H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 11, 1832. of the right to punish others than members for contempts be discovered to be wholly inconsistent with the constitucommitted in the presence of the House, is an admission of tion or nature of that body, or with some clause in the the power to punish for contempts, by intimidation or vio- constitution. But the reverse of the first position is the lence, out of the House; because there is no express truth. It would be inconsistent with the nature of such a authority or power given in the one case more than in the body to deny it the power of protecting itself from injury other. An express power is only given to the House to or insult. If its deliberations are not perfectly free, its punish its own members for disorderly behavior, and constituents are eventually injured. This power has never even to expel them; but I have seen or heard it observed been denied in any country, and is incidental to the nature that that power was given to obviate a possible doubt of of all legislative bodies. If it possesses such a power in the power of the members representing the other States the case of an immediate insult or disturbance, preventto restrain any representative of a State equally entitled ing the exercise of its ordinary functions, it is impossible to act, in his own discretion: and it was necessary to the to deny it in other cases, which, although less immefree action of all that every one should be duly restrained diate, or less violent, partake of the same character, by to order. having a tendency to impair the firm and honest discharge of public duties. This concession of the power to punish for acts committed within the walls of the House, relinquishes the "Those clauses in the constitution which provide that whole ground of the argument, which is the want of an the trial of all crimes shall be by jury, in the State and express grant, for there is no express power to pun- district where the offence has been committed, are ever ish others than members; and why should this House to be held sacred, but it would be doing violence to them be at liberty to exercise any ungranted power to pun- to carry them further than the plain meaning, that trial by ish acts committed within its walls, any more than for jury shall be preserved in criminal prosecutions in the orthose committed beyond them? The illustration of dinary courts; otherwise, it would be impossible to support this argument has become familiar by repetition: the the jurisdiction given to the Senate in cases of impeachobject is to protect members in the free exercise of ment, wherein no trial by jury takes place. It appears their deliberative functions, and in freedom of debate. If then that this implied power of punishing what are termed a man be beaten and disabled as he is leaving the House, or at his lodgings, or in the street, whilst he is here at the seat of the legislative session, or is questioned, and intimidated by bludgeons, is not the inconvenience, and the violation of his privilege, the same? Is not the influence to interrupt the free exercise of his functions the same? contempts and infringements of the privileges of the Houses, is, in reality, the useful institution of a summary jurisdiction for the punishment of offences substantially committed against the people, and that it is correctly deduced from the constitution." The writer is treating of a power in the Houses, extending beyond their own precincts, and affecting others than their own members; and his reasoning applies to our very point. Upon these principles, sir, has the matter been settled by the solemn adciples of reason and of common sense, which declare that when a power is given to do an act, the power of employing the means necessary to its execution is also given by necessary implication. Hence, it is admitted that the power to pass a law to prevent or punish breaches of privilege does exist. But where is that power to pass a law to define and punish breaches of privilege expressly declared in the constitution? If it be said to rest on the general provision that Congress (both Houses, with the Presi I will read a passage from the book which I hold in my dent) shall pass laws necessary and proper to carry into hand, as bearing upon this subject, and as the opinion of effect the powers expressly given, look at the consequenan able commentator on our constitution, entitled to great ces. I have already stated that, depending on any other respect: (Rawle's View)-"It is a maxim in the practical branch of the Government, the House of Representatives application of Government, that the public functionaries gives up its self-protecting power. The Senate may dif should be supported in the full exercise of the powers en- fer widely from the House in its views. It may fear to trusted to them. Attempts to bribe or intimidate them diminish its own power of self-protection. It may unite constitute offences against the public. They amount to with the Executive in attempts to affect the independence more than contempts or breaches of privilege against the and power of the House, and may refuse to pass any law. legislative bodies, and they undoubtedly subject the offend- The Executive may stand in opposition to one or both er to the usual course of prosecution and punishment branches of the Legislature-may desire to break down in the courts of law. But this liability does not exclude their privileges, and, therefore, may refuse to sanction the immediate jurisdiction of the legislative body, which is any act. Meanwhile, the legislative body may be insulted supported by strong considerations of public policy. The and abused-the members bearded in their seats, and aspeople are entitled to the utmost purity and integrity in sailed with contumely and violence elsewhere. If