, 1864-04-22
r,oIFAx,s RESOLUTION OxCE
NOR II.

Some Of the New York papers are expend-
nca great amount Of zeal In the matter Of
Mr.. Colfax's resolution Of expnls{on-con-
demnlng 1t, as If 1t we're crime In him, and
Mr., Long were victim Of persecution and
much to be pltied. We have already said
that 1t was doubtful whether It were, on the
whole, best to carry the resolution into ef-
feet; and so MI. Co1fax himself decided, for
he modified 1t 10 vote Of censure But
even this is condemned by at least one Of the
in eccesh Longs behalf.
In addition to what has been said before.
il Is to be considered. that there Is no Law or
code OF laws written which regulates this
matter of expulsion or censure in Legislative
bodies. It is a thing which Is LEFT wholly
with the body itself Their own sense OF
honor OF Of propriety must determine the
time when, and the conduct for which, such
condemnation is to be applied. Everything,
therefore, must depend on the particular cir
cuInstnnces of the case. A Thousand things
nay 20 Into the account, for which no pre-
yious calculation can be made. There may
he words not only which are insulting, and
which shall render man m unworthy mem
bcr Of legislative body, md make 1t proper
that he be expelled; but there arc looks,
gestures, particular and specific illusions,
which member can use to assist In out
raging the dccency Of the body ard make his
presence unbenrable- These things eannot
well be reported, OF estimated abroad, while
they may be very apparent on the ground
and nssist materially in his condemnation.
We do not know that such were the facts
in the case Of Mr. Long. but we mention
them in Illustration of the fact, that the rea:
sons for the expulsion or ceusure Of mctn.
Der must be estimated by the body itself,
and may not be apparent to the world out
side And hence we arc very much more in
clined to trust the judgmen: Of the House of
Representatives, before whom the speech OF
Long was made, than that Of the New York
Tins, or any other paper, whose editors did
not hear the speech; and even if they did,
might not be as well qualified to judge Of its
insulting nature Us the body to which 1t Was
addressed.
Willie therefore It is conceded that the free
dom Of speech is thing of Talue, and with
In the proper limits must be conserved, yet
the rights Of dclibetative bodies are of some
account, and are also to be preserved.
A man may not say all he chooses under the
plea OF nee speech. 1ne tfisnman "no
thought Tins 1fee country, anu tna1 1fee
dom meant 10 40 )lss "aa1 ne nkeo sven
to the taking Of his neighbor'e pig without
his consent, found that he had made mis-
take. So the tongue is characterized In
book not get out Of date as ''a world of inl-
qnltS ano as ~ on ute ~, y. neu Snu -
Aeg'sla.ol exsu - NV w o4a~E a""' ~ A'9
own "nl' m4tnoa. ,esu uet, ~ otue a..
Ihe House WIS tnete1oie wv oess %
the speech; and mol 1hat only. 1ms na-
ton Is to be Kept keyed up 10 Inc tension re-
,1ot N 1,e anne little zeal for LOYALTY Ell.
5saooa ~ ia rational 1,ecfs1atrne In for-
.sas da,s ~ re vcre accnstonea to heor the
- ~e1 aesS 80 Tea.ot,on n-..r +ha,- 1rh,ns
1oiue " ~. A-n 1D ,a-.s,..s1. ~ .,n hnax5
ano ~ 'ee Insa paD - 1900 - sa. aa..
10 thclf OWN nhlnss ana .sollnetn .en eo"'