[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 6]
[Chapter 184 - Power to Punish for Contempt]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Case of Charles C. Glover. Sections 332, 333.
2. Senate case of Paul R. Mallon. Section 334.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
332. The contempt case of Charles C. Glover before the House in
1913.\2\
After debate the House ordered a warrant to issue for arrest of a
person who had violated its privileges by assaulting a Member.
The investigation of a breach of the privilege of the House was
committed to a select committee appointed by the Speaker.
The constitutional immunity for words spoken in debate guarantees
exemption from questioning not only within but also without the courts.
An assault upon a Member of the House for words spoken in debate is a
breach of its privileges and a contempt of the House.
Assault committed on a Member for words spoken in debate constitutes
a contempt of the House in which he is then sitting although the words
may have been spoken in a prior House.
The House is empowered under the Constitution to punish as a contempt
against it a breach of its privileges committed by assault on one of
its Members for words spoken in debate.
On April 21, 1913,\3\ the House agreed to the following resolution,
presented as a question of the privilege of the House by Mr. Finis J.
Garrett, of Tennessee:
Whereas it has been published in various newspapers circulating in
the city of Washington, D. C., and elsewhere, and otherwise currently
reported, that on Friday, April 18, 1913, Thetus W. Sims, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, was, in a
public park in said city, while on his way from his place of residence
to a department of the Government for the purpose of transacting
official business, and while in attendance upon the Congress as such
Representative, set upon and physically assaulted by one C. C. Glover,
a citizen of the District of Columbia; and
Whereas said assault is alleged to have been made because of words
spoken by said Representative on the floor of the House while it was in
regular session; and
Whereas said assault, if made, constitutes a breach of the privileges
of the House and of its Members and demands immediate action on the
part of the House for the protection of its rights and the rights of
its Members in the performance of official duties: Therefore be it
Resolved, That a select committee of five members be appointed
forthwith by the Speaker of the House to investigate and report:
First, whether such assault was made by said C. C. Glover upon the
said Representative, Thetus W. Sims; and if so, then,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter LI.
\2\ For preliminary proceedings in this case see section 7811 of
Chapter CXCVII.
\3\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 281.
Sec. 332
Second, a course of procedure to be followed in dealing with the said
C. C. Glover, to the end that the rights and the privileges of the
House of Representatives and its Members shall be maintained and
protected.
For the purpose of ascertaining the fact herein required to be
reported upon, the said committee shall have power to send for persons
and papers, and to examine witnesses upon oath administered by the
chairman or any member thereof.
Said committee shall report not later than Saturday, April 26, 1913.
On April 26,\1\ Mr. John W. Davis, of West Virginia, from the select
committee appointed pursuant to this resolution, submitted a report
setting forth the following findings of fact:
That Representative Thetus W. Sims while on his way from his
residence in the city of Washington to the Post Office Department on
official business on Friday morning, April 18, 1913, was accosted in
Farragut Square, in the city of Washington, by Charles C. Glover, who,
after applying to him certain epithets, assaulted him by striking him
in the face.
That the said Charles C. Glover committed the assault upon
Representative Sims because of statements made by Representative Sims
in debate on the floor of the House of Representatives at several times
during the session of the House in the Sixty-second Congress, in which
Congress the said Representative Sims was also a Representative from
the State of Tennessee.
The committee then report as their conclusions:
First. That for the purpose of this inquiry it is not necessary to
consider what privileges, if any, the House of Representatives or its
Members may possess other than those expressly stated in the
Constitution.
It may be thought by some that the constitutional immunity implied in
the words ``for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be
questioned in any other place'' relates merely to lifelong immunity
from legal proceedings against the Member. The term ``questioned,''
however, has always been construed liberally.
This immunity guarantees exemption from questioning not only within
but also without the courts. Obviously, if one may not question a
Member for words spoken in debate under the processes of law, he can
not do so by taking the law in his own hand.
Second. An assault upon a Member of the House of Representatives for
words spoken in debate is a breach of its privileges and a contempt of
the House.
This has not only been the uniform opinion of the House of
Representatives from the earliest times, but is necessarily true
because of the reasons which lie at the foundation of the
constitutional provision. As just stated, it was conceived that
absolute freedom of speech and of debate in the Legislative Assembly
was essential to the public welfare, and it was intended that the voice
of a Member, and of his constituents speaking through him, should not
be silenced by any fear of legal or personal consequences. A Member, of
course, may plead his constitutional privilege in bar of any action
based upon his utterances, but unless his person is likewise immune
from attack for the same cause, the purpose of the Constitution would
be but half accomplished.
