IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Jan. 16, 1810. [H. OF R. United States, proposed by the Legislature of the State of Resolved, That the Executive of this commonwealth be, for laying an embargo, or prohibiting commerce for a longer and he is hereby, requested to communicate to the Execu- period than until the expiration of thirty days from the tives of the States of the Union, that the General Assem- commencement of the session of Congress next succeedbly of the State of Kentucky have taken into consideration ing that session in which such law shall have been enacted. Resolved, That this General Assembly do disapprove of, the amendment proposed by the State of Pennsylvania and dissent from, the amendment to the constitution of to the constitution of the United States, contemplating the United States, proposed by the Legislature of the the establishment of an impartial tribunal to determine State of Virginia on the 13th day of January, 1808, that disputes between the General Government and State Go- the Senators in the Congress of the United States may be vernments, and that they deem the proposed alteration removed from office by the vote of a majority of the whole inexpedient. number of members of the respective State Legislatures by which the said Senators have been or may be elected. Resolved, That this General Assembly do disapprove of, and dissent from, the amendment to the constitution of the United States as proposed by the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania, April 3, 1809, "that an impartial tribunal may be established to determine disputes between the General and the State Governments." NORTH CAROLINA. The committee to whom was referred the message of his Excellency the Governor, having deliberated, with seriousness and attention, upon that part thereof which relates to the important subject of certain alterations in the constitution of the United States, proposed by the States of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, report: to be That they consider innovations in that justly celebrated and revered charter of our liberties as dangerous, in an eminent degree, and not to be encouraged without the most evident and imperious necessity, which, not perceiving in the present cases, they unanimously recommend it Resolved, That the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina disapprove of what is proposed by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts as an amendment to the constitution of the United States, and cannot agree to the adoption of an article, that "no law shall be enacted laying an embargo, or prohibiting or suspending commerce for a longer period than until the expiration of thirty days from the commencement of the session of Congress next succeeding that session in which such law shall have been enacted." Resolved, further, That this Legislature also disapprove the article proposed by the General Assembly and Governor of Pennsylvania as an amendment to the constitution of the United States, by providing that an impartial tribunal may be established to determine disputes between the General and State Governments, and do not consent to the adoption of any such article, being satisfied that such a tribunal already exists. Resolved, lastly, That his Excellency the Governor be, and he is hereby, requested to transmit, forthwith, a copy of the present resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, and to the Executives of the several States in the Union, with a request that the same be laid before the Legislatures thereof. All which is respectfully submitted. BENJAMIN SMITH, Chairman. IN SENATE, Nov. 30, 1809. Read, and resolved unanimously that the House do conBy order: cur therewith. JOSEPH RIDDICK, Resolved, That this General Assembly do approve of, and agree to, the amendment to the constitution of the United States, "that, if any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatsoever, from any Emperor, King, or Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them." Resolved, That the Executive of this State be requested to forward copies of the foregoing resolutions to the Executives of the several States, and also to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress. Attest: STATE OF GEORGIA. JOHN COCKE, Speaker of the House of Representatives. J. PECK, Clerk of the House of Representatives. IN SENATE, Nov. 25, 1809. Resolved, That the amendment proposed to the constitution of the United States by a resolution of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, and approved by the Governor of that State, the 3d day of April, 1809, in the words following: "Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to use their influence to procure an amendment to the constitution of the United States, that an impartial tribunal may be established to determine disputes between the General and State Governments; and that they be further instructed to use their endeavors, that, in the meanwhile, such arrangements may be made between the Government of the Union and of this State, as will put an end to existing difficulties," be, and the same is hereby, disapproved by the Legislature of this State, and that the Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United States from this State be requested to oppose the said alteration. Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution to each of the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this State, and to the Executive of each State. Read and passed. Attest: HENRY MITCHELL, President. NOTE.-Maine, and all the Governments south of the Hudson, including those in the West and Northwest, and Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, have been formed since 1809, except Ohio. P. DODDRIDGE. [MAY 9, 1832. another place, malice would be implied. But in words spoken here, malice is repudiated, and for all legal purposes good motives are absolutely inferred. We are exempt from civil process. For debts, we may set the law and its officers at defiance. We are beyond their reach. Our privilege is our shield. We are free from arrest in all After a brief explanation by Mr. DRAYTON of some of cases except for crimes--"treason, felony, or breach of his remarks referred to, the peace. Mr. BEARDSLEY, of New York, next rose. He commenced by saying that this trial had occupied several weeks of the precious time of the House at an advanced period of a long session. Perhaps that time had been profitably spent. Of that, said Mr. B., our constituents will best judge. There was very little complexity or detail in any of the testimony, which could be supposed material: yet some two weeks have been required to hear and commit to writing what is called evidence. The play, said he, should be worth the candle. The importance of this evidence ought to be such as to reconcile us to the reflection that it was taken at the expense of more than twenty thousand dollars to the public. Yet, what is it? Any thing but what testimony before a judicial tribunal should be. Conjectures, hearsay, general suspicions, and ex parte affidavits. And these, if they could prove any thing, except the incompetency or unsuitableness of the tribunal which received them, were directed, as if in mockery of justice, at any and every object, rather than the point which seemed, if any thing was, material to a decision of the cause. Almost every rule of evidence hitherto deemed reasonable, seems to have been disregarded in this trial. The House has floundered through the testimony apparently without chart or compass to direct it, and in clear violation of the most well-settled and authoritative legal principles. The debate has been about equally discursive and erratic. Many topics have been introduced and gravely argued, which have neither been denied nor doubted in any quarter. I hope, sir, that the judgment of the House, when it shall be rendered, will atone for the irrelevant mass of proof which has been given, and the aberrant character of the discussion. Gentlemen have set themselves seriously at work to prove that members of this House have certain constitututional privileges. What, sir, is privilege? A right, exemption, or immunity, possessed by one or more persons, but not common to all their fellow-citizens. Those who are entitled to immunities of this nature, are privileged persons, and of this description are members of this House. All privilege is said to be a nuisance, yet, for reasons deemed sufficient of themselves, some of a very important character have been conferred upon those who represent the people here. No one has denied, no one can deny, their existence. They were, no doubt, conferred, and are tolerated on public grounds, and not as a boon or indulgence to individuals. They should be few, limited, well defined; and they are of that character. The constitution which created and confers them, is explicit, and too plain to admit of doubt or cavil. Senators and Representatives in Congress are privileged from arrest in all cases, except treason, felony, or breach of the peace;" "and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place." All this, sir, is plain and explicit. Here is no room to raise a question. These are the undoubted rights or privileges of members of Congress. Whoever violates them, does a wrong to the individual and the country, sets the constitution at defiance, and justly exposes himself to that measure of punishment which the laws have provided for such cases. These privileges are founded on good reasons. Representatives of the people ought to speak freely, and with out the fear of personal injury, or the vexation and hazard of responsibility elsewhere. If words, slanderous in their terms, are uttered here, the constitution declares they are not slanderous. If spoken on another occasion, and in These immunities, not enjoyed by others, but which are the indisputable rights of members of this body, should admonish us of the correspondent duty-never to abuse them. They were not designed as a shield for mendacity, fraud, or malice; and should never be used as a cover for defamation, or to stir up an unfounded and false clamor. It has been said that these are not strictly the privileges of members, but of their constituents; or rather that they were conferred for the benefit of the constituents, and not at all