The independent press. (Abbeville C.H., S.C.) 1853-1860, 1856-06-20

IoSeu W ociicNc IuaI tlic uOClTlnc OF pflvl-
lege is extended i'll this case beyond any
thing ever claimed for it in the British Par
fament, Impressed, then, as We are will.
the.c considerations; and seeing the dan
gerous extent to which this doctrine has
been carried in England, and the tendency
Of tho public mind even here, when the
cool Judgment Of members is carried away
and innamcd by peculiar circumstances
surrounding the case, we feel it to he our
imperative duty TO arrest this doctrine in its
progressive course, aud seek if possible.
to bring back tho House to the path pre-
scnbcd for it in tho constitution of the
country.
They next consider the argument that if
there be no express provision for the pro-
lection of the two Houses of Congress in
their legislation, from the necessity Of the
case they must exercise powers not granted
by the Constitution, and in reply to this,
contend that il this be granted, so also should
it be allowed them to exercise in ORDERING
acts of legislation, any other powers not
granted by the Constitution.
They next consider what breach of priv
ilegc has been disclosed by the facts and
come to the conclusions, first, that the clause
of the Constitution, which declares that
*'for any speech or debate in either House.
they shall not be questioned in any other
place" was only intended to exempt mem
bers from the lcgnl liability which might
attach upon their words. The reporters
inquire
Ought they to be permitted to avail them
selves OF the position given,thcm by con-
fldlng constituency to indulge in language
and reflections i'll no wise necessary for the
discharge Of their official duty nor promo.
tive OF the public good And, even grant
ing this right to its fullest extent, can
they go beyond this exercise of spcecb
or debate, and afterwards publish and Cir
oulate, in pamphlet form, Ebclous matter,
under the pretext that it is in this published
form, privileged speech or debate in Congress?
Even the British Parliament, with al! its
disposition to protect its members, and, un
der the doctrine privilege, to extend to them
powers and immunities, refused to extend
the doctrine beyond the strict limits of de-
bate upon the floor of Parliament.
Conceding that the House have control
over their own members; that they NAV
punish members for disorderly conduct,
and with the concurrence of two-thirds,
expel "a member, they contend that this
power belongs to the House ONLY when ac-
tuaily engaged in acts of legislation, and
they conclude the report as follows:
Entertaining these opinions, we loldthat
there has been no violation in this case of
the privileges Of either house of CONGRESS.
orany member thereof, over which this House
has any jurisdiction. Whatever offence NAV
nave been committed is properly cognizabIc
before the courts Of the country, and we
propose to dismiss the subject to that iuris-
d'ction provided by the constitution and
laws OF the country for its INVESTIGATION.
we hold it would be improper for the
aouse to express any opinion upon the
lacts' and we have .purposely avoided doing
So. the case will undergo judicial in y
vestigation, and that Investigation should
pot,be affected yany opinion which we
may entertain either individually or col
iectlveiy. Indeed, it would seem that the
constitution in cxempting this class of cases
from the privileges which it grants to mem
bers OF Congress, contemplated the impropriis.
ETY. OF any action on our part in reference to
them: The House ought not to desire to
influence by any expression of theira I,,e
Judicial tribunal which is to pass upon tho
fact and, having>sno jurisdiction over tho
silent. '