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

proceedings in this House. That law has
been adopted rs authority, to a certain
extent Any writer on the subject might
have his work adopted in the same way.
The Manual has been thus adopted tor the
government Of .he House. Therefore, on
these grounds, it strikes me that there is
no power flowing from the parliamentary
law whatever i'll this House to exercise
these powers and rreroyatives.
The argument does not stop here. If
this House claims the right to punish in
this summary way, because it is n Iegisa.
tive tody, why, then, does not the pre-
roga,ve extend to the President! lie
has a greater powe: than one half Of ci
ther House. His veto cannot he over
ruled, unless 10y two-tLirds vote. Ifihe
legislative power gives this House this
great power, whence, then does this
House derive it? We are no imperial
House. 1t we take the Constitution, the
President is equal in Legislative power 10
us. 1t Legislative gives prerogative
to the House, then it also gives it 10 the
President But nobody claims that i,
does give it TO the President. The hon
orabIe gentleman from Ohio will not claim
that power for the President, great as
may be the Presidents legislative power
II will not be contcnded that he has the
power to pun'sh for contempt. Ii he has
no such preroga,ive, thoug h he has this
great legislative power, why is it claimed
Tor the House Z"
There, again, sir, our lawyers go as,rav.
They look into EnglisH history, and they
find that tho House OF Commons claim,
Tins power, on account of its legislative
prer"gaIres. They find tina; the British
King does not claim it, because It Is not
necessary for the British king to claim it,
for the reason that he is amply protected
by the statutes Of treason and misprision
OF treason, and hedged in by that divinity
which doth surround king. They find,
therefore, no authority in British history,
on which to claim this power to punish
for contempt Ivy the President Of the Uni.
ted States, and they do not claim it for
him. If they had the same preccden,s
for that they derive from the House Of
Commons, doubtless they would claim TIE
power for the President.
Again, at an early period, as far back
rs 1881. this matter was oonsde,ed with
reference to the power of the courts Of the
country to punish for contemp;s, and what
was the decision of both Houses of Con
grcss ut that time Both Houses, bv the
ac; OF 1881, prescribing the jurisdiction
OF courts to punish FOR conteInpls, declared
that there should be no power in the
courts to punish for contempt except for
contempts in the face Of The court. Well,
sir, what was the meaning of that law
1t WIS an expression of the sense Of Cor.
gress that it was dangerous to trust the
courts with such power, and that the
Constitution did not authorize il. 1t WAS
the sense OF the Congress of tie United
States, that such n power ought NO, TO
rest, even in the hands Of the judiciary.
Well, sir, II the Judiciary cannot be trust
ed-those men who hold the scales OF ius-
tice with an even hand--who will say
that the power ought to be conferred On
tins House, which cannot, in the nature
OF things, he supposed TO be rs impartial,
politically or otherwise, ms the courts OF
the countryl The fact that the two
Houses, us far back rs 1881, thus acted
IN reference TO contempts is very strong
expression of opinion, by the Congress of
the United States, that it WAS neither pol.
tic, nor constitutional, nor consistent, with
the rights and liberties Of the Teople, to
trust summary and unlimited power Of
punishlng fr contempt to any hody Of
men. would ask again, is this power
under which the House acts, legislative
or ajndicial power, Lecause the only mode
in which the House can act IN its !cpisla.
tive capacity, as a general rule, is to pass
an act or n resolution rs n law. Neither,
when the House acts in this manner, does
]. act in q Judicial capacity, for by tito
Constitution al the judicial power of the
United States" is vested in the courts.
And here is another fundamental error
made IN attempting TO compare this
House 10 the House OF Commons OF Eup.
lard is the great judicial body, the frs,
court IN England.
Attachments for contempt cannot he
considered in any OF the courts Of England,
because, in issuing from the House of
Commons, they issue from one OF the high
est courts Of England. But this House
Is not n court. Ii is n mere legislative
body. These attachments for contempt
in England are justified in very great
degree 10y the lawyers, 10y the power
which the House of Commons derives as
the first court; but, in this respect, there
IS no analogy between this House and the
House OF Commons.
Well, sir, again to illustrate the error
oi the analogy attempted to be drawn be-
tween ihe power Of hi: House ard os tho
English House Of Commons in England,
The House Of Commons will punish for Ii
bel. Men have been scourQed, imprison.
Ell, and pilloried for libel in England
We'll, does anybody claim the power in
this House to punish for libel here /
apprehend not. at this day. Ie the ear.
her period Of our government, when we
had not got we'll accustomed TO the work.
ing Of free institutions we had not
become instinct with the idea Of Iepnbli.