durst not do this were he anywhere else. Buckingham replied, yes he would, and that he was a better man than himself; Dorchester said that he lyed. With this Buckingham struck off his hat, and took him by his periwig, and pulled it aside, and held him. My Lord Chamberlain and others interposed, and, upon coming into the House, the Lords did order them both into the Tower, whither they are to go this afternoon. This day's work will bring the Lieutenant of the Tower £350."

And farther on in the record of the same day he reports that Sir W. Batten and Sir R. Ford told him "how Sir Allen Brodericke and Sir Allen Apsley did come drunk the other day into the House, and did both speak for half an hour together, and could not be either laughed, or pulled, or bid to sit down and hold their peace, to the great contempt of the King's servants and cause; which I am grieved at with all my heart."

Next turn to colonial history and read the last act of the Rhode Island session of June, 1655: "That in case any man shall strike another person in ye Court, he shall either be fined ten pounds, or be whipt, accordinge as ye Court shall see meete." Or look into the Journal of the 5th Assembly of New Jersey (1709) and see how "Captain Duncan drew his sword on Mr. Sharp, another Representative, and tried to kill him, 'etc.,' For this offense Duncan was made to acknowledge his fault before being allowed to take his seat."

Those were rude days, you say, and the country was raw. Surely men were wiser and gentler when we had risen to the dignity of a nation and pure patriotism reached a height from which we have sadly fallen. Perhaps so, and yet it is hard to reconcile that view with the story of the attack by Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, on Roger Griswold, of Connecticut, in the House, January 30, 1798, already told in connection with the subject of expulsion.

Of all assaults in the Capitol at Washington the most momentous was that of Preston S. Brooks, of South Carolina, a member of the House, upon Senator Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts. In what Sumner had promised should be "the most thorough philippic ever uttered in a legislative body," he had exhausted the resources of invective, hurled at the champions of slavery. Among those he savagely denounced, was Senator Butler, of South Carolina. Brooks, a kinsman of Butler, undertook to revenge him. Going to the Senate Chamber and finding Sumner

writing letters, after the close of the session, Brooks dealt him a terrible blow on the head with his cane. Sumner, though a man of powerful build, was taken by surprise, and could not get away from the desk to defend himself. Brooks kept raining blows on him, broke the cane, and kept on beating him with the stump. Sumner, partly stunned and blinded, wrenched the desk from its fastenings as he struggled to his feet, and in vain tried to ward off the blows. When somebody rushed to the spot and seized Brooks to stop the brutal beating that yet continued, Sumner fell to the floor, bleeding profusely and covered with his blood. The blow would have killed most men, but Sumner's iron constitution saved him from death. The injury, however, affected his spine, made him a complete invalid for three or four years, and weakened him for life. The political result was for the anti-slavery cause an access of support not to be measured. The parliamentary result was that a committee of the Senate, without a Republican on it, reported the assault a breach of the privileges of the Senate, but not within its jurisdiction and to be punished only by the House. In that body a committee reported that the privileges of the House had been violated as well as those of the Senate, and recommended the expulsion of Brooks, but as the vote stood 121 to 95, the necessary two thirds was not secured, Brooks, however, immediately resigned and went back to South Carolina, where, at a banquet numerously attended, his constituents gave him a cane on which was inscribed, "Use knock-down arguments."

It should be noticed that the House Committee held the assault to be a violation of the constitutional provision that Senators and Representatives "for any speech or debate in either House shall not be questioned in any other place," and a breach not only of the privileges of the Senator assailed, but also of the privileges of Senate and House, as well as an act of disorderly behavior.

The Senate has been remarkably patient with offending members. Its tolerance has often left very grave personalities unrebuked, going so far indeed as to ignore the outrageous act of Senator Foote in drawing from his pocket a fully loaded revolver that might have made Benton a martyr. Occasionally, however, even Senatorial latitude has been restrained. For instance, in 1863 Willard Saulsbury went too far in declaring

President Lincoln "a weak and imbecile man." For this he was called to order, and required to sit down. When he refused to stop talking, the Vice-President directed the Sergeantat-Arms to take him in charge for disorderly conduct.

Far different was the attitude of the Senate toward the next President, Andrew Johnson, for it refused to reverse the judgment of the Chair that Charles Sumner was not out of order when he said: "We have never before had a President of the United States who was an enemy of his country." When L. Q. C. Lamar, March 1, 1879, confessed "surprise and regret that the Senator from Massachusetts should have wantonly, without provocation, flung this insult," he was ruled out of order by the Chair, Mr. Edmunds, who was not sustained on appeal, the vote being 15 to 16. Zachariah Chandler, May 9, 1879, said of twelve Senators, "By fraud and violence you occupy your seats." It was held, however, that no necessary imputation of fraud and violence attached to the Senators themselves. On the other hand Robert M. La Follette was declared to have used disorderly language when he said, June 11, 1909: "The Senator from Rhode Island . . . cannot by any legislative trick in amendments that have been voted upon, plant in the mind of any Senator here who has been exercising some independence, any timidity or error."