Nor is the House as a collective whole less concerned in preserving
this freedom of debate than are the individual Member and his
constituency. In order that the final action of any deliberate body may
represent the joint wisdom of its members, there must be unrestrained
exchange of thought and opinion, and whatever tends to silence one
subtracts just so much from the efficiency of the whole. A breach of a
Member's privilege of unconditional freedom of debate therefore reacts
upon the House; and the House in treating it as a contempt against
itself does so with no desire to magnify its office nor to vindicate
its wounded dignity, but to preserve and defend its legislative
integrity and power. Of this legislative integrity and power it is the
sole guardian, and it may at all times protect that integrity and power
by appropriate action taken for and by itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Report No. 6.
Sec. 332
Third. Such an assault, when committed on the person of a Member for
words spoken in debate, constitutes a contempt of the House in which he
is then sitting, although the words may have been spoken in a prior
House.
It will be observed that the speeches made by Representative Sims in
the House of Representatives which Mr. Glover admits constituted the
provocation for this assault were delivered by Representative Sims
during the Sixty-second Congress; but, while this raises a question not
discussed in earlier precedents, it does not change, in our opinion,
the status of the case. This becomes clear when we contrast the
individual privileges of the Member and the collective privilege of the
House.
It is obvious that the Constitution, in providing that Senators and
Representatives shall not be questioned in any other place for any
speech or debate in either House extends an immunity unlimited as to
space and unrestricted in point of time. One who has been a Member of
either body, whether longer so or not, can nevertheless plead this
constitutional immunity against any attack which may be made upon him
at any time by reason of any speech or debate which took place during
his service. The shield of the Constitution, once extended, protects
him so long as he may live.
The House, on the other hand, being simply the aggregate of its
membership, is itself concerned with those things which affect the
freedom and efficiency of its constituent Members. A Member of the
Sixty-second Congress, for instance, who enters the Sixty-third
Congress brings with him his constitutional immunity against question
for his action in the former body; and in order that he may be free to
perform, without fear or hindrance, his duties in the latter, it is
both its right and duty to resent as an attack upon itself any
violation of his constitutional privilege. Its attention should
properly be directed, not to the time when this privilege accrued, but
to the time when it was violated.
Fourth. The House of Representatives has power under the authority of
the Constitution to punish as a contempt against it such a breach of
its privileges as is involved in the assault upon Representative Sims
by the said C. C. Glover.
Both parliamentary precedent and high authority support this power.
After citing judicial decisions and Congressional precedents in
support of these conclusions, the committee conclude:
The House of Representatives is vitally concerned with the
safeguarding of its privileges and the preservation of its legislative
integrity and dignity. It is just as seriously concerned, however, with
the maintenance of such a course of conduct on the part of each of its
individual Members as will assure to every citizen in the land
protection from defamation on the floor of the House. The power of the
House over its Members is of the broadest character. The breach of the
privileges of the House by a Member gives to the House ample power of
punishment. It must become to be understood, therefore, that as the
privileges of the House in so far as the public is concerned will be
enforced by prompt punishment for contempt in the event of their
breach, the House, in the future, as often in the past, will also fully
protect all citizens from unjust assaults upon their character by
censure or other punishment administered to an offending Member.
The committee calls attention to the written communication received
from Mr. Glover, which will be found in full in the appendix containing
the testimony accompanying this report.
This letter, it will be observed, contains a frank avowal of fault
and a voluntary disclaimer of any intentional contempt toward this
body. The testimony, however, establishes the fact that his act was the
result of some premeditation and design extending over a period
sufficiently long for him to have informed himself, if ignorant, of the
privilege of the House; and his disclaimer. while full and free in
form, is accompanied by a challenge, though without discourtesy, of the
jurisdiction of the House in the premises.
The committee therefore recommend the adoption of the following
resolution:
Resolved, That the Speaker do issue his warrant directed to the
Sergeant at Arms commanding him to take in custody, wherever to be
found, the body of Charles C. Glover, of the city of Washington. in the
District of Columbia, and the same in custody keep, and that the said
Charles C.
Sec. 333
Glover be brought to the bar of the House of Representatives on a day
to be fixed in said warrant to answer the charge that he, on Friday,
April 18, 1913, in the city of Washington, D.C., committed an assault
upon the person of Representative Thetus W. Sims, a Representative in
the Sixty-third Congress from the State of Tennessee, because of words
spoken by the said Representative Sims in debate on the floor of the
House of Representatives while the House was in regular session during
the Sixty-second Congress, and that in committing said assault Charles
C. Glover has been guilty of a breach of the privileges and a contempt
of the House of Representatives; and that the said Charles C. Glover be
furnished with a copy of this resolution and a copy of the report of
the select committee of the House of Representatives appointed to
investigate the charge made against him in the House of
Representatives.
Resolved, That when Charles C. Glover shall be brought to the bar of
the House to answer the charge of having violated the privilege of the
House of Representatives by having made an assault upon Representative
Thetus W. Sims, of the State of Tennessee, for words spoken by said
Representative Sims on the floor of the House of Representatives, the
Speaker shall then cause to be read to the said Charles C. Glover the
findings of facts by the special committee of the House charged with
the duty of investigating whether or not the said assault had in fact
been committed as alleged, and whether or not the said Charles C.
