Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-07-13
THE PRIVILEGES, OF CONGR Ess-

punish a man for interfering with a
member of that body whenhe is at home,
even though it may be hundreds or for
that matter thousands of miles distant
from the capital. For some inscrutable'
reason Mr.. Porter, who represents the
Richmond district in Congress, and is,
we believe, a carpet-bagger, chose to con-
slider the assault made upon him in Rich
mond by one Pat Woods an attack upon
him not as a man, but as a member of
Congress. And Mr.. Bingham, the Chair
man of the Judiciary Committee, before
whom the matter was investigated, re-
ported to the House that Woods had as
saHlted Porter because he was Radical
not that he was a member of Congress,
but that he was Radical. The strange
ground was taken by some of the speak
ers when the question was before the
House, that certain divinity hedges
about member of Congress, that he is
entitled to more protection and considera-
ton than the ordinary common clay of
the masses, and that he should be elevated
into a privileged class. Privilege will
always be widely construed by those who
claim it, and certainly the members of
Congress gave wide extension to their
powers in sending Woods TO prison for
three months. 1t simplifes the matter to
say at once that Woods, on his own show
ing, very richly deserved to be sent to
prison. We copy the material part of
his statement, which shows that he did
assault MIR. Porter without just cause;
for we do not admit that to refuse to
drink with a man is just cause of quar-
rel. But that is a great question of man
ners too wide for our discussion at this
moment when we have grave question
of privilege on our hands:
0Respondent admits that on the 30th
day of May, A. D., 1870, he made an as
sault upon the said Porter, under the fol-
lowing circumstances, to-wit:
''This respondent, eitizenof Virginia,
and resident of the city of Richmond,
casually met the said Porter and two 9th
er gentlemen on one of the streets of
Richmond, on the said 90th day of May;
that on said day he was much excited,
being under the influence of ardent spir-
its in which he had been imprudently in
dulging for several days previous thereto;
that he had, at the time, no personal ac-
quaintance whatever with the said Por-
ter, and did not know him by sight; and
he denies the allegation in said affidavit
contained, to the effect that, on approach
ing said Porter he called him by name;
and AYERS the fact to be, that the first re-
mark addressed by him to said Porter and
the gentlemen with him, was a polite
request that they should drink
with him, to which the said Por-
ter replied, 'I thank you; but l
don't indulge in drinking" This re-
spondent regarding said refusal to drink
with him, and the manner of said refusal
as personally offensive, and believing the
manner and the reply of the said Porter
to have been intended as reflection upon
this respondent for the condition of par
tial intoxication in which he then was,
thereupon said to him, ''Do you know
who / am ~ to which the said Porter re-
piled, 'sNo; don't know who you are"
This respondent then said, 81 am little
Pat Woods, " to which said Porter replied,
''My name, sir, is Porter" and this re-
spondent, as hereinbefore set forth, re-
garding the manner of said Porter as be-
ing offensive, and intended as being an
indignity to him, and his last reply as in
dicating that he was ready to follow up
the indignity by fight, thereupon struck
him, and knocked him down"
The general testimony in the case fully
sustains the respondent in his statement
that the affair, bad as it seems, was the
result of drink, ill-temper, and sudden
provocation, real and imaginary. Neither
the official character of Mr.. Porter, nor
any act done or word spoken in it,
prompted the assault. 1t will be seen
then, we think, by most impartial persons
that this was case for the local court,
which had already taken cognizance of it;
a case of assault and battery of one citi-
zen on another, and did not at all involve
the privilege of Congressman, the basis
of which is the constitutional provision
that ''for any speech or debate in either
House they shall not be questioned in any
other place. But some of cur Radical
contemporaries, who look only at the fact
that Radical was struck, make haste,
says the Philadelphia Age, to vindicate
anything done to avenge it. This
is specimen of the Radical logic, of
which we have had 50 much in the last
few years, to the great confusion of all
true ideas of public justice. We have
constantly heard it argued, such an act is
wrong, so it ought to be punished by court
martial, arbitrary imprisonment or the
like. But no; the badness of a deed is
not reason for its illegal punishment.
For every crime, the law of civilized
community provides punishment and
appoints legal tribunal to inflict it. 1t
is only where the law and its organs are
silenced by actual war, that there can be
any excuse for illegal assumption of
power. The case of '9ittle Pat Woods
may seem small matter, but we see in it
revival of dangerous pretension-
dangerous in these times-in
Congress to privileges that do not belong
to it. 1t was shown more than seventy
years ago, in the case of William Duane,
OF Philadelphia, whom the Senate en-
deavored to punish for a publication
in his paper, the AurOrG. 1t commented
upon a political caucus held by GER
tain Senators at Washington, and it was
attempted to treat this as libel on the
Senate. English parliamentary history
has many instances of attempts to invade
the rights Of the press and of individuals,
on the score of the sacredness and digni-
ty of Parliament. We want no such pre