for that of the individual members. The discussion upon this branch of the subject, I believe, has not been very intelligible to any one. The privileges of members are their rights--their individual and constitutional rights: and whether conferred with a view to their own protection and security in performing their public duties, or for a higher object, the benefit of their constituents, I regard as a matter of utter indifference. Sufficient for me that the privilege has been conferred, that the right exists, that the constitution has spoken, and all are bound to heed and obey its voice. We are not legislating with a view to determine what privileges ought to be conferred on members of this House. That was decided by the people in adopting the constitution under which we are assembled. Our privileges are to be found in that instrument. Legislation cannot abridge them: nor can the whim, the caprice, or the will of this body make them, like the privileges of the British Parliament, unlimited, undefined, and undefinable. I therefore, sir, dismiss the matter of privilege. If the privilege of a member has been invaded, the existence of the privilege itself is not denied. If a wrong has been done, and no one denies that there has, the law has provided ample means for redress. The courts are open: justice will be sure and speedy: the course is plain and free from difficulty. No one doubted the power of the courts to inflict an adequate punishment, and afford to the injured party an adequate reparation. But here, in this House, the disputed point-indeed, sir, in my judgment, the only essential point in controversy, is the power of the House to try and punish for an offence which I admit has been committed. The testimony has undergone a strict analysis, and been summed up in due form. For what purpose? To prove what the accused admitted in his plea, and what no one has questioned--that an assault has been committed on the member from Ohio, [Mr. STANBERRY.] To prove further, what I will not stop to controvert, that the assault was made for words spoken in debate. Both points, for the purpose of this discussion, I will admit to be established. I will take them in this respect to be indubitable. But what consequence shall we draw from them? Why, certainly, argues the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. DoDDRIDGE,] if the member was assaulted for that cause, it was a breach of the privileges, and a high contempt of the authority of this House. And as "a privilege without the means of enforcing it, and of securing its enjoyment, is no privilege," this House has therefore an unquestionable right to try and punish the accused for that assault! This is the species of argument which we have heard; and in this manner the honorable gentleman comes to the conclusion that this House is fully authorized to do what it is assuming to do. I differ with the honorable gentleman totally in both these positions. The assault on the person I admit; but I deny that there was any assault upon the privilege of the member, or any contempt of this House. Privilege is a peculiar right or immunity, pos MAY 9, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R. sessed by the few, to the exclusion of the many. A breach assailed, and inflict summary punishment upon the violaof privilege is but a violation of that peculiar right. But tor? I need not answer this question. We all know that this assault would have been equally an outrage, and they have no power of that description, and that their only equally unjustifiable, had it been committed on any other relief is in the courts. They may punish. Such is the nacitizen. It was a violation of rights equally possessed by ture and the province of judicial power; but I take leave all, and not of any special right, which adheres to an indi- to deny that any such power is necessarily conveyed by vidual as a member of this House. It was a breach of the conferring privileges upon an individual or a public body. general law of society, and not of the peculiar immunities The English Convocation, or Ecclesiastical Synod, furof this House. I maintain then, sir, that the rights of the nishes an apposite illustration of the question now under member, as such, have not been wounded, nor has the discussion. A public statute of the realm gives to memdignity of the House been insulted, or its authority con- bers of that body the same rights and privileges as were temned. The general law of the land is ample for this or should be enjoyed by the nobles and commonalty callcase, without relying upon any peculiar provision for the ed to Parliament. Yet, sir, was it ever heard that that security of members of this body. assembly, the miniature of a Parliament, with all its gor-. geous display and expanded powers-with all the immunities of the body to which it is assimilated--was it ever pretended that it could deal out retributive justice for a violation of its privileges? Certainly, sir, nothing of this nature was ever suggested there. It remained for the honorable gentleman from Virginia to discover and present as an axiom in legislative jurisprudence, that the power to punish is inseparably