Evening star., 1950-04-02

ator Edwin c. johnson of Colorado
OF either assembly Commons and
Lords must pass without question
in any other place. For speeches
made in Parliament by a member
to the prejudice of any other
person or hazardous to the public
peace. that member enjoys COM
plete immunity"
That doctrine was reaffirmed in
the Federal Circuit Court of the
District Of Columbia in a suit
brought by Hugh P. Cochran, a
tax consultant, against the late
Senator James CouZens of Mich
igan, because Couzens in 1928 had
denounced Cochran from the floor
of the Senate.
Justice Robb wrote the opinion
OF the District Court which up
held the Michigan Senator's priv
ilege to make his charges against
Cochran. 1t said in part:
Ansell-Long Case
1T Is manifest that the trainers
OF the Constitution were of the
view that it would best serve the
interest of all the people. if the
members of the House and Sem
ate were permitted unlimited free
dom in speeches or debate. The
provision to that end is, there
fore, grounded in public policy
and should be literally construed.
Presumably legislators will be re-
strained in the exercise of such a
privilege by the responsibilities of
their office. Moreover, in the event
OF their failure in that regard,
they will be subject to discipline
by their colleagues"
This remained controlling de-
cision, because the Supreme Court
in 1880 declined to review it, until
1884, when the same Circuit Court
decided the case brought by the
late Samuel T. Ansell, former
judge advocate of the Army,
against the late Senator Huey
Long Of Louisiana. The primary
issue in the case was whether
Long because he was a Senator
could refuse service of subpoena
in a libel suit brought by Ansell
after Long had made a speech
in the Senate attacking him and
their distributed thousands of
copies of the speech throughout
the country.
The court held that Long had to
accept service of the subpoena even
when Congress was in session and
concluded the opinion with these
words that go back to the Story
doctrine:
"A Senator of the United States
is here charged with publishing in
the District of Columbia and cir
culating here and throughout the
country hbelous and defamatory
articles, alleged to be a reprint of
a speech made on the floor of the
Senate. The charge here is not
slander resulting from a speech
made on the floor of the Senate,
but for libel in publishing and dis
trlbuting a copy of that speech,
together with letter calling at
tention to the article.
Guffey Apologized
Defendant Gong) pitches his
defense upon the exemption from
arrest and not upon his exemption
from responsibility for statements
made in speech on the floor of
the Senate. But were that claim
advanced, it would be without
force, since the acts charged have
only a remote connection with the
speech. While the published ar
tlcles were in part reproductions
OF the speech, the offense consists
not in what was said in the Sen
ate, but in the publication"
The Supreme Court, in a brief
opinion by Justice Brandeis, af-
f1rmed the decision of Circuit
Court in favor of Ansell, but did
not mention the lower courts die
tum regarding libel by publication.
An odd coincidence about this
case is that Longs attorney was
Seth w. Richardson, now chair
man of President Truman's 10y
atty Review Board.
Some lawyers believe that the
District Circuit Court of Appeals
observation about subsequent pub
lication may limit to an undeter-
inmate degree the broad privilege
granted by the Constitution. Many
Senators and Representatives send
out thousands of reprints on their
speeches on the floors of Congress
Presumably, under the opinion,
they could be sued for slanderous
utterances if the distribution were
widespread and indiscriminate
although under a British prece-
dent they would be entitled to
send their speeches to their con-
stituents. They could not. of
course, be held accountable for
their remarks in Congress if they
did not distribute reprints of those
remarks outside their own States
or districts.
There is no doubt that a Con-
gresham can be sued if he re-
peats outside of Congress libelous
remarks he has made in Congress.
Several years ago former Senator
Joseph Guffey, Democrat, of
Pennsylvania denounced MARQUIS
w. Childs, then in the Post-Dis-
patch Washington Bureau, for
news articles in the Post-Dispatch
reporting that Senator Guffey
and John L. Lewis were collab-
Grating on Mexican oil deals,
Senator Guffey's remarks reflected
on Mr.. Child's honesty and integ-
rity and his reputation as a re-
porter.
Capofo, r,4.u