MAY 9, 1832.] Case of Samuel Houston. [H. OF R. to him by either; and who is equally solicitous, with my-house, deceased, late treasurer of this State, and a resoluself, to preserve the Union of the States, and to adjust tion involving a general principle of the deepest interest the present unhappy collision of the two Governments, in such a manner as will be equally honorable to them both. Permit me to add, in addition to the act I have done as Chief Magistrate of the State of Pennsylvania, to assure you, sir, as an individual, of my full confidence in the wisdom, justice, and integrity of the present administration of the General Government, and my fixed determination, in my public as well as my private capacity, to support it in all constitutional measures it may adopt. With the highest consideration, I am, sir, your obedient servant, SIMON SNYDER. to the several States composing the Union, in their local sovereign capacties, and proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States, to prevent, in future, a collision of power, such as has, for thirty years past, partially disturbed the harmony which ought to subsist between the General Government and its component parts, and requesting that the same may be laid before the Legislatures of the several States for their concurrence and adoption. WASHINGTON, April 15, 1809. The following are the answers of several of the States to the communication of the Governor of dennsylvania. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. IN SENATE, June 28, 1809. SIR: I have received your letter of the 7th instant, acWhereas a resolution of the Legislature of Pennsylvacompanied by certain acts of the Legislature of Pennsyl-nia, proposing an amendment to the constitution of the vania, which will be laid before Congress, according to tribunal to determine disputes between the General and United States, with a view to establish a more impartial the desire expressed. State Governments, has been transmitted by his Excellency the Governor of Pennsylvania to his Excellency the Governor of this State, and by him communicated to the Legislature: And whereas the resolution before mentioned, together with the proceedings of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, with reference to the case of Gideon Olmstead, has been referred to a joint committee of the two tee has reported, in substance, that it is not expedient to branches of the Legislature of this State, which commitconcur in, or adopt, the amendment to the constitution of the United States, as proposed by the resolution aforesaid; which report has been accepted by both branches of the Legislature: Considering our respective relations to the subject of these communications, it would be unnecessary, if not improper, to enter into any examinations of some of the questions connected with it. It is sufficient, in the actual posture of the case, to remark, that the Executive of the United States is not only unauthorized to prevent the execution of a decree sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States, but is expressly enjoined, by statute, to carry into effect any such decree, where opposition may be made to it. It is a propitious circumstance, therefore, that whilst no legal discretion lies with the Executive of the United States to decline steps which might lead to a very painful issue, a provision has been made by the legislative act transmitted by you, adequate to a removal Therefore, Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor of the existing difficulty. And I feel great pleasure in be, and hereby is, requested to communicate the foregoassuring myself that the authority which it gives will being result to his Excellency the Governor of Pennsylvania. exercised in a spirit corresponding with the patriotic character of the State over which you preside. Be pleased, sir, to accept assurances of my respectful consideration. JAMES MADISON. His Excellency GOVERNOR SNYDER. LANCASTER, April 10, 1809. Sent down for concurrence. ABIEL FORSTER, Clerk. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The same day read and concurred. GEO. P. UPHAM, Speaker. June 28, 1809. NATHANIEL PARKER, Secretary. SIR: I have it in charge to transmit to you the proceedings of the Legislature of this State, in a special case, and a resolution involving a general principle of the deepest STATE OF VERMONT. interest to the several States composing the Union, in their local sovereign capacities, and proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States, to prevent, in future, a collision of power, such as has, for thirty years past, partially disturbed the harmony which ought to subsist between the General Government and its compo nent parts. Permit me to join the Legislature in their wish that the same may be laid before the Legislature of Virginia for their concurrence and adoption. I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedi ent servant, SIMON SNYDER. IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Oct. 26, 1829. Whereas his Excellency the Governor of this State has communicated to this Assembly certain resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, proposing an amendpartial tribunal may be established to determine disputes ment to the constitution of the United States, that an imbetween the General and State Governments: And Whereas such disputes are not frequent, nor of sufficient magnitude, in our opinion, to render such a tribunal necessary: Therefore, Resolved, That we do not concur in recommending the amendment proposed by the resolutions aforesaid. His Excellency the GOVERNOR of the State of Virginia.quested to transmit copies of the foregoing resolution to H. OF R.] LEGISLATURE OF NEW JERSEY. United States, to wit, the Supreme Court, more eminentHOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, Oct. 