H. OF R.]

Breach of Privilege.

[APRIL 16, 1832.

marks very similar in substance to those which he had ment. But here we are sitting in judgment on the chaoffered on Saturday, in explanation of the importance of racter and liberty of the citizen, in a case in which we are the question before the House, the delicate nature of the personally concerned, without any check. It is solely on power it was proposed to exercise, and the impropriety the ground of our own interest in the case that we have of hastening to action without the fullest deliberation. He grasped at the power of deciding it, without investigation recapitulated the circumstances under which the motion into our right to do so. He had voted against the resolufor the previous question had been made, insisting that the argument had at that time only been opened, not developed; that the sentiments in relation to it had not been expressed, and could not be known; and repeating his conviction that to have adopted the previous question under such circumstances, would have been a sort of treason against the constitution. Such a proceeding, while professedly adopted for the purpose of vindicating the freedom of debate, would in effect have tended rather to crush and destroy it. At that time, the House had nothing before it in support of the charge, but the simple declaration of one of its members.

tion ordering the arrest of General Houston, because he wished for a careful examination into this right. He was anxious to know whence it was derived. The situation of this House was totally different from that of the British Parliament. The origin of that is hid in the dark ages, and its powers are unlimited, because they are undefined. Our situation is directly the reverse. Every man has in his hands the instrument on which the powers of this House are based. They are expressly limited and defined in that instrument. The power claimed by the House in the present case is found in the constitution, or we do not possess it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. COULThe affidavit which had subsequently been offered was TER] says this power is inherent in such an assembly, that not then in the House; and had the motion for the pre- it is absolutely necessary to have it, and therefore we have vious question succeeded, the House would have been it. It was a new doctrine to him, that a man had only to urged to action, while the only proper ground on which it show that he needed a thing, to enable him to establish a could act would have been wanting. He disclaimed perfect title to it. He had therefore supposed that if a every thing like angry feeling towards the gentleman from man needed a thing to which he had not an undisputed Virginia, professed always to have entertained the highest right, his proper course was, not to usurp it on the ground respect for his character, and had not had the slightest of necessity, but to appeal to the person to whom it rightintention of wounding his feelings; and he put it to the fully belonged for a grant, attended, if necessary, with gentleman's candor (for which he gave him every credit) proper conditions and limitations. It has been said that to say whether he himself would have considered it pro- if one of the members of this House was murdered elseper for the House to issue its process, until the affidavit | where, the guilty actor might be tried before this House. had been obtained.

He would be glad to learn the foundation of this power. Mr. DODDRIDGE said: I would remind the gentleman He would be glad to see the consequences of this doctrine that he commenced his excellent and able speech with the followed out. If the power of this House is unlimited in words of which many members supposed they had a right every matter which respects the personal privileges of the to complain. Had the matter ended here, it would, per- members, can they be made responsible for any conduct haps, have been imputed to a little warmth at the moment; whatever? Do the privileges of this House extend to but after the gentleman had argued the subject at great wanton and irrelevant slander, involving the personal length and with ability, it was supposed there had been feelings of any body and every body? If a member of this time to cool; but he concluded his speech with the same House becomes so lost to all sense of propriety and dignity offensive words with which he commenced. But, after as to use his seat on this floor for the mere purpose of what the gentleman has just said, it is impossible for me venting his personal spleen against an individual, is any into remain dissatisfied, and I feel free to declare that the quiry into his statements out of the House a breach of prigentleman from South Carolina is among the last men, vilege? Sir, the immunity of speech on this floor is like not only in this House, but in the nation, towards whom I that of a lawyer in a court of justice; so long as his arguwould wish to cherish an unkind feeling. I now proceed ment is confined to the subject before the court, the law to answer the question propounded to me by the gentle- interposes its protection against any consequences of man from South Carolina, and I will do this with that sin- speaking boldly; but when he travels out of the record, cerity which the gentleman has invoked, and in which he when he uses his station before the public as a means of has been pleased to express an unqualified confidence. wilful slander and wanton detraction, he is liable, as any Mr. Speaker, my vote in favor of the arrest of the in- other citizen. How does that compare with the present dividual was founded on the written statement of the case? A report was before this House from the Judiciary member of this House, complaining of an outrage com- Committee, praying to be discharged from an inquiry into mitted on his person. I did not found my vote on the the truth of a certain affidavit of a removed inspector of affidavit produced. I very much regret the production the customs at Wiscasset, in Maine, on the ground that it of that paper, fearing that in future it may be used as a was a subject within the peculiar scope of the duties of precedent, requiring of an abused member of this House the Treasury Department. While that report was under the humiliation of an affidavit; for I never can admit that the honor of a member of this body is not as much to be depended on as that of a member of the House of Lords in the country from which we are descended.

