The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-02-27

was the case in the British Parliament In conclu-
sion he moved to refer the resolution tn select com
mttee of five.
Mr.. Stanton, Of Ohio, Notwithstanding his posi-
ton in select committee, did not hold himself
bound to vote for the expulsion of any member for
an oifense against a past Congress. The great OBJ
ect of Congressional investigation was to advise the
public of the nature of the official acts of their re-
representatives.. No man should be twice tried and
punished for the same offence. He moved that the
resolution be laid upon the table, but subsequently,
withdrew the motion.
Mr.. Taylor, of Louisiana, said this grave subject
was one which had frequently engaged the atten-
tion of Congress. The excitement growing out OF
the facts upon which this resolution based, had
long since passed away and they to act
upon cool judgment. Legislative assemblies had no
inherent power; only such as may be conferred by
law. 1t was true that in England it was not posi-
BILE to find the origin of parliamentary powers, but
the various precedents and decisions showed that
they had legal basis. But in this country there
no such obscuritv. Every measure for the pro
lection of members Of our colonial assemblies, was
supplied by legislation IN each case the necessity
arose.
The only power Of Congress over its members was
derived from the Constitution, and that gave
right to eXpel except for disorderlv conduct and
by two-third vote. The British Parliament and
many OF the State Legislatures had by law power to
eXpel Tor infamous or disgracelu conduct, but Con
gress had no such power. The House could dembody
IN its rules whatever should be considered disorder
" conduct, and make that and that only ground
OF expulsion. For instance, during the discussion
bers communicated it to a newspaper correspondent
IN violation of the rule Of secrecy. This would have
been good ground for expulsion but for the fact that
the rule did not prescribe the penalty; and mmedi-
ately afterwards the Senate adopted rule that
such an offence should be ground for expulsion.
Where there was no law there offence,
and the adoption OF any other construction would
clothe the House with arbitrary and therefore tyran
cal power. The expulsion of Mr.. Matteson would
be an undignifed act, and dangerous precedent.
Nothing was to be gained by it, because Mr.. Matte
/ a Il
garded moral carrion, he had no doubt his con-
stituents would cmphatically condemn him at the
next election.
Mr.. Giddings, of Ohio. maintained that AIattesons
district had right to be represented. His absence
from the House at the present crisis showed that he
| was unworthy of his seat, and he hoped the House
! would act promptly. He rejoced that the House
! had commenced a system of purifcation. 1t was
the proudest day of the Republican party, when
they permitted the to fall upon their own poti-
| cal associate who was found to be unworthy.
Mr. Hughes, OF Indiana, conceived that the House
had ample jurisdiction in this case, but thought the
important considerations involved called for debe-
ration. He regretted that the House had not acted
with more deliberation in the case Of Mr.. Wocott,
OF Boston, who sent to prison the votes of
a respectable minority, and under the gag of the
previous question He took this occasion to protest
against that proceeding He desired to the reso-
| luton modified somewhat and for that purpose
would move to refer it to the Committee on the
| Judiciary.
He had no doubt as to the extent of the power of
the House, and referred to the celebrated Wilkes of
MiddleseX case in England, by which it deter
mined that member once expelled could not again
hold his seat in Parliament. The House might not
have power to punish second time; but Matteson
had resigned to avoid his punishment, and the bar
OF former conviction could not be interpoSed. 1t
seemed to be conceded that he had forfeited the
spect of the House, and his usefulness was GONE
Therefore, as matter of justice to the House, and
to the constituents of the member, he would vote
for his expulsion, when resolution should be pre-
sented IN proper form, but the present resolution
did not place the matter a proper basis, and he
would not vote for it, The House had acted hastily
enough ic imprisoning citizen suspicion of al
tempting to corrupt members, and he hoped they
would not be slow to rid themselves of member
who was known to be corrupt.
Mr.. Smith, of Virginia, hoped and believed that
in this matter there would be no parties in the
House. The question whether a member, dri-
ven from the House by his confession of guilt,
and by the Judgment of the House, should be per
mltted to sit among them, representing portion Of
the people of this country? He denied that the
Constitution limited the power of expulsion to dis
orderly conduct, cOntendng that the clause author
Zlng the expulsion of a member, by a twO-thrds
vote, stood entirely independent of the context.