they the conduct of their representatives. The House is a resort to the courts to punish such offences as come guardian of the public interests in this respect. It is its strictly under the definition of crimes, the President may duty to make immediate inquiry as to any attempt to as- pardon. sail the freedom, or corrupt the integrity, of any of its Sir, the contests which the representatives of the peomembers. From the duty to inquire, arises the right to ple here assembled are most likely to encounter, are such punish; it needs not to be devolved on the ordinary tribu- as may occur in opposition to Executive measures. nals. It is true that no power to this effect is expressly is the natural tendency of things in popular Governments, given by the constitution, nor does the judicial or criminal where contests will arise between those who wield the power given to the courts of the United States in any part, power and patronage, and the fresh representatives of the expressly extend to the infliction of punishment for such people. The struggle will be between the ins and outs; offences. But it is not, therefore, to be inferred that no and the possessors of Executive power and their partisans such power exists anywhere. If the courts of the United may attempt to influence, by corruption or intimidation, States would possess it by implication, there is no reason such members as may stand in their way. These, sir, are for refusing it to the legislative body itself, unless it should supposititious cases, but they are in the natural course of Mr. Speaker, I feel conscious that, in this statement of my views on this subject, I repeat, in substance, much of what has been before said or written by others, but it is, in fact, the only kind of argument that can be made. It judication of our Supreme Court. They are the plain prinarises out of the nature of things, it lies at the foundations of Government, and is supported by the opinions and speculations of the most learned jurists, as by the solemn decisions of the courts, both in England and in our own country. To have simply read these at once, would, or, at least, ought to have been of more force than any speech that could be made on this occasion, as I contend the law has been established beyond all reasonable controversy, here as there. This MAY 11, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. of R. human affairs. A strong popular leader, or a bold intre- the sovereign; yet care was taken that among them the pid patriot, who would be likely to carry measures here leading members should be devoted to the Crown, and that against Executive wishes, would be naturally a marked the Speaker should be one holding office, or high in the object of resentment and vengeance. To browbeat him, confidence of the ministers. Freedom of debate was, into intimidate him by gross abuse, from day to day, in some deed, granted, but with a qualification which, in reality, public journal, or to menace or assault him, may be the amounted to a refusal. It was only a decent freedom: and means resorted to to hush the voice of patriotism in this as the King reserved to himself the right of deciding what House. Suppose, sir, in some great political crisis, the was or was not decent, he frequently put down the oppoPresidential election to be thrown upon the House of Re-nents of the court by reprimanding the varlets' in perpresentatives, and, upon a close vote, the absence of a son, or by sending to them a threatening message." few members might decide the fate of the nation. How I admit again, Mr. Speaker, nay, I insist, that the easy to assail them under the impunity which this doctrine framers of our constitution were well acquainted with the would confer that all violence upon members of the nature of parliamentary privileges, and the dangers to House should be referred to the slow process of judicial which they were exposed; and, therefore, I can never beinvestigation elsewhere! And must you wait, too, until lieve that a convention of men so enlightened, so familiar you can pass laws defining the multitudinous forms in with the history of the encroachments of royal power upwhich corruption or force shall seek to influence or overawe on the privileges of the people, would have created a your members? There may be a popular Executive head legislative body, and sent it from their hands divested of who shall wield a decided majority in both Houses, and, the means of preserving its existence, or of exercising its at the same time, employ means of corruption or personal functions without a resort to other departments. It was violence to oppress and keep down a patriotic minority. natural, necessary, inherent power, which they knew that Where will they find protection for their privileges? Will the British House of Commons and the colonial assemblies, they be able to procure laws to be passed, defining their or provincial legislatures, had always exerted for securing privileges, and punishing the violation of them? Or, sup- the free and full exercise of the functions they were enpose a small majority in this House opposed to an Execu- dowed with as the representatives of the people. Sir, you tive who may feel inclined to intimidate and overawe them may call this power by what name you please; but a power by acts of violence committed under its secret influence. it is, which has been exercised by every legislative body Must this House humbly sue to their oppressor, to a tyran- from a period beyond which our most diligent researches nical President, for his signature to an act to allow their privileges? or would they be likely to obtain it? Mr. Speaker, all history shows the tendency of Executive power to become corrupt, and degenerate into tyranny, as it portrays poor, frail humanity constantly yielding to the influence and seductions