2 MAY 11, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. or R. laws, and ordained by the constitution? If a claim to pro- the other for a single day. Will any man tell me that this ceed in this way was not solecism, Mr. A. said, what would is a real effective protection for our persons and privideserve that appellation? leges? I am asked, where, then, is the protection for our I will now add a few words as to the grounds on which legislation? I answer, wherever it be, this is none. Supthis measure is advocated. It is said that every grant posing a member should be horse whipped or caned the involves the incidents necessary to give effect to it, and day after Congress adjourns. We have then no power to that in this view the power in question of self-protection protect him whatever. But, on the first day, our power is to be regarded as an inherent part of every legislative is abundant. As the session advances, our power wanes, authority. We are a legislature. Yet this doctrine until, at length, it vanishes altogether. I had rather that claims for us judicial power, and a whole series of ju- we had none. The idea of such protection is even abdicial powers. They say this power is inherent. What surd. I am asked to protect the dignity of this House. is meant by an inherent power? It must be an essential I say this is no protection, and better renounce every element; a constituent part of that in which it is inherent. guaranty, than rely on this. But I answer, finally, the The claim is as an element of the legislative function of protection is in the laws promulged previously to the a judicial power. On the face of it this is incongruity. offence, when there is nothing to obstruct the adoption, If the power be claimed not as an element, but a condition and the courts the proper administrators of the laws. An necessary to this function, this is assumption of the ques- honorable colleague of mine [Mr. DoDDRIDGE] has tion. Whether it be necessary, is the precise point of con- spoken in the present debate with great effect. And why? troversy. How are we a court? I can understand how Because he sounded the tocsin. The trumpeter of a the Parliament of Great Britain are a court; and how is party will always have influence in this House. And his that? Their legislative assemblies came into being under first assertion, when he undertook to become a political the feudal system. They had all sorts of powers mixed lecturer, was, that he had always been, what he now is, a up together. They could depose kings and try ministers. decided advocate of the propriety and constitutionality of They sat in all capacities. England was, in this respect, the sedition law, the abandonment of which he only juslike all other countries of Europe having legislative tifies in deference to public sentiment. Sir, I was glad to assemblies at all. The legislative power was general, hear this avowal. From this one specimen the House can mixed, unlimited. Parliament deposed Richard II and judge to what sort of doctrine it has been lending its Edward II; and when its powers came to be subdivided ear. And what was his next step? He censured another into three separate departments, a portion of each power colleague of mine [Mr. PATTON] for the latitude of the was left with each branch of the Government. Both the doctrine he maintained. He thought the power was very House of Lords and the House of Commons are courts, as arbitrary in its character. Yet he himself maintained it the King was a court, and felt most heavily in that capacity, to be inherent in the House. He ridiculed, too, the disfor a long time. But why? From the confusion of feudal tinction advanced by a gentleman from New York, [Mr. times. But the fact that Parliament has judicial power, is BEARDSLEY,] between murdering a man, and murdering no evidence that Congress has it. This assertion is directly a member. The gentleman from New York, thereupon, in the face of the constitution, which declares that all ju- disclaimed that distinction. I adopt it, and maintain that dicial power shall be given to another department. "The it flows necessarily from the doctrine on the other side, judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one which discriminates between the penalty of offence comsupreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress mitted against the laws and the House. The proof is may, from time to time, ordain and establish." There short. Suppose a quarrel takes place out of this House is, indeed, one exception in the case of impeachment. on matters not relating to its business, and one of the But, exceptio confirmat regulam. The constitution has parties being a member of this House is murdered. No made one exception. May we, therefore, set up another man pretends that the House could interfere. But supto subserve our own authority? I am asked why the pose a member is murdered for words uttered in debate courts have this power. The answer is, that, being ju- on this floor. Then the doctrine of the advocates of the dicial, it must pertain, if anywhere, to the judiciary au- power must be, that we may interfere and contend for thority. There must be some set apart to try offences; jurisdiction over the perpetrator. Then difference does and if the courts have not power to try offences of all de- result as respects our jurisdiction, if the party be murscriptions, nobody has. In what way can we claim such a dered as a member, not merely as a man. My colleague power? Look at the extent in which the courts them- [Mr. DODDRIDGE] painted in lively colors the perils which selves are vested with this power of punishing for con- environed us just now. He declares that at this moment tempt. Even as to them, it is properly confined to acts