H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 11, 1832. in any such debate, a knowledge of this wrong will, by in its remote consequences, have produced that evil? Shall this freedom of the press, be brought to him, in the most we, by our decision on this great question, justify the efdistant part of the country; and, on his memorial setting forts of that respondent, in his attempt to place around forth the wrong, and presented here, such inquiry will be this Hall such a collection of armed violence as may not made as shall justify the innocent, and bring severe and only silence all freedom of discussion in this House, but merited rebuke upon the offender. Sir, this Government like wise so abridge all freedom of the press that the peohas been established more than forty years; and when was ple may not be able, hereafter, to read any part of what this right of the people to know all which may be said in we may, under this discipline of outrage, dare to speak? congressional debate-when was it questioned? Was No, sir; I trust we shall not. I do hope there is yet among this freedom of the press, this right to publish the us more patriotism, more just and fearless regard for the truth, that the people might know the truth, ever, laws, more noble self-devotion and genuine independence. until this time, denied? This discovery, made by the Sir, when the star chambers, and the bastiles of the old learned advocate, seems to have escaped the less acute world are demolished, we are importing their dilapidated vision of all men in former times. Have men forgotten records for congressional precedents; and their long disthe days, or have they not read the history of those times, used, and now rusted chains, wherewithal to form more when the federal and republican schools embittered the becoming wreaths to enwrap the lovely limbs of our national feelings with acrimonious and protracted contro-mountain nymph, sweet liberty." The spirit of free versy? It was not, indeed, a controversy concerning great discussion is at large in Europe. England is, at this very men, but concerning great measures; and on each side time, struggling to remodel and rebuild her parliamentary so much the more ardently sustained, as men will ever the system. France has drenched the streets of her own bemore ardently contend for their faith, either political or loved Paris in blood, to secure "freedom of the press." religious, than they will defend their great patrons, whe- The type, sir, the type must pioneer the sword in the ther civil or sacred. Were the discussions, had in debate march of freedom. The voice of eloquence may startle on the floor of Congress, hidden from the people? Was the oppressed from his slumber of ages-it may shake the the right to print those debates denied? Was the free- tyrant on his throne of a hundred descents, if they may be dom of the press challenged or questioned, or any effort found within the compass of its mighty volume; but the made for its abridgment? Who would, who did, who more efficient powers of the press may spread out the dared, attempt to abridge the freedom of the press, either printed roll of human rights before every human eye. by law, or menace, or violence? Men have not, surely, Dare we, sir, dare we snatch that printed roll from the forgotten the last war, nor how all questions concerning hand of the American people; and that, too, when it is its policy, or the mode of conducting it, divided and agi- fraught with our own doings touching their own concerntated the country. During all those disturbing, sometimes ments, entrusted by them to our management, but to their alarming, and always embittering events, no discussion, use and for their benefit? no debate, no words uttered here, were, by any effort, Sir, I do not recollect any thing material, said by the shut up within these walls, nor was the freedom of the learned advocate, which now remains unanswered: for I press, in any way, diminished or embarrassed. The pow-pass over, as utterly unworthy of any reply, the allegation ers and policy of Congress, in support of the American that the deed of daring done by the respondent was done system, and the powers and policy of either of the States, by him because a certain letter was not answered by the as sovereignties, to oppose and abolish that system, have, gentleman from Ohio; not because words were spoken, during the last four years, been the great argument, awak- or because words were printed, but because words ening political controversy in the nation, and moving zeal were not written; not for a wrong done, but for ous debate and discussion in our legislative halls. Has not doing a wrong. Equally unworthy of notice is the not this debate, free and ardent as it may have been-poor evasion, which labored to censure the gentleman has it not been published, without hinderance, molestation, from Ohio for carrying arms to secure his own personal or any form of questioning? Who has presumed to say safety. The bravo--the ruffian--may fill his belt with to the people that they had not, by the freedom of the pistols, and