discussion, the member from Ohio [Mr. STANBERRY] rose in his place, and, without any connexion or allusion to the subject before the House, made a statement, that General Houston had endeavored to practice a stupendous Mr. FITZGERALD, of Tennessee, said the House, on fraud on the Government. This accusation had nothing the present occasion, stood in a new and peculiar situa- to do with the subject then before the House. Do the tion; it was acting in the double capacity of party and privileges of the House not only protect a member from judge, upon a question where there was no law to guide the legal consequences of slander, but do they bind down them, and in which their power was undefined. In such and suppress those angry passions which are excited by a case it was necessary to reflect deliberately on the con- wanton provocation? The House must have come to this sequences of our conduct. The power that is now claim- conclusion, or they have engaged in a very unprofitable ed, is relieved from the check of the co-ordinate branches business. He did not believe the House possessed this to which the ordinary exercise of our functions is sub-power of restraining the consequences of wilfully exciting jected by the constitution. In ordinary cases, this House the irascible feelings of mankind. He did not believe in could not exercise the lowest attribute of legislation on the sacredness of the station of a member of Congress, the most trifling subject, so as to render it operative, which relieves him from all the human responsibilities with without the action of the other branches of the Govern- which other men are surrounded. A seat on this floor did

APRIL 16, 1832.]

Breach of Privilege.

[H. or R.

