The honorable gentleman further observed, that if it was necessary for his defence, he should say that the accused had purged himself by his answer, and that, if he has perjured himself, you must indict him for the perjury. And by what rules? By the orders of the House, the accused was to be brought to the bar of the House, the charge was to be read to him, and he was simply to plead to it guilty or not guilty: the accused was not sworn or examined on interrogatories. And who ever heard of an indictment for perjury, where the accused was examined touching his own guilt, and where no oath or affirmation was administered or taken?

[MAY 11, 1832.

Congress may from time to time establish." This House sink into utter contempt and inefficiency without it. Could is not established by Congress, or known to the constitution it be expected that they should stand high in the estimaas a court, and, therefore, is not embraced in the terms or tion and reverence of the people, if, whenever they were spirit of the law of last session. insulted, they were obliged to wait the comparatively slow The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. ARCHER] contends proceedings of the ordinary courts of law for their rethat, if the House have the power, the President, as a con- dress? They certainly must have the power of self-vindistituent part of the National Legislature, has the same cation and self-protection in their own hands." The like power to commit and to punish, as is claimed for this opinions were entertained and expressed by the Supreme House. But is he a part of the Legislature? The first Court of the United States, in the case of Anderson, in resection of the first article of the constitution of the United lation to the power and authority of both Houses of ConStates declares that "all legislative powers herein granted gress. Again, it was said by Judge Platt, in delivering shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which his opinion in the court of errors in the State of New York, shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." in the case of Yates vs. Lansing, "that the right of punishThe President then constitutes no part of the Legislature, ing by summary conviction is inherent in all courts of jusand the argument of the gentleman is untenable. tice and legislative assemblies, and is essential to their protection and existence. The experience of ages has demonstrated that the power is perfectly compatible with civil liberty, and auxiliary to the purest ends of justice.” The far-famed, the liberal, and the enlightened Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons, in the case of John Reeves, said, "he called upon the House to come forward in the vindication of their privileges, their dignity, and their existence," and called the privileges of the House "The Code of Liberty." Not only is such power supported and sustained by the authority of illustrious names, and by the opinions and wisdom of illustrious men, but it is respectfully submitted that it strongly commends itself to the sober judgment and sound common sense of mankind. It is the remark of an able statesman and distinguished jurist of Great Britain, that "Government rests in a great degree on public opinion; and that, if ever the time shall come when factious men will overturn the Government of the country, they will begin their work by calumniating the courts of justice, and both Houses of Parliament." So in this country, if factious men shall ever destroy our constitution, and overturn our happy form of Government, they will begin their work by calumniating the Supreme Court of the United States and The power to commit and to punish for a breach of the both Houses of Congress, and by denying to them those privileges of this House is also shown, justified and proved powers necessary for their self-preservation and their very by necessity, the great principles of public policy, the existence. Without such power, the two Houses of Conpreservation of freedom of debate, the independence of gress, to all honorable, to all useful purposes, must cease members, and the liberty of the citizen. The right and to exist. If they have no power to restrain violence, and the power are as beneficial and indispensable as they are must suffer their members to be beaten in the streets like ancient and established. "Such power is a necessary pro- dogs, they will soon become contemptible. If their tection against lawless violence and the insolence of members may be wounded, maimed, and disabled, and yet power; the majority are bound to respect, and indeed have they have no power to punish, majorities in the House respected, the rights of every member, however obnox- may be changed, bills of vital interest to the whole counious to them, on all questions of privilege." (3 Hallam's Constitutional History, p. 358.)

The gentleman admits the accused has committed a breach of the privileges of the House, but denies the power of the House to punish; yet the same gentleman tells us that the security and protection of the House are found in its power to place a guard around the capitol. If we have no power whatever to arrest, from what source do we derive the power to place such a guard around the capitol? Suppose the guard, by violence, restrain a dangerous man from entering the House, by what law would the guard be protected against an action for assault and battery and false imprisonment?

