MAY 8, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. of R. fence such as this. And even in England it is expressly to this doctrine, to vindicate his dignity, and to punish for declared by Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, one of the most a breach of his privileges; for it is certainly as important eminent jurists of that country, that "striking a judge in that he should be protected in the discharge of this duty, walking along the streets would not be a contempt of imposed on him by the constitution, as that either branch court." The federal courts of the United States possess of Congress should be protected in the discharge of their a power to punish for contempts by express statute, and respective duties. Now, what would be thought of an are limited and restrained in its exercise, both as to the attempt, on the part of any President of the United States, cases which shall constitute the offence, and the punish- to exercise such a power? Suppose the President should ment to be inflicted. By the judiciary act of 1789, they be assaulted in the streets for refusing to sign a bill, or for have power to "punish by fine and imprisonment, at the signing one, no man in his senses would pretend that he discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority, in any possessed the power, at his will and pleasure, to punish cause or hearing before the same, and to make and esta- the offender. Would he have any other protection, or blish all necessary rules for the orderly conducting busi-shield, than that afforded to every citizen? The courts, esness in the said courts; provided such rules are not tablished by law, would be open to him, and to them rerepugnant to the laws of the United States." And, by the sort must be had for the punishment of the offender. And if act of Congress of the 2d March, 1831, it is provided that a member of Congress is assaulted in the streets, can resort this power of the courts of the United States to punish for be had to any other tribunals than those established by contempts "shall not be construed to extend to any cases law for the punishment and prevention of all offences? Is except the misbehavior of any person or persons in the it consistent with the whole theory of the Government, presence of said courts, or so near thereto as to obstruct that the body of which he is a member can take cognithe administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the zance of the offence or insult, erect itself into a judicial officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the tribunal, unknown to the constitution, and proceed to try disobedience or resistance by any officer of the said courts, and punish the offender? party, juror, witness, or any other person or persons, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decrce, or command of the said courts." If to assault a member be a breach of privilege, a threat to assault him is equally a breach; for, according to the argument which we have heard, the one as well as the other In the States, the power has been conferred by statutes tends to intimidate--to put in fear-to prevent him from declaring in what they shall consist, or by statutes adapt- doing his duty, and to restrain the freedom of debate. ing, to a more or less limited extent, the common law. The evidence before us shows that, when the member What is it, in this country, that renders tolerable even this from Ohio first thought himself in danger of an attack from power of courts, tied up and restricted as it is by statute the accused, he did not then bring his complaint to this It is only tolerated because of the right which every of House, but prepared himself with deadly weapons for fender has, when he is attached, to purge himself of the mortal combat, and put himself upon his personal defence. contempt, in his answer, upon his corporal oath. The By doing so, he waived the privilege, if he had any, which moment he purges himself of the contempt, unless it occur it is now insisted has been violated. He was, in fact, armin the view of the court, he is entitled to his discharge. ed at the meeting, and his adversary was unarmed. He And when the contempt has been satisfactorily and fully happened to get the worse of the rencontre, and then the purged, what lawyer here, from any State, ever heard of complaint is made to this House, and we are called on to a court making up an issue of fact, and examining wit-avenge the wrong which he has suffered. If the memnesses, in a case to be decided by itself? Apply these es- ber from Ohio had been the victor in the combat; if his tablished rules of proceeding in the courts to this House, pistol had not missed fire, and he had disabled or slain the and to the case before us. This House has no written law accused, this House would never have been troubled with by which it is governed. Discretion, will, is substituted the case. But as he happened to be unfortunate in the for law. The accused, in this case, has, in his answer, fight, we are told that our dignity has been insulted, and fully and amply purged the contempt, if there was one. our high privileges invaded! We are thus left to conclude He has denied that he intended any contempt, any breach that this law of privilege, as expounded by the proceedof privilege, or any disrespect to this House. He affirms ings in this case, is this: that if a member of Congress have that he assaulted the member from Ohio, upon acciden-a fight in the streets, and flogs his adversary, it is welltally meeting him in the street, when this House was not this House has nothing to do with it--it belongs to the in session, and that he did this for an injury attempted to courts. But if a citizen happen to have a quarrel with a be inflicted on his reputation by that member. The pur- member