attempts are making on the independence of the Senate, done in conspectu, in actual sight of the court; and we and he uttered the most gloomy forebodings as to that of affirmed this doctrine last year by a declaratory, not an the judiciary. But to what purpose this Cassandrian enacting statute. And yet, now, we arrogate in our own vaticination? To work you up to maintain your own incase this form and extent of judicature, which we denied dependence and safety through this power. And whence even to the courts themselves, the depositories of judicial does he derive this extraordinary power, which is to authority, as their appropriate appendage. guaranty the safety of the Senate, of the judiciary, The main topic of debate is the necessity of self-pro-and ourselves, and the people? He says we have it tection; and, on the ground of this necessity, the House because we are a legislative body. But, pray, does is goaded on to the support of a power inconsistent with not the President of the United States exercise a the character of all our institutions. Arbitrary as it is, is part of the legislative authority? Is not his assent this power substantially and really protective, the aspect required to every law? And we have this power, in which alone it can be maintained? No one denies that as inseparable from this character, why has not the Preour power to punish expires at all events with the session.sident? Suppose a man should knock down the Chief Suppose, then, that a comparatively venial offence shall be Magistrate, and tell him that he did it in consequence of committed on the first day of the session. We resolve, his veto on the Maysville road. This would be assailing as a punishment, that the offender shall be confined du- the President in his legislative capacity. According to ring the session. Suppose, further, that a very aggravated my colleague's doctrine, the President possesses the same offence should be committed on the very last day of the arbitrary power to protect himself as we do. He might session. How can you hold an equal balance of justice say that this was an offence against his dignity--a conbetween these two offenders? You punish the one du- tempt, and proceed to inflict any punishment he should ring the whole continuance of the session. You punish deem fit. But suppose him knocked down for remov H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 11, 1832. ing a man from office. In that case the President would ty? Above all, could analogy be derived from the Enghave no remedy in his own hands; because, in making ap-lish Parliament, so different in character from a Legislapointments, he does not act in his legislative capacity.ture of limited powers, to justify this arbitrary authority? Was not this distinction a fair conclusion from the doctrine And, finally, if such precedents could be shown, and contended for? The gentleman from Rhode Island, and were to be regarded as having application, it was in proof his colleague, had both indulged in vehement appeals on that the English Parliament had not itself, till long after the subject of the violent and dangerous temper which its origin, in a most arbitrary period, as regarded the exthey ascribed to the President; yet theirs was the doc-ercise of all forms of power, pretended to exert this trine which would set him up as a sole judge in cases of power, (Temp. Eliz.) that it was contested early, not contumely to himself, and invest him with a lawless au- without success, in a period the least auspicious to the asthority! sertion of any principle of freedom, (Temp. Chas. II,) His colleague appeared to him, Mr. A. said, no less un-and down to a very late period (Temp. Geo. III) had fortunate in an argument, on which he had insisted not a been denied and triumphantly resisted. If the sole basis little, derived from the fact of our own State Legislature of the assumption of such a power was its necessary inhaving exercised the power in question. But how exer- herence in the function of legislation, (which was the arcised it? The law he read was passed under the idea gument,) was not this evidence of its separation from the that the sedition law (of the principle of which he had function, early and late, even under the undefined jurisavowed his approval-) diction of the English Parliament, absolute in refutation of the argument? [Here Mr. DODDRIDGE interposed, and asked leave to explain. Mr. ARCHER having yielded the floor, Mr. Here Mr. A. went into some recapitulation of the heads D. repeated and explained what he had said in relation to of his argument, and was proceeding in a further comthat law.] ment on that of Mr. DODDRIDGE, when a conversation took Mr. A. then resumed. On what ground did my col-place between them, which it is not deemed material to league contend for such a power here? Expressly on the report. He then proceeded. He must be permitted to ground that it was inherent in the legislative function.say to his colleague, that whilst the strenuous adversary But if it were so, why was a special law on the subject of all arbitrary, tyrannical power, and its denouncer in needed in Virginia? Virginia had a very general consti- the hands of a President whom he dislikes, his doctrine tution. Yet, under that large and liberal instrument, a makes him its equally strenuous asserter in the House, in law was requisite, or the Legislature could not have ex-whose exertion of it he is to participate. Then he finds erted the power. If, then, that law had not been passed, it not innocent and salutary only, but even indispensable the power would not have been inherent. My colleague to liberty. The difference with his colleague was not as referred to the Parliament of Great Britain, and to the to the principle, but the