of power. Look, sir, to the state of the Commons of England under the last Henry or the first and second James. In the rapacious and tyrannical dominion of the bloated monarch whom I have first named, upon his decline of life, but when he had corrupted and overborne the Parliament in both Houses, we see a picture of what may possibly befall us at no distant day, in a President of the United States, if the representatives in this House should ever be corrupted or overawed by the arts or violence of Executive authority. Freedom of debate was then allowed, indeed, but it was only a decent freedom, such as the King approved! [Mr. K. here proceeded and read from Lingard's History of England the following passages:] cannot carry us in the history of civilized Europe. In England it was not the common law, properly so called, for it was in derogation of the common law; but it has been there always held to be a part of the laws of the land, founded in the nature and necessity of the thing. So, sir, both the privileges in our constitution are against acts which would be otherwise lawful--arrest for debt and for words spoken. The very fact of these exemptions or privileges being thus specified, and an exemption from violence and corruption not being specified, is evidence that it was believed and understood that self-protection against the latter was a power inherent and essentially incidental to the body. And so the writers and the judicial tribunals say that, thus deduced from the necessity of self-preservation, this power would only continue with the duration of the period for exercising the functions to be protected. The learned gentleman from Virginia [Mr. DODDRIDGE] has traced in the English law books the nature and object of the privileges of Parliament, amongst which you see "But as the King advanced in age, his views gradually that freedom of speech and debate is the ancient and undeveloped themselves; after the death of Woolsey, they doubted right of Parliament: and, to protect its members were indulged without restraint. He became as rapacious in the exercise of it, this inherent, necessary power of as he was prodigal; as obstinate as he was capricious; as self-preservation has been established by the usages and fickle in his friendships as he was merciless in his resent-customs of Parliament, according to which all matters ments. Though liberal of his confidence, he soon grew concerning the Peers and Commons have been determinsuspicious of those whom he had ever trusted; and, as if ed there. After a series of struggles against royal prerohe possessed no other right to the crown than that which gative, sometimes, too, rashly and wantonly exerting its he derived from the very questionable claim of his father, own power, the Parliament of Great Britain has establishhe viewed with an evil eye every remote descendant of the ed the necessary privileges of its members, now as much Plantagenets, and eagerly embraced the slightest pretexts restricted as our own, against the influence and power of to remove those whom his jealousy represented as future the Crown, as well as against individual assaults. Sir, the rivals to himself or his posterity. In pride and vanity he light of reason, and the progress of political as of civi! liwas, perhaps, without a parallel. Inflated with the praises berty, have worked a conviction of the indispensable of interested admirers, he despised the judgments of others; necessity for these restricted privileges of the representaacted as if he deemed himself infallible in matters of policy tive of the people. It was declared by the statute of and religion; and seemed to look upon dissent from his William and Mary, that freedom of speech and debates or opinions as equivalent to a breach of allegiance. In his proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or estimation, to submit and to obey were the great, the pa-questioned in any court or place out of Parliament: but no ramount duties of subjects; and this persuasion steeled his express power to punish, nor any particular species of breast against remorse for the blood which he shed, and punishment, was thereby, or ever enacted. In the same led him to trample, without scruple, on the liberties of the terms have the framers of our constitution declared this privilege of speech and of debate for the members of both "As for the third branch of the Legislature, the Com-Houses of Congress, because it was necessary to the exermons of England, they had not yet acquired sufficient im-cise of their functions, and to a faithful discharge of their portance to oppose any efficient barrier to the power of duties to the people. It is the right and privilege of the nation." VOL. VIII.--188 H. or R.] Case of Samuel Houston. [MAY 11, 1832. people that their representative shall be free to disclose his might prevent or impede the full and effectual exercise of sentiments on every subject which concerns the public their parliamentary functions. This is an essential right weal. The statute was a formal and solemn declaration necessarily inherent in the supreme Legislature of the kingof the rights and liberties of the subject in England at dom, and, of course, as necessarily inherent in the Parliathe revolution of 1688; and the freedom of speech and de- ment assembled in the two Houses as in one. The right bate in Parliament was then emphatically asserted as one of self-protection implies, as a consequence, a right to use of the true, ancient, indubitable rights, liberties, and pri- the necessary means for rendering such self-protection vileges of the people. Being so handed down to us by effectual. Independently, therefore, of any precedents our forefathers, it was engrafted in the constitution of or recognised practice on the subject, such a body must, the United States as a sacred and