Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1858-05-11
helno17trance. 0: the Demqeratic Members Of the
Legislafure.

& s-NS members CT the
Legislature.
/ The Assembly, having by a resolution rsssed
unanimously, on the 2.,ad inst discharged NJ
! d. Strong from the custody ofthe Sergeant-at
rms. in which he has been held for # c,n1ep,,t
4 OF the Assembly, the undersigned members of
I the Assernb y, deem 1t proper to avail them
selves of the earliest opportunity solennlv to
protest against the hasty, excited. and inconsd-
crate action OF the Assembly at its session COM
menclng on the 18Th Of March, at ~ O'Clock
/ T. NJ, and terminating the next morning at 1
o'clsck, A. NJ, and which resulted in the dec
Iaratlon and adjudication that Noses NJ Strong
was guilty @. the offence of a contempt of the
Assembly, and IN sentence of indefinite con-
hnement IN the common jail of Dane county. as
punishment for said offence and they submit
the following reasons for this protest
The communication of Denison Worthington
chairman OF the investigating committee corti-
lying that Nj Strong had refused TO be sworn
and testify before SAID COMMITTEES, was the ac-
cusatIon, and the only accusation the evidence
and the only evidence before the the Assembly
that he had SO refused or that he had in anv
manner been guilty of a contempt of the As
seinoiy- In this proceeding, the Assembly was
acting Judicially; and SO far as there is any an
aiogy between Judicial proceedings in courts
and the Legislature, the accusation presented by
! the chairman of tie Investigating committee
was analogous to the presentment of an indict-
ment by the foreman of grand Jury When
T.
, accused (t present, as Mr.. Strong vas) Is asked
I TO plead. Ii lie pleads guilty" " the doing SO
usually tends to the mitigation Of his punish
ment. Il he pleads not guilty" he is entitled
to a trial by jury of hIs country-has. the
right to be heard by himself or council" and
E" TO meet the witness face to face"
The undersigned do not assert that all the
forms observed in courts Of justice, for the pur-
pose OF securing the persons accused of crime,
/ their constitutional rights. can in practice be
adopted IN Legislative bodies acting iudicialIv
but they do insist that q person accused of the
serious offence of contempt OF The A-eaInblv an
offence which subjects him, if guilty. not only
( TO imprisonment by the Assembly, bat also TO
lne ana Imprisonment by the courts. Is enti. led
before being condemned to demand the naalte
and cause Of the accusation against him, to be
allowed 10 admit or deny il, in other words .'to
plead II the lhcictment''-aud to have some sort
Of trial. and after all the facts in relation 10
the accusation and before the tribunal which is
to pass upon them the to be heard by himself
or counsel"
In the case OF air Strong, none of these forms
winch are not mere forms, but are designed to
secure valuable constitutional rights-were OBJ
served but on the contrary, Tie moment the
indictment was read, Mr. KHowlton havius- first
been informed by the Speaker, that the accused
was present offered resolution that he be de-
ciared and adjudged guilty of contempt of this
Assembly, IN refusing to be sworn and estify.
rms was proposition to render verdict aud
an adjudication. that the accused was =. guilty"
without his ever having been informed OF the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
without permitting him TO plead TO it without
any evidence of its truth except the accusation
itself and without allowing him to exercise
." the right to be heard by himself or counsel %
The proposition was adopted by the Assembly
acting under an unusual degree Of excitement
although several Of the undersigned IN the de
bate which ensued called the attention of the
Assembly 10 the lagrant Injustice BY itsadop-
tioa the accused WAS deprived Of all opportuni-
ty TO exercise or ENJOY any Of the rights secured
10 him by the constitution The course pursu-
ed by the Assembly ia denying to Mr.. Strong
the exercise Of these sacred rights was contrary
20 the precedenls in all similar cases with which
they are acquainted, and was in direct conflict
with the course pursued by the Assembly at
its present session in the eases Of Byron XII
bouTn, Thomas talFey and Chase A. Stevens
accused of contempt. This right was moreover
distinctly recognized by the supreme Court
The undersigned can conceive of no valid reason,
why the same right should not have been rec /
ogniztd IN the case Of Mr. Strong. and they sub
mat that public sentiment viii ascriue to the T
majority the motive Of fear, that The accused if
allowed the opportunity. would have exculpated I
himself of the offence with which he was elara,-
cd. The belief that such the motive will /
not be diminished by the fact, that on a subse- /
quent day the petition OF Mr.. Strong contain /
ing his account of all the matters connected with
this subject was refused place ON the journal +
for the assigned reason "memorals and petitions .
III no Instance 20 upon the journal" although ii I
IS well known that they frequently have gone
there, and that on the very day at which Nj I
Strong's petition was presented, a ooInrnuuica-
ton, IL the nature OF a memorial or petition from
Edward Daniels crltIclslng a report Of a com
mittce of the Assembly spread upon the
Journal 1T full length
The undersigned caunot avoid tie conviction
that ia thus depriyHg Moses II. Strong of the
rights guaranteed by the constitution 10 him ia +
common with ever other citizen of the Stale
rights Inherited from the Magma ChaIta OF Erl--
land tise Aasenihly Indicted a hlow uron tie
rights and liberties Of the people Of this State
against which IL IS the Imperative duty 81. all /
members of the Assembly, who 50 think 10 re-
cord their solemn protest, and they believe that (
upon mature consideration, the course pursued +
by the Assembly. viii be regretted bv ALL
The undersigned cannot conceive that anv
satisfactory reason exist for the violation Of
the Constitutional rights of which they complain
~ the assumption that in the case Of Mr. Strong
the violation was onl theoretical. Such an a.
sumption may or may not be true. If true, we
ans=er that we are unwilling silently TO wit
ness the preparation of a theoretical wrong. but
the undersigned have too much reason to believe
that a real and not theoretical wrong has been
perpctr2ted in the case of Air Strong, and that
the Assembly have committed 50 grave error
II, after being informed Of the nature and
cause Of the accusation against him.. Mr.. Strong
had been called upon 70 plead 70 II, he must (lf
he pleaded to it) have admitted or denied it
be HIeht have admitted . and excused himself +
by reasons of the form Of the oath, (for the un
dersigned are informed fhat when lie did sub
segueutly take the OATH IL was ssot until the
committee made, at his request; n material mod
ifcation Of ~ or for aught the Assembly could
have knoT-a, he might have bad conscientious
scruples against taking an oath at ALL or he 4
might have admitted the accusation as present
ed, aid made satisfactory apology; and IN
either of these Contingencies the Assembly
would Of course have discharged hin. or at the /
most, discharged Liga with arePrimaud. If he 4
had denied the accusation, issue OF fact would
have been presented. and L lie could suI,.iauti- 1
ate the statements contained in the petitions +
subsequently, presented by BIN 10 Tie Assem- !