The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-07-23


sitting under It's authority ia disturbance Of the House
itself All The privileges OF member attach TO him as well
10 committee rs in the House. and remarked BY Mr.
Justice Johnson speaking OF the record IN the Supreme
Court sitting court OF coHstat but that the
committed in open session Besides the court
could have given relief do not think this power y
derived from what is called parliamentary law nor does u
all upon the preeedents of the Commons House OF tne
Brush Parliament PTecedens of the Commons OF England
could be- cited sustain any and every act OF tyranny tns
monsous and absurd Instances have been addaoed
b. he minority OF the committee in their report and the
list might have beeu Indefinitely extended.
i Inc power claim the House is the power Of self
drene-tbe right which every has 10 protect himself
when The law cannot cover hm with its shield. II one
threatens you have right TO assault him. but he as
sail you you are justified by law in repeing the attack
II he tnter your dwelling against your will you have
right 10 the necessary force 10 expel him This sum
mary sdicon. which the Law sanctions springs from
the fc that law itself protect you fully the
emergency THIS House has il, as you baveit why do
you hedge yourselves about with ordy privileges
which you deny 10 others Has Executive any other
w hi person d. surround BIN with preorian CO.
hors AS necessary for the peace and happiness OF
the country that he should be protected as that the mem
or the best protection this House seek is the pro-
tee ion Of quiet conscience The consciousness that
his done and the determination that il will do nothing
uro any one, IN the strict line of duty; the cult
u habitua regard for the feelings and charae-
o,hers the administration Of its high trust with
dpn ard lofty breeding the dspensation OF justice with
an quail hand every section OF the Unionlet 1t ac
ami II will be thrice armed IND this reasoning the
from South Carolina could not be held 10 answer
lie has not been gully of any contempt Of the Sen
ae and the act that he has done he is answerabe in
court Of law where in point Of fact the case has under
pone investigate, The give complete redress
that this House ought not to assume ju-
ris iiction.
Bu ~ ruth there has been no breach of the privilege
Seuntp. The right OF exemption from arrest ana
fr heug questioned elsewhere for words spoken IN de-
bate the persona" privileges OF the individual member
aad not OF the body collectively.
This held in Massachusetts in 1908 in Coffin Cof
fn IA Mass Rpp ~ The decision made by the sn-
peme court then court of the highest Judicial reputation
10 Union. The opinion delivered by Parsons,
cidrum a Uaerabae nomen in Massachusetts, palm,est
rs The defendant memser Of the Massachusetts, legs-
laiure sued Tor slauder. The Islander consisted in
charges made ia conversation with wmeber pend
iug resolution in which the plaintiff, member, was
c.uterued 1t urged that for everything said by
nerunr during the sitting of the house be could not be
~ elsewhere Besides the house of resenatiyes
OF lIassa, huse by resolution bad declared it the
privilege of the member and that he could not be, and
ought be- Questioned for it, But the said they
compeL examine into this question of privilege
and he reid thai when the defendant spoke the dsama-
tory words in conversation he not in the discharge of
hi. duty az Il representative but acting private
citizen, and WAS liable TO be questioned for them.
The privileges conferred upon The representative
shed him against executive encroachmen: especially
From the time of Henry H., when the Commons OF EGG
land first a distinct House of Parliament 1t was
through succession OF years. engaged in alarming con-
fleets with the Crown to maintain itself. Members
arrested in their seats and committed TO the Tower
others attained for words spoken in debate 1t
the personal independence OF the member and
n.u that he who had to address the public might speak
freely that the Commons struggled for and obtained these
guarantees For much the same reasons were these
inserted in constitution. 1t shield the
msber from being sued for SANDER not to guarantee
that be should be knocked down by any whom he
nsulted. No one had right assault him. under the
laws of the country, whatever be might have said and it
surely requisite insert for such protection such
uosurd declaration in the constitution. If the
ton eonended for be pushed far let substitute the
value OF the words for the expression it stands and
then the paragraph would read: mo member shall be
questioned knocked spoken in debate
M n n The M
cessty existed for it.
But whlea member is privileged to say anything in de-
bale, utter whatever he chooses and cannot be and
ought be- questioned for it elsewhere the privilege
cannot he safely pushed further Bad always to
and publish ISLANDERS They must of necessity be per-
mitted to go unwhipped of justice. They create
which be healed, and cause wounds which time
will ccatrze We cannot avoid this But shall we,
the guardians Of the rights of tie people permit these
ISLANDERS be published the wings of the wind under
our authority and say shall not be held TO
crmnaly 1t is held by the of that
country from which the principles OF Jurisprudence
derived and which, il not less free than ours certainly
nemher Of the Commons of England was held to an
t,r libel under the following report
OF speech made by him was published, without his
authority in newspaper The report incorrect and be
ierUUk furnish Tor publication a corrected report
This latter paper held to be lbelous In delivering
tue opinion OF the court Lord Peterborough observes
"A member OF Parliament has spoken what he thong
material and what he was at liberty to speak in his cha
Ter ~ n meu.b-r OF that House.
stopped there
but unau,hnized by the House has chosen to publish
that tpcch in hat be pleased more
CORRECTED torn and In that publication has thrown
Injurious the character of individual Has
right these reflections the public, and to ad
ooDdu to biz no case S
any proposition laid down by the best te1twrers
up.rUrt such proposition"
And Leblanc, Judge, said:
"As to the right Of a member OF Parliament TO speak in
Parliament what is deamatory the character
that sitting 10 court OF justice not at liberty
intD mPuhR had nj
tprch Parliament but when hs Published his speech 10
the would IL then became the subject OF common-aw
dc"u and the cir cnmstance OF its being in
teurd rect misrepresentation, would the les
make him amenable 70 the law respect pub
hcNttuu."
A Bayley, Judge, observes:
THE without difficulty. A member of Parliament
Inns undoubtedly the privilege for the purpose producing
pa ahentary effect, speak in Parliament boldly and
rd what be thinks conducive that end He
Parliament against the character Of any individual and still
be be protected. But be is be liberty
late those putaoHs elsewhere the evil would be
teusvs. No member therefore lie liberty to do So
(RyE Creevy n, and s., 273.)
1t call your attention another case Rex o. Lord
Abng lor, Esp N. r. G., 1851 an information against
Lord Abu gdun for libel contained Ia paragraph In the
puc newspaper stated be part Of speech delivered
10 tie House OF Lords Lord Abingdon urged that
Law aud custom Of Parliament allowed member 10 state
10 tho House any facts matters however they might
4 ~ Individual or charge him with any crimes OF
ofneB Whatsoever and such dispunishable by law
OF Parliament he from thence contended that he had
rht print what be had right TO deliver without pun
iE1 MN. dear tnn