Would to God that were the case here, that every one could and would feel that an insult, or a wrong done to any individual member, "however obnoxious," was a contempt and violation of the honor and dignity, the rights and privileges of the whole House!

try may be defeated, bills the most tyrannic and unjust may be passed; minorities may legislate for, and in the House of Representatives, give Presidents to the people, and thus destroy the primary maxims and first principles of republican Government.

The two Houses might be left without even a quorum of members for the transaction of business; the timid and Lord Erskine, in delivering his opinion in the House of the weak would give place, in the Halls of Congress, to Lords, in the case of Burdett, said: "The House of Com- the strong, the athletic, and the bold; age, and the wisdom mons, like every other tribunal, must have the power to of years of experience, would give place to the youthful, protect itself from obstruction and insult, and to maintain the middle aged, and the vigorous; eloquence would be its dignity and character. If the dignity of the House is mute, the energies of mind would be palsied, and all not maintained, its sun is set, never to be lighted up manly independence and nobleness of soul would be lost. again." Such power has often been said to be "one of To prevent such deplorable consequences, the necessity the most important safeguards of the rights and liberties of the power contended for has been acknowledged and of the people." It was said by Lord Coke that "the li- exercised in all legislative assemblies, ancient and modern, berties and privileges of Parliament are the very heart- in the rudest as well as the most polished ages; in the restrings of the commonwealth.” publics of Greece, Rome, and Venice, among the ancient Lord Ellenborough, late Chief Justice of England, in Germans, and in the Parliaments of Paris. Such power is delivering his opinion in the case of Sir Francis Burdett, sustained by the laws of nature, self-defence, and self-preremarked, "I have said that, a priori, if there were no servation, as explained and enforced in the writings of precedents upon the subject, no legislative requisition, no Puffendorff and Grotius, and declared by Justice Johnpractice or opinions in the courts of law, recognising such son, in the case of Anderson, to be inherent in, and to exan authority, it would still be essentially necessary for the ist from necessity in this House. If we have no priviHouses of Parliament to have it; indeed, that they would leges, or if we have privileges and are without the power

MAY 11, 1832.] ·

Case of Samuel Houston.

[H. of R.

to enforce them, how miserable, how helpless is our with which the accused is charged? May we not fear that situation! We are every moment exposed to individual law, order, morals, Godlike charity, religion, and governlawless violence and the assaults and attacks of power. ment will lose their vitality, and cease to govern the acExercising a high constitutional, inquisitorial power over tions of men, that society will be resolved into its original all the civil officers of the Government, from the highest principles, that brute force will be the arbiter of right and to the lowest, and a power to present for trial by im- wrong, and that the revengeful spirit of the savage will peachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, it is vastly too often govern civilized man? The times supposed may important to the pure administration of the Government, be brought about as well by the intimidation, as the corthe exposure of fraud and corruption, and the preserva-ruption of popular assemblies. The history of republics tion of the rights, liberties, and lives of the people, that teaches us that intimidation and violence have usually folthe members of this House should be left free to act, un-lowed in the train of corruption, and overthrown the liberbiassed and unawed by bribes, by flattery, by fear, by ties of the people. Let those days come, and the arm of violence, or by the denunciations, threats, or insolence of industry and enterprise will be palsied, genius will be disExecutive power. The freedom of action in this House heartened, patriotism will mourn, the tongue of eloquence once destroyed, there is no barrier between the people and arbitrary power.

The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. POLK] regretted that supposed cases have been presented to the House by way of argument. And why not reason from the past and the present to the future? For what purpose are the pages of history unrolled? Why does the statesman study the records of events in other countries and past ages, but from a knowledge of the past and the present, with an unerring eye to look forward through the long vista of time, and with wisdom to predict and prepare for future events? I speak not as a political partisan. In a country like this, power is constantly changing hands. The party in power to-day may be in a minority to-morrow.