his bosom with dirk-knives, and threaten viopress, secured to themselves the same right to read our lence to peaceable citizens, and do all this with perfect words, which, by the freedom of debate, they had secur- impunity; but if such citizens take to themselves weapons ed to us in uttering them? Sir, you have heard, or read, for purposes of self-defence-the only lawful cause for the history of the sedition law. Every gentleman in this which men may ever wear such weapons--they are, as it is Hall must remember how, almost literally, that law set the said, guilty of provoking aggression, and justly liable to country in a blaze, from Georgia to Maine-from the ocean punishment for any violation of the public peace, committo the mountains; and had the West been peopled then, ted by any assault made on their own persons. Nor will all the West had been added to the conflagration. That I call the attention of the House to any refutation of the Jaw touched not freedom of debate here, nor freedom of charge of malice made by the learned advocate against the the press in the publication of any such debate. Although gentleman from Ohio; because, when he uttered the words it gave to the writer and publisher of truth, concerning of truth, he had not depositions in his hand to prove the the Government, and all the public servants of the peo- fact. "Common fame is a good ground for the House to ple, the right to defend himself by proving that truth, proceed to inquiry and to accusation." Why, sir, truth whenever he might be, by law, called in question for pub-is truth, though it come to the ear in a dream of the night, lishing it, and thus placed in his hand a shield of defence, or be lisped to us by the tongue of infancy, or by some which the common law had not given to him, yet, so ap- person in the hallucinations of delirium. He who took prehensive were the people that this law, forbidding the the most advised and deliberate aim, could not have been publication of falsehood only, might be so administered as more successful than was the "soldier who drew a bow to "abridge the freedom of the press," and thereby pre-at a venture," when the arrow was directed in its course, vent the publication, and keep from their knowledge the and impelled in its flight, by the eye and the hand of that truth itself, that they, by one loud and long continued controlling Power who had doomed the overthrow of a shout of execration, expelled that law from your statute bloody and unsparing tyrant. Sir, this case is not of any books. Will the people, then, endure this attempt, made by the respondent, and sustained by his learned advocate, to abridge the freedom of the press by violence, when, thirty years ago, they would not endure a law, because it might, ordinary character. The history of legislation for the last two hundred years presents nothing like it, either in the facts committed, or in the principles set up in defence of them. It is the commencement of a war, unparalleled in violence and outrage, against the freedom of the mem MAY 11, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. of R. bers in debate on this floor; against the independence of sion has ever been odious to the tyrant, and to all the mithe whole legislative powers of this House; and against the nions of licentious power; but can we ever forget how elohitherto unquestioned right of the nation to the unabridg- quent, how enchanting the voice of that same freedom of ed freedom of the press. For words spoken here, in de- speech has, in all ages, been, wherever its tones have bate, and published by the daily usage of the press, a mem- fallen on the ear of freemen? Free discussion, and liberty ber has been waylaid in the night time, and a battery done itself, eloquence, and freedom of speech, are contemporaupon his person, in a peaceable avenue of this city, in neous fires, and brighten and blaze, or languish, and go sight of the capitol, with a weapon so unusual, with such out, together. Athenian liberty was, for years, protractatrocity of purpose, and with a violence so barbarous, as ed by that free discussion which was sustained and conthat, although it did not quite destroy life, it deprived this tinued in Athens. Freedom was prolonged by eloquence. House of the public services of that gentleman, and left Liberty paused and lingered, that she might listen to the forty thousand people of the United States unrepresented divine intonations of her voice. Free discussion, the eloin this Congress. The man who has done this deed, claims quence of one man, rolled back the tide of Macedonian the power, as one of his civil rights, thus to avenge him-power, and long preserved his country from the overself, whenever, in his opinion, words so spoken may injure whelming deluge. Liberty, in some of the Grecian States, his good name in the public estimation. He claims this survived Philip the tyrant, who seems to have made it one right, notwithstanding he might, if injured by such words, great purpose of his life to conquer and enslave them. obtain ample redress by his memorial, for that purpose