department of application. He enormous amount of its substantive powers. But his ar-[Mr. A.] professed the same hostility to arbitrary authority gument is as little sustained by that reference as by the in every form, and whatever the department for which it general principles of jurisprudence. The question is not was assumed. so to be decided. I will tell him when such a power was He should not attempt to go into the facts or extrinsic first assumed and first exerted by the English Parlia- circumstances of the case. With the accused he had no ment. It was claimed for the first time in the reign of acquaintance beyond that incident to a service with him Elizabeth, and, as early as that of Charles II, the power formerly in this House. He could have no personal bias, was denied, and successfully contested, in the case of therefore, to mislead his opinion. As to the defence Strobel. In addition to this, the gentleman from New which had been resorted to, that the member from Ohio York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] quoted the case of Miller, in the had published the speech which gave the offence, and so reign of George III. Miller resisted the execution of the removed himself beyond the pale of his privilege, he [Mr. power, and Parliament adjourned without any attempt to A.] thought there was nothing in this. The assault was carry it into effect. He expressly refused to obey the known to have been made for the speech, not the publimandate of the House of Commons, and yet they order- cation. He [Mr. A.] admitted both the privilege to speak, ed no prosecution by the Attorney General. The honor- and the privilege to publish. The principle--the benefit able gentleman assumed that such a power had been re- of the public, extended equally and indifferently to both. cognised under the Government of the United States. It might be as essential that the people should see the How were the precedents? The Senate issued its man- speech, to awaken their attention to a public abuse, as date in the case of Duane. But Duane not only omitted that the member should utter it. Another ground of deto attend, but sent a positive refusal to do so. Could fence appeared to him [Mr. A.] to be more tenable. It there be a grosser violation, admitting the authority? was a known principle of the doctrine of contempt, that And yet, notwithstanding this contumacy, that body did it admitted of purgation by the disavowal of the party. not dare to apprehend him. They rejected a petition for After such purgation, he ceased to be liable to punishment the discharge of these proceedings, but they took no for the supposed contempt, though he might to prosesteps to enforce them, and on the last day of the session, cution for false assertion connected with the purgation. all the members being present, they passed a resolution The party here, on his first arraignment, had disclaimed turning him over to the courts. In the case of Randall all purpose of contempt, declaring, that had he regarded and Whitney, the question indeed was made in debate, it as wearing that character, he would have forborne the but not insisted on by the parties. If they had defied, or assault. This, if the facts were to be gone into, presentHouston now should defy, our authority, where was the ed the true ground of defence of the accused. remedy? Had we control over any posse comitatus, like I am asked, said Mr. A., what is the protection I have the courts, to give effect to our judgments? Did we ap- to offer for the immunity of the members, and the security peal to the Executive, where was the law which he was of our legislation? I answer, the laws, such as they exist bound to see "faithfully executed?" Where the obliga- for the protection of all rights, or such as they may be tion to regard us as a court whose judgments he had no rendered if defective. Does any person intrude on my option but to enforce? Were precedents, if any of de-house or grounds, I am authorized to repel the intrusion terminate character could be found, (which there could by removal of the offender. Does he persist, or occasion not,) to be regarded as adequate evidences of the most me disturbance from the outside, I am authorized to put arbitrary form of judicial power attaching to the legisla-him under restraint, such as the occasion may demand, tive function, under a constitution which purported to till the arm of the law, through its appropriate ministers specify the essential attributes of the legislative authori- and modes, can be interposed. I may have resort to these remedies--do these things as an individual, civil person. The House, as a corporate person, has access to the same remedies--may do the same things. Is not this enough for protection? Punishment of the offender will be superadded by the action of law, if prosecution be desired. But punishment is something more than precaution or defence, though these are its ultimate purposes. Its immediate province is vindictive. Of this sort of operation, the House is not the appropriate organ on just theory, nor fitted to be its administrator in practice. It were impossible to conceive of an organ worse adapted. It would be too numerous, and abstracted by other concerns, if it could be just in its own cause, and exempt (which it could not) from collateral and sinister occasions of bias. Scarcely, indeed, would it be more deplorable that outrage went unreproved, than that it should be liable to the summary infliction of punishment, with no corrective tribunal, by the simple fiat of a body open to every instigation of undue excitement, and with ready access to the name of public good to cover its excesses. Mr. KERR, of Maryland, rose, and said: It seemed to be the indispensable duty of some member