Evening star., 1950-04-02

DIRECTOR ROSSellnl as nOtOrlOu
cocaine addict" and an associat,
of dope runners, make some O.
their more flamboyant accuse
tions outside the proceedings o.
Congress, they would probably b,
sued for libel or slander, like any
other American citizen.
Haldore Hanson, whom Senator
Mccarthy has accused of beins
pro-Communist, has already chal-
lenged the Wisconsin Senator tc
make the same charge without
benefit of congressional immunity
Il assure him." Mr.. Hanson
told the Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee investigating Sen
ator McCarthy's charges, that he
will be called upon to answer in q
court of justice"
The State Department official
added:
Congressional immunity may
protect him from lawsuit, but II
will not save him from moral ac-
countability"
Moral accountability and self
restraint. however, are about the
only curbs placed on Senators and
Representatives to prevent abuse
Of the comprehensive and impor-
tant privilege whose origin is
lost in the shadowy mazes of early
British parliamentary history. It's
scope is so wide and the wording
of the Constitution is so cate.
gorical that there have been only
q few Supreme Court cases defin-
ing its boundaries. 1t has become
safe refuge of demagogues OF
all parties in Congress and the
State Legislatures.
Story's Comment
Legal commentators and polit-
ical scientists have held that the
privilege is necessary, but they
have offered no remedies for the
obvious and continually recur-
ring abuses.
Joseph Story, in his "Commen-
taries on the Constitution" wrote
the following about this congress
sional immunity:
THE next great and vital priv
ilege is the freedom of speech and
debate. without which all other
privileges would be comparatively
unimportant or Intellectual. This
privilege. also, is derived from the
practice of the British Parliament
and was in full exercise in our
Colonial Legislatures, and now
belongs to the Legislatures of
every State in the Union as a mat
ter of constitutional right.
In the British Parliament it is
claim of immemorial right and
is always particularly demanded
of the King in person by the
Speaker of the House of Com
mons at the opening of every new
Parliament. But this privilege is
strictly confined to things done in
the course of parliamentary pro-
ceedingS and does not cover things
done beyond the place and limits
of duty. Therefore, although a
speech delivered in the House of
Commons is privileged and the
member cannot be questioned re-
specting it elsewhere, yet if he
publishes the speech and it con-
tains libelous matter, he is liable
to an action and prosecution
therefor. as in comon cases of
libel"
(ThiS was later changed by
British law and the courts held
that bona fide publication by a
member Of his speech for the in
formation of his constituents was
protectedD
No Right to Defame
Story continued:
And the same principles seem
applicable to the privileges of de-
bate and speech in Congress. Nc
man ought to have the right to
defame others under the color OF
a performance Of the duties of his
Office. And if he does so in the
actual discharge of his duties in
the Congress. that furnishes nc
reason why he should be enabled
through the medium of the press
to destroy the reputation and in
wade the repose of other citizens
1t is neither within the scope o1
his duty nor in the furtherance OF
public rights or public policy
Every citizen has as good a right
to be protected by the law from
malignant scandal and false
charges and defamatory imputa
tlonS as member of Congress.
has to utter them in his seat. Il
1t were otherwise, a mans char.
acter might be taken away with.
out the possibility of redress
either by the malice or indiscre.
'AOAi "a ofSi WCC114llS SCll .CUIlCel
of member of Congress-"
Story raised the point of news.
paper publication of privileged
statements but did not settle it
He said the question meritec
further consideration. Since hi.
time the courts have held thai
newspapers have the right to give
full and accurate reports of con.
gresSional proceedings.
The historic case in the Supreme
Court on congressional immunity
is Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S
168, decided in 1881, which held
among other things, that the con.
stitutional privilege extended t.
resolutions, committee reports ane
votes. The American court quotee
with the approval the British de.
cision in Stockdale v. Hansard
which said:
The privilege of having theil
debates unquestioned, though de.
MED when members began tt
speak their minds freely in tn.
time of Queen Elizabeth and pun.
ished in its exercise by that prin.