Although that conquest was achieved by his son, yet he, presented to this House. He claims this right, too, when imbued as he was with Grecian philosophy and literature, those words impute to him nothing fraudulent, and when and no less a scholar and gentleman than a warrior and the proof, brought out by his own interrogatory, fixes hero, preserved the illustrious statesman who had laborupon him, not only a purposed fraud, but also discloses ed by his eloquence, in the free discussion of Athens to and ascertains his numerous attempts fraudulently to ob- preserve the freedom of his own country. When the tain a contract, by which the nation would have lost, and Asiatic and European conquests of Alexander were partihe would have gained by their loss, the enormous sum of tioned among his generals, Greece and Macedon fell to one million three hundred and fourteen thousand dollars. the allotment of Antipater; and that rash, illiterate, bloody Although this House is, by the constitution, clothed with handed barbarian could not feel secure on his throne, unpower to control, and therefore bound and empowered to less by the death of that illustrious man, who, by his counprotect, the persons of all its members, yet this man charges sels and his voice, had so long resisted the march of desus with the perpetration of violence against his personal li-potism. berty, when he is in custody for no other purpose than to pre- When the light of free discussion had, throughout all vent his interruption of the public service, by a repetition of the Grecian cities, been extinguished, in the blood of that violence and outrage for which he has been arrested. those statesmen by whose eloquence it had been sustainThis man, sir, holds himself entitled to judge, and to exe-ed, young Tully, breathing the spirit of Roman liberty on cute judgment, concerning a supposed wrong done to the expiring embers, relumed and transmitted, from the himself; but he upbraids this House with usurpation, be- banks of the Ilissus to those of the Tiber, this glorious cause it undertakes to decide between him and the people light of freedom. This mighty master of the forum, by concerning a gross violation of their power, committed to his free discussions, both from the rostrum and in the us to be exercised for their use and benefit. He claims Senate House, gave new vigor, and a longer duration of the right, by force and arms, to defend himself against in-existence, to the liberty of his country. Who, more than jury sustained by words--the words of truth--spoken here Marcus Tullius Cicero, was loved and cherished by the by one of us in due course of public service; but he de- friends of that country? Who more feared and hated by nies to us, to this whole House, to this embodied power traitors and tyrants? Catiline, a patrician, noble and of the American people, to this unquestioned sovereignty commanding in appearance, wicked in purpose, and proof the entire nation, that right of self-defence, without fligate in habits; master of all elegant accomplishments, which no being exists, and by which alone this House can but degraded in mind by vices the most vulgar and loathpreserve its existence against any violence, either occa- some; no man so skilled to allure and deprave youth; supsional or organized, and put in motion for its overthrow. pliant in deception, but audacious in betraying men of all This champion of civil rights does not choose, whether conditions--this Catiline, this conspirator, was, by the wisely or not, to place his own rights in any other keeping force of free discussion, by the powerful and commanding than his own power. Does he or his learned advocate eloquence of Tully, driven from his secret treasons against imagine that the sovereignty of this nation will ever com- the Roman commonwealth, into open war and final ruin. mit the custody of its preservation to any other guardian- Freedom of speech, Roman eloquence, and Roman libership than that which the people have provided for it by ty, expired together, when, under the proscription of their own constitution? the second triumvirate, the hired bravo of Mark Antony If these rights, hitherto illustrious and untarnished, were placed in the lap of one of his profligate minions the head our own, and not the heritage of the people and of poste- and the hands of Tully, the statesman, the orator, the ilrity, could we submit, and give them up to any combina- lustrious father of his country. After amusing herself tion of armed violence? Can we not exercise so much some hours by plunging her bodkin through that tongue valor, at least, in their defence, as a desperate man has which had so long delighted the Senate and the rostrum, exercised in defence of a dilapidated and desperate repu- and made Antony himself tremble in the midst of his letation? When, therefore, we call to mind that these gions, she ordered that head and those hands, then the rights, assailed by a violence so daring, so organized, so trophies of a savage despotism, to be set up in the forum. powerfully sustained, and defended here by such princi- "Her