of the House to reply to the extraordinary dogmas which had been just uttered by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. ARCHER.] In a strain of vituperation most unusual and surprising, said Mr. K., that gentleman has assailed the principles which have been advanced by those who maintain the protective power of this representative body over its constitutional privileges, and the inviolability of its members in the exercise of their duties here. [H. OF R. what it is, in its present established theory and practice; and I shall treat of this controverted power as one to be tested only by constitutional provisions, and by a fair interpretation of the necessary powers conferred by them. Having due regard to these, and to the high importance of the principle of the independence and inviolability of this representative body, I can perceive no resemblance between this faculty of self-defence which we are about to exercise, and that "prætorian power" or "Turkish despotism"--those odious denominations with which the honorable gentleman has attempted to brand it. So far, indeed, from this, sir, I think its foundation and its affinity may be more justly ascribed to that sacred power of selfpreservation, which my honorable friend from Rhode Island [Mr. BURGES] has so eloquently traced to the hand of the Creator, and as the immediate gift of the Almighty to all his creatures-the intelligent or instinctive exercise of which he so admirably exemplified in all animated nature, however prone or feeble in its class; and whence, also, he deduced an inherent and indispensable right of self-preservation in every legally constituted assembly on earth. Sir, I do not often trespass on the patience of this House, but I must now beg its indulgence, even at this late hour, whilst I notice the arguments and observations which have fallen from some gentlemen on this floor, and endeavor to sustain the principles which I have already advanced. I will meet the charge of an attempt, on the part of this House of Representatives, to indulge in an act of arbitrary power by thus protecting itself and its members from outrage. Sir, when the gentleman from Virginia admits that When the gentleman first rose to address the House, I the party accused has been guilty of a violation of the pridirected towards him that respectful attention which his vileges of this body, and yet would have him to defy its usual propriety of deportment in debate had always led power to punish or restrain him, where is his consistency? me to manifest; and when he proclaimed that, if Euclid When the gentleman recognises the privilege, and admits had any power of demonstration, he would then demon- the violation of it, and yet assumes that the party accused strate the futility of the doctrines which had been advanced has purged himself of the offence, I pray to know what is by members of distinguished ability, I listened with pro- meant by such a statement as applicable to the case before found attention, in order to catch, if possible, at least the us. The gentleman has vehemently alleged this doctrine ingenuity of his arguments, if I could not be convinced of of expurgation, and proclaimed the acquittal of the accustheir solidity or truth. I need not announce my disap-ed, by a declaration of his own innocence! Upon what pointment, since every part of the gentleman's speech ground, sir? Has Samuel Houston been examined upon was in direct opposition to the known principles of law, oath, in the manner imagined by the gentleman from Virto the opinions of the ablest jurists, and, as I shall pre-ginia? Never, sir, as every member here must know. sently show, to the express decisions of the highest judi- Upon the first suggestion of interrogatories being put to cial tribunals, as well in England as in our own country, the accused, I objected to any one being offered to him upon the very subject of discussion. Yes, sir, I take upon beyond a mere demand of a general answer to the charge myself to assert that the power now proposed to be exer- alleged; and none else was ever offered. He has declared cised by this House, under the circumstances of the case that the charge was not such as ought to bring him before before us, is one established in every constitutional and this tribunal; and, so far from denying the act charged, legal mode, and recognised by the highest judicial tribu- he has confessed it, but avoided its legal consequences, nal in this Government, not in a manner implying any autho- and put himself upon his trial. What then, sir, becomes rity to contravene it, but, as by the courts of England in of the triumphant argument of the gentleman from Virgirelation to the like parliamentary privileges asserted there,nia, founded on the supposition that the party had effected collaterally, as a constitutional, self-preserving power, ex- his own acquittal by purging himself of the contempt? clusively belonging to each legislative branch of Congress. I think, sir, that the gentleman from Virginia ought to have reflected better in such a case, before he pronounced with authoritative infallibility upon the opinions of others, and ventured to denounce as "hardihood" the assertion, by those who have preceded me, of principles justified by every dictate of reason and of common sense, and support-and particularly those of his colleague, [Mr. DODDRIDGE,] ed and maintained by the highest legal and constitutional whom he thought proper to accuse of sounding the tocsin authority of which any such question is susceptible. of party. Whatever other gentlemen may feel on that With what the gentleman from Virginia might think point, I can meet the topic without self-reproach. It would proper theoretically to justify in the individual who stands