Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1856-08-07

House to punish or expel its members for con-
tempt, disOrderly behaviour, or breach Of is
privileges, eOhmitIsd in the presence of the
House, and during its session. The minority
concede this, though their logic on the right Of
trial by jury would seem 10 exclude any such
concession. The Constitution expressly pro-
vides that each House ''may punish its mem
bers for disOrderly behaviour, and, with the
concurrence Of tWo-.hirds, expel a member" I"
Mr.. Justice Story, commenting upon this
clause of the Constitution, says ''tbat this pow
er in The House to punish and expel its mem
bers for aggravated misconduct was Indispensable,
not as common. but as an ultimate, redress
for the grievance. ."--(2 Storys Commentaries
on tie Constitution, 300, SECS 835, 1861 You
rely upon no court or Executive to redress this
gTieVanee-this crime against the people. You
rely solely upon Congress- The Constitution,
provides that for disorderly behaviour each
House may punish or expel its members. We
have sworn, sir. to support the Constitution in
this behalf Shall we fail to do it? Do you
not call it disorderl7 behaviour, and breach
of the Constitution, for a member of this House
to violate the freedom of debate-to insult the
majesty OF the people, and desecrate the hall of
the Senate by violent assault upon a public
representative? What excuse or apology is
there for this? If the Constitution may not
restrain the member, nor his oath, nor the sa-
cred right of person, from such violence and
disorder, what can be done but expel him.
Are we, sir, to wait till other members of this
House, or the Senate, in like lawess manner,
are beaten a0d disabled, and the power Of the
people overturned? Is any man to be allowed,
on any pretext, to beat american representa-
tves, in the very forum of the people, at his
pleasure? Isany member Of the House to 40
this, and avoid responsibility to this house,
and escape expulsion on the ground that the
House was not actually in session ct the time?
Speaking Of the expulsion clause of the Con-
stitution, the minority, strangely enough, after
what they have said of the despotism Of a legis-
lative body which aoyudges and erecutes as well
as enacts, laws, say that, "7aking the whole
paragraph in its connected sense. tseems to us
that it has reference to the House while in ses-
sion in the actual discharge Of its constitutional
duties" pray, sirs, who shall judge
whether it is in the actual discharge of its con.
stitutional duties Shall any member who
chooses to arm himself with bludgeon consti-
tute himself the Judge, aud Immediately upon
adjournment or an hour after the adjournment,
quthoriatively determine that a member in de-
bate was not in the actual discharge Of bis con-
stitutional duty, and proceed, in defiance of the
House, to punish the offending member accord
ingly? So the minority manifestly conclude,
and hence their novel and startling announce.
ment.
"We entertain no doubt that the whole Of
his provision looks TO the session Of the House
and to furnishing its members for such disor-
derly conduct as would interrupt its session.
Extend it beyond the presence of the session
tied power, operating not only during the
session of Congress, but during the recess"
The minority are not content with literal de-
nial of this power of Congress to expel or pun.
ish It's members for disorderly behavior or
breach of its privileges, or for Infamous crimes
committed when the Houseis not actually iu
session, but they are equally swift To limit and
restrict the constitutional exemption of Sena-
tors and Representatives from question else
where for any speech or debate in either House
Of th's exemption the minority say:
"This provision of the Constitution was evil
den.ly intended 10 protect members from such
legal liability as they might incur for words
spoken in debate in their respective Houses
Ii can hardly be supposed that the Constitution
was providing against mode cf questioning,
which, in ITSELF even without such provision,
would have been not only unauthorized by law
but in direct violation of the criminal law of the
land" .
And the minority say, further:
'sIf members of Congress seek this shield
and protection which the Constitution gives
them, it is an ouerous condition imposed upon
them, that their speech shall be proper and Ie-
gitimate in The discharge OF their constitutional
duty.'-(P. l6.)
In connection with this strange declaration,
the minority tell us. we recognise no privileged
class. In short, they deny the privileges of
the people, in order TO justify their construction
of the Constitution. '' ''s....'"
By the construction ofthe minority, the 9th
and 9Th sections, lst article, Of the Constitution
are interlopated, SO as TO read thus: each
House may punish, or by vote of two-lhirds
expel, member for disorderly behavior COM
mited while the House is IN session, and in the
actual discharge of its constitutional duties :"
and "The Senators and Representatives, for
any proper and legitimate speech or debate, in
either House, shall not be legally questioned in
any other place for the liability thus incurred;