196 



DISCIPLINARY POWER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. 



duty, which is a privilege essential to the freedom of 

 debate, and to the faithful discharge of the great trust 

 reposed in them by their constituents. 



The challenger was thereupon summoned to 

 appear before Congress to answer for his con- 

 duct, and, having appeared in obedience to the 

 requisition, and asked pardon of the House, 

 and of the member challenged, he was dis- 

 charged. 



EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINARY POWER. The ex- 

 ercise of disciplinary power by legislative as- 

 semblies is intended to preserve the freedom 

 of speech and punish its abuse, to secure due 

 respect to the assembly and to its separate 

 members, and, in a word, to restrain every- 

 thing of a disorderly nature and that might 

 interfere with the proper conduct of the busi- 

 ness. Some illustrations of the proceedings in 

 the discipline of its members in special cases, 

 by Congress, will serve to show its views on 

 the nature and extent of this power, and the 

 reasons for, and manner of, its exercise. 



One of the earliest cases brought up the 

 question of the expulsion of a member of the 

 Senate. John Smith took his seat as a Senator 

 from Ohio on October 25, 1803. On Novem- 

 ber 27, 1807, a resolution was adopted in the 

 Senate to appoint a committee to inquire and 

 report whether it was " compatible with the 

 honor and privileges " of the Senate that John 

 Smith, against whom bills of indictment for 

 treason and misdemeanor had been found in 

 the Circuit Court of Virginia, should be per- 

 mitted to hold a seat therein. On December 

 31st the committee reported a resolution that 

 Smith, " by his participation in the conspiracy 

 of Aaron Burr, against the peace, union, and 

 liberties of the people of the United States, 

 has been guilty of conduct incompatible with 

 his duty and station as a Senator, and that he 

 be, therefore, and hereby is, expelled." The 

 depositions of witnesses were taken, and on 

 April 1, 1808, Smith appeared with his coun- 

 sel before the Senate, who were ready to hear 

 anything he had to offer why the resolution 

 should not be adopted. The objections urged 

 against the adoption of the resolution were, 

 first, that the Senate had no jurisdiction in the 

 case; second, that the evidence did not war- 

 rant its adoption. It was contended that the 

 Senate had no power to inquire into any of- 

 fense of which one of its members may be 

 accused, that is cognizable in a civil court of 

 criminal jurisdiction. In reply, it was said 

 that every man is equally amenable to the 

 general laws of the land, and liable to be pros- 

 ecuted and punished in the civil courts ; but, 

 when a man is clothed with a legislative char- 

 acter, he is placed in a new relation ; and, be- 

 sides being amenable to the judicial tribunals 

 of his country, he becomes, to a certain extent, 

 responsible for his conduct to that body to 

 which he belongs, and that body has a power 

 to inquire into it, without the aid of a civil 

 court. The question on agreeing with the 

 resolution was determined in the negative, 



yeas 19, nays 10 ; two thirds of the Senators 

 present not concurring therein. 



The subject of expulsion was extensively 

 discussed in the Senate in 1862, and several 

 Senators were expelled. On December 10, 

 1861, a resolution to expel Waldo P. Johnson, 

 a Senator from Missouri, was offered and re- 

 ferred to a committee, who reported on Jan- 

 uary 10, 1862, that Mr. Johnson had left the 

 United States clandestinely, and every rational 

 presumption was that he had gone to the Con- 

 federate States, then at open war with the 

 United States. The resolution of expulsion 

 was adopted by a unanimous vote. Trusten 

 Polk, a Senator from the same State, was 

 expelled for similar reasons. 



A resolution for the expulsion of Jesse D. 

 Bright, a Senator from Indiana, was referred 

 to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, who 

 reported, on January 13th, that "the facts 

 charged were not sufficient to warrant his ex- 

 pulsion from the Senate." Notwithstanding 

 this report, he was expelled. He had written 

 a letter to Jefferson Davis, as President of the 

 Confederate States, for the introduction to 

 him of a friend who desired to dispose of what 

 he regarded as a great improvement in fire- 

 arras. The report of the committee was not 

 approved, and the resolution for expulsion was 

 adopted. All the members of the Senate who 

 withdrew from that body and joined the citi- 

 zens of the Confederate States were likewise 

 expelled. The question was raised that loyalty 

 did not form a part of the qualification of a 

 Senator under the Constitution, and extensive- 

 ly discussed on January 6, 1862. 



In the House of Representatives in 1808, 

 the charge was made that Philip Barton Key, 

 who was a member, was a pensioner of the 

 British Government. But in this case the 

 House made no decision that loyalty was 

 necessary to the qualifications of a person. 

 The power of expulsion has been exercised 

 sparingly by Congress, and chiefly by the Sen- 

 ate, although some instances occurred in the 

 House during the civil war. The ground of 

 these expulsions was expressed by the word 

 "disloyalty," and the question was raised 

 whether it was intended to signify disloyalty 

 to the administration of the Government or to 

 the Constitution. No decision, however, was 

 made. 



EXTENT or CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. The 

 criminal jurisdiction of each House of Congress 

 is understood as embracing the misconduct or 

 disorderly behavior of its own members, as 

 well as misdemeanors and offenses committed 

 by other persons, either against the assembly 

 or the members individually. So members 

 may be guilty of misconduct either toward 

 the assembly, or one another, or strangers. 

 Misconduct of members toward the assembly 

 consists of any breaches of decorum or order, 

 or of any disorderly conduct, disobedience of 

 the rules of proceeding, neglect of attendance, 

 etc.; or of any crime, misdemeanor, or mis- 