But suppose the time shall come, when some Executive, of ungoverned and ungovernable, and vindictive passions, whose own will is his only law; who, unmindful of the responsible duties of his elevated station, "feeling power, and forgetting right," shall trample on the constitution and the laws, censure and calumniate the co-ordinate branches of the Government, and shall strike a last, a final blow at the liberties of the people, by attempting to check and to control the freedom of debate in this House, and shall summon to his aid the army, or a band of private assassins; suppose some Henry II of England to arise, a man without the best of all titles to command, "the power to govern himself," with the unchastened ambition of an Alexander or a Cæsar, unbounded in his designs, and indifferent as to his means to attain power, implacable, persecuting, cruel, and revengeful, at whose mere suggestion, at whose mere nod, thousands of De Tracys, De Morvilles, Bretos, and Fitz Urses shall be ready to assault, to assassinate, and to murder, as well in the legislative halls, as in the temples of religion.

will be silent, the genius of liberty will no longer preside over this splendid dome, no longer will the voice of freedom be heard in this Hall; but consternation, terror, and tyranny, desolation and ruin, will overspread the land: your rulers will be Domitians, Tiberiuses, and Neros, and the people--slaves.

When Mr. D. concluded, it was nine o'clock; the House manifested much impatience, and the Hall resounded with cries for the question.

Mr. EVANS, of Maine, demanded that it be taken by yeas and nays; which was ordered.

Mr. H. EVERETT moved a call of the House. On this question, Mr. POLK demanded the yeas and nays. They were ordered; and, being taken, stood as follows: yeas 116, nays 65.

The roll was now called, when it appeared that twenty members were absent.

Mr. WICKLIFFE moved that the call be suspended, and Mr. MERCER supported the motion by a remark in reference to the parliamentary usage; when the vote was taken, and the House refused to suspend the call--yeas 83, nays 90.

The absentees were now called, and the excuses on their behalf having been received,

Mr. CLAY moved to suspend the call; which was agreed to.

The following resolution, introduced by Mr. HARPER, was then read:

"Resolved, That Samuel Houston, now in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, should be forthwith discharged." And then the following substitute, proposed by Mr. HUNTINGTON:

"That Samuel Houston has been guilty of a contempt and violation of the privileges of this House." And the question being on agreeing to the substitute, it was decided by yeas and nays as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, Allison, Appleton,

What then can preserve the privileges of this House, and the liberties of the people? What can then prevent the attack of members by the club, the dagger, and the pistol? Nothing but public sentiment, and the exasperat-Armstrong, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, John S. Barbour, ed feelings of an indignant people. Can we expect that that will then give security and independence to members? and that too, when, even in this enlightened age, this land of laws, liberty, and christian morals, and on this very floor, we hear the distinguished member from Virginia, [Mr. ARCHER,] not as a member of this House, but as one of the gentlemen of the land, applaud the accused for saying to his friend that he would

-"right the wrong wherever given, E'en if 'twere in the court of heaven,"

Barnwell, Barringer, Barstow, I. C. Bates, James Blair, Briggs, Bullard, Burd, Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Coke, Lewis Condict, Silas Condit, Eleutheros Cooke, Bates Cooke, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crawford, Creighton, Daniel, John Davis, Warren R. Davis, Dearborn, Denny, Dewart, Dickson, Doddridge, Duncan, Ellsworth, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Felder, Grennell, Griffin, Heister, Hodges, Hughes, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersoll, Irvin, Jenifer, Kendall, Kennon, H. King, Kerr, Letcher, Marshall, Maxwell, R. McCoy, and add that, if any individual should offer him a personal McDuffie, McKay, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Newnan, insult, he would pursue him to the end of the habitable Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, Pitcher, Potts, Randolph, globe, in defiance of all inhibitions of the laws of this John Reed, Rencher, Root, Russel, Semmes, William B. country and the world, and in the teeth of human authori- Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Slade, Smith, Southty. When we hear respectable members utter such senti-ard, Spence, Stewart, Storrs, Sutherland, Taylor, Tompments on this floor, can we expect that public sentiment kins, Tracy, Vance, Verplanck, Vinton, Wardwell, Washwill, in the times supposed, be correctly formed? Willington, Watmough, Wilkin, Wheeler, Elisha Whittlesey, they not now lead to a repetition of offences similar to that Frederick Whittlesey, Edward D. White, Wickliffe, Williams, Young.-106.

