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


ssment And this other anomaly exists that the trainers
Of the constitution zealousy guarded the authority Of the
House to award light and ensnt punishmen by strict
definition Of the ofnCes which would subject 10 them,
While they left the question of the gresous punishment
Of expulsion an open one for any offence whatsoever
But In every where this power Of expulsion is con-
tended or II is b. sed upon necessity and urged and sup
ported upon the ground that this House ought to have the
right expel It's for criminal misconduct affect
Ing character and TO itself Of unit associates f
this be so IL may again be pertnently asked by what
standard of ethics will you judge character In some
ons Of the country the resort to private combat upon the
point OF honor is deemed legitimate mode OF asenRng in
suit and redressng injury In other sections such resort
freed by public opinion and the failure TO demand
dress and the refusal give such satisfaction would sub
jec the TO the greatest Of all punishmen tho
moral cross, social degradation In s other sections the
dne looked upon the relic OF savage and barbarous
age and would subject the offender stern and unogy-
ing condemnation The act In case aud The refusal In
the other would be considered alike dbouorabe In some
sections Of the country citizens OF the South holding slaves
denounced man-stealers and larceDers aud brand
ed with oppobrious epithets The particular institutions
OF particular section Of the country are declared 10 DO
immoral dishonest, and unchrisan, at war with Divine
justice and contrary the preceps of the religion which
profess and he who sanctions slavery considered
deeply dyed in guilt Establish this doctrine and let the
parry calling themselves radical abolonists obtain pow
in Zines like these when the madness Of party foams
the mouth and phrensied anacsm shakes its disheveled
locks and wodd not give pins purchase for the tenure
by which any STAKEHOLDER will maintain his seat here.
But be said that the of expulsion ought to
be exercised In all those where by the code
which obtain among all people of civilization the member
will be clearly unfit associate for his fellows The sup-
gestion 10 plausible, but deceptive So long the member
performs his duty here he violates rule Of order or de-
and submits himself 10 the right rule and lust
authority of the House What right have You to impagn
The Judgment OF his constituents inerpose between him
and them and make yourselves the arbers2 You are
deed the judges Of the OF your members but
| not of their moral qualities.
the House suffer inconvenience for the want of this
power and If there be those among you who from the
OF their morals and eprousness OF their char
scers unfit associates the evil may be tolerated
the remedy is in the hands Of the people, at c ballot
boxes at orecurling intervals and r.gards expul-
sion for the sake OF purgation, it emedy almost I'M
meaning and unayang since thore is nothing 10 prevent
tne constituent body from reurning member and So
os quoae as otten he is expelled Grant it it's
uh eA.enr ana 1t is as has been remarked, power Of
osuac.om by which an obnoxious member may be
moved from his seat who dare oppose favorte
ure
am that precedent may be found in the action
OF the Senate upon which to found opposite doctrine
rom that which suggest: senator was expelled in
1885, for what may be called reasonable practices by
nlmos, unanimous vote. The question the power
eIpel was not considered debated and there art
es OF impeachment found in this House pending against
him resting on incontroverble proof Perhaps the
ton OF power did not 10 the Senate for, vt the
subsequ session. when the impeachment be
tried for the hrst time the doubt occurred whether
tor, not being civil officer could be impeached and that
beng determined in the negative, the impeachment fell
Besides ths know no other precedent but research
es have been limited. cannot however yield consti-
unonal difficulty upon single precedent unsupported by
argument or reasoning
In another case, (hat of Humphrey Marshall in l796
governor and representatives OF Kentucky the ground
or want Of Jurisdiction although Mr.. Marshall earnestly
sought trial and contended that bis would confer
The Senate refused the substantial ground
that, for crime could consttntionay be held to
answer but by indictment prssen tmen apswer
but before an impartial jury of the Ste where
II was committed, except by impeachment and il ought
TO be 60 The courts Of the country me proper tbu
NJ nss % Try criminal misconduct Taey proceed according
to he course OF the common lava they confront the accused
with the witness the accused present when judgment
prono9nced; mere V An appeal from their decision and
ne are Aoe = Impeachment for corruption With
yen rs Itee eeher dferent Your judgment is rrever
solenere Is no appeal from IT. you answerable
or misconduct do you allow the accused be present
at the Judgment
This has violated no rule Of this House. nor any
OF It's privileges He has not been guilty OF disorderly
behavior In open session. nor has he done any act OF
inai conduct involving character, which makes him
unit associate nor have you the power By positive
law to expe him. Has he committed any breach of the
privilege Of the Senate for which, If that oody had urs
diction, be would be expelled And you for
interfere2 This brings to consideration of the
second branch Of the argument
IL Is said that parliamentary bodies inherent
right 10 90 any and every act and provide and every
measure necessary to their safety and preservation
,he maintenance of their honor and gny
Supreme Court in Anderson Dunn, Is Wheaton) in a
very clear and logical opinion delivered By Mr. Justice
johnson, OF South Carolina. To limited extent sub
scribe TO the doctrine believe this House has the right
70 protect itself where other means Of protection s
open TO II and this by inherent right differ with the
minority Of the committee, II understand them
strangers TO their body committed In open srssion and
that to make such act offence, Congress have
passed law defining contempts, and axng punishment
and that Congress having failed do ahs House 10
powerlcss 10 act ca rs natd. do not think the House
would be sufficiently protected in this way. Contemps
are 40 proeau 10 shape and tenacious In substance
20 be incapable OF beng grasped in strict legal definition
do not think the wit Of man could devise law which
would cover every supposablo of contempt
IL Will be seen however upon examination that the diff
ference between myself aud the majority Is but slight and
perhaps upon investigation IL nigh vanish altogether
But am frank 10 say, that cordially Ia the
general view Of this much question of priv
ege expressed in the able report my
friend from Georgia, Mr. CoBB report which does like
credit TO his head aud his heart
The contempts which think this House has the right
punish are legal technical contsmp and
common parlancenot mere inogDies TO the body its
members. do not think contempt of this House to
structures In the press upon Its prvce,dings to send cha
cnge TO member TO assault member upon the avenue,
or IN this chamber when the House lie sitting Tech
ncslly, contempt in law obstruction OF pro-
cessen Interference in the business OF the House.
tribunal which mpedes and binders its progression; aud
the nature genius aud spirit Of institutions require
that this power, even should be narrowed down
smallest possible compass Nor has the House the right
ought II TO have 70 interfere in summary in
case where the courts Of law could give ample redress and
protection.
We not TO understand the word punish In the
constitution in It's broad II Is not the power
which delegated TO the courts Courts punish In the
purpose Of nicting pains and penalties upon offender
and deterrng evi-doers by the example The power OF
the House 10 punish is that power II IL were what
limit could you assign TO IL Either house could fine
imprson at pleasure and initiating the British Commons
ioct death t s well settled now both here and there
II Il /.