last good man, dejected Rome ador'd; ples, are the glorious trust committed to our care and fide- "Wept for her patriot slain, and curs'd the tyrant's sword." lity by a great nation, how can we surrender them? Sir, The languages of such ancient nations as most cherishhow can we surrender freedom of speech, secured by the ed free discussion, survived the political existence of those constitution to every member of this House; how can we nations; and the most finished debates and 'speeches of surrender freedom of the press, secured by the same con- their most distinguished orators and statesmen, preserved stitution to each one of the whole people; how, sir, how by the labors of the pen, have, brought through the dark can we give up these rights to any array of power, and not ages, been delivered down to modern times; and this stand before all nations as the foresworn traitors of our achievement was done by a preserving care, and a solicicountry? Sir, admit, for we must admit, that free discus-tude, not less pious and persevering than that of him, the H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 11, 1832. of speech, the freedom of the press. This is the first out- illustrious refugee of the old world, who embarked, and brought over the flood, the survivors of the deluge, to repeople the earth, and renovate the human race. English statesmen and orators, in the free discussions of Mr. ARCHER, of Virginia, followed. the English Parliament, have been formed on those illus- attention of the House for a brief space. He should have trious models of Greek and Roman policy and eloquence. retained his seat in silence, but for the belief that the Multiplied by the teeming labors of the press, the works question was of far more consequence than was attached of the master and the disciple have come to our hands; to it by most persons. Regarded in a just aspect, he doubtand the eloquence of Chatham, of Burke, of Fox, and of ed whether one of more consequence had, many times, the younger Pitt, reaches us, not in the feeble and evanes-been presented to that House. His own view had not cent voice of tradition, but preserved and placed before been taken in the form, at least, which he regarded as the the eye, on the more imperishable page. Neither these most forcible in the debate. This view referred entirely great originals, nor their improved transcripts, have been to the question of the power of the House to exert the lost to our country. The American political school of jurisdiction asserted for it. It was to this topic his remarks free discussion has enriched the nation with some distin- would be confined. To the operation of the decision, as guished scholars; and Dexter, and Morris, and Pinckney regarded-the present case, he was wholly indifferent. will not soon be forgotten by our country, or by the lite- From many of the propositions advanced by gentlemen on rary world. Some men, who now live, may hereafter be the other side he should not dissent. He should not confound deserving of that life, in the memory of posterity, tend that the accused had been guilty of no breach of the which very great men have thought no unworthy object privileges of the House: he thought the breach a very of a glorious ambition. Who can censure this anxious gross one. Neither should he contend that any act of viowish to live in human memory? When we feel ourselves lence was extenuated by falsehood in the statement of the borne along the current of time; when we see ourselves member from Ohio, supposed to have given rise to it. Still hourly approach that cloud, impenetrable to the human less should he rest upon any fancied distinction between eye, which terminates the last visible portion of this moving the utterance and the publication of a speech, which had estuary; who of us, although he may hope, when he reaches it, been so much insisted on. No such distinctions could octo shoot through that dark barren, into a more bright and casion the least difference in the guilt of the accused in peaceful region, yet who, I say, can feel himself receding the present case. He admitted, further, that the guaranswiftly from the eye of all human sympathy, leaving the ty contained in the constitution for the freedom of debate vision of all human monuments, and not wish, as he passes was of the highest importance to the liberties of this counby, to place on those monuments some little memorial of try, and that freedom of debate ought ever to receive the himself; some volume of a book; or, perhaps, but a single fullest and most adequate protection. The question to be page, that it may be remembered discussed was clear of all these, relative, as appeared to him, to the mode in which this protection was to be given. Was the mode proposed in the resolution before the House consistent with the constitution of the United States? Did this absolute prætorian power reside by the constitution in this branch of the Government? Mr. A. thought that, unless he labored under delusion, he should be able to show that the exercise of such a power here, instead of being sanctioned, was