The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-07-19

but nere you may send out Blander, libel 10 which
no reply was made OF which explanation received
and You cannot be questioned for H. Yea sir that your
doctrine. The slander m made saeredsanctihed by the
fact that II Is delivered upon the eor Of Congress- the
person who uters Il Is 10 be protected by
privilege aa.r.rn .esrs9 Is .g.'-rt p -,s@H
desire know why IL is that there is such necessity
for protecting every word and every syllable that may fall
from member of Congress and for protecting him in pub
fishing IL and circulating il through your great public
and not permit him 10 be questioned in reference
II? Why is not member of Congress content TO stand
where every other citizen OF the republic stands after hay
ing received the protection necessary for the discharge of
his representative duties which the constitution gives hm2
The constitution goes that far and there it stops 1t gives
him that protection and then places him level with
his humbest constituent will only add this branch
Of the argument extract from the minority report
tanning the views of Judge Story on this subject:
1--WE find this subject clearly and forcby presented by
sent extract from that work. in support of the idea
have barely intimated. Story says; - '..g... ......
WITHOUT which III ossr privileges sis would
be comparatively unimportant Intellectual This privilege
and colonial egslature and be-
longs the legislature Of State the Union mat
claim Of immemoria right and further fortified by
act Of Parliament and il always particularly demanded Of
the King person the speaker Of the House Of Commons
the opening Of every Parliament But this privilege
strictly confined to things done the of parliamentary
proceedings and things done beyond place
and limits OF duty Therefore, although speech delivered in
the House of Commons IL privileged, and the member
be questioned respecting it elsewhere yet if be pub
fishes his speech, and it contains beous matter he is liable
action therefor as in cases
libel
And the same principles seem applicable to the prvi-
iege OF debate ana speecn IN congress man ought 10
nave nave 70 ue hs otReS aust cpot o Lne peI'o m
t, Srhrs % Of his duties In Gnres ~ thst ior;hs % No
on h h. should he snabIsd tbrenSh The medium of The
to DESTROY the reputatnn and invade the peace Of
other citizens 1t Is neither within the scope of his pub.
lie duty, in furtherance of public rights public
t Esy @ a na gooJ E s - ~ d
defamatory mputaon as member Of Congress has to ut
,ar n;ah, he .wsv without the nasb;y of radress
either by the malice or indiscretion or self
onpias h narnsS resas s has racssy hssn sS
ane @ h ,b i
III Sy ery - s" IT, Ina. sne ns
cation Of his speech And thew ground Themselves upon
very important distinction arising from the actual differences
the nubeaton az the debates Il moi sretiy by
license Of the House In the latter 1t Is common right
and spnnorted by the drec Of the
body This reasoning deserves yery
he suggestion Of the differences between English and
msr;c isis,on on ;s snbsc, alIndaa ~ nv tha Learn
cd in the closing of the foregoing
tract does mt sike our minds wh the same force that IL
Ala h md ,e mass from the further oonderation o this
hannb r tb ubc, wthout giving this dsinetion thai At
teptiTe e.smipati9n which he has inyosed for il.
proceed TO the next branch OF my argumen-the ques
ton of the privileges Of members Of this House have in
arguments which have been presented and shall listen to
those who NAV follow me- with some for an answer
% tnal ~ ~ ao ~ s a 0u,
- So ~ - - -ss \; n,rsnsncs ~ ,ba, ,;,n ton
.
Are we 10 be informed where else we can obtain them
VIII you 60 10 britsn preceoenbt Am oe iu'ormeo
that derive our Tor questions OF from
the precedens OF me btsh fariismeM Inen ASK gen
it. and II frankly that II may 60 10 the
country Do you adopt the British precedents find
them n s s II 70 a s s
try be informed OF the character Of the privileges now
ol..;r,o5 Co.. r,er,hero ~ Congress.
~ -
sFor purpose OF placing before the House for their
some precedents of the British Para
ment submit nm from able minority
mort 20 this House In by p p Barbour
Of Virginia in hch few Of these precedents have
collected. ..- XII.
man by the name of CranRed was fined $500 each to
four members whom he had slandered Lord Sayile
committed 20 the Tower refusing the person
thought In 547 order made for
members OF the House 70 take some Of deputies of
the sergeant and TO break open
the trunks and papers Of one Captain Vernon. .-.
aIn l6l4 schooImaster examined Arian book
the book was burned by the hands Of the hangman He
and then banshed the isle OF Sciliy
dictated the punishment persons placed back
back ON horse and with a label specifyinR the offence
made TO ride in this manner round ohsng and that
too, for arresng members servant in violation Of priv
lege not now claimed As however il may be objected 10
presidents that they occurred in bad times
during the period OF the Long PRrlamensome
modern ones win nov be quoted;
the Shirley fagg in the twenty
Charles the Second the House of Commons maintained that
appeal the ef chancey the House
Lords BY Shirley against FAgg who was one Of their mem
bers n breach OF their privileges.
" In another case which appeal taken by Criape
against Delmahoy who member they imprisoned the
segeants and who had pleaded Cpe contrary
'Ip the Of Admiral Griffith member certain per-
sons who had trespased on his hhey were found guilty OF
breach oi priveg ana were ORDERED 70 stano committed
ana were aerWGos alscnafgeo a'er peag Ieprimsnaeo
on their knees and paying the COSTA Ano even late AZ