The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-08-19

also willing concede But The argument OF the report
involves the absurdy of conending that because para-
mentay presidents in England further on the subject
OF privilege than the constitution authorizes or the genius
OF our own institutions allows hsgore Congress Is pow
eress n its sevndcaton rom the effects OF any act
however monsrous, which member could commit unless
il be done in open session This reasoning would make
the Congress Of the United States ineongruous In Its
era il would be pitiaby helpless in its func
tonal vitality While embracing in the apparent scope
OF It's external powers all that would confer national dig
nifty and resown, il so mPotent as to be without the
sanctions Of necessary sefproectinR internal police
Some bellgeent parsans in the two houses might IN
times of high excitement be guilty Of the disorder OF
senng themselves in battle array against each other and
yet because that disorder not committed while the
two houses assembled in the presence OF either
purgaton Of the unworthy members could ensue, no
restraint upon unbrdled passion could be interposef
no punishment to eace the public stain could be inflicted
Is this in accordance with the parliamentary history Of the
national Legislature with the plain reading of the con-
| stitution itselff
Happily for the political framework of government
this notion OF individual immunity from all parliamentary
law receives countenance either from fair interprta
ton OF the written instrument or from those principles OF
sepreservation which inherent In all Legislative as
sembes Such system would be liable TO two very grave
objections-the imbeciy to which it would reduce the
lawmakng power and the license to which, by reason OF
that imbecility, the members would be invited
That rule of construction which applied to the constl-
tuition in questions between the conferred powers oi ,e
general government and the reserved rights OF the states
would in its application to the disciplinary functions OF
the legislature ITSELF both branches OF Congress IN
its control the personal conduct of members diff
ferent is essential the respecaby, the honor and
the dignity of Its admitted powers Public confidence
would be gone If stranger who endeayored to broe
member could not be punished by the body to whom the
insult offered and public respect would be lost If the
body could not be purged Of member who had accepted
bribe Full of mischief and danger as this doctrine is II
the doctrine of this minority report My reading OF the
constitution and the practice Of Congress totally at va
rance with the soundness Of such conclusion.
Permit me to refer TO some of the cases in eucidahon
of the legislative practice In the Of Anderson ps
Dunn, adjudicated in 1921 and reported in Wheatons
Reports the Supreme Court of the United States decided
that this House has the right to punish stranger who at
tempts corrupt by Offering brbe to of its MEM
bers The principle OF Anderson Dunn had been recog
missed the practice of this House long before the decs
ion of the Supreme Court In the year 1896 Mr. Madison
reported in the of General Gum, senator that be
guilty of breach of privilege by challenging MEM
ber for cause relating to the exercise Of an act OF repre-
sentative discretion. The in the House OF Randall
and Whitney, which nearly contemporaneous with
the of Gunn and that of Mr. Duane the Senate in the
year 1900 in exact coincidence with those which
preceded and followed.
More recently lin the year 1928 writer for news
punished for assaulng the private secretary OF
the President while on his way fom one house to the
other, in charge Executive message. So recently
as the year 1882, General Houston who was not mem
ber was voted TO be guilty of violating the privileges of
the House by assaultng Mr. Stansbey for language ut
tered in debate These all instances OF persons who
had offended against the privileges OF members and yet
forsooth according to the principles of this report no
privilege whatever exists rxcept exemption from arrest in
civil proceedings and from legal responsibility for
harmless speech Now in either of the mention
ed cases. the offender had been member would not the
delinquency De increased III ANDERSON, VINO OHered q
brbe bad been himself of the body be sought to contami
nate IL Gen. Gum, Mr. Jarvis and Gen Houston had all
been members, Wond the offence OF sending chal-
enge in of wayayng the Presidents secretary in
another and OF Leang the debaer in the instance last
named have magnfed and aggravated the CHARGE The
answer 10 indspa,able But IL hrsnch of the sub
ec should want exemplihcution proof this reasoning
confirmed and eluridatrd by striking precedent In the
action Of the senate against Vim BlounL member OF
their own body, SO early the year 1891 Blount
found guilty of tamperng with lndi Interpreter and
OF attempting 10 excite dstrust hostility among certain
Indian tribes towards the officers Of the United stass de-
Eas expelled IRON The Lody be salsgraeed by nearly unan-
imous Hoe-ope senator ouly Vodn1 !. he negative
here 'hen presented unhroken chain Of precedeuts
a'or o. The power DOW asserted almost from he foun-
daon :" the present governmeut BUTT scontended tha,
an exception occuFthat Of Mr. Marshall a senator from
Kentucky, who, though accused in 1876 Of infamous
crime was not expelled for Of jurisdiction. IL could
not have escaped The sagacy of the honorable gentleman
from Georgia who cited Mr. MaIsbas case one OF a
negative character this question: that cannot be in
oduced authority either side Perjury which is
false oath taken before Judicial tribunal and therefore
specially concerns judicial proceedings only be estab
lshed after searching investigation in court Of law
The suit in which the alleged perjury was committed was
tried eighteen months before Mr. Nashalls election
Senate Of the United States and the charge which was
publicly made was publicly answered before bis election
The committee Of the Senate therefore reported that II
improper TO act in such
The charge Was intended reproach, and obyi-
ousy the offspring OF private malice The staeness Of the
accusation and the absence Of all evidence TO support IL
conspeuousy advered to in the report The commit
tee say
al" in the present case the party has been guilty In the
manner suggested, has been alleged by the
moriaists hy he has long been tried IN the State and
dsict hsrs hs ~ed the ogeaoe Until he Is legally
v'od the principles OF the constitution and Of the common
law concur in Presuming that he IL innocent"
The decision OF the Senate in dismssing the complaint
against Mr. Marshall in pursuance Of the Engsh par
iamentary rule which requires that in OF onies
and other Infamous crimes charged against members "thy
BE- dud9ed remain o The House until after conviction
The same rule adopted by this House when the
member from California whose Is at this moment
der trial before criminal court indicted for the crime
Of homicide concurred in the vote which refused ap-
point committee Of investigation that uncture be-
cause report upon Il here likely interfere with
that fair uuprejudiced and impartial trial TO which the
cused entitled.
The Of John Smith must also be regarded for
another reason sui generis and not coming within
the line OF authorities for against the rule Like the
preceding examples IL will be found upon examination 10
be only apparently and not really exceptional In the
year 1908 Smith, who q senator from Ohio ac-
cused OF participating with the famous Aaron Burr in bis
United States Party spirit and public clamor ran high
against the unfortunate perhaps criminal Burr To what
extent the principal sud his scOompees u deeme
guilty Of medtated treason h h...l ones,ion rnore
easily pronounced up" ian solved Certain it Ia large
n0lofiV o. .ae Senate denounced Smith a cons.
voted his expulsion but failing TO Sutain the reou
site majority Of two-thirds by single yote the resolution
was practically aaS,sd After this decision OF his peers
Sua gelired from public le though he never formally
resigned his seat in the Senae
Upon this case Judge Story In his Commen ares point
edy remarks "The failure Of the motion expel aid not
arise from any doubt the part Of the Senate of their
power TO punish msdemeanors done in the presence
view OF the body" These cases. though anomalous Il
may be confessed form no exception TO the unvaryng uni