The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-04-22
Freedom of Debate,

Every sensible man or journal must con-
denim the late move in Congress to expel
MIR. LONG of Ohio and Mr.. HAssIs of Ma
ryland for speeches made in the House.
The provision of the constitution that no
member of either House shall be question
ed in any other place for any speech or
debate, certainly was intended TO guaran-
tee that freedom OF speech which is essen
tial to fair and full discassien of every
matter On which Congress may act. Ger
tainly then, it was not intended nor is it
legitimate for either House of Congress to
take upon itself the power to curtail that
freedom of speech which alone can insure
that understanding and wisdom essential
to sound leg Station. 1t would be but a
farcicA constitutional privilege of any
member, that while he could not be aues-
tioned'in any other place than the House
to which he belonged, TIVE thirds of his
fellow members might at any time turn in
and Dust him from his seat, because his
sentiments did not square and coincide
with theirs in every particular.
That We arc not peculiar in these views,
We clip from the leading Republican jour-
mails Of New York to show. The Times
says:
We are ashamed of the skifts of the support
ers of the Speakers resolution.
They cite the votes of the Democratic party
twenty years ago, expelling Mr.. Giddings The
action OF slave masters and their iackeys, the
basest and meanest combination that ever
cursed free country, is held up as a fit rule of
conduct fo- loyal men in these times 1t is an
insult Sir Matthew Hale did not quote Jef
freys nor does Garibaldi Bomba.
In regard to the expulsion of BRIGHT,
Reid and BURNETT, it says:
No expulsion was made in that Congress out
for overt acts. 1t was precisely be.ause NO
such act could he proved upon Senator Powell
that tho attempt 10 deprive him of hia seat
failed.
1t asks:
Is our national Capitol SO much below Par
lament House. that men NAV only talk in it
''bv the card and with bated breath For
the last hundred years who has heard of par
liamentary expulsion in England for words
spoken in debate ? IF the House of kepresen-
tativeS expel Mr. Long as attempted, it will
prove beyond all possibility of question or cayil
that the freedom Of debate under our boosted
republicanism, is not even what it was under
the British monarchy, against the tyranny OF
which we revOlted. Every American school.
boy knows that the language used in ParI;a-
ment against the Government in favor of the
Americal rebels, was hundred times stronger
hon hot hoo haoyH cad
our Government in favor of the Southern re-
bells, and that it was used with perfect impu-
nifty in the very face of overwhelming Govern
ment DajOSities. Said Lord Chatham in the
House of Commons, in 1777. IF were an
American, as am an E"glishmau, while a
foreign troop was landing in my country.
never would lay down my arms-never, never,
never!" Has any thing like that been heard
in Congress from the sympathizers with Our
rebellion? Said Fox, there i, not an Amer
lean but must reject and resist the principle ard
the right" The worst that Mr.: Long said falls
far short of that. =
They did not curb the speech of the sympa-
because they did not have the constitutional
power to do it. Neither does our constitution
give any such power
Again it says:
It's not pretended that Mr. Long was guilty
of 'disorderIy behavior" His speech was per-
fectly calm ond decorous, and FROM the begin
ming to the end he was not once called to or
der by the Speaker, whose duty, under the
rules, it would have been to call him to order
if there had been any breach of it. The Of
fence was not in the behavior but in the doc
trine. Can obnoxious doctrine justify expul-
sion9 That is the vial point. L; has not been
met. 1t has been evaded. r
It quotes Mr.. LoNas Objectionable Ian
guage, and makes its comments:
II believe there are but two alternatives. and
these are. either the acknowledgment of the
| independence Of tue South as an independent
nation, or their complete subjugation and ex
termination as people; and vi these alterna-
tives prefer the former"
| There is no more treason inNthat utterance,
! than in the other Itterance made again and
again in the House. directly and indirectly,
| that disunion would be preferable to o restora-
ton of'the slave power. vat ~
For instance, in the same debate, Mr..
GRINEELI, Of Iowa, s~il:.af s,ao +
I wOu1d rather eay n fhouaav,d tirnoa 1ot the