inviolable privilege of a priori, be armed with a competent authority to enforce the people here. Hence, sir, we see that all this talk the free and independent exercise of its own proper funcabout our assumed dignity and pretensions to superior pri- tions, whatever those functions might be. On this ground, vileges is absurd, idle, and illusory. The extravagant it has been, I believe, very generally admitted in argu cases which have been collected and referred to here, of ment, that the House of Commons must be, and is, authothe abuse of privilege and power by Parliaments in former rized to remove any immediate obstructions to the due ages, cannot deprive us of the right, nor should they de- course of its own proceedings. But this mere power of reter us from the exercise of this faculty of self-preservation. moving actual impediments to its proceedings would not The abuse of a right or privilege, even by ourselves, in be sufficient for the purposes of its full and efficient proone instance, could not invalidate it as one belonging to tection. It must also have the power of protecting itself those whom we represent, for a legitimate and proper use from insult and indignity, wherever offered, by punishing of it. This House, sir, represents the sovereign people of those who offer it." "And would it consist with the digthe United States. It is with their dignity and their power nity of such bodies, or, what is more, with the immediate we stand invested for a limited period. To maintain the and effectual exercise of their important functions, that one, and to exert the other, for their advantage and safe- they should wait the comparatively tardy result of a proty, we claim the incidental and indispensable power of secution in the ordinary course of law, for the vindication protecting every individual representative in the free and of their privileges from wrong and insult? The necessity unrestrained privilege of debate. But what House of Re- of the case would, therefore, upon principles of natural sentatives, under our existing Government, will ever dare reason, seem to require that such bodies, constituted for to affect an overbearing exercise of its privileges, or sport such purposes, and exercising such functions as they do, with the rights of the humblest citizen? What member should possess the powers which the history of the earliest here, knowing, as he must, his immediate responsibility to times shows that they have in fact possessed and used." a people nurtured in a jealous love of civil liberty, will ever So was the judgment of the court unanimous in the King's dare to propose or sanction measures of such a character? Bench, and, upon a writ of error, was affirmed in the ExIt is upon these grounds and principles, sir, which I chequer Chamber. Sir Francis Burdett took his case, have argued too much at length, I believe, for the conve- upon a writ of error, before the House of Lords, where it nience of members who were ill-disposed to give me their was again fully argued in his behalf, but decided, without attention-certainly too much so for my own convenience. hesitation, against him, even with the warm and zealous This great question of privilege appears to have been concurrence of Lord Erskine, the able and jealous chamfinally settled both in England and in this country. In the pion of civil rights. There is one thing remarkable, sir, celebrated modern case of Sir Francis Burdett against Mr.in this case, which appeared to be hailed by Lord Erskine Abbott, Speaker of the House of Commons, in the Court with great satisfaction--that the House of Commons, by the of King's Bench, this privilege of Parliament, and its mode of pleading adopted by their Speaker, permitted the power to punish for a breach of it, are fully settled. In case to proceed, and to be decided, as upon the law of the that case, the broad question arose whether the House of land. The Speaker did not plead to the jurisdiction, but Commons had any authority by law to commit in cases of put himself on the country as to the fact, and pleaded a contempt, as for a breach of privilege, and its inherent justification in law. And the power of the House of Com right and power of self-protection was unequivocally ad-mons to punish by imprisonment for contempt was settled judged. I will read some portion of the decision of that as the law of the land. case, from the report of it in 14th East. Lord Ellenborough, who delivered the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, said that, after the most mature consideration, he had not a particle of doubt. Every difficulty had been stated in the most elaborate form. All the cases had been brought forward. And, with this last solemn decision upon the whole ground of English authorities, I meet the cases of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] whom I consider as entitled to a reply, from the same sources of authority. They were all examined by the court, upon the authority of precedents in Parliament, and the recognition of statutes and of judges in the courts of law: and Lord Ellenborough, after all, demanded, "what is there against it?" As to both Houses of Parliament, he said, "the privileges which belong to them seem, at all times, to have been, and necessarily must be, inherent in them, independent of any precedent: it was necessary that they should have the most complete personal security, to enable them freely to meet for the purpose of discharging their important functions, and also that they should have the right of self-protection. I do not mean merely against acts of individual wrong; for poor and impotent indeed would be the privileges of Parliament, if they could not also protect themselves against injuries and affronts offered to the aggregate body, which I will now come, sir, to the American courts, and I