not place an individual so entirely above the rest of the in this place. Are the public presses sprinkled with conworld as to relieve him from the necessity of redressing gressional unction? We should consider the consequences. the personal wrongs he may inflict on others. If we may The members of the present Congress were, no doubt, not be called on to repair injuries, we should be careful too wise and discreet to abuse their privileges; but if the not to inflict them. Yet in the course of a discussion now precedent is now established, they might be abused in depending we have witnessed an unparalleled latitude of less favorable periods of future time. He could perceive personal (remarks. This license and this immunity could no reason why Congress should arrogate to itself an immunot exist together. Ifa member of Congress should think nity denied to the rest of the world. Such pretensions proper in his place on this floor to slander the wives and might become matter of alarm to their constituents. daughters of the citizens of this District, there should be There was another matter upon which it would be desirameans of redress, either by law or by personal chastisement. ble to have information, how far a person was punishable The people of this country will not permit a privileged who challenged a member of Congress. We had recently order of men to place themselves beyond the sanction of several bloodless instances of that kind of figuring in the all law and all personal accountability. The step that had newspapers. But if a right to challenge exists, what bebeen taken by the House in the assertion of this inviolabi- comes of the consequences? May a common citizen aclity was premature. An investigation should have been cept a challenge from a member of Congress? It must first made into the consequences of the course as well as the have occurred to every person who has attended this House, origin of the power. Equality of rights lay at the founda- either on the floor or in the gallery, that in certain cases, tion of our theory of Government. An important branch where personal character had been introduced, something of this equality is the impartial administration of criminal was necessary to check the exuberance of debate. These law. Is it even-handed justice in the case of a personal cases were altogether aside from the constitutional duties contest between two individuals, to carry the one before of the House. Our legislative duties would not once in the corporation court for trial if he is victor, but, if his an- half a century give occasion to such scenes as have been tagonist is victorious, to bring the case before a tribunal witnessed on this floor within a few days past. This House who personally espouse the cause of the vanquished party? was assembled for the purpose of making laws, and not This is claimed as part of the power of the House to pro- for selection of victims for immolation, except by the contect its deliberations. But the true ground of privilege stitutional proceeding of impeachment. Suppose at some is not of members out of the House, but the privilege of future day, when corruption shall become general, and it the House as a body. After the House has adjourned, always commences first among those who are fed on the there is no interruption of debate. Will it be contended pap of the treasury, rather than among the plain and that this privilege protects the members after they are hardy yeomanry; suppose a gentleman, by long attendance thrown among the mass of the people? May they travel as a member of this body, should acquire attachments of an through the land and insult whom they please, while the amorous character in this city, and some likely, chivalrous arms of every indignant freeman is pinioned in their pre- young man should cross his path, and collision ensues besence? This protection was not intended by the founders tween them, would such an interference be a breach of priviof our Government. The true protection of a member of lege? We have examples of this sort in the Roman history, this body is purity of conduct, dignity of life, and correct which produced the most important consequences. Sir, we deportment in debate. These are his most effectual are sent here to act for the people within a certain prescribed shields from insults abroad. But to the most violent tirades sphere. Whenever we go beyond that limit, we act for against private character which are indulged on this floor, ourselves. When members of Congress abuse their power, no protection whatever should be extended. In this very this abuse is not an act of the people, it is their own act, case, upon the proposition to bring an individual before us for which they are personally responsible. as judges, he has been stigmatized by honorable gentlemen as a ruffian. He was well acquainted with that individual, and repelled the application of that epithet to him. Did the gentlemen who applied terms of abuse so liberally to a person about to be brought before them for trial, know this person, and his relations to the people? Sir, that man, in early life, at an imminent crisis in our national affairs, went into the service of his country, not with an epaulet, but with a ponderous musket on his shoulder. From a private soldier he rapidly, by his courage and Mr. FITZGERALD objected to the withdrawal of the talent, rose to high military rank. At an early period he amendment. If it was done, he should propose the same became a member of this House, in which his gentlemanly amendment. He had voted against the resolution upon deportment was still remembered. He afterwards was which General Houston had been taken into custody, upon chosen Governor of the State of Tennessee. He was a grounds that he believed tenable. It was not a very comman in whom every American feeling had not been sub-mon thing for him to engross the attention of the House, dued in view of the vast and unknown privileges of the and he was sorry his colleague objected to his going on. members of this body. He would warn gentlemen against It happened sometimes that people who were most anxtrampling upon the rights of their fellow-citizens. The ious to regulate the conduct of others, would be more power which they seemed to clutch with so much avidity, profitably employed in attending to their own economy. was of a very uncertain tenure. The American people It had been said that the charge before the House comes might not be of opinion that members of this House were within the provisions of the constitution, protecting freeauthorized to insult whoever they pleased with impunity, dom of debate. It had also been suggested that the indinot only abuse them on this floor, but draw up speeches vidual charged was anxious to answer to the charge. in their own handwriting for publication in newspapers. Whether the person charged came before the House wilThus claiming not only the right of slander, but of libel! lingly or unwillingly, he had the same objection against adAs a matter of curiosity, he would be glad to know of mitting, as forcing him to answer. He would not consult some gentlemen learned in this matter of privilege, whe- the feelings of the accused in this case. He was unwilling ther this protection comprehended all publications what- to countenance any precedent which would make memover, whether a member has a right to make one speech bers of Congress a privileged order in this country. In on this floor, and write out and publish to the world England, it is only the Lords that are strictly a pri another entirely different. This was a common practice vileged order. The House of Commons, when one

VOL. VIII.--160

Mr. BELL rose to order. He would inquire whether this discussion was in order at the present stage of the proceedings. He thought it had better be waived till the question of power came before the House.

The SPEAKER said the amendment proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. MITCHELL] opened the entire merits of the question.

Mr. MITCHELL expressed a wish to withdraw his amendment.

H. OF R.]

Breach of Privilege.

[APRIL 16, 1832.

The CHAIR replied that he had no authority to consider the House as acting in any other than its legislative capacity, or as governed by any other rules than the ordinary rules of order which it had adopted to govern its proceedings, and those rules did not restrain the present course of discussion.