24, 1810. ly qualified, from their habits and duties, from the mode of their selection, and from the tenure of their offices, to Resolved, That this House do disapprove of, and dissent decide the disputes aforesaid, in an enlightened and imparfrom, the amendment to the constitution of the United tial manner, than any other tribunal which could be erectStates, proposed by the Legislature of the State of Massa-ed. The members of the Supreme Court are selected chusetts, June 19, 1809, "that no law shall be enacted from those in the United States who are most celebrated for laying an embargo, or for prohibiting commerce for a for virtue and legal learning--not at the will of a single inlonger period than until the expiration of thirty days from dividual, but by the concurrent wishes of the President and the commencement of the session of Congress next suc- Senate of the United States: they will therefore have no ceeding that session in which such law shall have been local prejudices and partialities. enacted." to the most enlarged and accurate acquaintance with the The duties they have to perform lead them necessarily Resolved, That this House do disapprove of, and dissent from, the amendment to the constitution of the United States, proposed by the Legislature of the State of Vir-jurisdiction of the federal and several State courts together, and with the admirable symmetry of our Government. ginia on the 13th day of January, 1808, that the Senators The tenure of their offices enables them to pronounce in the Congress of the United States may be removed from office by the vote of a majority of the whole number the sound and correct opinions they may have formed, without fear, favor, or partiality. of the members of the respective State Legislatures by which the said Senators have been or may be appointed. Resolved, That this House do disapprove of, and dissent The amendment to the constitution proposed by Pennsylvania seems to be founded upon the idea that the federal judiciary will, from a lust of power, enlarge their from, the amendment of the constitution of the United States, proposed by the Legislature of the State of Penn-jurisdiction to the total annihilation of the jurisdiction of the State courts; that they will exercise their will instead sylvania, April 3, 1809, "that an impartial tribunal may of the law and the constitution. be established to determine disputes between the General and State Governments." Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be request ed 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. By order of the House: WILLIAM KENNEDY, Speaker. CHARLES CLARK, Vice President. MARYLAND. - This argument, if it proves any thing, would operate which promises so little, than against the Supreme Court, more strongly against the tribunal proposed to be created, which, for the reasons given before, had every thing connected with their appointment calculated to ensure confidence. What security have we, were the proposed amendments adopted, that this tribunal would not substitute their will and their pleasure in the place of the law? The judiciary are the weakest of the three departments of Government, and least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; they hold neither the purse nor the sword; and even to enforce their own judgments and decrees, must ultimately depend upon the Executive arm. Should the federal judiciary, however, unmindful of their weakness, unmindful of the duty which they owe to themselves and their country, become corrupt, and transcend the limits of their jurisdiction, would the proposed amendment oppose even a probable barrier in such an improbable state of things?" BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Dec. 22, 1810. The creation of a tribunal, such as is proposed by Pennsylvania, so far as we are enabled to form an idea of it Resolved, That the Governor of this State be, and he is from a description given in the resolutions of the Legislahereby, requested to communicate to the Executives of the ture of that State, would, in the opinion of your commitseveral States composing the Union, that the General As-tee, tend rather to invite than prevent a collision between sembly of the State of Maryland have taken into consider the federal and State courts. It might also become, in ation the amendment proposed by the State of Pennsyl-process of time, a serious and dangerous embarrassment to vania to the constitution of the United States, contemplating the establishment of an impartial tribunal to determine disputes between the General Government and the State Governments, and that they deem the proposed alteration inexpedient and unnecessary. By order: the operations of the General Government. Resolved, therefore, That the Legislature of this State do disapprove of the amendment to the constitution of the United States, proposed by the Legislature of Pennsyl vania. Resolved, also, That his Excellency the Governor be, and he is hereby, requested to transmit, forthwith, a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, Clerk of the House of Delegates, Maryland. and to the Executives of the several States in the Union, with a request that the same may be laid before the Legislatures thereof. JOHN BREWER, - BY THE LEGISLATURE OF VIRGINIA. Preamble and resolutions on the proposition of Pennsylvania MAY 9, 1832.] KENTUCKY. Case of Samuel Houston. IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Jan. 16, 1810. Resolved, That the Executive of this commonwealth be, and he is hereby, requested to communicate to the Executives of the States of the Union, that the General Assembly of the State of Kentucky have taken into consideration the amendment proposed by the State of Pennsylvania to the constitution of the United States, contemplating the establishment of an impartial tribunal to determine disputes between the General Government and State Governments, and that they deem the proposed alteration inexpedient. 