connected with the possession of But if I am mistaken in this; if, indeed, this may with propriety be treated as a breach of privilege and contempt of this House, what then? Does it follow that this House is authorized to punish? That is averred by the gentleman from Virginia. His position is, that the body possessing the privilege must have the means of securing its enjoyment, and of punishing for its violation, or it is no privilege. This is bold ground. If the honorable gentleman has sustained it, or if it can be sustained in any privilege! manner, I will admit the question to be settled. But As this power of the House is the true subject of debate, although the position has been advanced as authoritative, the only real point deserving discussion, I hope to be yet I submit to the House that it was accompanied with excused for dwelling upon it somewhat more at large. I very little argument to illustrate or establish its accuracy. deny that the House possesses any such power; and I ask I confess, sir, that I cannot accede to this opinion of the gentlemen who entertain an opposite opinion, to reflect honorable gentleman, able and accurate as I know him in upon the nature of the power, and explain the manner in most things to be. Is it true that an individual or a pub-which it has been transmitted to this House. That this lic body, whose privileges have been assailed and tram- House, in common with all public bodies, whether exerpled under foot, has a right, not only to repel the assailant, cising legislative, judicial, or executive functions, may but to inflict upon him retributive justice? I should say lawfully preserve order, suppress disturbances in its prenot, sir. I should turn to the courts for justice. I should sence, or so near as to interrupt the course of public busiinvoke their powers, where the individual wrong or the ness, and defend and protect its members against violence public offence called for reparation or punishment. But and outrage, is abundantly clear. So far, all agree that the honorable gentleman, like the accused now on trial, the power of the House is ample. It is the right of selfwould take the law into his own hands. A wrong having defence, and the power of self-protection-incident to the been done, by violating a privilege, he would himself creation and the existence of the House as a lawful public right it: the aggrieved and injured party he would make body. judge. Upon this argument, the right and the authority This is the Hall of the representatives of the people. to punish are called into existence by the attack upon pri- They are entitled to its exclusive possession and control. vilege. This is new doctrine, and an unusual mode of They may exercise that right as they judge most wise and transmitting and acquiring judicial power. A blow has prudent. The House may also, as I apprehend, lawfully made many a worthy man a knight, but upon this princi- exert its power to protect the whole collected body here, ple the beating of one member transfers judicial power not and its members, wherever they may go, unless, by their only to himself, but to all other members of the same body. own misconduct, they themselves become aggressors; and I would not, sir, treat this subject lightly or irreverently. thus, while they invite and justify violence, forfeit all claim We are inquiring into the constitutional powers of this to the protection of this House. In my judgment, sir, we House, the source of its authority, and the manner in may not only resist and repel violence, and suppress and which it is acquired. If, indeed, our powers as a judicial quell disturbances here, but we may exert a similar power, body arise upon the perpetration of an outrage on a mem- and for the like purpose, in a more enlarged sense, and ber, it cannot be improper to explore this theory of the upon a broader scale. Whenever there is just ground to constitution, and present it to the public gaze. Will it apprehend violence upon the House, or upon any of its stand examination? Can the judgment of any gentleman members, here or elsewhere, we may, with a view to avert the approve it? The mass of our powers are legislative, not impending danger, arrest and detain every person medijudicial. Ordinarily we have not the powers of a court; tating such violence. I grant, sir, we should not act, with nor have we at any time, unless they are brought into ex- a view to that result, lightly, or upon trivial ground. Inistence, as is urged by the gentleman from Virginia, by a deed, an extreme case only would render it expedient to breach of privilege. His theory regards the power to act at all. But in such cases the House would act, not to punish as incident to the possession of the privilege. But punish, but to protect--not in retribution for a past ofhow does the gentleman prove the accuracy of this posi- fence, but to guard against one in future. tion? Does he find it in any judicial system whatever? This is but the conservative right of self-defence--a Is such the opinion of any jurist or statesman, except the right possessed by individuals, independent of all constigentleman himself, whose opinion is worthy