[See history of the murder of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.]

NAYS.-Messrs. Alexander, R. Allen, Anderson, Angel, Archer, Ashley, J. Bates, Beardsley, Bell, Bergen,

H. OF R.]

Case of Samuel Houston.

[MAY 11, 1832.

consummate its judicial action, by passing a sentence of punishment. A simple majority has been sufficient to sus[pend all the ordinary rules and proceed with the trial; yet now it could not perform the last act, because of one of its ordinary rules.

Bethune, John Blair, Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, J. Brodhead, of the House, when the House, as a court, was about to
John C. Brodhead, Bucher, Cambreleng, Carr, Carson,
Chandler, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Conner, Craig, Da-
venport, Dayan, Doubleday, Drayton, Fitzgerald, Ford,
Foster, Gaither, Gilmore, Gordon, Thomas H. Hall, W.
Hall, Hammons, Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffman, Ho-
gan, Holland, Horn, Hubbard, Jarvis, Jewett, R. M.
Johnson, Charles C. Johnston, Kavanagh, A. King, John
King, Lamar, Lansing, Leavitt, Lecompte, Lent, Lewis,
Lyon, Mann, Mardis, Mason, McCarty, William McCoy,
McIntire, G. E. Mitchell, T. R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg,
Nuckolls, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, E. C. Reed, Roane,
Soule, Speight, Standifer, Stephens, Francis Thomas, P.
Thomas, Wiley Thompson, John Thomson, Ward, Wayne,
Weeks, Worthington.-89.

So Mr. HUNTINGTON's amendment was adopted. Mr. CLAY then offered the following further amendment, but the Chair decided it not now to be in order. That it is inexpedient to proceed further in the case of Samuel Houston, and that he be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms."

66

The CHAIR said that the gentleman from Virginia had misunderstood its decision. The House could by a majority resolve to punish. The Chair had not said that it would require a vote of two-thirds; but that the resolution, as it changed a rule, must lie one day. The majority could vote to punish; but they must act, in so doing, according to the rules of order."

Mr. McDUFFIE said that it appeared to him that the rules of the House had nothing to do with the subject; they had no bearing whatever on the present proceeding. Was not the House at that moment acting in contravention of the rule to which the Chair had alluded, by excluding the accused from the privileged seats? They hold him in durance, though he had been a member. This they had done by a majority; and why could they not punish him by

The resolution of Mr. HARPER, as amended by Mr.the same? The power to try and to punish was paraHUNTINGTON, was then agreed to.

Mr. CLAY now offered his former amendment, in the form of a resolution.

Mr. HUNTINGTON thereupon moved the following as an amendment of Mr. CLAY's resolution:

mount to the rules for the ordinary action of the House; mere regulations for its police could not interfere with the high judicial power of punishment they were now exercising. They seemed to him to have no more relation to the matter than the laws of the Medes and Persians. "That Samuel Houston be brought to the bar of the Mr. ADAMS observed that there was another consi. House on Monday next at twelve o'clock, and be there repri- deration which went to support the views which had been manded by the Speaker for the contempt and violation of given. The Chair had stated that every former member the privileges of the House of which he has been guilty, of either branch of the Legislature had the privilege and and that he be discharged from the custody of the Ser-right to be admitted to that Hall; but such was not the geant-at-Arms.

"That Samuel Houston be excluded from the exercise of the privilege conferred by the 13th standing rule of the House." [This rule confers the privilege of admission on the floor of the House on all who have at any time heretofore been members of either House of Congress.] Mr. DAVIS, of South Carolina, inquired whether the second resolution did not involve the suspension or alteration of a rule of the House.

language of the rule. Its enactment was not positive, but negative. It was a rule to exclude, not to admit; and former members of the House were admitted by an exception. Taking a particular individual out of this exception, left the rule itself still unimpaired.

