National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-03-01

adopted during the war of the revolution. the
twenty first article of the bill of rights embodies
the principle in the following language:
"The freedom of deliberation speech and de-
bate i'll either house OF the Legislature is so essen
tial TO the rights of the people that it cannot be
the foundation of any accusation or. prosecution,
action, or complaint, in any other court or place
whatsoever"
This article received a construction as early as
1905 in the Supreme Court of that State, in the
case of Coffin VS.. Coffin, 4 Mass. R., i, in which
Chief Justice Parsons delivered the opinion.
The case was an action for SANDER, the oden-
siye language being used in conversation
Massachusetts Legislature The words were
not delivered in the of regular address or
speech, though on the floor of the house while in
session, but were used i'll Il conversation between
three of the members when neither of them were
addressing the chair II had relation, however. to
q matter which had few moments before been
Under discussion The court, speaking of this arti-
Gle ofthe bill of rights the protection of which had
beeninvOked in the plea said "These priYilegesare
thus secured, not with the intention of protecting
the members against prosecutions for their own
benefit, but to support the right of the people by
enabling their representatives, to execute the func-
tons of their Office without fear of prosecutions
civil or criminal therefore think said the chief
justice that the article ought not to be construed
strictly, but literally that the full design of it may
be answered / viii not cOnfine it to delivering
an opinion. utterinS a speech, or haranguing
in debate, but will extend it to the
giving Of vote to the, making Of
written report, and to every other act resulting
from the nature and the execution of the Office
And L would define the article securing 10 every
member exemption from prosecution for every
thing said or done by him as representative IN
the exercise of the functions OF that office, without
inquiring whether the exercise was regular,
according TO the rules of the house. or irregular
and against those rules. do not c0ntIne the
member 10 his place i'll the house; and am salts
fed that there cases in which he is entitled TO
this privilege when not within the walls of the
representatives chamber"
The report states that the other judges-namely,
Sedgwick, Sewall, Thatcher, and Parker-concuTred
in the opinion.
This IS perhaps the most authoritative case in
this country ON the construction of the provision
in regard to freedom OF debate in legislative bodies
and being so early after the formation of the Fed
eral Constitution, is of much weight. We have
been unable 10 find any decision of q Federal
court OH this clause of the section of Article l.,
though the previous clause of the same section
concerning exemption from arrest has been often
construed
Mr. Justice Story, section Sos of his Commentaries
on the Constitution, says: The next great and
vital privilege is the freedom of speech and debate,
without which all other privileges would be com
paTatively unimportant or Intellectual. This
privilege also The says is derived from the practice
of the British Parliament, and in full exercise
i'll our colonial legislation, and now belongs 20 the
legislation of every State i'll the Union as matter
of constitutional right
1t seems to us that the views expressed in the
authorities we have cited sound and are appli-
cable to this case. 1t would be a narrow view of
the constitutional provision to limit it to words
spoken in oral debate. The reason of the rule is
as forcble in its application to written reports pre-
Sclllcu bDtS 10 EcSOQ-
tons offered which, though in writing must be
produced i'll speech, and TO the act of voting,
whether it is done vocally or by passing between
the teleTS. In short, to things generally done in
session of the House by of its members in rea
ton to the business before it.
1t is not necessary to decide here that there may
not be things done in the one House or -other,
of an extraordinary character, for which the mem
beTS who take part in the act may be held legally
responsible. If we could suppose one of these
bodies far TO forget their high functions and the
noble instrument under which they act as 10 imi-
tate the Long Parliament in the execution of the
Chief Magistrate of the nation, or to follow the
example of the French Assembly in assuming
the function OF court for capital punish
ment of the lawful monarch of the kingdom,
we are not prepared 10 say that such utter per-
version Of their powers toa criminal purpose would
be screened from punishment by the constitutional
provision for freedom Of debate. In this, as in
other matters which have been pressed on our at
tentiOn We prefer decide only what is necessary
to the case in hand, and we think the plea set up
by those of the defendants who were members of
the House Is good defense, and the judgment of
the court Oyerruing the demurrer to it and giving
judgment for those defendants is affirmed. As 10
Thompson, the Judgment is reversed and the case
remanded for further proceedings.
Justices Strong and Swayne were on the bench
when the case was argued and decided They are
not now members of the court, but the opinion
was submitted 10 them and met with their con-
curreuee.