The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-03-12

M ARCH IL, lOOUs-IKlPL
openly AID secretly attacking, by open assaults,
by secret minicgs, by new interpretations, and
by constant Misrepresentation. Here is the
key to the coming Hght--the plank upon which
the battle has to be fought The constitution
and the Union against the assaults Of fanatics
and the corrupt intrigues Of demagogues. The
candidates are nothing-all other planks for the
platform are nothing brotherly relations
of North and South, the constitution and the
Union, are the all in all of the next campaign.
The Harper's Ferry nvestisation-what
Are the Rights Of the senatss
Since the capture, conviction and execution
of John Brown, Get Of fanatics have endeavor-
ed to push themselves into notoriety on his
skirts. AT Q safe distance they brawi for the
honors Of martyrdom, and are in seeming des-
pair that no one win notice them sufficiently
to give them their deserts. These men had not
the courage to run the risk of assisting old
Brown in splitting the blood Of the unofending
citizens of Harper's Ferry, but thsir approval
of these deeds, and their attempts to elevate the
character of their perpetrstor, prove that but
for wholesome dread Of losing their own lives,
they would have had NO conscientious COM
FUNCTIONS in becoming participants in the muir
ders there committed.
1t js, therefore, out Of NO consideration for
any Of these men that we notice the proceed
Tags ow going on in the United States Senate,
,rb>,o a v.ot;or hoo y,oor MAZDA <o ;ucorcoroko
what is termed ''contumacious witness" who,
beingsummoned before the committee appointed
to investigate the Harper's Ferry affair, has re-
fused to answer the interrogatories, evidently
with view Of giving himself notoriety which
he mistakes for fame Were II q matter co.,
corning himself personally II would be of little
consequence what course the Senate saw 6t to
adopt. But the consideration before the Senate
is Of much graver import, and, aside entirely
from the individual involved, we consider that
it presents question not only Of moment to
the Senate itself, but involving also the consti-
tutional right, power or authority Of the houses
Of Congress-purely legislative bodies-to ex-
ercise functions which are clearly judicial.
We hold that neither house Of Congress has
power, under the constitution, to order the i'm
prisonment of any citizen-unless, indeed, he
be one of their own members-for any offence
whatever, whether contempt or otherwise.
Congress is the mere creature of the constitu-
ton, having no powers not directly conferred
by that instrument. There is not one word in
the constitution which authorizes either branch
of Congress to arrest and punish citizens, or to
act in q judicial capacity, except only in the
case of impeachment. In the latter instance
the Senate is created into court for the trial
Of the specific offence. But the constitution,
in order to mark distinctly the fact that when
the Senate is thus constituted it is acting in an
entirely different capacity from its ordinary
duties, directs thatupon such occasions Senators
shall be on oath or affirmation. And further, it
is declared that the Judgment in cases Of i'm
peachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office and disqualification to hold
any ONCE Of honor, trust or profit under the
United States; but the party convicted shall
nevertheless be liable and subject to .indict-
ment, trial, Judgment and punishment &C.
cording to law" So that even in the case Of
impeachments-the only offence for the trial of
which the Senate is given judicial power by
the constitution-i 10 SO guarded Is to leave
the punishment Of the offence, so far % it can
in any way affect the personal liberty
Of the accused, solely to the regularly
appointed Judicial tribunals Of the country
the Senate having no powe over his person.
The misapprehension which is growing up as
to the powers of Congress over the personal
liberty of citizens is due in great measure to
the assumption that the powers and "preroga-
tives" of Congress are analogous to those Of
the British Parliament Jefferson's Manual
to great extent, assumes this and lays down.
rules of privilege, &C., all drawn from British
parliamentary precedents and decisions
Nothing however, can be more erroneous
The Parliament of England is tie highest court
of the realm. Its functions, powers and attri-
butes are not derived from any written consti
tuition but are the result of precedents which,
long continued, assume in England all the
force of constitution al powers. The history OF
the English Parliament is record of continued
contests between the kingly prerogatives, She
privileges of the mobiles and the claims of the
people. Mr.. Disrael in his recent speech on
the new French treaty, published in another
column of this Mornings paper, points to this
fact Each successful assumption on the
part Of Parliament becomes an acknowledged
power. That body assumed the rightto impris
on whom it pleased, and as there was no APP
peal from Its dictum the subject was compelled
to acquiesce. Nay, the Parliament goes fur
Their, and claims even to be able to alter the
succession itself; and the only question is, not
whether it is constitutional, but whether they
have the power TO carry out their designs.
This gradual growth of power on the part of
Parliament was looked upon with favorable
eyes by the people of England, for they felt
4haf Il Was their fnhf. IL Was a cnrtailmant of