[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 11. Questions of Privilege]
[E. Basis of Questions of Personal Privilege]
[Â§ 29. Published Charges of Illegality]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1677-1679]
 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
              E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
 
Sec. 29. Published Charges of Illegality

Unspecified Illegal Acts

Sec. 29.1 A newspaper article charging that a Member did something 
    illegal in his representative capacity gave rise to a question of 
    personal privilege.

    On Jan. 18, 1954,(1) the Chair recognized Mr. Clare E. 
Hoffman, of Michigan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 100 Cong. Rec. 388, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of 
    personal privilege. I have previously submitted the question to the 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair may say that the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] has very kindly given him the 
    opportunity of looking over the question of personal privilege. In 
    one instance it is stated that the gentleman did something illegal 
    in his representative capacity, so therefore the gentleman 
    qualifies to present his question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1678]]

Forgery

Sec. 29.2 A statement in a newspaper accusing a Member of forgery 
    constituted sufficient grounds for raising a question of personal 
    privilege.

    On June 8, 1950,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered as a question of personal privilege a statement appearing in a 
newspaper alleging that the Member had ``stooped to using outright 
forgery in a strikebreaking attempt.'' In his ruling granting 
recognition, the Speaker (4) stated that sufficient grounds 
to constitute a question of personal privilege had been stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 8331, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Receipt of Illegal Fees

Sec. 29.3 A newspaper article charging that a Member of the House 
    received an illegal fee in a matter connected with his work as a 
    Member was held to give rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On June 15, 1950,(5) Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, rose 
to a question of privilege to call attention to a newspaper article 
charging that he had received an illegal fee in a matter connected with 
his work as a Member. After examining the article, the Speaker 
(6) recognized Mr. Wood to proceed on a question of personal 
privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 8653, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tax Irregularities

Sec. 29.4 A newspaper article charging a Member with involvement in a 
    tax scandal gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Feb. 4, 1954,(7) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
sought the floor on a question of personal privilege, and read to the 
Chair headlines from several newspaper articles charging him (Mr. 
Celler) with involvement in a tax scandal. After the presentation of 
the objectionable articles to the Chair, the Speaker pro tempore 
(8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 100 Cong. Rec. 1353, 1354, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the headlines and the newspaper articles 
    and believes the gentleman has stated a question of personal 
    privilege. The gentleman is recognized.

Criminal Conspiracy, Perjury, and Tax Evasion

Sec. 29.5 Newspaper accounts of a grand jury indictment of a

[[Page 1679]]

    Member for alleged criminal conspiracy, perjury, and tax evasion 
    gave rise to a question of personal privilege.

    On Apr. 19, 1972,(9) Mr. Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New 
Jersey, rising to a question of personal privilege, stated that he 
wished to answer charges stemming from published accounts of a grand 
jury indictment brought against him for alleged criminal conspiracy, 
perjury, and tax evasion. At the conclusion of his statement, the 
Speaker (10) granted Mr. