The independent press. (Abbeville C.H., S.C.) 1853-1860, 1856-08-22

the British Parliament. 1Io showed con-
cIuslvcy that no prece'lcnts Of privileges
could he claimed Tor parliamentary action
here from the British Parliament. lie
showed, think, III an argument which is
incoutroverliblc, that this House was usurp-
ing power not Conferred upon it by the
Constitution, wbencvre j, attempted to pun
iSl for that which tra,,sli:cl wilhou, the
presence of the House.
MIR. Speaker, | know lnwyers who have
been in the habit Of storing their minds
with british common law, are inclined to
look upon parliamentary law in that realm
a. authoritative and binding upon the House.
. There was never greater mistake commit
; ted. There is no authority in the Con-
slltul"n for it. There is no law of the land
which recognizes the parliamentary law of
Great Britain. 1t is not in force in this
country. 1t IS appealed to, it is true, in
the Conduct of business here, in determin-
ing questions of order; but upon questions
OF privilege the Constitution speaks for it.
sell, and leaves no doubt whatever. The
structure OF the British Government is very
different from ours. There the President
Is supreme. They have 10 Constitution
except that which Parliament chooses to
make, or which Parliament can alter. Here
VIC have 4 written Constitution. That
Constitution defines the powers that we pos
scss. We wanlc,l Federal Government.
he States wanted TO consolidate themselves
fer certain purposes. They did so, and
dcllned what those purposes should be;
and 1t 's usurpation for Congress, and a
still greater usurpation for one branch of
Congress, to 60 beyond the express grants
contained i'll that Constitution. say.
therefore, aud ! say it with confidence, that
there is no precedent in the British Parlia.
ment that can be appealed to for tho en-
lightcnment OF the judgment of members
Of this House for the settlement of this
question.
If selfpreservation is the ground unnn
Which You are to take jurisdiction of this
case, then will it not apply equally to the
l'rcs'dcnt, who is an indispensable adjunct
in law making' Ii he refuses to sign lill.
and is assaulted therefor bv IN interested
party, according 10 your doctrine of self.
preservation lie is invested with power to
seize the offender and punisl, him in his
own discretion. And vet there will not be
II gentleman OH this floor who will claim such
II power for the President. The offender
would be required to answer in the criminal
courts for the assault, hut not elsewhere.
y Judge Of the supreme court NAV be
a<saultc! OH The streets for IN opinion de-
liv"rel, and it would not bc pretended for a
moment that the offender was guilty of a
contempt and punishable rs such. He
would be proceeded against in the criminal
court and the punishment there would be
graduated according to NIL the circ,mstan-
Cos OF aggravatiun or cxtcnuation. Does
not the Necessity for protection in both the
cases stated exist in AS pre.crIinnt a degree
as for the legislation OF the Government !?
The assumption is the very essence of
tyranny, because it blends the executive,
legislative, and judicial functions in one
body, and it an interested body. Sir, if
this House undertakes to declare n hrc.cl,
Of its privileges, and punish for it without
any previous law, it makes itself greater
tyrant than Caigula, whose name has been
exccrated ever since his reign by the civil
lizcd world. He wrote his laws, but hung
them up so high they could not he read: ::
an' The citizen was punished when lie
could not know the law but YOU do not
even write your law. You frame the law
in Your own breasts after the ofense has
been committed, and, therefore, punish for
that which was no wrong when the oftensc
was romm mmiiicd.
| should be grat;icl to present other
views Of this question, but my time has ex-
p'red, aud | must forcgo that purpose.