Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-04-17
THE CASE OF MIR. LONG.
The Subject presented i'm the simple
Light of Reason. H.
IErom the Now York WorId.l


which might easily be brought together in
support of the right which IS assailed in the
person of Mr.. Long, we prefer to present
the subject in the simple light OF reason.
Authority NAV overwhelm, but only reason
can convince. The Constitution, which
guarantees free discussion In general, guards
freedom of debate in Congress with peculiar
jealousy. "For any speech or debate In
either House," this Is its language, "they
shall not be questioned In any other place."
Astrain of remark which, If published In q
newspaper or uttered in popular assembly,
would subject its author to prosecution Tor
libel, may be indulged in either House OF
Congress without any such liability. We
introduce this remark merely to get stand
point for our reasoning, by showing that
the Constitution attaches peculiar impor-
tance to freedom of debate in Congress in
excess of what belongs to free speech in
general. ii s3 liiH f'.ii-
This importance results from the nature
of the duties which devolve upon the mem-
bers. The deliberations of each House in
every question that comes before 1t tend to-
ward, and terminate in, a vote; and no
member can, without the consent of the
House, be excused from voting. To vote
on proposition Is higher act than to dis
cuss 1t as is apparent from their relation of
means to an end, and illustrated by the fact
that the delegates from territories, though
permitted to speak, cannot vote. Now
vote, besides being an act, is a declaration
of opinion, in the strongest and most re-
sponsible form in which an opinion can be
declared in legislative assembly. 1t Is q
proposition too plain to be controverted
that the right of a member to vote against
any measure whatever is just as unques-
tionable as is his right to vote for it. The
measure may be inanifestly indispensable
to tile safety of the government; it may be
necessary to save the capital and the ma
tional archives from Immediate capture;
and yet any member who chooses may vote
against it without becoming liable either to
expulsion or to the formal censure OF the
House. If while powerful and active Ell
emy is menacing the national existence, a
member steadily votes against every bill
for raising, equipping, or paying soldiers,
he gives the strongest possible evidence
that his sympathies are with that active and
menacing enemy; and yet it is undeniable
that for thus voting against national success
he is liable neither to expulsion nor to cen
sure.
But why is this? 1t is because if this Ia
titude were not allowed, there could be no
favored by majority. II, besides, compel
ling each member to vote, the majority Of
the house could compel him to vote on
their side, the result would be a complete
subversion of legislative Independence
The member who gives perverse vote is
responsible only to his constituents; and
the Constitution gives facilities for the en-
foreement of this responsibility by the
provision for recording the yeas and nays
at the demand of one-fifth of the members
present. There can be no more conclusive
evidence of a representatives opinions than
his recorded votes; and the fact that the
house of which he is member can In no
other way hold him to answer for his vote
than by calling for the yeas and nays, and
thus turning him over to his constituents,
is conclusive and unanswerable proof that
the house has no jurisdiction over the Opi,s-
ions of its members.
10 express those opinions in speech is
weaker way of putting them forward than
to express them by a vote. The opinion, if
erroneous, may be confuted; If discussion
has free play, its adherents (or some of
them) may be convinced; the very utter
ance of the opinions, if they are unpopular,
serves to enforce the responsibility which
the House can enforce by theyeas and nays.
If every man who gives bad vote would
be bold enough to make a speech in support
of it, the machinery of exposure which the
Is because opinions are not punishable by
the House, that this machinery of exposure
was devised to bring members to the bar of
their constituents. But the uttcrance of
opinions In debate Is self-exposure; the Of
tender, instead of awaiting an indictment,
goes voluntarily into court and pleads
guilty. 1t only remains for his constituents
TO pass sentence. si,N.il" .,h- t'
The power of the House over its members
Is Of precisely the same character as that of
court t. punish contempts. An advocate
cannot be punished for doing his best for a
scoundrelly CLIENT he cannot be punished
| for bad law or absurd arguments; but If he
treats the court with disrespect, or does any
thing in its presence inconsistent with the
dignity, regularity, or orderly character Of
| its proceedings, he may be committed for
contempt. Precisely of this character is
| the power of the House over its members.
Whatever is inconsistent with the order
and decorum of debate, or dignity Of its
| character, 1t may punish, aud, by vote OF
two-thirds, may carry the punishment to
the extreme limit of expulsion. But this
power is entirely subservient to the order,
| dignity, and decorum of the House, and
can be exercised for no other purpose than
their preservation. This is evident from the
language in which the power is conferred,
to wit: each House may determine the
rules Of its proceedings, punish its members
for disorderly behavior, and, with the
concurrence Of two-thirds, expel a mem
ber." The whole power Of the house in
the premises is derived from this clause. 1t
"may punish its members"-for what -
Their votes? No. Their opinions? No.
But only. for "disorderly behavior" If
| the house could punish its members for
their votes, the majority could coerce the
minority to vote for its measures on pain of
expulsion. Hence unpatriotic votes must
be tolerated to save the possibility of inde-
pendent legislation. If the .shbuse could
expel its members for their sentiments and
opinions, the majority could punish the
arguer as substitute for refuting the ar
gtiment, and by the tyrannical exercise OF
such a power they would compel the skulk-
| ing which it is the purpose of the yeas and
nays to prevent. The expulsion Of Mr.
Long for no other offense than the decorous
expression Of bis opinions would set a pre-
cedent subversive of the independence Of
! Congress and Of the rights Of the constitu-
encies. ft,, et l.,oy.,
A Tnmperer with the BanIot-EBox
t Caught. %
We find the following in the Circlevillt
Democrat of Friday: fI'ig aiE saii