of their members was attacked by the minions of Charles of debate. It was calculated to do the House great injury. II, for words spoken in debate, and his nose was cut off, He wished the matter to be discussed without reference instead of interfering with questions of privilege, permit- to topics which were calculated to excite party feelings ted the offenders to be punished by the ordinary courts of on a question of this character. criminal law, but protected themselves for the future by passing what was called the Coventry act, from the name of the member who was maimed. Here we have no such act. We have never said whether this charge constitutes any other crime than the offence at law. If crimes are not pointed out, who is to know when they are committed? Is it a crime not to lift one's hat to a member of Congress [Mr. DANIEL, of Kentucky, appealed from the deciwhen you meet him on Pennsylvania Avenue? That is not sion of the Chair; when, after a brief discussion on the yet known. Can a law be violated which never existed? subject of order, and a demand from Mr. WAYNE, that If this House possesses certain unknown immunities, where the objectionable words uttered by Mr. ARNOLD should do they stop? Have we not the same right to order Ge- be taken down, Mr. D. consented to withdraw his appeal.] neral Houston to be hanged without trial, as to be arrested Mr. ARNOLD resumed. It was not his wish, he said, without law? If the people of this country are to be go-to have introduced this topic; he should not have done so, verned, not by known law, but by any whim, caprice, or but for the ill-timed eulogy of his colleague, in which he excitement into which we may lash ourselves, it is useless had brought the unfortunate truth so prominently before to talk about rights. If a law for our protection is neces- the House, that the party now accused was once Governor sary, let it be made and understood; the people will then of Tennessee; under such circumstances, he felt himself know when it is violated, and that the just punishment is imperatively called upon, as a member of that House, and inflicted. If rules must be established to regulate the as a Tennessean, to do all in his power to wipe off the demeanor of other citizens towards the members of this stigma thus cast upon the character of his State. He would body, let them be promulgated. While nothing is defined, endeavor to do so in a few words, by explaining the cirnothing is violated. He should, on these grounds, vote cumstances under which Samuel Houston was elected Goin favor of the discharge of General Houston from his vernor. His election took place at a time, he would confinement. When Mr. F. had concluded, inform the House, when Tennessee was laboring under a Mr. ARNOLD, of Tennessee, rose for the purpose of powerful and peculiar political excitement; and it was wiping off from the reputation of his State the stigma merely the force of that excitement which placed that inwhich had been cast upon it by the recent occurrence, dividual in the gubernatorial chair. It happened, unfor and he then commenced a statement explanatory of the tunately, that Samuel Houston was a sort of a pet, a pecucircumstances which had led to the election of Governor liar favorite of the present Chief Magistrate, whose popularity, at that time, with a swelling tide swept every thing before it; and thus it happened, that, laying hold of the skirts of that popularity, Samuel Houston was borne onward by the current, and carried into the governorship of Tennessee.

Houston.

Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, requested him to give way to permit him to withdraw his amendment for the discharge of General Houston.

Mr. ARNOLD said he should not yield the floor for that purpose. He had come to the conclusion not to say Mr. A. said it was not his intention then to enter into one word on the subject, but had been compelled to rise any further examination, or state any of the views which to vindicate the reputation of Tennessee from the foul he held as to the public or private character of the indivi stain that had been cast upon her by his colleague, [Mr. dual in question, though he had views on that subject which FITZGERALD,] in alluding to that ever to be lamented cir- might be interesting to the House; he was as well accumstance, which Tennessee must deplore so long as she quainted with the character of Governor Houston as his continues to be a State, that Samuel Houston was once colleague was; he had met him, had measured arms with her Governor. He felt bound to declare to the world him in debate before the people of Tennessee; to use a that Tennessee felt humbled into dust and ashes that such Western phrase, he knew him from a to izzard. It is suga man ever presided over her affairs. His colleagues all gested to me, said Mr. A., by a member from Ohio, that knew this fact, whatever they may now say or do. The de- there is an impropriety in thus expressing an opinion as to claration he had made was true to the letter. Governor the character of an individual, upon whose guilt or innoHouston! Why, sir, my lips will hardly articulate the cence of a certain charge we sit here as judges. He phrase. [Mr. A.] saw the difficulty. But had he given any opinion

The SPEAKER said, on the motion before the House, the whole subject was open for discussion.

Mr. MITCHELL inquired whether he was not entitled to withdraw his amendment.

The SPEAKER said he was not, while another gentleman was in possession of the floor. Whenever he got the floor, he would be entitled to withdraw it.