An affray in August, 1856, is worth recalling because the House took note of it though it occurred elsewhere. Two members in an omnibus on their way to the House became engaged in a controversy over the prospective failure of the army appropriation bill, and an assault brought some injury to one of them. The majority of the committee investigating the matter deemed there had been invasion of the right to come to the House in safety, but by reason of mitigating circumstances no action was taken.

Another phase of contempt is found in the case where a clerk of a committee was attacked, within the walls of the Capitol, in 1866. The assailant was dealt with by a resolution directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to deliver him to the civil authorities of the District and prosecute him in the criminal courts. One stenographer assaulting another in the presence of the House, in 1836, the assailant, acknowledging his offense, was let off with exclusion.

Among the cases in which one branch or the other of Con

gress has punished, have been: Attempt to bribe; the sending of a challenge to a member; defamatory publication; contumacy on the part of witnesses; an assault on the private Secretary of the President within the Capitol immediately after he had delivered a message; publishing a treaty pending in executive session. C. F. Gettemy found that from 1789 to 1870 there were 76 attempts to discipline members of Congress; 26 of these were cases of abusive language or disorderly behavior on the floor of the House, and 25 were for treason. The actual censures for all causes in both Houses during that time were 10 and the expulsions 18.

About half the States by constitutional provision give their Legislatures power to punish for disorderly or contemptuous behavior in the presence of the House. Louisiana describes the offense as "disrespect, or disorderly or contemptuous behavior," and does not confine it to the presence of the House, nor does Wisconsin so confine it in speaking of "contempt and disorderly behavior," nor Rhode Island with its comprehensive phrase, "punish for contempts." West Virginia says "disrespectful behavior in its presence." Four States (Maine, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Mississippi) extend the power to obstructing proceedings, two (Maryland and West Virginia) to obstructing an officer in the execution of his duties, and New Hampshire elaborates this into "assaulting or disturbing any one of its officers in the execution of any order or procedure of the House."

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

FREEDOM of speech within the walls of a legislative assembly is one of the most important of privileges, and its abuse is one of the most serious of contempts, yet for our purposes as a matter of convenience it has been chiefly treated in connection with the subject of debate. Here, however, it may be appropriately pointed out that freedom of speech is not a privilege which takes away from a legislative body the power to protect itself against its own members when they descend to scurrility or slander. This was established nearly four centuries ago. The Journal of the House of Commons records, January 21, 1547-48, that John Storie, one of the Burgesses, was ordered to be committed to the custody of the Sergeant of

1 See Legislative Procedure, 319-29.

the House. Articles of accusation were read against him, and the Commons, of their single authority, committed him to the Tower. The exact nature of his offense is not stated, but he is known to have been a zealous opponent of the Reformation, and would appear to have made use of language disrespectful alike to the House and to the government of the Protector Somerset.

Hatsell tells us that on the 18th of February, 1557, Mr. Marsh, one of the Burgesses of London, complained that Mr. Wylde, Burgess of Worcester, had slandered him to the drapers of London. The matter was referred to a committee, for them to examine and report, but Hatsell does not say what befell Mr. Wylde. Then came the case of Arthur Hall, expelled, as we have seen, for having published a book slandering Parliament. In our own time an American Legislature has asserted its power in this particular. Representative Comerford, a member of the Illinois House, had delivered a lecture before the Illinois College of Law, in which he scored the Legislature in biting terms, saying, among other things, that it was "a great auction mart for the sale of special privileges." The speech made a sensation, and a commission was appointed to investigate the matter. The commission ruled that it would consider charges against only the Legislature that had just begun its session, and as Mr. Comerford had little or no proof of corruption in that session, his charges were held to be slanderous, and by a vote of 121 to 13 he was expelled. The "Chicago Inter Ocean" and "Journal" criticized the Legislature severely for this action, but the other Chicago papers thought Mr. Comerford brought his fate upon himself by making charges he could not prove. "The Assembly has the right to demand that it shall not be prejudged, and that no one of its own members shall, without proof, scandalize it in the public estimation," said the "Chicago Tribune"; and the "Chicago Evening Post" remarked that "no legislative body could retain its own self-respect or the confidence of its constituents if it failed to punish one of its members who called his colleagues boodlers." 2

Of the same nature was the resentment shown by the Massachusetts House of 1919 against one of its members who in a public address had said that of course in such a number of men 1 Precedents, 1, 190. 2 Literary Digest, February 25, 1905.