The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-06-28

But any desires 10 sec resume OF some 81
the nost absurd he may refer the argument for the
plaintiff Ia Stockdaes case 70 Perry aud Davidson
where be would powers exercised IN the name OF pF
ege which, If attempted 70 be exercised her would bnne
down upon our proceedings shouts Of derson and exeera
ton the American people They punished trespass
ers who shed in the pond OF member Of the House o.
Commons, who dug Lord Cages coal or poughed MT.
Bowless land, killed Lord Galways rabbits, or who
rode Mr. Jamess horse who assaulted the servant OF
member thousand offences, SO trivial and 80 absurd
have been thus sumpariy disposed OF thal ~ Wona os
impossible for any maintain that should be
titled the attempt exercise such upon precedent
drawn from The British Parliament
Sir II claim any privilege beyond what the consttu-
ton has specially given II Is only under the implication
that may punish things done within our own view and
may preserve our existence by expeling intruder
and preventing conemps Beyond that there can be no
claim of privilege by implication.
believe that il viii be found, if ever the presidents
which have been relied upon here should to receive
judicial criticism that of them will not stand the test
OF such investigation IT will happen here as Il hap
peped in England that so long as the houses were permit
ted go and Judge OF their privileges they claimed
them fast enough but WHEN the common-aw courts began
to take jurisdiction, and submit them TO the criticism Of
public opinion these privileges have been abridged and re-
duced 10 their So it will happen here feyer we
attempt exercise privileges to the extent which is claimed
across the water enforce them against any individual cit
izen and he chooses refer to the courts II will be found
that they viii restrict that claim in the decision which they
will give upon IT, The privileges given by the constiu
ton ample and sufficient They protect the House
against everything against which il Is necessary TO pro-
tect IT, aud they protect the members through the courts
Of law against any assaults which may be made upon
them
In regard to the assaults the person of member
why should he privileged TO seek redress IN two
tribunals than any other individual The Judiciary which
il judiciary which reach the person
or the properly Of lie oenderis sufficient in the of
Tie citizen Is il not sufficient in the case OF BODY,
whetaer he be member not who lives under me las
dction OF law Is it not against the spirit OF the con-
stuton 10 cay that he shall be answerabe
able only in court of law which may decide as to his
person and his property, but answerabie here also
acknowledge that, in regard to its own member enc
House has discretionary privileges so as TO make MN re-
spect its order, and to keep quiet in its proceedings
may punish him for dsorderly conduct and may by vote
Of twpthirds expel him That power which extends
to The member of that very bodynot TO any other ndivd
na We claim that 1t be exercised in regard TO the
member Of another house any than could claim to
uct punishment the case Of an indifferent
a case as that 10 which have referred,
This power Of expulsion given extreme remedy
sr casea IL vested in body where 1t was
snnnose would be used with the utmost reserve ana
ion; becsuse have been ioreseen thaif it should
he used under tie influence OF sectional or party feeling
ha act itself would BECOME Of political suicide We
find az We approach the and the centre OF lie that
the cases increase for which ta physician cannot prescribe
and Tor which he must trust to the silent acon 81 aae VI
tai forces In the great scheme of life the safeguards are
provided against the assaults OF other persons upon
the vital organs than against any injury when me pos
SCISSOR himself might inRc upon them Against that Dan
ger the instincts OF seli-peservaon supposed 10 al
ford sufficient protection except in the case OF phrensea
or misguided will As 1t in the naiura rs IN Tue
artificial body for if this power which given over
the yery organs o. life should come to be exercised rash
and Unexpectedly ro that moment political dissolution
will become imminent
But Mr. President happily, in presenting the arguments
upon This case il s necessary to determine wheiner
the precedents which have sferedand referred De
cause thoughtt was proper TO nonce .hsn ~ TINS con-
nexion-be binding not because in truth they 90 not
apply. This case if it had occurred in England
would have been considered breach of the privilege
for there distinction is drawn between speeches which
are printed and published and circulated and what Is SAID
in debate There it has been established in more cases
than one, and particularly in Sockdales case that al
though you shall not be held to be answeaoe for WORDS
spoken debate and although you shall not be held 10 be
answerabc for those words published by order OF the
House Of Commons when the circulation Is confined TO
members The House; yet you publish and circulate
(even 10y order OF the Housel abroad, you do be
come ole a suit for bel. That decided in
oekdass by Lord Denman. So, indeed II was de-
cded before in the King against Creevy before Lord Ill
lenborough. Il Marie and Selwyp 275 II is indeed an
old decson and not of late days As far back as the
OF james IL there IN which u was de-
cded For the publication of Dangerheds case two quits
for libel maintainedone against the Speaker who
signed the order for its publication by the House OF Com.
mons and the other aaanst Danged who circulated 1t
generally. Lord Denman said in Stockdaes caso Perry
aud Dawson, vol 2 p. 1911 "The King against Williams
was III decided because he was questioned Tor what he
did by order OF the House within the walls OF Parliament
The King Dangerfeld is undoubed law, because he
sold aed published beyond the walls of Parliament under
an order 10 90 what Is unlawful
The principe of that decision has been recently main
tanned and il now the law Of the land in England
that II the House Of Commons to authorize to
publish and circulate dematory natter he could be sued
for libel if The Of law TO adudgc that 1t
defmatcry That Is the prindpe settled after long argu
ment in the of Stockdale "a Bensard.
IL be said that the "a different here because
we have provision in the constitution which Gays that
member shall be questioned in any other place fsr any
speech or debate In either house They have similar
in their bill Of rights but their courts have decided
that this proteeoa extends only words spoken in de-
bate publications made by order OF the House Cor the
Of House only and does where the
publication made and extensively circulated abroad
The decision believe viii be given here IL the
case should up in court because the
which existed there exist here also
member OF Psrlismcrt has undoubtedly the privilege
in Parliament boldly and clearly what he thinks conducive
70 that end He for that purpose " he thinks It
right cast impuaong In Parliament against the character
olauy individual, and still be viii be protected But II he
70 be at liberty 70 circulate those imputatons elsewhere
the evil would be very extensive No member therefore, IL
at liberty 60 eo."-Aori< and Ssiigyn, p, 2s0.
Now say naemuch It is manifest that this case
which Of the publication and the circulation of
speech is breach Of privilege here 70 question
for having done IL than II would be In England
say that nasmuch II Of the publication
the pteoedents upon which have relied DO not apply
that this is quite different and that the point
and here made made in those other OF
course argue upon the principle that the alleged breach
privilege In founded upon the constitutional provision
rs TO words spoken In debate | show enough IL prove
that this provision IN way extend to speech pub
lshed aad circulated No allcge "
roe that assault upon senator is breach OF bis
parliamentary privilege IL Is violation Of his legal
rights and for that wroug the courts afford remedy
II this be So the legislature of Massachusetts, had
rghtio pronounce this TO be breach OF privilege 10
demand s;ch summary punishment neither had the
right the House of and ask that
they should take cognizsnce OF the know that
such preceden exist England becanse they claim great