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 [H. OF R. United States, proposed by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, June 9, 1809, that no law shall be enacted for laying an embargo, or prohibiting 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. and dissent from, the amendment to the constitution of Resolved, That this General Assembly do disapprove of, the United States, proposed by the Legislature of the State of Virginia on the 13th day of January, 1808, that the Senators in the Congress of the United States may be removed from office by the vote of a majority of the whole 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." Resolved, That this General Assembly do approve of, That they consider innovations in that justly celebrated and agree to, the amendment to the constitution of the and revered charter of our liberties as dangerous, in an United States, "that, if any citizen of the United States eminent degree, and not to be encouraged without the shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility most evident and imperious necessity, which, not perceiv- or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, acing in the present cases, they unanimously recommend it cept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatsoever, from any Emperor, King, or Resolved, That the General Assembly of the State of Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a North Carolina disapprove of what is proposed by the Le-citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holdgislature of the State of Massachusetts as an amendment ing any office of trust or profit under them or either of to the constitution of the United States, and cannot agree them." 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 concur therewith. 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 consti-tution 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. ed to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution to each 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. [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." P. DODDRIDGE. 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 cha-, racter 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. 1 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 These privileges are founded on good reasons. Repre- conclusion that this House is fully authorized to do what sentatives of the people ought to speak freely, and with- it is assuming to do. I differ with the honorable gentleout the fear of personal injury, or the vexation and hazard, man totally in both these positions. The assault on the of responsibility elsewhere. If words, slanderous in their person I admit, but I deny that there was any assault upon terms, are uttered here, the constitution declares they are the privilege of the member, or any contempt of this not slanderous. If spoken on another occasion, and in 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 gorBut if I am mistaken in this; if, indeed, this may with geous display and expanded powers--with all the immupropriety be treated as a breach of privilege and contempt nities of the body to which it is assimilated--was it ever of this House, what then? Does it follow that this House pretended that it could deal out retributive justice for a is authorized to punish? That is averred by the gentle-violation of its privileges? Certainly, sir, nothing of this man from Virginia. His position is, that the body pos- nature was ever suggested there. It remained for the hosessing the privilege must have the means of securing its norable gentleman from Virginia to discover and present enjoyment, and of punishing for its violation, or it is no as an axiom in legislative jurisprudence, that the power to privilege. This is bold ground. If the honorable gen-punish is inseparably connected with the possession of tleman 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. thus, while they invite and justify violence, forfeit all claim to the protection of this House. In my judgment, sir, we may not only resist and repel violence, and suppress and quell disturbances here, but we may exert a similar power, and for the like purpose, in a more enlarged sense, and upon a broader scale. Whenever there is just ground to apprehend violence upon the House, or upon any of its members, here or elsewhere, we may,with a view to avert the impending danger, arrest and detain every person meditating such violence. I grant, sir, we should not act, with a view to that result, lightly, or upon trivial ground. Indeed, an extreme case only would render it expedient to act at all. But in such cases the House would act, not to punish, but to protect--not in retribution for a past of fence, but to guard against one in future. 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. We are inquiring into the constitutional powers of this House, the source of its authority, and the manner in which it is acquired. If, indeed, our powers as a judicial body arise upon the perpetration of an outrage on a member, it cannot be improper to explore this theory of the constitution, and present it to the public gaze. Will it stand examination? Can the judgment of any gentleman approve it? The mass of our powers are legislative, not judicial. Ordinarily we have not the powers of a court; nor have we at any time, unless they are brought into existence, as is urged by the gentleman from Virginia, by a breach of privilege. His theory regards the power to punish as incident to the possession of the privilege. But how does the gentleman prove the accuracy of this position? 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 |