of Congress, and gets into a fight with him in the gation is complete; and yet what do this House do? Con- streets, and has the daring hardihood to whip him, why, tinue the accused in custody; make up an issue of fact; proceed to examine witnesses; and occupy a month in try ing him! If we concede, then, that this House is invested with the power which it claims, and that it is to be exercised as the power over contempts is exercised in the courts, the accused is wrongfully detained in custody, and is, upon every principle, entitled to his discharge. then, it is a high breach of privilege, and a proper case for the cognizance of this House. To assault and whip a member is too high an offence to commit to the adjudication and punishment of the courts. The law for the punishment of the offence, if committed by one citizen upon another, is not to be the law if the same offence be committed upon a member of Congress. This is the absurd conclusion to which the doctrine contended for must inevitably lead. If this House possesses such a power, it follows that the Senate must possess it also. And, whilst it is thus undefined and unknown, what one branch of the Legislature But it is said that we have the power, because it has may choose to consider as a contempt of its authority, or been exercised in former cases. Sir, I know that it is, at breach of its privileges, the other may not. Different all times, an ungracious argument to address to any body kinds or degrees of punishment may be imposed by the of men like this, when you tell them that they possess no respective branches for the same or similar offences. The power to do that which they are strongly desirous of donature and extent of the punishment must depend upon ing. All history instructs us that, whenever the rulers of the mere will and pleasure of the body which may consi- other countries have strongly desired to possess and to der itself insulted. The President of the United States is exercise a power of any kind, they have never failed to required to "approve and sign" all bills passed by Con- look out for specious pretexts to do so. Powers have gress, before they become laws; and, in the discharge of been grasped by the hands of the usurper and the tyrant, this duty, he is a constituent branch of the Legislative De- under the specious pretext that the public good required partment. He, too, must possess the power, according it. One precedent, itself a usurpation, has been the pre VOL. VIII.-178 H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 8, 1832, we are bound to conclude, from the reasoning of the judge, that the decision of the case brought by Anderson for false imprisonment against Dunn, the Sergeant-at-Arms, would have been different from what it was. text of a still greater usurpation. But I deny that we been so. If the record had presented the case as it was, have ever exercised the power in question to the extent now claimed. I am referred to cases which have taken place here. They are but few in number; and though the abstract principle that some such power, to some unknown extent, has been asserted, it has never been exercised to the extent now claimed, as I shall endeavor, very briefly, to show, by a reference to the cases themselves. this. us. To show the absurdity of the exercise of such a power by this House, if it possessed it, without law, I ask the House what punishment it will inflict if the accused be found guilty of a contempt, or violation of privilege, in this case. But if it be conceded that, in high party times, in periods of high political excitement, or in cases where the ju risdiction and power of the House were not drawn in quesThe first case which has been alluded to, is that of Mr. tion, the House may have exercised the power, the answer John Randolph, a representative from the State of Virgi-to any argument drawn from such premises is an easy one. nia. The proceedings in that case are to be found in the It is, that one usurpation can never either justify or sancti. journals of the House, of January, 1800. The case was fy another. Mr. Randolph was insulted in the theatre, by Captain McKnight of the army, for words spoken by him in debate during the discussion of a bill relating to the then standing army. He addressed a letter to the President of the United States, (Mr. John Adams,) bringing the conduct of the officer to his notice. The President chose to Will you punish as in the British Parliament? Will you communicate Mr. R.'s letter to the House. But there was look to the English precedents, if not as authority, as no arrest. The subject was sent to a committee, who re-guides to indicate the punishment which you will inflict? ported two resolutions, one of them lauding the President, The punishments imposed upon offenders by Parliament and the other containing the affirmation that "sufficient have been as various as their despotic will has chosen to does not appear for the interposition of this House, on the make them. Persons have been punished in England for ground of a breach of its privileges." A motion was made this offence, by transportation, by pillory, by imprisonin the House to amend the report, by declaring that the ment, by commitment to the Tower, to the Fleet, and to conduct of Captain McKnight was deserving of repre- the custody of the Sergeant-by fine--by requiring the hension"--which was rejected; and there the case ended. offender, upon his knees at the bar of the Commons, humThe case of Coles and Nelson, which occurred in De-bly to confess his fault, and ask the forgiveness and mercy cember, 1809, is a case more analogous to that now before of the House. Which of these will you inflict? You have Mr. Coles was the private secretary of Mr. Jefferson. the same power to impose the one as the other. You have He assaulted