The power to eXpel was absolute under the Consti-
tuition. and only controlled by considerations of JUS
tice and honor. Mr.. Matteson had never been en-
dorsed by his constituents, and they not to
presume that they would elect an unworthy man to
represent them. At all events, they ought to have
an opportunity to pass upon him, and if they choose
to elect him, he would then have right to his seat
He would not act in hot haste. but their duty
to act and to establish precedent Tor the future
Mr.. Nichols, of Ohio was in favor of the referenc
to the Judiciary Committee. There doubt
that the action of the House in the thirty-fourth
Congress 4 virtual expulsion, and he doubted
the power and this right of the House to exercise
any further jurisdiction Having tried, convicted,
and punished the member from New York, he pro
tested in the name OF justice, against any further
retribution. When constituency had elected
representative they had right to be represented
by him, unless he was expelled for some subsequent
offence. The second sion of Mr.. M3tteSOn
would therefore be an Infringement upon the rights
of his constituents
Mr. Smith, of Virginia, inquiredh member was
to be permitted to escape the penalties of miscon
duct by the ruse of resignation?
Mr. Nichols replied that Mr.. MattesOn had NOT
escaped, because, according to the gentleman own
argument he had been virtually expelled. He de
MED that the House had an arbitrary power of eX
pulsion; if they had, majority of two-thrds could
expel members for political opinions. He would not
defend the course OF the member from New ork,
but opposed to arbitrary exercise of power.
such that by which the House had lately sent a
, | citizen to the common ail.
Mr.. Jones, of Tennessee believed that Mr. Mat
eson morally disqualified from holding a seat,
and would vote for the resolution expelling him,
and against the motion to commit. No constituent
cy had right to send unworthy men to sit with
them in the American Congress.
Mr.. Ready, of Tennessee, opposed the motion to
refer to the judiciary Committee, because it would
delay the action Of the House. and favored refer
ence to select committee.
l Mf. curtis, OF Iowa, sad as Mr.. MatteSOn nad
done nothing to remove the faint resting upon him,
he was IN favor OF his expulsion. II he un-
worthy to sit in the last Congress he was also
worthy to sit in this.
Mr.. Harris of Illinois, replied to the various OBJ
jections which had been urged against the resOu-
ton. He denied that expulsion was an act of pun
, ishment towards the members it act of self
, protection on the part of the House 1t had been
decided by various precedents that members might
be expelled for other offences than disorderv CON
duct. A Senator was expelled by vote of 81 to |
for offence committed in the State of Tennessee.
He had received patches of letters and newspapers
from Mr.. Mattesons district requesting and demand
ing his expulsion.
Mr.. II. answered numerous interrogatories pro-
pounded to him by members, and closed by saying
that Mr.. Matteson had been found guilty Of degrad
ing the House of which he a member, and of
, corruption, and ought to be expelled.
. He moved the previous question.
Mr.. Grow, of Pennsylvania, denied that Congress
had a right to expel member for facts which ex-
listed and known at the time of his election to
Congress The letter to VIM. c. Johnson upon
which the whole charge was based, was known to
Mr.. Matesons constituents before his election and
+ used in the canvass against him. Gentlemen must
remember that the constituencies of the respective
Congressional districts selected their associates and
whatever their personal characters they all stood
that float rs equals.
The House was not to arrogate to itself the pow
of saying despotically who should sit in it. OF
excluding any man either because of his personal
character because of his political opinions Al
though man had been convicted of murder or
treason, II his constituents choose endorse him il
not their business. He stood on hatfoor as their
i peer. Congress making rapid strides in tramp
ling downpubc and private rights, and he protest
ed against this new doctrine ofthe right ofarbrary
expulsion. If members disliked their associates in
4 Congress their only remedy to sit far off as
possible.
: Mr.. Purviance, of Pennsylvania did not doubt
the power of the House in the premises, but doubt
4 ed the eXpedency of exercising it. In analogous
i crses the Constitution provided that should not
be tried twice for the offence and it would be
: safer for the House to follow the same rule. He
q renewed the motion for the previous question,
: which had been withdrawn in favor of Mr.. Grow
# and himself.