be unworthy of any member of this House to cherish party now accused, or with the course which he himself might feeling in a case like this, and I disdain the idea in referbe excited to pursue in defence of his own character, al-ence to myself. I have neither partiality nor prejudice though he has spoken largely on those topics, this House has, to be excited on this subject, as it regards the individuals at present, no concern whatever. It is now a question of the whose conduct has raised the question before us. And, constitutional power of the House to protect itself against as to party considerations, and this charge of "sounding an alleged violation of its declared privileges, and I will not argue such a point upon the sophistical notions of any gentleman as to what Government ought to be, but by I confess, Mr. Speaker, that this hurried notice of the extraordinary speech of the gentleman from Virginia has fallen from me involuntarily, and thus prematurely, from the impulse of profound astonishment with which I listened to his animadversions on the remarks of other gentlemen who have offered their sentiments on this subject, the tocsin of party," I beg gentlemen who so often, and, as I think, so much out of place, have warned us against party spirit, to reck their own rede, and to keep their own H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 11, 1832. minds free from its influence. They may rest assured leges, as a matter of constitutional right and power, and that the people are enlightened enough to judge of our into the particular facts which are alleged to have constiproceedings, and will know how to distinguish the patri- tuted the transgression imputed to the accused. otic and disinterested representative from the reckless minion of party. It has been suggested by an honorable member from Connecticut, [Mr. HUNTINGTON,] that the vote already My honorable friend from Tennessee, who sits near me, passed for arresting the party upon the facts alleged, had [Mr. POLK,] has frequently been warning us against the affirmed and decided the breach of the privileges of the indulgence of party feeling, and has been flinging about House; and so it did, provided the facts have been estathe gauntlet of defiance throughout this trial. Whenever blished upon which that arrest proceeded. The gentlethe name of administration, or of the President, is men- man intended to say that no person should have voted for tioned, he seems at once excited and inflamed; and I won- the arrest, upon the case stated, without being first der that he has not been gratified by some Hotspur of the satisfied of the power of the House both to try and to opposition. I was so much struck with the gentleman's punish. So, indeed, it is. However, I had no part in that manner, as to be impelled, the other day, to call him to original proceeding, and I have kept myself free to decide order. I mean no offence, now, to the gentleman from in the final issue of the case. I was prevented, by illness Tennessee, when I apply to him the address of Shaks- and absence from the House, from any participation in its peare's Mercutio to the very peaceful Benvolio, on his first decision. When I saw so large a vote, I did at first perpetual admonitions against impending broils. "Thou suppose that the House had fully committed itself; but I art like one of those fellows, that, when he enters the con- must acknowledge that every individual, upon mature refines of a tavern, claps me his sword upon the table, and flection, would be at liberty to change his opinion, I am, says, 'God send me no need of thee!' and, by the ope- therefore, now willing to give every gentleman absolution ration of the second cup, draws it on the drawer, when, from his first vote, and to consider the subject as free, and indeed, there is no need." open, and undecided. Let every member make up his mind. As an independent representative of the people, I now deliberately assert the power and authority of this House to protect its members in the freedom of speech and debate upon this floor. With all the information, and all the lights which have been imparted to me, I maintain this opinion; and as I must give my vote, and I hold the subject to be of vital importance, I desire to give my reasons. Mr. Speaker, in the decision of this question the rights of the people of this Union are involved. It goes to the foundation of the Government; it strikes at the root of liberty; it may realize the boding fears of many who already apprehend a dissolution of the Union. For, if the representatives of the people, here assembled, cannot protect themselves against violence, and external influence and control, by whom shall they be protected? By what laws, by what judgments, or by what tribunals can they be preserved? Much has been said with regard to the capacity in which this House sits on this particular occasion--whether in a Sir, the declamation which has been uttered here about judicial or legislative one. We might pursue such an inthe assumed dignity of this House, and the aspersions quiry by a reference to the history of the British Parlia which have been so freely cast around and upon members ment, and see how its judicial and legislative faculties are who vindicate the privileges of this body, in the discharge commingled, or distinguishably exercised; but we must of its high functions, are unworthy of the slightest consi- look to our own constitution and usages. This House deration. We do not sit here, sir, as private individuals, sits sometimes in judgment on its own members, and some or as citizens claiming privileges and exemptions above times exercises the power of impeachment. It sits, in this other persons, but in the capacity of representatives of trial, not