General Nelson, a member of the House of the same power to punish with death, or the amputation Representatives from the State of Maryland, in the capi-of a limb, that you have to inflict any other. You derive tol, at one o'clock in the day. The case was brought to your power, you say, from a source above the constituthe notice of the House; but was any warrant issued? Was tion, and you are not therefore controlled by the constituhe arrested? No! The case was referred to a committee, tion in the selection of the punishment, but by your own who reported that "any further proceeding in the above unrestrained will. Suppose your punishment be of the case was unnecessary. It is proper to state that Mr. mildest character; suppose you determine to impose a fine Coles had written a letter to the committee, disclaiming upon the accused, how will you proceed? What judg any intention of disrespect to the House. If we were ment will you enter up? The House is not a court. It even to concede that the House possessed the power to possesses no judicial powers. But, suppose you adopt a punish in that case, and, therefore, in this, still it ought resolution that the accused be fined, what process will not to be exercised, inasmuch as the accused, in the pre- you issue to collect the money? What officer will execute sent case, has in like manner disclaimed all intention of it? How will it be collected? Will you distrain or levy disrespect to the House. With the report of the commit-upon the personal goods? What is to be the notice of time tee, the case of Coles ended. The case of Duane, before and place and what the manner of sale! If there be no the Senate, has been already noticed. Those of Randall goods found in the District of Columbia, but there be and Whitney, and that of Anderson, have been referred to. lands in Louisiana, what process will you issue to subject These were cases of attempts to bribe members of Con- them to sale? and how are you to proceed so as to vest in gress, and they all come to the same thing. In all of them the purchaser a valid title? Suppose the money to be colthe jurisdiction of the House was not questioned. The lected, what are you to do with it? To what constitutional question of its powers was not raised. The present is the purpose can it be applied? What infinite absurdity! At first case (except Duane's, which, as we have seen, was abandoned by the Senate) in which a citizen has placed himself upon his constitutional rights, and called upon the representatives of the people not to invade them. every step you are plunged deeper and deeper into inextricable difficulty. And this proves not only that you have not, but that if you had, you cannot, in the very nature of things, exercise it without previous legislation. These precedents, then, have not settled the question; When gentlemen are hardly pressed to state what punand if they had, I deny that they are law, or that we are ishment they will inflict, in case of conviction, they decline bound by them. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. a direct answer, but say we may imprison; but admit, if HUNTINGTON] is mistaken in saying that the Supreme that be the punishment, that the imprisonment terminates Court has made a decision in a case like the present. The with the end of the session; that the imprisonment cannot case of Anderson and Dunn decided simply the question whether this House did in any possible case possess such a power. extend beyond the adjournment of Congress. A dictum in the case of Anderson and Dunn, decided by the Supreme Court, is referred to for this principle, where it is The only question before the court was, whether the stated that, for prevention of a repetition of the disturbHouse possessed any power at all, and the court's decision ance of the body in its deliberations, and not as punishgoes no further than to declare that it does possess such ment, the offender may be confined, and kept from coma power, but in the least possible extent, being simply a ing into the presence of the House during its session. But power to remove an obstruction to its proceedings. And the reasoning of that case supposed, as we have already it is expressly stated by the court, that, from the record seen, that the original offence had been a disturbance, before them, it did not appear but that the contempt for or disorderly conduct, committed in the face of the House. which Anderson had been arrested was committed in My opinion is that even that case goes too far. The the presence of the House. The fact is known to have House may put from its presence any disorderly person been otherwise, but the record did not show it to have who may interfere with or disturb its deliberations, and MAY 8, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R. they may keep him out; but to do that, it is not necessary before us is an ordinary case of assault and battery, such to imprison. He may be refused admittance by the offi- as one of our courts of quarter sessions would have tried cers of the House. To imprison during the remainder of and disposed of in less than half a day; and yet here we the session, as a punishment, would be to observe no pro- have been, at the most important period of the session, enportion between the offence and the punishment. If one gaged near a month in trying it. I take upon myself no offender is guilty of a contempt an hour before the ad- part of the responsibility of this useless consumption of the journment, he can be imprisoned but an hour; whilst ano-time of the House. I voted against the arrest, and have, ther, who commits precisely the same offence on the first from the commencement of the trial, viewed the whole day of the session, may be imprisoned many months. But proceeding as a usurpation of power. if you determine to