positively condemned and reprobated by the constitution." "When we are not, that we have been." Sir, these models of ancient and modern policy and eloquence, formed in the great schools of free discussion, both in earlier and later time, are in the hands of thousands of those youths, who are now, in all the parts of our country, forming themselves for the public service. This Hall is the bright goal of their generous, patriotic, and glorious ambition. Sir, they look hither with a feeling not unlike that devotion felt by the pilgrim as he looks towards some venerated shrine. Do not, I implore you, sir, do not, by your decision this day, abolish the rites of liberty consecrated in this place. Extinguish not those fires on her altar, which should here be eternal. Suffer not, suffer not the rude hand of this more than Vandal violence to demolish," from turret to foundation stone," this last sanctuary of freedom. It had not been pretended, on the other side, that this House could try for a private and personal injury to the member from Ohio. Every gentleman who had spoken, had, he believed, conceded the point that, so far as the personal injury merely was concerned, it did not pertain to the jurisdiction of the House. It was, however, equally contended that, so far as the member from Ohio had reI call on the whole House-to you, the majority of this ceived any injury in his public and official character, it House, 1 more especially now appeal. You know me as was within the House's cognizance. What, then, was no partisan of the distinguished individual who now holds the proposition he had to meet and refute? It had been the ruling power of this nation. No vote of mine aided said that this was a case of injury committed, not against in placing him in the Executive chair. Could party strata- the member from Ohio, but against the House, and that it gem ever be mingled, by me, with great questions of na- was the privileges of the House they were called to vintional interest and honor, if the instruments of operation dicate. Be it so. Mr. A. must contest, not that proposimight, in any case, be consecrated by the purposes which tion, but the main one, viz. that the House might properly put them in motion, I would have labored to induce you assume to be the forum for trying such injuries, whoever to send the respondent away, unrebuked, from this was to be regarded as the subject of them. Very high inHall, that you might, thereby, have fixed on the cha- dignation had been expressed, as though it were indecent racter of this administration a coloring of infamy more en- and unfit that such a power should devolve on any other during, on the page of history, than that leprosy on the forum. Now, his idea was exactly the reverse of this. The human form, which the stream of time, through a thou- inquiry was as to an injury received by this House. Was sand descents, could never wash out of the human it for the House to display any avidity for the jurisdiction blood. You, you took this man to be the ruler of this of such a question? He should suppose that mere decency people, and brought him here from the peaceful and not would demand the contrary. His feeling would be, that, unhonored shades of the Hermitage; and to you it most if it were possible for the House to avoid the jurisdiction, sacredly appertains to preserve the character of his fame, they ought earnestly to desire to avoid it. Was the House and to return him again to that retreat, with honors untar- to seek to be the judge in a cause confessedly its own? nished by any deed of your doing. Preserve, then, I Surely not. What was the nature of the offence? It was conjure you, preserve the constitution; preserve the inde- said to be a violation of the dignity of the House. We pendence of the Legislature; the honor, the charac- were led, then, to inquire what was the nature of that ter, the fame of the Executive. Preserve the freedom dignity. And, as the first inquiry in such an investigation, MAY 11, 1832.] = Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R, tent, then, were gentlemen who were so much in the prac tice of exclaiming on the topic of the despotic assumptions of the present Executive, in making this assumption for ourselves? what was the standard by which to measure the dignity either of an individual person, or of a legislative body? The only standard by which it could be measured was the hutan imagination. Here, then, he was sitting as a trier of his own cause; and of an offence, to measure which Mr. A. said that he was not yet contending that such a there was no rule, or such a rule only as varied with the power did not belong to this House. He was as yet only peculiar character, or even temper, of every individual. attempting to show what the true character of the power One held one idea of dignity; another, another. So that was. Was it not such a power as, even if they possessed no offence was committed, or the grade of it swerved, ac-it, they ought to be as anxious to get rid of, as some gencording to the self-opinion and estimate of individuals as to tlemen seemed