ask gentlemen whether I could better refute their arguments than by showing a uniform current of decisions here against them. The identical arguments in favor of the exercise of this power have been applied here as in England, because they are the eternal principles of reason, and result from the very nature of all Government. It is not because they are English principles or precedents that we apply them here, although they have been handed down to us, but it is because they are such as apply in all times to every free representative Government, and are essential to its preservation. I could wish gentlemen to have the full benefit of the case which has been already referred to in the Massachusetts Reports-the case of Coffin against Coffin; in which all the principles I have relied upon are recognised in the clearest and strongest manner by Chief Justice Parsons. He states the privilege of speech and debate in the most forcible manner, as not so much the privilege of the House as an organized body, as of the individual member, who holds it from the constitution and from the will of the people, and can no more be deprived of it than of his freedom from arrest, and maintains the power of the House to punish any breach of it. But, sir, the case of Anderson and Dunn, decided by the Supreme Court of MAY 11, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R. the United States, is a conclusive recognition of the privi- varied motions and resolutions, the point was settled on lege, and of the power now in controversy. The learned the motion of a gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Culjudge, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, breth,) for discharging the party, on the ground that the drew from the constitution itself, and the essential nature House had no constitutional right to try or punish the of our free representative Government, the principles on offence, which was negatived by a majority of 119 to 47. which the power of this House to punish for a breach of The resolution for bringing up John Anderson for trial its privileges was to be sustained, in defiance of the ob- was then adopted; he was adjudged by the House to be jection that no express power is given. This and every guilty of the contempt alleged, and was reprimanded other like difficulty which the learned counsel has set up, and discharged. This affair occurred in 1818; there had on this occasion, upon constitutional grounds, are fully an- been, before, cases in Congress involving the same quesswered in that case, as were all the English cases cited by tion, in which the power of the House had been distinctly him and others, put aside by the last solemn decision in asserted. The cases of Randall and Whitney, in 1795, the British courts: for almost every argument and every and of Gunn, in 1796, will be remembered. If, as the view which has been taken of this subject, on the present learned counsel has said, in the first case, no constituoccasion, is to be found in the one or the other of these tional defence was set up by the party accused, every reported cases. To the multiplied suggestions of constitu- suggestion was made by members to raise the question, tional difficulties and of possible dangers resulting from the and it was resolved that Randall was guilty of a conexercise of the indispensable power of self-protection by tempt to, and a breach of, the privileges of the House. this House, the same learned judge gave one general And, in the case of Gunn, a like assertion of the power character, which I will present in his own words. These was voted on a report of Mr. Madison, though the party are not arguments; they are visions which mar the enjoy- was discharged on an apology deemed sufficient. John ment of actual blessings, with the attack or feint of the Anderson brought his suit at law to try his constitutional harpies of imagination." I will proceed a little further rights, but he received, in the highest tribunal, the judgwith Mr. Justice Johnson. [Mr. K. read from Anderson ment I have stated. s. Bunn:] "The idea is Utopian, that Government can And now, Mr. Speaker, I will discuss, in a very brief exist without leaving the exercise of discretion some- manner, the question of fact. Is the charge proved? The where. Public security against the abuse of such discre-nature of the charge and the circumstances of the case tion must rest on responsibility and stated appeals to are fully before us. Do the facts proved support the allepublic approbation. Where all power is derived from the gation of the violence having been committed on the perpeople, and public functionaries, at short intervals, de-son of the member from Ohio with the intent and for the posite it at the feet of the people, to be resumed again cause imputed? only at their will, individual fears may be alarmed by the The counsel noticed two minor charges, (as he called monsters of imagination, but individual liberty can be in them,) that of the member having been beaten so as to little danger. But if there is one maxim which neces- have been kept from his seat in this House, or having been sarily rides over all others, in the practical application of beaten on his way to a member of the Senate on business. Government, it is, that the public functionaries must be I presume, sir, it can make no possible difference in the left at liberty to exercise the powers which the people case, where he was beaten, if the assault was committed have entrusted to them. The interest and dignity of those on account of words spoken in debate. That the assault who created them require the exertion of the powers in- and battery was committed, has been amply proved; and dispensable to the attainment of the ends of their crea- in what manner? Much has been said, sir, about the protion. Nor is a casual conflict with