imprison, may I ask where is your It only remains for me to notice some extraneous matprison? You have none. Will you confine him in the ters, which I deeply regret to find have been brought to chamber of the Sergeant-at-Arms--in the dungeons of this bear on the case before us. Having ineffectually resisted city--or in the cells of the penitentiary? No answer can this arrest in the first instance, and seeing that the House be given; all is uncertain; and if you had determined upon were determined to proceed, I had ardently desired to the prison, and the keeper refused to open it, you have see every thing like party feeling allayed, and had hoped no power to coerce him to do so. He is under no legal that the proceeding might be calm and dispassionate, for obligation to obey your mandate. I was perfectly satisfied, if it was so conducted, that the If any thing further was needed to demonstrate the want House would come ultimately to the conclusion that they of power in this House, or, if it possessed it, that it cannot could take no cognizance of it. On my part, I am not be exercised without oppression to the citizen, until we conscious of having said or done any thing in the slightest have first legislated upon the subject, and by law defined degree to give to the case a party or angry aspect. But the manner of proceeding, it may be found in the insupe- is it not apparent to all that such an attempt has been rable difficulties which have met us at every stage of this made? Gentlemen have not, it is true, ventured to affirm trial. Semi-legislative, semi-judicial, controlled only by the fact, but have left it strongly to be inferred, by the our will-we are unlike any other judicial tribunal un-course of argument, (I am not at liberty to say, with an der the sun. We have no rules of practice to govern us; intention to mislead the public mind,) that the President no rules of evidence to guide us; and in the course of this of the United States has had some connexion with the actrial, hearsay, rumor, opinion, belief, depositions taken cused, and that he is to be held responsible for the assault ex parte, and without notice, have all been indiscriminate- on the member from Ohio. Many of the public journals ly given in evidence. What a mockery of justice! The in opposition to the administration, and understood to be offence charged being at most but a mere misdemeanor, the organs of the party to which certain gentlemen here a motion was made by a member to admit the accused to belong, under the idea that some political effect could be bail. Every gentleman admitted that it was a bailable produced by it, have loudly and falsely proclaimed that case, and that, by the constitution, "excessive bail shall the fact was so. not be required." Yet those gentlemen who are fore- Mr. BURGES rose to a question of order. Does the most in maintaining the power of the House, were compel-gentleman allude to what is in the newspapers, or to what led to confess, that though it was oppressive to refuse has been said here? bail, yet that in their opinion no bail bond would be The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Tennessee was legal and obligatory, because no law had been previously in order. passed, prescribing its form, its penalty, or to whom it I am not aware, continued Mr. P., that I have violated should be payable. And one of these gentlemen, [Mr. the rules of order. It may not be pleasant to the gentleDAVIS, of Mass.,] feeling no doubt the difficulty in which man from Rhode Island to have this part of the case alludthe House was placed, for the want of such a law, and the ed to. Sir, I undertake to say that any insinuation that manifest oppression to the accused by his confinement in the President of the United States has advised, counte custody when he tendered bail, rose in his place, and ask-nanced, been privy to, or in any way connected with the ed the leave of the House to introduce a bill, and have it accused, in the assault which he committed upon the passed immediately through Congress, to enable the House to take bail. The whole proceeding on this part of the case amounted to a clear admission, on the part of those who claim the power, that it cannot be exercised, if it exist, until laws are passed on the subject. The case was not, however, abandoned on this account. Our high privileges were in question, and, nolens volens, the House pro ceeded. member from Ohio, is utterly unfounded, and wholly destitute of truth, from whatever quarter it proceeds. The accused has no connexion with the Government. He is a private citizen. The President knew nothing of his intention to commit the assault, nor has he had any communication with him upon the subject, directly or indirectly, since the speech of the member from Ohio, containing the offensive matter for which the assault was committed, was delivered upon this floor. Another member, [Mr. ADAMS,] in the course of this trial, indicated his intention to propose a resolution to raise Sir, we have heard gentlemen in this debate speak (and a committee to search up and report to the House prece- the echo has been caught and repeated in the newspapers) dents of proceedings in cases of breach of privilege, and of supposed cases of violence of bullies, of "bands of asadverted to the fact that such was the practice in the Bri-sassins, to waylay and murder as many members of the tish Parliament. What is the inference from this? Why, House as they pleased," surrounding the capitol. We that the gentlemen themselves who are exercising this high have heard cases supposed, of an Executive, who, to still power, do not know what it is, or how to proceed, and that it inquiry, or in order to carry a favorite measure through is necessary to enlighten the House by a collection of pre-Congress, might employ his