to arrogate it, since, according to every personal consequence and position. And as the offence just view of jurisprudence, it was odious? But did we was thus without definite standard or limit, so, of course, possess, had we fair title to it? Whence is the derivation must be the measure of punishment. The one must be of the power? The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. as indefinite and illimitable as the other. Gentlemen seem- BURGES] had taunted a gentleman who sat before him, ed to argue as if the proper punishment was imprison-[Mr. POLK, ] because he had come upon us with fragments ment. But why confine the jurisdiction to imprisonment? of Latin, and had put the question, Unde derivatur? UnHas not the House the same unbounded range in the in- welcome as the question might be, Mr. A. should renew fliction of punishment, if the just forum, which any other and repeat it. He still asked, in relation to such a power tribunal could possess? Why might it not punish such an as was claimed, Unde derivatur? And with what observaoffence, as the British Parliament had punished offences tion, asked Mr. A., did the gentleman accompany his taunt? of the same kind--by the pillory--by riding the offender He told you, and he [Mr. A.] hoped the House would rethrough the streets with papers on his back--by a heavy collect the expression--he told you of the majesty of the fine? There was no more principle to limit the punish- House, and, on the ground of this attribute, arrogated the ment to one of these modes, than to another. The whole authority in question--an assumption tantamount to a declawas matter of unqualified discretion. ration of all power. And what is the foundation on which every advocate of the proposed resolution builds his argu. ment? They all say that the power to punish contempts is an essential, inherent part of legislative power, and, as such, transferred and vested in this House, under the grant of legislative power in the constitution; it was therefore not only consistent with, but derived from the constitution. On the contrary, Mr. A. maintained it was not only not sanctioned, but is repudiated by the constitution, as standing in contrast with some of its wisest and most essential limitations. Suppose the case had relation to the Executive. The person and privileges of the Executive had as much right, and even more occasion, to be protected, than any other department of the Government. And why? Because he was more frequently obliged to perform acts which bore hardly upon the wishes and interests of individuals. He was called every day to wound some one whose prayer he rejected, or whose office he took away. Suppose the President should arrogate to himself the same uncontrolled, undefined power which was now claimed for this House. First, to imagine the amount of his dignity; then, The constitution, said Mr. A., does not pass to Congress to imagine the degree in which it was offended; and then all legislative power. The language is, "all legislative to choose from the whole range of punishment, unbridled powers herein granted' shall be vested," &c. What is and uncontrolled. And he would ask any impartial man the distinction? The grant of legislative power simply, whether such an authority would not be as much a des- would convey the whole mass, not inconsistent with the potism, and of as absolute a form, as had been exerted on moral law. But that would not be a Federal Government. European, or even on Asiatic soil. If 1, asked Mr. A., am│It is of the essence of this Government that its allotment clothed with discretion to call any man before me, whom of authority should be specific and limited, not general. I suppose to have been guilty of an offence against my That form of authority might pertain to one of our State own ascription of personal consequence, and to punish him Governments, if not restrained by its constitution. Our with the same discretion, I ask where the criterion is to Federal Government has no pretence to any power not be found to ascertain a more unlimited despot than this derived from its own constitution. That will not be conwould make me. If such a power existed abroad, every man tested. The legislative power derived is so much as "is would pronounce it Turkish. Is it any better if it exists herein granted." This power given is therefore defined. in this House? On the contrary, was it not a great deal How defined? By direct expression in every instance? worse? Because no body of men is ever as responsible as a That would have been, if not impracticable altogether, single individual. Why not? In such a body the responsibi- attended with the most cumbrous inconvenience. How lity is diluted by division, so that the portion resting on each defined then? The more essential powers by expression. individual is small enough, in practical effect, to be nearly They are enumerated. The incidental by equivalent deannulled. The House may refuse to call the yeas and scription, in a single clause-"to make all laws necessary nays; and then, after an act of the most revolting tyranny, and