Mr. WICKLIFFE rose to order. He inquired whether as to that charge? Had he even intimated what his opipersonal allusions of this character to a person now in cus-nion was upon that subject? No. He had merely risen tody for examination were proper. to perform what he conceived a duty to his State, after the House had heard the remarks of his colleague; and he [Mr. A.] would rather absent himself from his seat, and not give a vote as to the guilt or innocence of the accused party on this particular charge, than have sat silently in his seat, and heard the character of his State traduced as it had been by the remarks of his colleague. Mr. A. said he hoped he could rise above all paltry considerations in deciding on Mr. ARNOLD said his apology for introducing the sub- the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused. He ject was the discharge of an imperious duty. He felt hoped that he could do justice to his State, and yet do jusbound, as a representative of Tennessee, to do all in his tice to Samuel Houston. When this matter is investigated, power to wipe off the foul stigma that soils her annals in if it shall appear from the testimony that he is an innocent having Samuel Houston recorded as having been once her man, said Mr. A., he shall have my vote. No matter what Governor. He was elected under peculiar circumstances, might be his opinion of any man, were it the veriest renein consequence of his being a pet, a peculiar favorite of gado that ever disgraced the country, he would do him the present Chief Magistrate of the United States, whose impartial justice. If, however, it were considered impropopularity, in 1827, like a swelling tide, carried every per or indelicate, holding such opinions concerning the thing before it in the State of Tennessee. party as he had expressed to the House, that he should

Mr. VANCE rose to order. He regretted this course vote on the question of his guilt or innocence of the pre

sent charge, he [Mr. A.] would not vote. Mr. A. concluded by saying he would not trouble the House any further, though he had much more to say on this subject; he would close his remarks in reply to the eulogy of his friend, by stating that so dark was the scowl of public indignation against Governor Houston, that he was scarcely warm in his seat before he found it expedient to abdicate the chair, and make his escape to the Indians.

[H. or R.

"Mr. Speaker, I wish no counsel: I shall require the attendance of witnesses. Having but this moment been apprised of the course which would be pursued by the House, and believing, as I do, that this investigation is to form a precedent, essentially involving the liberty of American citizens, I will claim at least twenty-four hours to prepare my response to the accusation."

A committee was then appointed to report the proceedMr. ROOT next addressed the House, and had com-ing proper to be observed by the House in the trial of the menced an argumentative speech in support of the power of the House to punish contempts, when he yielded to the solicitations of

Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, who had been endeavoring to obtain the floor for the purpose of withdrawing his motion.

Mr. M. thereupon withdrew his motion for the discharge of Mr. Houston.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, after explaining and vindicating the motives which had led to the resolution he had offered, agreed to modify it in such a manner as that the accused party might forthwith be brought to the bar of the House.

Mr. SPEIGHT offered an amendment proposing that written interrogatories should first be propounded by the Speaker; that the members should then have the liberty of offering further queries, also in writing, to be put through the Speaker; and then, if any further inquiry should be necessary, that a committee should be appointed for the purpose.

Mr. DAVIS declined accepting the amendment as a modification.

case, as heretofore stated.

[The following gentlemen composed the committee, viz. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, Mr. COULTER, Mr. HUNTINGTON, Mr. PATTON, and Mr. BEARDSLEY.]

TUESDAY, APRIL 17.

CASE OF SAMUEL HOUSTON.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Privileges, appointed on Monday, presented the following report:

The Committee on Privileges, who were instructed by the House to report a mode of proceeding in the case of Samuel Houston, who is now in custody, under a warrant issued by order of the House, upon the complaint of WILLIAM STANBERRY, one of its members, for assaulting and beating the said Stanberry for words spoken in his place on the floor of the House, recommend the adoption of the following order:

Ordered, That the following course of proceedings be observed, namely:

Said Samuel Houston shall be again placed at the bar of Whereupon, a protracted and somewhat desultory dis- the House, and the letter of said Stanberry shall be read cussion ensued, in which Messrs. SPEIGHT, POLK, to him; after which, the Speaker shall put to him the folWAYNE, ELLSWORTH, WICKLIFFE, IRVIN, IN-lowing interrogatory: GERSOLL, JENIFER, HUNTINGTON, KERR, and Do you admit or deny that you assaulted and beat the DODDRIDGE participated, respecting the proper order said Stanberry, as he has represented in the letter which to be pursued in conducting the trial; precedents were has been read, a copy of which has been delivered to you referred to from the journals of the House, when this part by order of the House? of the debate was terminated by Mr. SPEIGHT's withdrawing his amendment.