myrmidons and blackguards to cedents to be found in the musty journals of the British assault and browbeat, and put in fear, the members of this Parliament. and the other branch of Congress. Sir, to suppose cases I am sure I shall be borne out by gentlemen on all sides to illustrate an argument is not objectionable. But is it of the House, when I say further that the whole proceed-intended, by supposing these extreme cases, to leave it to ing in this case shows us to be most unfit triers; and be inferred that such a state of things now exists in this that, in periods of high party excitement, this enormous city? From the tone of certain newspapers, in the confi power may be used, and probably will be, to the great dence of certain gentlemen, one at a distance might be left oppression of the citizen. What excitement and warmth to draw such inference. A labored effort seems to have of feeling have we witnessed on this trial! How unlike been made to turn this whole case to political account, and grave judges have we occasionally appeared! The case to use it, by the distorted colorings given to the circum H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 8, 1832. stances attending it, for political effect upon the country. called upon the House, as though the individual at the Gentlemen underrate the intelligence of the people if they suppose they are to be thus deceived. bar was a Roman citizen. He is, said Mr. E., an American citizen, and I am prepared and disposed to secure to We have been told, too, by gentlemen in the course of him all the rights which pertain to that character, and they this debate that there was a period in the history of this are beyond what any Roman enjoyed; but it ought not to country denominated the reign of terror; that during that be forgotten that this is a question that involves the rights, period a member of this House had been “publicly insult- not only of the accused, but of every citizen in the Union; ed in the theatre at Philadelphia;" and the gentleman add- and if the principle laid down by the gentleman from Tened that he deprecated the return of another reign of ter-nessee [Mr. POLK] be correct, it is a question deeply ror. Sir, does not the gentleman know that it was during connected with all the rights of freemen, and of free and this same reign of terror that this same high-handed pow- independent debate in this House. The facts of the case er of punishing for breach of privilege was claimed by are few and simple--I will not recapitulate them. That the Senate, in the attempt to punish Duane for a libel? the accused has assailed a member of this House, is not deDoes not the gentleman know that it was during that same nied; and that he has inflicted upon him an outrage, which reign that the odious power was usurped and exercised threatened not only his safety, but his life, has been suffor the punishment of sedition, and the removal of aliens ficiently established. The only question is, whether this from the country, who had committed no offence, at the battery was perpetrated for the cause stated by the gen will of the President? I, too, deprecate the return of that tleman from Ohio in his letter to the Speaker. This em reign-for it was only during that reign that the power braces the whole of the case. If the injury was not inwhich this House now usurps was openly attempted to be flicted for that cause, then we have no jurisdiction of the seized and exercised by Congress. matter; but if it was, then I repeat that the case involves a question of the deepest moment. Another gentleman [Mr. EVERETT] has informed us that the seat of the Federal Government was removed from I shall not recapitulate the evidence of the fact that the Philadelphia to this District, and exclusive jurisdiction assault was made for words spoken in this House. The evigiven over this ten miles square, to enable us to protect dence is fresh in the recollection of gentlemen, and to me ourselves; and he exclaims, "If the time should ever come is satisfactory and convincing. The letter of the accused when the members of that body were to be turned over expressly declares that this was the cause. The assertion to such a court as that which sat in this District, and the made by him in this House, "that he would right the House would not assume the injuries inflicted upon its wrong where it was done," is to the same effect, as is like members as done to itself, the constitution would no long-wise his whole conduct and the course of his defence. er be worth living under. The sooner they went home But, sir, if we were to decide that the assault was made the better; or, if they continued to come to that place, the for the publication in the National Intelligencer, and not sooner they armed themselves with dirks and pistols, the for speaking the words, I am far from agreeing that this sooner they would be safe, for then they would understand would alter the case. It is very true that in England a that the House would not protect them." Does the gen-member cannot plead his privilege for publishing his tleman mean to be understood as maintaining that the ex- speech delivered in Parliament. There it is a breach of clusive jurisdiction conferred over this District has invest- the standing rules of the Parliament for a member or other ed each branch of Congress, the Executive, the judiciary, person to publish a speech so delivered, but here it is each with despotic and arbitrary power within its limits? not only permitted, but expected and called for; such is Surely not. The jurisdiction conferred is a jurisdiction the genius of our Government and the spirit of our insti to be exercised according to the laws which may be en- tutions. I am not ready to follow the English courts in acted under the constitution. And as to the necessity of