proper for carrying the expressed powers into ef where are the means to bring the individuals who passed fect," &c. How then are any of these powers, the one it to an account? He, therefore, again insisted that such a or the other class, to be exerted? The mode is plainly power, in such a body, would be more obnoxious than in expressed. By law! The authority to make laws, and the hands of one man. And, further, it would be worse "all the laws which shall be necessary and proper" for the in the House of Representatives than in any other collec-purpose! Can there be any other mode, this being set tive body he knew of. Because, in behalf of any act, how-down? Can any other be wanted, this being the very best ever outrageous, such a House might claim, as it would and sufficient? Any other, is it not supererogation if it claim, and as it now claimed, that it was done from a re-be safe-interpolation if it be dangerous? If the whole gard to the interests of the people. This would be the Congress then be confined, in relation to every class and invariable pretension in such cases. Every body knew that collective bodies might do, and had done, what no individual would ever have the hardihood to attempt, restrained, as even the worst of these must ever be, by some degree of deference to the opinions of their fellow-men. Every body knew, too, from history, of the audacious stretches of authority which representative bodies, especially, had sheltered under that character. How consis VOL. VIII.-187 description of its powers, to the mode of execution by law, the only mode not dangerous, the only mode recognised by sound jurisprudence, characteristic of free Government, shall a single member of this same Congress, consisting of co-ordinate and equal members, be dispensed from this same restraint? Whether authority is to be exerted by the whole or a branch, is not the condition equally prescribed, and the reason less (if reason there H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 11, 1832. could be) for dispensation, as relates to a single and un- Legislature were to depend on no other authority, that is balanced branch, than the whole Congress? Would not to say, to be superior to the ordinary principles and forms the anomaly be enormous if this were otherwise? The of protection, was, to say the least of it, a strange one. If whole Congress, there is no dispute, can only denounce, any principles were superior to exception, not only under not inflict punishment, conformably to a rule prescribed free, but all just Governments, surely the necessity of depreviously to the offence. What is maintained here? clared rules to ascertain, and distinct tribunals to adjudiThat a branch of this same body, in the contingency that cate offence, were to be regarded of the number. The the offence shall have been committed against itself, (the idea was still more strange, that exemption, in this respect, very case in which the observance should be strictest,) was to redound to the branches of the legislative body shall be exempt from this first mandate of reason and separately, or to two of them separately, though it did justice? The power to punish contempts, if derived from not, as was admitted, to the whole in their conjunct form. the constitution, must pass, Mr. A. said, to the entire Le-There was no more occasion for departure from received gislature, to be exerted in the mode in which the same principles, as regarded either member of the legislative power is to be exerted in other cases, no other recipient body, than in any other case. Perhaps there was less, or mode being indicated in that instrument. as a body of so much consequence and authority was the The illogical inference in this case, he said, was easily least likely to be invaded. The notion had been thrown pointed out. Freedom of debate is guarantied by the con- out, that if the dependence for protection as regarded the stitution. It ought to be, and the guaranty be made ef- constitutional guaranty to freedom of debate, rested elsefectual. But does any inference follow as to the jurisdic- where than on ourselves, it might be lost, from a defect of tion, that this must belong to the offended branch of the the concurrence of the other branches of the Legislature Legislature, not the entire body? or, as to the mode of ex-in essential measures of protection. But the other memerting this jurisdiction, that it must be independently of bers, it was to be recollected, Mr. A. said, were equally the ordinary forms and safeguards of jurisprudence? dependent on us for the safeguard of their immunity, and If the power in question resided in the House, it could had the same motive with ourselves not to deny the requinot, Mr. A. went on to remark, be sustained in the modes site provision, which, in relation to this, and every other of derivation of it which were asserted. Here was a per-claim of theirs, we had equal facility to deny in turn. The sonal immunity granted to the members of the Legislature. true safeguard was, not to let a guaranty so essential deBut an immunity was not a power. All that it