The resolution of Mr. DAVIS was further modified by him at the suggestion of Messrs. FOSTER and WICKLIFFE, so as to read as follows:

Resolved, That a committee on privileges, consisting of seven members, be appointed and instructed to report a mode of proceeding in the case of Samuel Houston, who is now in custody by virtue of an order of this House, and that said committee have leave to execute the duty assigned them immediately.

The question being put, the resolution was adopted almost unanimously.

After a brief interval, Mr. Houston was brought in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and placed at the bar of the House;

If the said Samuel Houston admit that he did assault and beat the said Stanberry, as in said letter is represented, then the Speaker shall put to him the following interrogatory:

Do you admit or deny that the same assault and beating were done for and on account of words spoken by the said Stanberry in the House of Representatives in debate?

If the said Samuel Houston admit the assault and beating, and that they were for the cause aforesaid, then the House shall consider the charge made by the said Stanberry as true, and shall proceed to judgment thereon.

But if the said Samuel Houston deny the assault and beating, or that the same were done for the cause aforesaid, or refuse, or evade answering said interrogatories, then the said William Stanberry shall be examined as a witness touching said charge; after which, the said Samuel Houston shall be allowed to introduce any competent evidence in his defence; and then any further evidence the House may direct shall also be introduced.

When the SPEAKER addressed him as follows: "Samuel Houston, you have been brought before this House, by its order, to answer the charge of having assaulted and beaten WILLIAM STANBERRY, a member of the If parol evidence is offered, the witnesses shall be House of Representatives of the United States from the sworn by the Speaker, and be examined at the bar, unless State of Ohio, for words spoken by him, in his place, as a they are members of the House, in which case they may member of the House, in debate upon a question then be examined in their places. A committee shall be apdepending before the House. Before you are called upon pointed to examine witnesses. The questions put shall to answer, in any manner, to the subject-matter of this be reduced to writing, (by a person to be appointed for charge, it is my duty, as presiding officer of this House, to that purpose,) before the same are proposed to the witinform you that if you desire the aid of counsel, the testi- ness, and the answers shall also be reduced to writing. mony of witnesses, time to prepare for your defence, or Every question put by a member not of the committee, have any other request to make in relation to this subject, your request will now be received and considered by the House. If, however, you neither wish for counsel, witnesses, or further time, but are now ready to proceed to the investigation of the charge, you will state it, and the House will take order accordingly."

To which the said Samuel Houston answered as follows:

shall be reduced to writing by such member, and be propounded to the witness by the Speaker, if not objected to; but if any question shall be objected to, or any testimony offered shall be objected to by any member, the member so objecting, and the accused, or his counsel, shall be heard thereon; after which, the question shall be decided without further debate.

H. OF R.]

Case of Samuel Houston.

When the evidence is all before the House, the said Samuel Houston shall be heard on the whole matter by himself, or his counsel, as he may elect.

After the said Samuel Houston shall have been so heard, he shall be directed to withdraw, and the House shall proceed to consider the subject, and to take such order thereon as may seem just and proper.

Said Samuel Houston shall be furnished with a copy of

this order.

After a few remarks from Mr. WICKLIFFE,

Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, objected to that part of the proposed mode of proceeding which, in his view, required the party accused to give evidence against himself. Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, explained this portion of the report, and showed that it did not call upon the party to convict himself in any degree.

[APRIL 17, 1832.

Mr. FOSTER objected to the mode of interrogation proposed in the report. The individual charged might not like to stand there and say, I did strike that gentleman-I did strike him for words used in debate. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] had said he wished to enable the accused, if he thought proper, to plead against the jurisdiction of the House; but under the form of interrogation proposed by the committee, he could not do so; there were certain specific questions requiring specific answers. But if the general question, are you guilty or not guilty, were put, the accused might say, before pleading in chief, that he objected to the jurisdiction of the court. Mr. F. then offered an amendment, the purport of which was to substitute the course he had recommended for that proposed in the report.