Glover had violated the privileges of the House of Representatives by
said assault. The Speaker shall then inquire of the said Charles C.
Glover if he desires to be heard, and to have counsel, on the charge of
being in contempt of the House of Representatives for having violated
its privileges. If the said Charles C. Glover desires to avail himself
of either of these privileges, the same shall be granted him, if not
the House shall thereupon proceed to take order in the matter.
333. The case of Charles C. Glover continued.
A citizen having assaulted a Member for words spoken in debate, the
House arrested, arraigned, and censured him.
The Speaker held that Members might not confer with a respondent
arraigned at the bar of the House.
Censure inflicted by the Speaker on a citizen and his apology to the
House appear in full in the Journal.
Form of proceedings at the arraignment and censure of Charles C.
Glover.
On May 9, 1913,\1\ the first section of the resolution recommended by
the committee was offered, as of privilege, by Mr. Davis, and after
extended debate was amended by the addition of the second section
recommended by the committee, and agreed to as amended, yeas 200, nays
4.
Whereupon \2\ Mr. J. Harry Covington, of Maryland, inquired:
Is the Speaker now about to execute the action in warrant for the
apprehension of Mr. Glover?
The Speaker \3\ said:
That is exactly what he is about to do. The Chair has been informed
that Mr. Glover is within the building and can be very easily found.
The precedents in the case seem to show that when Mr. Glover is brought
in Members will not be allowed to confer with him until the matter is
finished.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Journal, p. 141.
\2\ Record, p. 1431.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 333
The Speaker thereupon signed and delivered to the Sergeant at Arms of
the House the following warrant:
House of Representatives, United States of America,
Ninth day of May, 1913, ss:
To Robert B. Gordon, Sergeant at Arms, greeting:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States on the 9th
day of May, 1913, then being in session in the city of Washington, DC,
did resolve that the Speaker do issue his warrant directed to the
Sergeant at Arms commanding him to take into custody wherever to be
found the body of Charles C. Glover, of the city of Washington, DC, and
the same in custody to keep, and that the said Charles C. Glover be
brought to the bar of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of
May, 1913, to answer the charge that he, on Friday, April 18, 1913, in
the city of Washington, DC, committed an assault upon the person of
Representative Thetus W. Sims, a Representative in the Sixty-third
Congress from the State of Tennessee, because of words spoken by the
said Representative Sims in debate on the floor of the House of
Representatives while the House was in regular session during the
Sixty-second Congress, and that in committing said assault he, the said
Charles C. Glover, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges and a
contempt of the House of Representatives:
These are therefore to require you, Robert B. Gordon, Sergeant at
Arms for the House of Representatives of the United States, forthwith
to take into your custody the body of said Charles C. Glover, of the
city of Washington, DC, and him safely to keep, and to bring him before
the bar of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of May, 1913;
and all marshals and deputy marshals, civil officers of the United
States, and every other person are hereby required to be aiding and
assisting you in the execution thereof, for which this shall be your
sufficient warrant.
Given under my hand this 9th day of May, 1913.
Champ Clark,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
In testimony of the authority of this warrant, witness the seal of
the House of Representatives of the United States this 9th day of May,
1913.
South Trimble,
Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Upon this warrant the Sergeant at Arms made returns as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C. 9th day of May, 1913, ss:
To Hon. Champ Clark, Speaker, greeting:
Received the within warrant on the 9th day of May, A. D. 1913, and
pursuant to its command I did, on the 9th day of May, A. D. 1913, as
directed, take into custody the body of said Charles C. Glover there in
named and brought him forthwith to the bar of the House of
Representatives.
Given under my hand this 9th day of May, 1913.
R.B. Gordon,
Sergeant at Arms, House of Representatives.
The Sergeant at Arms appeared at the bar of the House having in
custody the respondent, Charles C. Glover.
By direction of the Speaker the Clerk read as follows:
That Representative Thetus W. Sims while on his way from his
residence in the city of Washington to the Post Office Department on
official business on Friday morning, April 18, 1913, was accosted in
Farragut Square, in the city of Washington, by Charles C. Glover, who,
after applying to him certain epithets, assaulted him by striking him
in the face.
That the said Charles C. Glover committed the assault upon
Representative Sims because of statements made by Representative Sims
in debate on the floor of the House of Representatives at several times
during the session of the House in the Sixty-second Congress, in which
Congress the said Representative Sims was also a Representative from
the State of Tennessee.
Sec. 333
In response to an inquiry by the Speaker if the respondent desired to
be heard or to have counsel, Charles C. Glover answered:
Mr. Speaker, I admit the facts to be as found, but earnestly disclaim
all intention to show disrespect to this House or its Members, or to
invade their privileges. Nor did I know, at the time of the occurrence,
that I was doing either.
