The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-07-30

July IL, 1856 r
Mr. HOUSTON said:
/ Mr. SrEAKKR; do not propose TO make argument
satisfied that nothing could say would change the
opinion OF any gentleman present They here speak
not to stenthey propose to convince Others not to be
convinced themselves. My only purpose offer
amendment that purpose accomplished though not in
the shape In which preferred it. My desire TO pre-
sent IL as an amendment and obtain direct upon it.
While have the floor however will say word 10 the
gentleman from New York Mr. OLIVER who has Just taken
his seat should like him carry out the principle
nourced in his closing remarks that might where
| it would lead. .r..
The constitution of the United States says
"The senator's and shall receive compen-
saon for their services to be asceraned BY law and paid
during their at pi1ds
and for any speech OK debate IN shsr houss hsS
shall not be questioned in any other place."
The gentleman says the branch of this paragraph
"and for any speech debate in either they shall
not be questioned in any other paceprotects the
Der well from assault from being questioned by suit
In court Lei us test the correctness OF his argument
In the trst place, admit that all men, whether
members Of Congress or private citizens, protected
from assaults but their protection is derived FROM the
ion of the constitution If | should be assaulted the
criminal laws of the country will punish the offender :;
the same is true whether member of Congress or
not II, however, that provision OF the constitution
does embrace assault upon n member as well as suit
for SANDER then think it will be controyered that
the protection thus afforded in the the other
its violation must be redressed by the same tribunal
this Mr. Speaker because the same article and para
gaphbe same words of the constitution that the
privilege from suit for words spoken in debate also create
the privilege from assault for words spoken Ia debate
the latter privilege intended to be embraced by the
constitution Then being so created they must exist to-
gether The privilege from being questioned by suit at
taches to the member uterng the in debate and
at any period of his life suit should be instituted against
him for that cause he plead his privilege obtain his
discharge. speak, Mr.. Speaker of words spoken in de-
hate and not Of printed speeches do intend to depart
in What to ray from the words of the constitution
and while my mind very .-. 'sn' ane aisuncuoa De-
tween matter deliberately prepared ;, ~ niel a
Der of Congress and words spoken in debate IN. Anse
Of the constitution yet do not propose to argue that
point
bama Mr.. Housros] will pardon me, know for inter
rupting him. Let call his attention to his line of re-
mark moment since. | desire to be fairly understood
that 10 ALL What intended say was that this House
has plenary jurisdiction its members and that it
may punish member by expulsion, by other suitable
punishment in its discretion. And further that when one
member assaulted another member for words spoken IN
debae he v6ated the constitution of the United States
securing this privilege Of freedom of speech debate to
the senators and representatives OF both houses Now sir
when this House decide what shall be the extent
of punishment to be inflicted by ii upon a member who
has violated this privilege of another member then is
proper that the character of the case should be taken into
consideration in measuring the punishment. Whether the
in violation Of this high privilege or some
otnsr provision OF the constitution in violation of the
criminal law Of tbs iaad, whatever ii be- the House
must consider and Judge of 1t In deciding upon the proper
degree Of punishment If any, II ny think proper TO I'M
pose This privilege Of freedom of speech debate in the
House from question IN any place Hpnss sne sse moro
dicton OF the parties and so may the courts The parties
may be beyond without the urs@Haon Oh el,her oul
this is no argument against the value of the p es o
against the propriety of this House considering the
acter Of the facts constituting this breach Of privilege in
making up its Judgment upon the degree of punishment to
be adjudged.
Mr.. HOUSTON When interrupted was making test
Of the gentleman's argument was showing Though
suppose need not have done for the proposition is too
for controversy that the privilege from suit attaches
TO the member and continues with him through life pro-
ectng him from suit for words spoken in debate in either
house Of Congress while member Of that house and be
has but to plead and prove his privilege TO obtain dis
charge from the suit How IL in the OF assault
member in debate language towards another which
s regarded by the person referred to in the speech Sian
derous. The gentleman from New York Mr. OLIVER says
the paragraph OF the constitution read by protects him
from assault The sanderous words used the close
OF Congress After the congressional term expires, the
party sandered assaults the sanderer. Where Is his pro-
lection What good does the privilege in that do
him Can the house of which he member afford
him protection Can either house of the Congress there
alter be elected redress his wrongs II is absurd to
think IT. Then ! ask for his remedy. Here is what
gentlemen say Isl clear and unquesoned violation Of the
constitutional privilege Of member Of Congress and yet
there to be tribunal competent to afford him pro-
lection redress his grievances Gentlemen say the Grim
inal court will punish the offender. No doubts that
and it would do the whether the parties TO the
sault either Of them had ever been member Of Con-
gess not And in of assault occurring thisone
did out Of the presence of this House-not in any way dis
turbng its proceedngs-he criminal courts the only
| tribunals having jurisdiction of the offence.
But gentlemen say, in the suppose of assault
being committed upon an ex-member Of Congress for
words spoken while member, the House take u-
risdictou Of it, because he has ceased be member
Then II that be true he TO have his constitutional
privilege; while in the OF suit his privilege lasts
long he lives, and is efficient protection to him.
Does not strange that the clause and language
of tho constitution should privileges very differ
| ent in every essential particular
a mi a anaiu ind In de-
bate the Sd of March, s57 the person sandered chas
ses him the instant the House Furnishes him because
the member had constitutional privileges but " the
party sandered will wait until the ath OF March, after
and then whip him as exmember he is not protected by
the constitution, and has privilege from assault while
that same exmember for those sanderous words,
Is privileged from suit for sander for the balance Of hi,
day, and stranger constitution II it, in TRUTH created
such privilege
Mr. Speaker II have been successful in making myself
understood in testing the genemsns argument think
have shown it's unsoundness beyond question.
i Mr.. Speaker, propose TO apply another test II the
privileges exist claimed they not only continue TO
afford protection for the length time but their vo-
aton must be redressed and the yoator punished by the
tribunal In where member is sued for words
spoken In debate this House give him protection
member be sued for sander and the suit may pro-
gress to its termination unless tho privilege be properly
brought before the court trying the This House
cannot order the suit dismissed can il in any way in
ervene between the suto between either Of them and
the court The party sued may plead and prove his priv
House undertake punish individual for suing
Der for sander2 Judge not The member would be left
10 manage his and avail himself OF his consu-
tona privilege without the aid Of the house of which he