Mr. CRAWFORD defined the mode of proceeding reMr. PATTON submitted that it would be improper to commended by the committee. Gentlemen seemed to call on the party to purge himself of the contempt, be mistake the character of the proceeding, which was not fore it should be proved that the facts charged were true. in the nature of an indictment, but was analogous to the Mr. WILDE, of Georgia, thought that the report of proceedings of the courts in cases of contempt. The the committee was misapprehended. He thought that the offending party is told that certain allegations are made part of it which was the subject of remark, did not con- against him; a rule is made on him to show cause, to which travene the great principle of law, which provided that he must file his answer. If a different course were adoptthe accused should not be called upon to inculpate himself. ed, the accused might turn round to the House, and say, It was competent for him to say, in answer to the interro-you have no right to question me whether I did strike this gatories, that he neither admits nor denies the facts charg-person; if I did strike him, you have no right to punish ed, and to leave the proof thereof to the House, in such me for it. Mr. C. hoped the report of the committee as they may then deem proper. Besides, the party was would be adopted, and that it would be adopted then; if not to be examined on oath. It was according to the prac- delayed, for the sake of printing it, till the next day, it tice in the courts for contempt, and it was in conformity, would again be debated, and the time of the public be also, with all criminal proceedings, in which it was cus- needlessly consumed. tomary to take down the statement of the accused as well as the testimony against him.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, thought, as the accused party had stated on the preceding evening that he should require twenty-four hours to prepare for his defence, as no injury could result to any one from a little delay, and as there was some diversity of opinion on the report presented to the House, it would be advisable that that report should be ordered to be printed, and laid on the table till

The

Mr. DRAYTON said this was a matter requiring the utmost caution and deliberation. If he thought the party accused would be more favorably situated by the adoption of the amendment of the member from Georgia, he would vote for it; but such would not be the case. committee, in framing their report, had wished to allow the accused every possible means of defence; and it would be seen that, in the course proposed by them, he might either admit the facts, and except to the jurisdiction, or to-morrow. he might deny both. He would ask, then, how he could Mr. CLAY thought it proper that the Clerk of the be more favorably situated. A fear might, perhaps, have House should, as soon as possible, hand a copy of that re-influenced the member from Georgia, that the accused port to the individual charged with the offence. It was might possibly be taken by surprise; but when he recolall-important that he should know what course the pro-lected that he would be furnished with a copy of the rules ceedings against him were to take; what interrogatories of proceeding, that gentleman must see that he would he would be required to answer, &c., in order that he have every opportunity of framing his answers in a caremight prepare for his defence, ful and guarded manner. Mr. D. said he hoped the

defence.

Mr. DRAYTON suggested to the member from Geor- amendment would not prevail; he thought its effect would gia, [Mr. THOMPSON,] that his motion to print was, at that be to abridge rather than enlarge the party's powers of time, premature. The rules proposed in the report might not be adopted by the House; or various modifications might be made, which would not be included in the printed report, if the order was now made. Mr. THOMPSON explained.

Mr. ELLSWORTH would add only one word. It was the desire of every member of the committee that the aecused should not be called on, in any way, to criminate himself. If he admits the facts charged, he can proceed to their justification or palliation.

Mr. DAVIS said it had been the wish and endeavor of the committee to pursue the same course as had been Mr. JOHNSTON, of Virginia, said, if he understood taken on former occasions, where individuals had been the report of the committee, it not only settled the mode brought before that House for a breach of its privileges; of proceeding, but settled, likewise, a very important they had, he believed, adopted the precise phraseology principle, upon which, it seemed to him probable, the adopted in the cases to which he alluded; but they had decision of the House would ultimately turn. The acproceeded further, and provided, that if the accused re-cused party was to be called before them; certain interrofused to answer to the interrogatories proposed, the House gatories were to be put; if he should admit that he did should proceed to the examination of witnesses. It seem- strike the accuser, and that he did so for words spoken in ed to him that the course laid down in the report was debate, it is then proposed to rush at once to judgment, one as favorable to the accused as to the accuser. Mr. D. no opportunity being allowed the party of either justifysaid that he, for one, should be unwilling that the accused ing or mitigating his conduct. This would at once esshould be called on to answer at once whether he was tablish the broad principle of immunity for every thing guilty or not; because he did not wish to compromit his spoken in that House in debate; no matter how impertirights to question the jurisdiction of the House, or to nent to the subject before the House; no matter if in raise any other objection against its proceedings. violation of the rules of order; no matter how untrue; no

Mr. THOMPSON, after some further explanation, with-matter how injurious to the character of a citizen, or citidrew his motion. zens, out of the House-it is spoken within those walls,