Mr. WAYNE said he had first thought the decision of the Speaker erroneous; but, on further reflection, he had come to a different conclusion. It was true that former members were admitted under an exception; but if one of the excepted individuals might be excluded, another might, and thus the rule come in effect to be substantially repealed.

The CHAIR decided that the second resolution was not now in order, under the 13th and 105th rules of the House. By the 13th rule, any individual who has been a "member of either branch of the Legislature," has a The CHAIR replied. His decision had not been that right of admission to the privileged seats within the Hall. the House could not adopt the resolution inflicting punishThis was one of the standing rules of the House. By the ment; but only that it would be a violation of the rules to 105th rule, it was declared that "no standing rule or or-adopt the resolution proposed, without one day's notice, der of the House shall be rescinded or changed without since it changed a standing rule. one day's notice being given of the motion therefor." Mr. SUTHERLAND concurred with the gentleman Now, the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut from South Carolina. If it would require two-thirds to went, in effect, to change this rule, so far as to exclude repeal this rule, why did it not require two-thirds to arrest one of the individuals entitled to it from the privilege and the accused? His arrest deprived him of the privileged right it conferred. This was, therefore, to change with-seat: yet that resolution had been passed without any obout a day's notice, and by way of amendment, a standing jection on the score of order. The House was now acting rule of the House, in direct contravention of one of the as a court; not under its ordinary rules, but under rules it standing rules of the House, which the Chair presumed to be not in order.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said he supposed that the object and effect of the amendment was neither to alter a rule, nor to change a rule, but to carry out into punishment a judicial decision of the House.

Mr. MERCER took an appeal from the decision of the

Chair.

had adopted in special reference to this case. One of those rules directed that the accused should at certain times be withdrawn from the House; but the rule the Speaker referred to declared that he was entitled to remain. He could be removed by a majority; and if a majority could keep him out for a few days, it might keep him out permanently. When the House had adopted its rules for the trial, they had not been required to lie one day, but had been adopted instanter. The House had the same right to act now.

Mr. LAMAR demanded the yeas and nays on the appeal. Mr. MERCER considered the decision of the Chair as interfering with the proper action of the House. This Mr. VINTON objected to the decision of the Chair, as whole proceeding, from its first stage, had involved a sus-permitting one part of the sentence of the court to be pension of the ordinary rules of the House. It was in its pronounced this evening, but the residue of it not till a nature extraordinary; for the House did not ordinarily sit as a court. And having thus for several weeks been acting aside from the ordinary rules of order, it would be strange, indeed, if it should require a vote of two-thirds |

day after.

Mr. ARCHER considered the decision of the Chair as derogating from the power of the House to punish. Mr. WAYNE said, in answer to the argument of Mr.

MCDUFFIE, that the accused was now excluded only because he was in custody, and might not break the bounds. The question was then put on sustaining the decision of the Chair, and decided by yeas and nays--yeas 89, nays 106. So the House refused to sustain the judgment of the Chair. The question being now about to be put on Mr. HUNTINGTON's resolutions,

Mr. CLAY demanded a division of the question.

The question was then stated to be on the first branch of the amendment, which was in the following words: "That Samuel Houston be brought to the bar of the House on Monday next, at twelve o'clock, and be there reprimanded by the Speaker for the contempt and violation of the privileges of the House of which he has been guilty, and that he be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms."

Mr. WICKLIFFE demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. ARCHER observed that the majority seemed now to wish to creep out of the position they had assumed in relation to their power to punish for contempts. He asked them to work out their own proposition: as they claimed unlimited power to punish, let them imprison the offender, and then, on a habeas corpus, the question of right could be tried before a tribunal strictly impartial, (which the House could not be supposed to be, as it was itself a party.) To reprimand the offender merely was to propose a punishment fit for schoolboys.