could au- pend even on ourselves, liable as we were to be divided thorize in the parties invested with it, as distinct from the in opinions, and to be distracted by faction; neither on the general Legislature, was defence and self-protection. That contingent or casual concurrence of the other branches of was the only result of immunity. Supposing it authorized Legislature, open to the same divisions and distraction, or its possessors to combine and form a forum: this would to conflict with our body. The true way was, to put it be for a repressive purpose only. But punishment went beyond the reach of these contingencies and influences, beyond this, and was not, therefore, within the scope of and of all others. How? By assigning its protection, anthe measures which the protection of personal immunity tecedently to the rise of evil influence or distractions, to would authorize. If such an immunity stood in need of the tribunal elected and established for this peculiar office, support, that was a call addressed to the general legisla- the impartial guardianship of all rights and franchises tive authority, to be supplied as any other defect of an which the constitution recognised--the judiciary. This essential provision for a particular or public good. safeguard might, indeed, as every other, prove deficient; The principle of derivation set up in the argument was but it was in contemplation of all sound political philosono more sustainable, however, Mr. A. said, in relation to phy to be deemed both impartial and efficient, and was, the general legislative authority, than this branch of it.in all events, the least exposed to perversion from collaWhat was this principle? An inference from the powers teral and sinister influences. of legislation in mass. But the constitution rejected this Important as our constitutional guaranty of free debate mode of deriving power from it. The principle was now was, Mr. A. said it could not be regarded as more so than admitted on all hands, that an implied power could only the constitutional guaranty of fair trial to the citizen. be derived from a single member of the expressed powers. Were we at liberty to give effect to our right by any The admission of a different construction, by which the method which would break down this most essential and inference should be made from several powers in combi-vital of the rights of the people? If our privilege could nation, and still more from the entire mass of legislative be guarded by the summary power of punishment assumpowers, would be obviously inconsistent with the charac-ed for the House on the breach of it, what became of the ter of a defined grant. By this cumulative mode of con- constitutional provision, that "the trial of all crimes, exstruction, any and every power would result, and a federal cept in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;" of the be in no respect different from an ordinary Government. further guaranty in all criminal prosecutions (this is To the general mass of legislative power, what is the one) of an impartial jury," by the sixth article of the power which is not incident? But if a single expressed amendments; of the provision by the fifth amendment, power must be the source of implication, where was the that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or propower in the constitution to which the authority of either perty, (is not liberty to be affected here?) without due probranch of the Legislature, or the whole, to inflict (not cess of law?" For the largest offences, here are forms denounce) punishment for contempts, or any other cause, to be observed. In cases of open treason against the was to be traced? None could be pretended. To say whole body of the State, they cannot be dispensed with. that members "should not be questioned for any speech Shall they be inviolable only in the case of offence against or debate in either House," (the language of the constitu- one isolated branch of the Legislature, in which it assumes tion,) was not saying that either, or that both Houses were to be the trier of its own cause--in this case null-in all to have cognizance of the offence if they were disturbed other cases sacred? in the enjoyment of this privilege. No peculiar rule of We require a constitutional provision, said Mr. A., even vindication was implied for this right, more than any other to give us power to establish rules for our own proceedentitled to protection from the authority of the Govern- ings," and to punish our own "members for disorderly ment. Nor did any, as appeared to him, [Mr. A.,] result behavior." Is it congruous with reason, this being requir from the reason of the thing. It was expedient in all ed, that we may punish other persons, dispensing with all cases that rights should be vindicated, injuries repressed; rules of proceeding respected by other tribunals, and rebut according to previously declared rules, and impartial press "disorderly behavior" towards us, in disregard of modes of arbitrament. The idea that the two Houses of all forms of order in punishment, practised under the |