of respect? tutions, and in defiance of all human laws. Self-defence is Where does the gentleman find authority for the position" the first law of nature, and of nature's God;" and I hold, he has advanced with such confidence? sir, that it is not less the right and the duty of individuals, We have no privileged orders here, yet there are many assembled for lawful public objects, and for the performindividuals, aside from members of Congress, who are tem-ance of public duties, than of every private citizen, to efporarily clothed with privileges. Attorneys at law, jurors, fectuate those objects, and to defend themselves against witnesses, parties to suits, are familiar instances. All these every aggressor. So far, sir, I assert, and I am ready to are privileged--have rights peculiar to themselves. But, maintain, the power of this House. Beyond it I cannot go. sir, do they personally vindicate these privileges when I find no warrant in the constitution for the power now H. OF R.] Case of Samuel Houston. asserted and exercised, to arrest, try, and punish for a past offence. We are not asked to imprison this defendant, in order to prevent a repetition of the attack. That, sir, in my judgment, we should have a right to do, if any such danger was to be apprehended. But that is not pretended. We act here to punish for the past offence, not to disable the offender from committing one in future. We assume to sit as a court in judgment upon a transgressor, not to shield ourselves against approaching danger. [MAY 9, 1832. sembly in the exercise of a certain power, we are apt to infer that all other bodies, of the like general nature, are rightfully clothed with a similar authority. But, unless the cases are parallel in their substantial features, it is manifest that no just argument in favor of any particular construction, or the existence of a particular power, can be thus drawn. Indeed, sir, it would be worse than idle to infer the accuracy of an opinion, or the existence of a power, by such pretended analogical process. And vain, At the inception of this prosecution, Mr. Speaker, I sir, and idle, I will venture to say, must be every effort to stated to the House, very briefly, and without premedita- establish the existence of this disputed power by any anation, my views upon this question. Subsequent reflec-logy between the State constitutions and that of the Unittion and examination have inspired me with greater confi- ed States. We shall find, sir, that in many of the States dence in the accuracy of the opinion then expressed. I their constitutions expressly confer this power; in others, am aware, sir, that that opinion has been denounced as it has been conferred by statute; as in England, each House unfounded and visionary--as alike unsupported by reason, of Parliament is asserted to possess it, in virtue of the geand, what is more with some gentlemen, the authority of neral law of the land, and not upon the "tyrant's plea," names. Thus attacked, not reasoned down, I am very necessity. happy to call to my aid the opinions and the reasons on May I ask the House to look, with me, into the State which they are founded, as formed and expressed by some constitutions? I know, sir, that the examination must be of the most enlightened men of the age. I am proud to dry, and very little calculated to attract and secure attentake shelter from these assaults under the wing of the Se-tion; yet it seems necessary to take this course. How can cretary of State, (Mr. Livingston,) and the present Lord this argument, which has been drawn from cases which Chancellor of England. The expressed and recorded opi- have arisen in State legislative bodies, be met and refuted, nions of these gentlemen, I believe, will be found to sus- otherwise than by showing that the State constitutions are tain all I have advanced on this or the former occasion. entirely unlike that of the United States? It will be found, Before I sit down, I will read them to the House, that sir, that while the latter is silent upon the subject, the gentlemen may judge for themselves, and, if they please, former give the power in express terms. attempt to answer and refute them. But, before I offer these authorities, I ask the attention of the House to other grounds on which this controverted power has been asserted, and attempted to be sustained in argument. I begin, sir, with New Hampshire. The constitution of that State declares that "the House of Representatives shall have authority to punish, by imprisonment, every person who shall be guilty of disrespect to the House, in its presence, by any disorderly and contemptuous behavior, or by threatening or ill-treating any of its members, or by obstructing its deliberations-every person guilty of a breach of its privileges, in making arrests for debt, or by assaulting any member during his attendance at any session." "The Senate, Governor, and Council shall have the same powers in like cases." Here, sir, the power to punish cannot be disputed. It is expressly given to each legislative House, and to the Governor and Council. Would they have possessed it with If the power in fact exist, as asserted, it must be