Mr. HUNTINGTON replied. If the gentleman wanted imprisonment, with a view to try the question of power, let him move an amendment to that effect. Nothing could be easier. Mr. H. objected to the insinuation that a majority sought to creep out of their own doctrine. He thought nothing could be more expressive of the sense the House entertained of the indignity which had been offered, through it, to the rights of the people, than the measures he had proposed: he considered the punishment as much more severe than a brief imprisonment.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, expressed his hope that, as the majority had had firmness enough to take ground on their privilege, they would play out the play. An exclusion from the privileged seats would be superseded, should the people of Tennessee (as was not impossible, or improbable) send the individual to the House in the character of their representative.

Mr. HARPER moved the previous question. On that motion Mr. HUNTINGTON demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. SUTHERLAND reminded the Chair that it had decided, during a previous stage of this trial, that the previous question could not be put.

The CHAIR decided the motion to be in order: but the call for the previous question was not seconded.

The question was then put on Mr. HUNTINGTON's first amendment, (for a reprimand,) and decided by yeas and nays as follows: yeas 106, nays 89.

So the resolution was agreed to. The question then coming up on the second resolution, (for excluding from the privileged seats,)

[H. or R.

punishment during life upon a gentleman, and a man of honor, for one rash act.

Mr. COKE said the House had been favored with a piece of learning which he had not expected from the gentleman from New York, a gentleman so profoundly read in constitutional law. That the punishment of withdrawing a privilege granted by one of its rules as a mark of indulgence to certain individuals, was a punishment transcending all that was claimed to be exercised by the British Parliament! He had hoped there would have been greater harmony with respect to this than any other part of the proceedings; but, to his astonishment and mortification, he found it otherwise. If a man chose to read the constitution in one particular way, and pronounce every other construction of it to be an enormity, it was he who was justly to be charged with usurpation.

Mr. C. adverted to the threat uttered by Mr. Houston within a few feet of the Speaker's chair, and insisted that after a man had used such language, and had added profanity to outrage, he thought he was unworthy of being indulged with an admission to the privileged seats in that Hall.

Mr. CRAIG, Mr. BLAIR, and Mr. CLAYTON remonstrated against carrying the punishment further than a rebuke. The rights of the House had been now secured by the vote already passed, and there could be no necessity for pushing the proceeding any further. Mr. CLAYTON related the anecdote of an old soldier, who, when ordered to jail for obstreperous behavior in presence of the court, had lifted his stump of an arm to the judge, and said, "I will go; but I lost that arm to win the seat you sit upon."

Mr. BURD quoted the opinion of Chancellor Kent, to show that punishment for a contempt could not extend beyond the limits of the session.

The question was then taken on the second resolution, and decided by yeas and nays as follows: yeas 90, nays

101.

YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, Allison, Appleton, Armstrong, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, John S. Barbour, Barnwell, Barringer, Barstow, Isaac C. Bates, Briggs, Bullard, Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Coke, Collier, Lewis Condict, Silas Condit, E. Cooke, Bates Cooke, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Creighton, Daniel, John Davis, Dearborn, Denny, Dickson, Doddridge, Ellsworth, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Felder, Grennell, Griffin, Heister, Hodges, Hughes, Huntington, Ingersoll, Irvin, Jenifer, Kendall, Kerr, Letcher, Marshall, Maxwell, Robert McCoy, McDuffie, McKay, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, Potts, Randolph, John Reed, Root, Russel, Semmes, William B. Shepard, Slade, Southard, Spence, Stewart, Storrs, Sutherland, Taylor, Tompkins, Tracy, Vance, Verplanck, Vinton, Washington, Watmough, Wilkin, Elisha Whittlesey, Frederick Whittlesey, Wickliffe, Williams, Young.-90.