this particular, nor is it necessary now to decide the quesgoing armed, none such exists, even in the distempered tion, for in my view the publication was not the cause of imagination of the gentleman himself. We have laws the assault. here, which are well executed, and every man, whether in office or not, is secured in all his constitutional rights under them. The learned counsel for the accused, as well as the learned and distinguished gentleman who has just taken his seat, [Mr. POLK,] have endeavored to maintain that Having voted, Mr. Speaker, with a lean minority against this House has no right to punish an assault committed on the arrest of the accused, I have felt it to be due to myself, a member for what he may have said in debate on this to the House, and to the country, to vindicate more fully floor, and the proposition would not be varied should I than I then had an opportunity of doing, the grounds upon say for the discharge of his duty in this House, for a mem which that vote was given. I regard it as amongst the proud-ber who speaks in this Hall rises to speak under all the est votes of my public life; as a vote in behalf of the liberty of obligations of his high official trust; what he says, he says the citizen against lawless power; as a vote against an at- in the discharge of his duty, and is the sole judge, both of tempted violation of the constitution of my country by this the propriety of what he shall say, and when he shall say House. Having done this, I have discharged my public it, being, however, amenable in both respects to the judg duty, and I need not add that, entertaining the opinions ment of this House. The question then to be settled is, which I do, I shall vote for the resolution before you to whether the House has a right, under the constitution, to discharge the accused from the further custody of the Ser- take cognizance of an assault committed by third parties, geant-at-Arms. out of doors, on a member who rises here, and in his place, Mr. ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, next rose. He and under his official responsibilities, utters his sentiments said that he should not detain the House with any very ex-as in his opinion duty demands. The gentleman from tensive development of his views on the present case. Tennessee [Mr. POLK] says that he has looked into the Other gentlemen, much more able, and in the soundness constitution, and finds there no such power, and has spent of whose views the House might, with much greater safe-hours to show that it does not exist. Sir, if I do find it ty, confide, had already discussed it, and others were in- there, I agree to vote with him; and if I do find it, and tending to follow him; but as the case involved questions show it to him, then I ask that he will vote with me. I of such grave importance, and as he was called upon to shall not go beyond the letter of the constitution--I have record his vote in regard to it, he wished to offer his sen- no need to go beyond it. timents explanatory of the reasons which would guide him on the present occasion. It had been said that this was a question touching the rights of an American citizen; and gentlemen had even All gentlemen are agreed that when this House is assembled as the representative of the nation, it has power, both from the spirit and letter of the constitution, to assemble freely, deliberate freely, and freely to record all MAY 8, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R, its votes and acts. If the constitution does not give it this bill, as soon as you come out of this Hall, I'll chastise you;" power, it gives it nothing. Unless it can assemble and deli- or if a man should take his place in the rotundo, and, berate freely, it can perform no one of its duties. Now, if meeting the gentleman, should warn him-"If you say a the constitution gives the House this power freely to meet, word against me in debate to day, I shall take the liberty of and freely to express its opinion of men and measures, punishing you according to what I believe to be your dedoes it not give it the means of securing and accomplish-serts;" or if the same man should meet him on the Aveing these ends? Does the constitution impose duties, and nue, or at the door of his boarding-house, and should tell withhold the means for accomplishing them? The very him, "Remember that you say nothing against me to-day, language of the constitution is that Congress shall have or you shall repent it;" or, sir, suppose the Executive of power to effect all the purposes of its existence; and of the Union, desiring to possess himself of some power which all its powers, none is more distinct than that of assem- does not belong to him, shall cause it to be understood bling, deliberating, and acting. I will not enumerate the that if a certain individual member shall exercise his conmany decisions of every department of this Government stitutional right in opposing the Executive will, he shall upon incidental and implied powers. The statute book, be called to account; in any, or in all of these cases, will and books of reports, are full of instances and illustrations the gentleman insist that we have no power to interfere, of what I contend for. It cannot be denied that we have and to punish such an invasion of our privileges? All the power in ourselves and of ourselves. agree we may remove an existing hinderance to legislation, I put it to gentlemen to say whether our members have (though for this there is no other power than the one not a right, and if they must not be protected, and if we which I am illustrating,) because we cannot otherwise get may not do this ourselves. On the very face of the con- on in our business; but why not prevent any future hinstitution, we came here guarded, that we may deliberate derance by punishing