as a court of judicature, but necessarily in some this whole nation-of the people of the United States in analogy to one. It holds its high legislative character Congress assembled. We are the substitutes for the de- with which the people have invested it, but its proceed. mocracy of the country, sent here to do what our sove-ings having been impeded, and its privileges having been reign cannot do in person; for that sovereign is made up of violated in the person of one of its members, it stops to twelve millions of republican people! Hence, sir, the dignity exercise the power which, in its very creation under the of this honorable body. It is not our personal dignity, but constitution, was stamped upon it, of preserving itself the dignity of our masters-the people whom we repre- from external influence and control, and from the danger sent. Those sneering sarcasms which have been so often of a total annihilation of its independence. repeated in debate, charging on this body an attempt to render the persons and feelings of its members more sacred than those of other citizens, like all empty declamation, out of place, should pass by us "like the idle wind which we regard not." Having thus, Mr. Speaker, stated my general views of this measure, I might content myself with the privilege of a vote, which all may exercise, but I propose to enter more fully into the argument for a justification of the opinions I have advanced. Sir, we are about to decide a case in which, it is true, I listened, sir, to the defence which was offered by the the rights and privileges of a private citizen are involved, learned counsel for the accused, not only with a respectful as well as the privileges of the whole people, in the per- and devoted attention, (an attention greatly heightened sons of their immediate representatives. The dignity of by the interest of ancient friendship,) but with a deep this people is thus brought into question by the conduct anxiety to be informed upon this weighty question. I felt of the accused. To the high tribunal of public opinion, every disposition to applaud his eloquence, and I could and to our immediate constituents, we must all answer for not but sometimes admire his ingenuity; but his constituthe course that we may now adopt. It becomes us, there- tional and legal interpretations I was compelled wholly to fore, to deliberate calmly, and to decide with an enligh- repudiate. The learned counsel, and honorable members tened judgment, upon a case so important; and he who too, have talked of privileges undefined and undefinable; treats the question lightly, cannot, I think, either justly and the counsel of the accused complained, even to the appreciate the character of our Government, or regard last, that he was in some degree of ignorance of the charge the permanency of its free institutions. The first question before the House is, whether Samuel Houston is guilty of a breach of its privileges. This being decided affirmatively, will draw after it, as I trust I shall prove by reason and authority, the power of punishment, as well as the kind and extent of it. But this question involves an inquiry into the nature and extent of our privi alleged against his client. He claimed, at least, that one inalienable right belonged to the citizen-that, before he is put upon his trial, he shall know and understand the accusation against him. In the eloquent and ingenious counsel these were the commonplaces, I will not say the tricks, of the advocate; but, in honorable members, with a full knowledge of the facts, and with the constitution in their MAY 11, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R. hands, those grave doubts and subtleties did, I confess, independent action of representatives, although they left surprise me. The accused himself displayed no such fasti- the mode of protecting them to the law, which neces dious hesitation on this point. He affected not to misun-sity and the nature of things conferred. derstand the charge. He confessed the violent act charged The privilege now in question is plainly set down in upon him, but avoided its legal consequence, by denying this constitution, which all know. It is therein proclaimthe intent imputed, or that he has committed any breached that a member shall not be questioned elsewhere for any of constitutional privilege. The counsel at length sup-speech or debate. But it is contended that, as no exposed that "the main charge was that of assaulting a mem- press power is granted to punish a breach of this priviber for words spoken in debate, and, thereby, committing lege, this House cannot exercise any power over the party a breach of the privileges of this House;" and then he interfering with it, although it is admitted that within its boldly said he would undertake to show that no such pri- own walls it may inflict punishment for any disturbance of vilege belongs to a member of this House, as to be free its proceedings there. Such doctrines amount to a total from assault for words spoken in debate, unless it were in abrogation of the provisions of the constitution, whilst the the House, or on his way to or from the House; at least, admissions of those who hold them prove their absurdity, so far as the power of this House could be extended for and establish the opposite construction. his protection, or for the punishment of the offender. The privilege declared was intended to secure to the Sir, both the privilege and the specific charge of a vio- House, in the persons of its members, or rather to the lation of it were represented in the fullest manner to the people whom they represent, free, uninfluenced, and unparty accused. The constitution has clearly defined the disturbed deliberation. The power of