the birth of the
"habeas corpus act," or the passage of the
"bill of rights" had secured, even in the ordi-
nary administration of Justice the natural rights
| of precedents drawn from the
days when Scroggs and Jeffreys presided in the
courts, and minions of power were in the legis-
lative bodies, with hinges in their knees" to
crook at the footstool of kingly power-prove
not much, at this period, save the unhappy con-
1
| sions of power above and beyond the control of
the people. And, sir, if the committee had
turned to our own history, it appears to me
that safe, just, and wise precedents, would have
resolved all their doubts.
| In March, 1896, Mr. Baldwin, member of
this House, presented to the House certain cor
respondence between himself and General Gunn
a Senator from the State of Georgia, including
a challenge addressed to 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 privileges of the House on the partof General
Gum and Mr.. Frelinghuysen, a Senator from
New Jersey, by whom the challenge had been
borne. This House, then, by its report, assert
ed its dignity against an offence on the part of
the Senate. In this case, the Senate report
that member of this House is the offender.
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 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
select committee. A majority of the committee,
by Mr. McDuftie, of South Carolina, their chair
man, reported that
"Upon view of all the circumstances, the
1
/ committed by Mr.. Jarvis upon the Private
Secretary of the President, whatever may have
been the causes of provocation, was an act
done in contempt of the authority and dignity
Of this House, involving, not only violation
{ of its own peculiar privileges but of the i'm
munity which it is bound, upon every princi-
{ pie, to guaranty to the person selected by the
President as the organ of his official commu-
nications to Congress"
And, again, in 1882, the House of Represent
atives, after long trial and thorough discussion
of the question, voted that General Houston,
| by making a personal assault on Mr.. Stan.
berry, member of the House, for words spoken
in debate, was guilty of contempt and viola
ton of the privileges of the House. But, per-
haps, the first example of punishment for breach
of privilege, and for an offence against the
character of Legislative body, is found in the
following instance:
In 1897, William Bount, United States
Senator, was almost unanimously expelled from
that body. / believe there was but one vote
against his expulsion. His offence was an at
tempt to seduce from his duty an American
agent among the Indians, and to ALLEVIATE the
confidence of the Indians from the public au-
| thorities of the United States. Justice Story
says OF this case, Il Comm e,tdries ON the COnsti-
tuition. 299 J
committed in his official character nor was
it committed during the session of Congress
nor at the seat of Government.
1t seems, therefore, to be settled by the SEN
ate, uron full deliberation, that expulsion may
be for any misdemeanor which, though not
punishable by any statute, is inconsistent with
the trust and duty of a Senator"
And in reference to the power which NAV
be exercised III such cases, the same Justice
says:
"The power to expel a member is not, in the
British House OF Commons, confined to often.
ces committed by the party as a member, or
during the session of Parliament; but it ex.
tends to all cases where the offence is such as,
in the judgment of the House, units him for
parliamentary duties" -I6id., 300, 3Ol.
Justice Story, after asserting this power to
punish contempts to be fully vested in the Con-
gress of the United States, well remarks:
4" Nor is this power to be received in an I'M
favorable light. 1t is privilege, not of the
members of either House, but, like all other
privileges of Congress, mainly intended as a
privilege of the people, and for their benefit -
Storys Commentaries on tie Constitution
3O7.
Jefferson, in his Manual, section third, emu
merates the powers and privileges of Congress
over their members, and says that no further
law"
Rawle, in his work on the Constitution, says
Expulsion may, however, be founded on
criminal conduct committed in any place,
and either before or after conviction in a court
of law."-Pp. 43, Al, ~,
Mr.. Speaker the Senate reports to us unani
mously breach of their privileges. could not
see the necessity of a committee of inquiry here
for as to the facts-that an assault had been
committed-that such assault was breach of
the privileges of the Senate considered that
1t was determined question-that these things
were res adjudicata.
The question u.s. How should we punish. and
have we the right to punish, for an infraction
| OF the Senates privileges? 1 think we have
that the authorities cited prove the power, and
that we have only the simple question of expe-
diency. Why should we punish? Because,
sir,
Neither House can exercise any authority
oyer memher or officer of the other but should
complain to the House of which he is and leave
the punishment to them"
Sir, the propriety of this mode Of procedure
is such, that forbear al comment.
These precedents, sir, founded upon the plain
provisions of the onstitution-supported ss
they are by the Manual, which is the law of our
HOuse-to my mind, dispose of the whole case.
and clearly answer the report of the minority.
But, sir, the minority report takes a distinc
ton between speech delivered in the Senate
and speech printed-and ipti-aates that, while
the privilege nay attach to the one. il cannot
te ths other. Sir, this appears to me to be
singular view of this case Is not the distribu.
ton OF every speech made here thing of course.
under laws DQssad hv Conpraee WI..