the past offence? This is the very obfreely, without the fear of being called to account in a ject of all punishment; it is to prevent future crime: the court of justice, or by an individual, without the forms of principle is the same, whether we remove and imprison, a court of justice. The language of the constitution is, or fine and imprison, or in any suitable mode punish an of"That for any speech or debate in either House, the mem- fender, to prevent future offences. An omission to punber shall not be questioned in any other place.' I meet ish is an invitation to offend; and if others should not take the gentlemen, then, here upon the threshold of the care of us, we should at once cease to be able to do the constitution. What is it? or what is it worth, if it does duties of our station. I shall hereafter show that we cannot give us the power of acting freely, without the influ- not be forced to rely on others for protection, but must ence of such a fear as may prevent us from assembling hold the power in ourselves, to be exercised as we think here again to-morrow, as we are assembled this day? necessary. The gentleman says that he does not find the power I will here mention a case well known to us all. A written out in so many words. Well, sir, was it in the gentleman from North Carolina, who now enjoys the honor power of the framers of the constitution, or is it in the of a seat in this House, was assailed by one Anderson, power of any man to say, with precision, beforehand, ex- some years since, not indeed with a club, but with a proactly what power he shall need for his own preservation? mise that if he would use his influence in favor of a cerWas there ever a law that declared in detail every thing tain measure, Anderson would give him five hundred that a man may do in self-defence? Does the gentleman dollars. This was not an occurrence which took place in really expect to find in the constitution, in so many words, this House, in the presence of this body, but it was an that Congress shall have the power of self-preservation? attempt to corrupt the integrity of the House; to disarin Sir, this great principle has been conceded at all times--it of all the powers with which it has been clothed for the every where, in all States of the Union; every legislative good of the country; to wrest from it its independence body possesses necessarily, and of course, the power of and its virtue, and render it unfit for future legislation. discharging all the duties that are imposed upon it. The Where is the difference between telling a member that whole doctrine of contempts is ably expounded in the he shall be punished if he votes one way, and telling him case of Burdette vs. Abbot, 14 East. I will read an ex-that he shall be rewarded if he votes another? They are tract from the opinion of Lord Ellenborough, ch. 1, page alike calculated to invade the independence which he 136. Speaking of Parliament, he says: "The privileges ought to exercise. Has the member no right to resist such which belong to them seem at all times to have been, and an assault? and has the House no power to protect him, necessarily must be, inherent in them, independent of any not even from the daily repetition of it? Gentlemen say precedent: it was necessary they should have the most not; they say that we cannot punish a contempt; some of complete personal security, to enable them freely to meet, them even when openly committed in the face of the for the purpose of discharging their important functions, House. But if a man may bribe one member, may he and also that they should have the right of self-protection. not bribe two? And if he may bribe two, may he not I do not mean merely against acts of individual wrong; for bribe four, twenty, fifty, a hundred? And is it contended poor and impotent indeed would be the privileges of Par- that we cannot try and punish him for such an offence?— liament, if they could not also protect themselves against that we cannot follow, out of the House, a man who has injuries and affronts offered to the aggregate body, which attempted to interrupt the fair legislation of the country? might prevent or impede the full and effectual exercise In the case of Randall and Whitney, in '95, Congress not of their parliamentary functions. This is an essential right, only noticed, but punished, an attempt upon the integrity necessarily inherent in the supreme Legislature of the of its members. Sir, if we have not this power, we had kingdom, and of course as necessarily inherent in the Parall better go home. But when it is conceded, as it has liament, assembled in the two Houses, as in one. The been by most on the other side, that the House may proright of self-protection implies, as a consequence, a right tect itself from an assault committed in its presence, the to use the necessary means for rendering such self-protec whole argument is conceded. Where do gentlemen get tion effectual. Independently, therefore, of any prece. the power for this? Do they find it in the constitution? dents or recognised practice on the subject, such a body If so, where is the clause? Suppose a man should enter must a priori be armed with a competent authority to en- that door and explode a gun among us, where do you find, force the free and independent exercise of its own proper functions, whatever those functions might be." Sir, I ask the gentleman whether, if on coming to the House this morning, he had met at the door a man who had said to him, "If you vote in the negative on a certain in the words of the constitution, any power in this House to arrest him? Sir, there is no such clause. But the power exists in the great conservative principle which belongs to every legislative body. If the people whom we represent were here, personally present in a primary as |