legislation, with privilege and the offence. By the order of this House, which the constitution has invested each House of ConSamuel Houston was informed from the Chair that he gress, necessarily includes the right and the power to had been brought up to answer the charge of having as- deliberate freely and without restraint. This freedom saulted and beaten WILLIAM STANBERRY, a member of cannot exist without the power of self-protection. The the House of Representatives of the United States from means of legislation are inherent in the power to legislate; the State of Ohio, for words spoken by him, in his place, they are incidental, because the power cannot otherwise as a member of this House, in debate upon a question exist. If the House has any self-protecting power, it is then pending before the House. Moreover, sir, a copy not because it is, in any case, specially given, but because of the letter of the member from Ohio, containing an ex-it is essential to enable it to perform its functions: and, to act specification of the alleged outrage, was delivered to this end, it must preserve the liberty and safety of its the accused. I recite these proceedings to meet the ex-members, so as to enforce their attendance. These traordinary argument of the counsel, and to show the falla- privileges, and the enforcement of them, are the essential cy of the statements which have been made of the case. means of exercising the power to legislate. They are not They prove that the party had notice, the most formal and conferred as personal honors or distinctions upon indiprecise, of the nature of the charge, that this was known viduals, but for the benefit of the people; hence, they do to his counsel, and known to every member of this House. not attend us at our homes in the recess, but are limited I will now, Mr. Speaker, refer to the foundation of that to the period of our service of the people, and cease with power which it is proposed to exercise on the present the necessity which created them. Therefore, sir, those occasion, and I conclude that the privileges conferred wise and patriotic men who framed our constitution, with by the constitution incidentally and necessarily embrace such knowledge of the essential nature of these legislative the power to punish any violation of them. privileges, and of the struggles of the English Parliament to maintain them, would never have sent it unfinished from their hands, had they not been perfectly convinced, from reason and analogy, that the incidental power to enforce the privileges they defined would necessarily be inferred. And on whom has the constitution conferred this power to protect and preserve the privileges so clearly given to the Senators and Representatives in Con By the sixth section of the first article of the constitution, privileges of members are thus defined: "They shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place." Here, sir, are as plain and clear definitions of gress? the privileges of members, as language could express. Sir, it is on each House, not on the Congress; and Here are rules of action and of right, not hung up on high, in each House necessarily arises the incidental power of like the laws of the bloody tyrant, which have been al-preserving its existence, and enabling itself to discharge luded to, but plainly set down in the constitution, and in the deliberative and legislative functions which that conthis little manual, where he who runs may read. The stitution expressly assigns to it. By looking to any other privilege is defined, and any violation of it is an offence branch or department of the Government for protecagainst the constitution, and necessity, if nothing else, tion, this House at once gives up its independence and gives the law of punishment. There is, too, a necessary its very existence. If we call upon the Senate, it has mercconnexion between a breach of the privileges thus defined ly the same power as ourselves, in reference to its own and a punishment of the offender, by restraint, during the body-not to ours. If you refer to the Executive, it has period of their continuance; and yet to adopt the nice dis- no power specially given for your protection; and the tinction which has been set up by some gentlemen be- judiciary, in its slow process, may leave you to perish, or tween preventive and retributive punishment, as laid down to be kicked out, like the Rump Parliament of England. by them, would refine away the whole efficacy of the pri- It is present protection that you want. If you attempt to vilege, and the power of preserving it. pass laws specially to define and secure your privileges, It has been remarked that the framers of our constitu- and punish the violation of them, the Senate will tell you tion were well versed in parliamentary history, and were that you already have the power, or they may not agree aware of the principle laid down in the English authori- to your system, or the Executive may veto it. Thus, one ties, that the privileges of Parliament were left undefined, branch of the Legislature, by throwing itself upon the because they were said to be undefinable, and that other for protection, gives up the efficacy of that power their dignity and independence were preserved by of independent self-preservation which the constitution keeping their privileges indefinite, and that, therefore, in clearly intended to bestow on each; and, by a reliance on our constitution, privilege was limited. The framers of the Executive sanction, both Houses would submit themthe constitution have, at least, clearly and prudently de- selves to the footstool of Presidential caprice. fined those privileges which are essential to the free and But, sir, the very admission, which is made on all hands, |