I express my deep regret and offer my sincere apology.
A seat was provided for the respondent.
Then, on motion of Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, in behalf of the
special committee appointed in charge of this investigation, it was--
Resolved, That the Speaker do reprimand Charles C. Glover, now at the
bar of the House, for the breach of privileges of the House by him
committed; and that the said Charles C. Glover be thereupon discharged
from further custody.
The respondent rose.
The Speaker said:
Charles C. Glover, the House of Representatives, after thorough and
patient investigation of both the law and the facts, made by a special
committee of five eminent lawyers of the House, appointed by the
Speaker, brought in a resolution declaring that you had violated the
privileges of the House and acted in a manner derogatory to the dignity
of the body by assaulting a Member for words spoken in debate on the
floor of the House; and after full debate the House almost unanimously
adopted that resolution.
The freedom of speech and the immunity from being questioned
elsewhere for words spoken in debate on the floor of the House and also
of the Senate, guaranteed by the Constitution, lie at the very root of
our free institutions. You violated both grossly by your conduct. In
your anger you struck a blow at constitutional government.
From the very inception of parliamentary government among English-
speaking peoples the principles which I have stated have been
universally adopted and practiced.
This is not a case of a Member of Congress against the prisoner at
the bar. It is the House of Representatives in its assembled capacity
asserting its freedom of speech and the dignity of the House, which are
necessary for the free and wise transaction of the public business. It
is not so much to punish an individual as it is for the public good, to
the end that the Republic may endure.
The House passed a resolution directing the Speaker to issue his
warrant and deliver it to the Sergeant at Arms for your arrest, and the
same has been done. The mandate of the warrant has been complied with
by the Sergeant at Arms by bringing your body to the bar of the House.
Acting with the moderation, the care, the wisdom, and the justice
with which people of our race act, they gave you a chance to be heard
either in person or by counsel in mitigation before they would
determine the punishment for your very grave offense against the
Constitution of your country. You elected to be heard in your own
proper person; you have acknowledged the facts as charged; you have
apologized to the House; you have expressed your regrets; you have
asserted your ignorance of the fact that you were violating the
privileges of the House and the Constitution of the United States. This
statement on your part, no doubt, influenced the Members in the
leniency of the punishment which they determined upon, and that was
that the Speaker should reprimand you for your very grave offense.
It must be apparent that a Representative or a Senator in his
individual capacity has no more rights than any other citizen of the
Republic, and he is clothed by the Constitution with the immunity from
being questioned elsewhere for words uttered in debate on the floor of
the House so that they may speak their minds freely without fear and
without embarrassment. This is for the public weal. If one person is
permitted to go unpunished for an assault upon one Representative for
words spoken in debate on the floor of the House, every person can
assault a Representative for words used in debate on the floor of the
House, and free speech is at an end, free government is at an end.
Sec. 334
Not only that, but to assault a Representative or a Senator for words
spoken in debate on the floor of either House might compel a good man
who does not want to kill anybody to perform that very act.
The Chair therefore reprimands you, Charles C. Glover, in the name of
and by direction of the House of Representatives, and directs the
Sergeant at Arms to remove you from the Hall of the House and to
discharge you from custody.
Thereupon Charles C. Glover was escorted from the Hall of the House
in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
334. In 1929 a Senate committee recommended the denial of the
privilege of the floor to a newspaper reporter charged with publication
of proceedings of an executive session.--On May 21, 1929,\1\ in the
Senate, Mr. John J. Blaine, of Wisconsin, was granted leave to print in
the Record as a part of his remarks a newspaper article purporting to
give the vote of the Senate in executive session on the confirmation of
certain nominees of the President for judicial appointments.
On the following day,\2\ Mr. David A. Reed, of Pennsylvania,
announced that the Committee on Rules had unanimously agreed to a
resolution excluding Paul R. Mallon, the author of the article, and the
United Press Association which he represented, from the further
privileges of the floor of the Senate, and that witnesses had been
summoned to appear in an inquiry authorized by the committee to learn
what Senator or Senate employee had disclosed the information reported
in the article.
Mr. Reed then introduced the following resolution:
Resolved, That the report and publication of the proceedings of the
Senate in executive session on the 17th day of May, 1929, is a breach
of the privileges of the Senate, made possible only by a violation of
the rules of the Senate by some Member or officer of the Senate; that
this is a willful disregard of the obligation of duty and honor resting
upon every one admitted to an executive session, tending to bring
contempt upon the Senate, and deserves and should receive severe
censure and punishment.
The resolution was ordered printed and placed on the calendar. No
further action on the resolution or record of the inquiry appears.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-First Congress, Record, p. 1624.
\2\ Record, p. 1726.