Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1860-04-19

- 81 he nature Of the offence to be in
-sst;ostedu under the accusation, he says, IN
mbstsnce. that the principles recognized IN
.stbe constitution of the United States, ano Oh
the several Stetes,n which require that, IN
eases of prosecution for any offence, the per-
son nrosecuted .sehall be informed, in the
very beginning, of the nature and cause OF
the Accusation against him" and "other prih-
einles. not less sacred, presenting an lmpene-
trable sbield'' for the protection OF every cit
ixen against false charges, -have been viola
ted in The prosecution instituted by the House
of Representatives against the execuuse
branch of the government" and makes Die
"eoIemn protest" against their proceedings
sin the name of the people Of the United
state. because thew are in violation of the
rights Of the coordinate executive branch OF
the government, and subversive OF It's moe
peDdence;" because they are calculated 10
foster false accusations "incapable. from their
nature. of being disproved;' and because
such proceedings. II unresisted, "would estaD-
lish a prect dent dangerous and embarrassing
10 alI'' his SUCCESSORS, to whatever political
party they might be attached"
The question thus presented TO the House
by the protest of the President, though one oil
the gravest importance, is yet restricted with
In very narrow limits. There can be no real
difference of opinion as 10 the constitutional
position of the two great departments OF the
goyerpment-the legislative and executive
With respect to each other. The power OF the
House to institute the inquiries necessary to
bring abuses in the administration of our pub
lie affairs to light. with view to the punish.
ment of those who have been guilty OF them.
anG 10 the prevention Of similar abuses in the
future by remedial legislation, when that is
practicable, is fully conceded by the Presi-
dent Upon that point there neither is nor
can be any dispute. The questions actually
presented by the protest the undersigned be-
lieyes to be these and these alone: First, Has
the House an unlimited power to institute
and carry on Investigations of any kind and
for any purpose according to its own mere
will and pleasure; or is it restrained and con-
troled in the exercise of the power vested in
il by the operation of the great principles of
law everywhere recognized throughout our
common country, where the rights of lndi-
viduals are concerned and second, If it is SO
restrained and controlled. then was the action
of the House, in adopting the resolution COM
planned Of by the President, in violation Of
those great principles Of law, or fn confOrmi-
ty with them?
The undersigned cannot for a moment con-
ceive that there is any room for doubt upon
the first question. Our government is gov
ernmeut of law 1t was the design of its
trainers that everything connected with its
cable, by positive constitutional provision OF
legislative enactment. There is no such
thing in our whole system as a grant OF un-
limited, arbitrary power. One great object
had in view in its construction was TO give
security to the citizen; and to that end our
national and State constitutions, and our
statute books. are filled with provisions to
shield and protect him against the approach
es of oppression, and to furnish him with
h rrrrtf
These provisions were intended to operate
everywhere within our boundaries for his Sc
curity and protection, and the barriers which
they inierpOse against injustice should be as
eff ctual for his defence against wrong com
ing from one quarter as from another. Thi
functions of the House of Representative
with respect to investigations into abuses il
the administration of our affairs. and int
the misconduct of our public officers, are, il.
their nature, judicial, and it is as much th'
duty of members OF the House 10 be guided
by The principles of these legal and constitu-
iional provisions, when they are called on T.
act on questions which concern the persona
rights Of men, as if they were formally in
vested with the Judicial ermine. This ha
been the common judgment of the Who'll
American people from the very foundation
of the government. and / cannot for a mo
mrnt conceive that any one can have q doubi
on the subject. Considering this question as
settled beyond all controversy. l shall now
proceed 10 an examination of the second
one, viz: Was the action of the House. in
adopting the resolution complained of by the
President, in violation Of those great princi-
pies. or in conformity with them?
The right of the House to enter upon an in
quiry as to whether an offence has not been
committed. or il particular person is not
IF n ri iou I'M of
an arbitrary discretion. The power of the
House, like that of a court over such a subject,
can only be exerted upon a case made. The
power OF court is one thing, the right
TO exercise that power is another and
quite a different thing. And it is the
same with the judicial power of the House.
Before the right To exercise it in an
inquest of a criminal nature can exist,
there must be good cause shown for it, by
evidence Of some kind sufficient to give rise
to a reasonable suspicion as to the perpetra-
ton of an offence or the guilt of the indi-
vidual. In the absence Of any such evidence
the right does not exist. and the institution
OF an inquiry would be improper. But what
would be merely improper in one case might
be highly censurable in another. A rowing
commission to inquire into possible offences,
without any reasonable ground for the belief
that offences had been committed, would GER
tainly be improper; but to raise a committee
to inquire If u particular person, designated,
by name, had not been guilty of a certaius
specified crime, when no evidence of aEy,
kind was before the House to give rise TO any
suspicion against b IN, would be more
than improper; il would be an outrage. An.
inquiry of that kind, made with respect 70
any one by the public authority, implies from.
its very nature that there is reason TO believe
him guilty.
Our laws are not alone framed TO protect
the persons and property ofour citizens. They
are also designed to secure them in the pos
session of their good names; and il il with
that object that when a private person, upon
the pretence of II desire to enforce the crimi-
nal law, throws upon another an imputaiion
ofhaving committed crime, without having
bad any reasonable ground OF suspicion, the
act Is regarded a. Il wrong, and the law gives
redress TO the one falsely charged by punish
ing the wrong door, or mulciing him in dam
ages. But no such protection is given TO the
citizen against similar action on the part OF
the House. Ills only safeguard against an
unjust or oppressive exercise Of it's power
grows out OF the obligation imposed on il,
members, in the forum Of conscience. to max.
ihrir action, In cases affecting his reputation
or his personal rights, conform To those gres,
principles of law which are everywhere re
cOgnized in the administration of Justice be
tween man aud man. Owing 10 the peculia
character of the House rs political body
inirnsted with a Certain portion Of the func
lions OF government, these principles can b,
enforced neither against The House ia its col
leetve capacity, nrr through the persons o
it, members by penal sanctions. Their ope
ration for this protection can only be mad
eff ctiye through the voice of reason; and i.
therefore. becomes Of vital importance 20 tn.
Hous.; itself, and TO the people OF the Who'll.
United States, that indiyidua members shout,
not hesitate 10 expose such action by the ex
preston OF their individual opinion agains
il when such cases arise.
Such case. ia my opinion, has now arts
en-; aud IL IL al extraordinary one. IL is no
u case OF wrong done to a private person;
il not even cas-. Of wrong done to hig
nohlir offi....r Thu xrouo l. dom. IN ths chic