either because it has been specifically granted by the constitution, or because it is incidental to some power which has been specifically granted. A specific grant is not pretended; nor is it asserted to be incidental to any particular power which has been specifically conferred on the House. It is rather averred to be possessed by the House, because indispensably necessary to the existence of such a body. The right of self-defence has already been admitted to exist. That may, perhaps, not improperly be called an incidental right. But the power to punish for breaches of privilege and contempts of the House, as they are call-out these constitutional provisions? Are these provisions ed, is also claimed as incidental, because necessary; and, to sustain this allegation, it is asserted that a similar power exists on the same ground, not only in the two Houses of the British Parliament, but also in the different branches of the State Legislatures. It is, indeed, claimed as inherent in all legislative assemblies. Upon this ground the two gentlemen from Connecticut, who addressed the House, [Messrs. HUNTINGTON and ELLSWORTH,] have affirmed the existence of this power. I also understood the gentleman from Virginia, before referred to, to agree with them in an expression of the same opinion. utterly idle and unmeaning? Those who maintain that this House possesses these powers as incidental and necessary, are bound to maintain that these clauses in the constitution of New Hampshire are entirely senseless. The constitution óf Maine is equally explicit. "Each House, during its session, may punish, by imprisonment, any person, not a member, for disrespectful or disorderly behavior in its presence, for obstructing any of its proceedings, threatening, assaulting, or abusing any of its members for any thing said, done, or doing, in either House." Massachusetts is substantially the same as New Hampshire. The House of Representatives "shall have authority to punish, by imprisonment, every person, not a member, who shall be guilty of disrespect to the House, by any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence; or who in the town where the general court is sitting, and during the time of its sitting, shall threaten harm to the body or estate of any of its members, for any thing said or done in the House, or who shall assault any of them therefor." Have these honorable gentlemen traced the power of the two Houses of Parliament to its source? Have they ascertained its character and extent? Do they, indeed, suppose that those who claim for these bodies a power to punish, rest their claim on the ground of necessity? If such are their views, as the argument implies, how greatly are they mistaken; how much at variance with the staunch advocates for privilege and power in England. And have these gentlemen looked into the several State constitutions to ascertain what powers are thrown upon their legislative assemblies? We reason from "The Senate shall have the same powers in like cases; analogy. Finding that similar language when used upon a and the Governor and Council shall have the same authorisimilar subject, and in reference to a like object, has re-ty to punish in like cases. ceived a particular and approved interpretation, we infer Maryland is not less explicit. "The House of Delethat the interpretation was just. If such instances have gates may punish, by imprisonment, any person who shall been numerous; if the acquiescence has been spontaneous be guilty of a contempt, in their view, by any disorderly and general, and for a long period of time, the argument or riotous behavior," &c. "They may also punish, by has great force. So, if we find one, free legislative as- imprisonment, any person who shall be guilty of a breach INDEX TO THE DEBATES IN THE SENATE. Adjournment, a resolution from the House of Represen- the bill for the benefit of the Alexandria Canal 1070. taken up and passed, 1074. 415. bill taken up, and an amendment offered to it, and the House of Representatives disagrees to Mr. the Senate then recedes from it, 936. Bank, the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill, resolutions of the president and directors of the a new one proposed in a memorial from Massachu- Bank veto, a message was received from the President, Barracks, a bill for erecting at New Orleans, ordered to read the third time and passed, 58. Appropriations, the general appropriation bill taken up, British colonial trade, (See West Indies and general appro- and again, 679. 646. resumed, 685; resumed, 709; passed, 873. Baltimore and Ohio rail road, (See Rail-road.) leave asked to introduce a joint resolution, declara- a resolution calling on the Secretary of the Treasu- priation bill.) Claims of States, (See State claims.) Colonial trade, (See West Indies and appropriation bill.) tucky was presented, inviting the attention of cretary of the Treasury for information why Secretary of the Treasury replies to the last reso- Committees, standing, appointed, 2. Congressional documents. Report from the Secretary of a letter from Gales and Seaton stating the progress Cumberland Road. The bill providing for the continuance |