NAYS.-Messrs. Alexander, Robert Allen, Anderson, Angel, Archer, Ashley, James Bates, Beardsley, Bell, Bergen, Bethune, James Blair, John Blair, Bouck, BoulMr. CARSON expressed his hope that it would not be din, John Brodhead, John C. Brodhead, Bucher, Burd, adopted. He adverted to Mr. Houston's former member- Cambreleng, Carr, Carson, Chandler, Claiborne, Clay, ship and honorable character, and insisted, that though Clayton, Conner, Craig, Crawford, Davenport, Dayan, he had acted rashly, he had done nothing which ought Dewart, Doubleday, Drayton, Duncan, Fitzgerald, Ford, to exclude him from the society of honorable men. He Foster, Gaither, Gilmore, Gordon, Thomas H. Hall, William had suffered for his country, and would be a sufferer to Hall, Hammons, Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffman, Hothe day of his death, from wounds received in her service. gan, Holland, Horn, Hubbard, Ibrie, Jarvis, Jewett, R. M. Mr. CAMBRELENG said that the punishment now Johnson, Cave Johnson, Charles C. Johnston, Kavanagh, proposed surpassed even what was claimed to be inflict- John King, Henry King, Lamar, Lansing, Leavitt, Leed by the British Parliament. The utmost limit to which compte, Lent, Lewis, Lyon, Mann, Mardis, Mason, Mcthe House could go was imprisonment during the residue Carty, William McCoy, McIntire, Thomas R. Mitchell, of the session. To go beyond that was downright usur- Muhlenberg, Newnan, Nuckolls, Pierson, Pitcher, Plumpation (he said it with the utmost respect for the mer, Polk, Edward C. Reed, Rencher, Roane, A. H. House.) Surely gentlemen would not desire to inflict a Shepperd, Smith, Soule, Speight, Standifer, Stephens,

Case of Samuel Houston.

Francis Thomas, Philemon Thomas, Wiley Thompson, Mr. BARRINGER said he had very indistinctly heard
John Thomson, Ward, Wardwell, Wayne, Weeks, the explanation which had been given by the gentleman
Wheeler, Worthington.-101.
from Virginia, but had learned from it that the respond-

Mr. JENIFER and Mr. KERR offered further amend-ent desired liberty, when he should be placed at the bar, ments, going to confine the exclusion to the present ses-to address the House in the way of protest against its ausion of Congress, but withdrew them; and the question vas finally taken on the resolution as amended, and decided by yeas and nays as follows: yeas 96, nays 84. And then, at near eleven o'clock, The House adjourned to Monday.

Mr. EVERETT, of Massachusetts, inquired what was the substance of the paper. He was not prepared to vote upon the reading until he knew something of the charac-respectfully to stateter of the paper.

Mr. ARCHER said that he would briefly fulfil the request of the gentleman. The accused, knowing that he was to be brought before the House to receive a rebuke by its order, presumed it to be within his constitutional privilege to state in respectful language his objections in the way of a protest, not against the right of the House to punish him, but to punish him in this particular mode. Yet he had deemed it most respectful to the House to apprise it beforehand in what terms this would be done; and when the House came to hear the paper read, they would find that those terms were consistent with the profoundest respect for this body.

Mr. BARRINGER objected to the reading of the paper. Mr. VINTON inquired whether, if read, this paper would go on the journal of the House.

The CHAIR was understood to reply that that would remain at the pleasure of the House.

That he understands he is now brought before the House to receive a reprimand from the Speaker, in execution of the sentence pronounced upon him.

Was he to submit in silence to such a sentence, it might imply that he recognised the authority of the House to impose it.

He cannot consent that it shall be thus implied. He considers it a mode of punishment unknown to our laws, and if not forbidden by the prohibition of the constitution against "unusual punishments," yet inconsistent with the spirit of our institutions, and unfit to be inflicted upon a free citizen.

He thinks proper to add, in making this declaration, that he has been unwilling to trouble the House.

That though he believes the whole proceeding against him, as well as the sentence he now objects to, unwarranted by the constitution of his country, yet circumstances may exist to justify or excuse a citizen in