the rights of particular vocation, and whether the extraordinary violence was inindividuals any reason to be urged against the exercise of duced by the speech, or the publication of the speech; such powers. The wretch beneath the gallows may re- but one thing is clear-that, if any case could occur to pine at the fate which awaits him, and yet it is no less cer- call for a solemn investigation by this House of its violated tain that the laws under which he suffers were made for dignity in the person of one of its members, it is to be his security. The unreasonable murmurs of individuals seen in the enormity of the attack upon the person of the against the restraints of society have a direct tendency member from Ohio. Shall I hold up to you the picture of to produce that worst of all despotisms which makes this transaction from the evidence which has been given every individual the tyrant over his neighbors." I will of it? I will not do so to influence your minds, but only add this-- The present question is, what is the ex- to bring to them the true nature of the case you are tent of the punishing power which the deliberative assem-called upon to decide. It is to place before you the memblies of the Union may assume and exercise on the ber from Ohio, as the representative of an important State, principle of self-preservation? Analogy and the nature of in the actual condition to which the exercise of his conthe case furnish the answer-the least possible power stitutional privilege here has reduced him, and to put to a adequate to the end proposed,' which is the power of im- fair test the duties which we owe to ourselves and the prisonment. It may at first view, and from the history people whom we represent, and more especially to the of the practice of our legislative bodies, be thought to constituents of that member. I will read from the depoextend to other inflictions. But every other will be found sition of the honorable Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Buckto be mere commutation for confinement, since commit-NER,] his account of the rencontre, from the first meeting ment alone is the alternative where the individual proves of the accused and the member from Ohio, till the total contumacious. And even to the duration of imprisonment prostration of the latter. a period is imposed by the nature of things, since the ex- "Houston was standing not directly facing the palings, istence of the power that imprisons is indispensable to its but rather quartering towards it, and quartering to me; continuance; and although the legislative power continues without answering my question, he appeared to shift the perpetual, the legislative body ceases to exist on the mo- position of his feet. I saw nothing at the time, but soon ment of its adjournment or periodical dissolution. It discovered a gentleman coming across the Avenue, and follows that imprisonment must terminate with that adjournment." Sir, this case of John Anderson, which gave rise to the suit and trial reported in 6th Wheaton, was agitated in this House, and canvassed upon every constitutional ground that could be suggested by members in debate; and the whole matter was fully discussed. After multiplied and pretty near to us, and near to the pavement; at the time I did not recognise the individual when I first observed him, but as he approached nearer, and was in the act of putting his foot upon the pavement, I discovered it to be Mr. STANBERRY. It occurred immediately to me that there would be a difficulty between them, having understood previously that there had been dissatisfaction between H. OF R.] them. Houston did not reply to my question. As STAN-accused meant to shoot him in the street, and had been BERRY approached nearer, he appeared to halt in his advised by a friend to prepare to defend himself, and alplace. Houston asked if that was Mr. STANBERRY; he though he had armed himself accordingly, he was afterreplied, very politely, and bowing at the same time, "yes, wards thrown off his guard by various circumstances, and sir;" then, said Houston, you are the damned rascal, and carried but a single pistol. At eight o'clock at night, with that struck him with a stick which he held in his hand. when he was going on a visit to a friend, and had no exSTANBERRY threw up his hands over his head, and stag-pectation of meeting the accused, he was suddenly acgered back; his hat fell off, and he exclaimed, "Oh, costed by the accused, and instantly struck down with a don't." Houston continued to follow him up, and con- bludgeon. Whilst prostrate beneath his assailant, and as tinued to strike him. After receiving several severe he continued to strike him with great violence, he got his blows, STANBERRY turned, as I thought, to run offhand upon his pistol, (his only weapon and his only posHouston at that moment sprung upon him in the rear, sible means of defence,) and endeavored to discharge it. STANBERRY'S arms hanging down, apparently defenceless. He did not draw the pistol till he was beaten to the ground, He seized him, and attempted to throw him, but was not and was lying helpless, and in the hands of his adversary; able to do so. STANBERRY carried him about on the pave- and he resorted to the pistol, as he had a strict legal right ment some little time; whether he extricated himself, or to do, to save himself from the probability of impending Houston thrust him from him, I am not able to determine.death or great bodily harm. And so it would have stood I thought he thrust him from him; as he passed him, he in the eye of the law, upon the settled rules of self-defence, struck him, and gave him a trip; STANBERRY fell; when in any judicial forum. he fell he still continued to halloo; indeed, he hallooed all For what was this ignominious chastisement inflicted? the time pretty much, except