The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1856-08-13


TO punish for libel, i'll the case Duane
Duane was proceeded against for libel;
they prosecuted hin, but the spirit Of the
country, even at that early day, was
aroused against them; they were driven
back by public opinion, and were very
glad 10 leave the matter alone.
Surely no one will now contend hat
the House has power TO punish for libel.
Well, then, if the House has not tie pow
er TO punish for Il libel upon its members,
or upon the House collectively, where is
the power To punish for as. au'ts and bat
,erIes, because they are less injurious, to
the House itself than assaults aud bate.
res. You may strike down one, two, or
three members of tho House, and ;Ley
will get up again but if You attack the
good name OF the House, you attack that
which is priceless, you sap the foundations
OF the Government, YOU leave il mere
thing of shreds and patches---a govern
ment IN form but not in spirit, for gov
crnment demoralizcd is no government at
all IT. therefore, YOU cannot PUNISH for
the greater offence Of libel against the
Whole HOUSE, how can you panish for the
lesser offence Of assault aud battery OH Il
single member! See the aHsurdi,v OF
your position. At one time i, WAS held
good constitutional law that the House
could punish for n libel. Nov, all this is
exploded. May We not hope that truth,
though it travels slow, vii eventually
reach the House, as TO the kindred power
now claimed! 1t is admitted you cannot
punish Tor Il libel Ii this be good law,
you cannot punish for assault and bat
terry.
Again: in the Convention which adopt.
ed the Constitution, it was propo, ed to
make each House the Judge OF lis own
privileges, with power TO punish for as
saults on its members; but the PROPOSE
tion was rejected. Mr.. Madison, object
ing, said:
|, would be better to make provision
for asccrtaIniig by law the privilege of
each House, than TO allow each House to
decide tor ITSELF"
Surely the action Of the Convention on
this proposition il an argument OF great.
II not OF conclusive, force against the
>'"''' VI pO"cI lON IIIibc
Again it has been decided hy the Su.
premo Court, in the case Of tie United
States vs.. Hudson & Goodwin, & Crauch,
BIZ that the Federal courts have no iu-
rlSdlctlon over common law offences, and
can only proceed under express statute.
Is not the principle decided in this case,
ut war with the idea that either House O.
Congress can exercise criminal iurisdic
non, toy virtue OF the parliamentary law,
which is only II branch Of the common
law Of England Ii the courts cannot
punish without express statute, how can
either House DO so?
The case Of Anderson vs.. Dunn. C
Wheaton, 204, is relied upon AS aulhurI
ty for the House to punish for contemp,s
generally; but tie point of that decision
Is very much misapprcheadcd. The
court IN that case say:
"lhe pIeadings have narrowed the
question down to the simple inquiry,
whether the House OF Representatives can
take cognizance Of contempis under any
circumstances
Ii mi sht be conceded that the House
could punish for contempts in lis presence,
but that would fall far short OF the power
claimed IN this case, as the assault 10 the
case was not committed in the prcseuce
of the House, nor while it was in session
This case, then, in my orinion, docs not
lorch the point Of the controversy now
raised.
have not time to enlarge upon the
danger OF the cla m Of prerogatlve now
raised for the House. will content my
self with quoting the opinion Of Mr. Hal.
lam on this I ONT, in reference 10 the ac.
iion Of the uouse Of Commons. lie
saws:
1t may surprise those who have !. card
OF the happy balance OF :he English Con
stitution, OF the responsibility Of every man
to the law, and Of the security OF every
subject from all unlimited power, especial.
ly AS to personal freedom, that this power
OF awarding punishment at the discretion
Of the House Of Parliament is generally
repIted TO be universal and uncontrola-
bic. 1t has been severa! times brought
into discussion before the ordinary lribu.
nails, aud the result has been that, il the
power Of Parliament is not unlimited in
right, there is at least no remedy provided
against its excess. Notwithstanding such
imposing authorities, there has not been
wanting some who have thought that the
doctrine Of uncomfortable privilege is both
elninently dangerous in free country,
and repuguant to the analogy ofour free
Constitution.
81 cannu, do more than allude to the
opinion Of Mr.. jefferson on this point, to
be found at the 5Tlh page Of the Manual.
A p;erogstive considered SO dangerous in
England, so doubtful here, should certain.
Iy give us pause.
have hitherto argued the case rs if
the assault lad been upon member of
this House, but il was not; il was on a
Senator, Which makes all the difference
imaginable l utterly deny that this
House has any power TO punish for an as
sault upon Senator. Ii this be an Of.
f,.nse aoainst The Senasa and ,Aa Sa,o,a