when they were scuffling. It is alleged to have been for a speech of the member from saw STANBERRY, after having received several blows, put Ohio, made in this House, in a debate on a subject pendout both hands in this way, he then lying on his back. ing before it. In that speech was a passage importing a did not discover what was in his hands, or if any thing was; charge upon the late Secretary of War of an attempt but I heard a sound like the snapping of a gun lock, and made by him fraudulently to give to the accused the conI saw particles of fire. Houston appeared to take hold of tract for Indian rations. I am not to undertake to mainSTANBERRY'S hands, and took something from them, which tain this allegation of a fraud, in order to support the arI could not see. After that, Houston stood up more erect, gument I have in hand. It is sufficient to say that this still beating STANBERRY with a stick over the head, arms, House, having an inquisitorial power over all high officers and sides; STANBERRY still kept his hands spread out. of the Government, is the proper place for a fair inquiry After Houston's giving him several other blows, he lay on into every species of corrupt or improper conduct in his back and put up his feet; Houston then struck him else- them, which the ordinary tribunals of justice cannot where. Mr. STANBERRY, after having received several blows, ceased to halloo, and lay, as I thought, perfectly still. All this time I had not spoken to either of the parties, or interfered in any manner whatever. I now thought STANBERRY was badly hurt, or perhaps, killed, from the manner in which he lay. I stepped up to Houston to tell him to desist, but, without being spoken to, he quit of his own accord. Mr. STANBERRY then got up on his feet, and I then saw the pistol in the right hand of Governor Houston for the first time." reach; and that it is the duty of every member who comes to the knowledge of fraudulent practices in the officers or departments of the Government to communicate the information to this House. He must do this, however, under a responsibility to this House, and to public opinion. I know nothing of the subject to which the member from Ohio so emphatically alluded in his obnoxious speech, and I have no sympathy or participation in the charge, more than any other member of this House; and I speak merely in reference to the privilege of speech and deSuch is the evidence of the honorable Senator. With bate, which is secured to every member on this floor by respect to the witness, I will say only one word. "Mine the express provisions of the constitution. For myself, I enemy's dog, had he bit me," should not have died that would never give my sanction or countenance to light death in my presence. And it is said that our proceed-and frivolous intimations of fraudulent practices in any ings, in such a case as this, will be decided by the people. officer of Government; but, if I should become master of I trust, sir, that gentlemen are greatly mistaken. The peo- any such secret, and of such facts and circumstances as ple will regard the powers with which they have invested would convince the mind of a reasonable man of the reality us, and they will hold us responsible for the due exer- of their existence, I would feel myself bound to disclose tion of them for the vindication of the privilege of every all my information to the House, and I would do it fearmember of our body. If any man could be more abused lessly. What, then, has the member from Ohio done in and degraded in his person by the violence of another, his place? He has alleged a corrupt design on the part know not how; and are we at liberty to turn off the com-of the late Secretary of War in an important transaction, plaint of the member from Ohio, and condemn him to in which an official duty had devolved on tim, and he loss of caste, because his pistol missed fire? Shall we un-went further, and charged the President with a full dertake to degrade him from the right of protection and knowledge of the bustness. He moreover gave his reathe privileges of this House common to us all, under the sons for his belief in the facts alleged, and referred in part provisions of the constitution, because he proved so unfor-to his authority. Sir, that member and every other is tunate as not to have killed his assailant? Shall I ask, sir, amenable to this House, even in the penalty of expulwhat else he could have done? Some of us might affect to make a ready answer; but we have never tried, and therefore cannot know, the difficulties of such a moment of discomfiture and impending destruction. sion, for a gross, false clamor; but his privilege of freedom of speech and debate here cannot be constitutionally or legally questioned in any other place. An inquiry into frauds or corruptions in any branch of the Government is The counsel for the accused has taken a view of the too important to the interests of the people to be stifled conduct of the member from Ohio, which is wholly un- by violence or intimidation, even from individuals who supported by the evidence, and has, with the aid of ima-may deem themselves unjustly accused. gination, represented him as a man arming himself for an In England it is an established principle, and a rule setaffray, and going forth as an aggressor, and he has more tled even by their courts, that a member in his place may than intimated the character of the act, in the eye of the make a charge or propose an inquiry upon common fame; law, had he successfully maintained the fight. Sir, the and here the constitution has given an equal freedom of evidence wholly refutes this statement. Although the speech and debate. It is a freedom of debate and a member had been informed that it was rumored that the liberty of action, with which this House is invested by the |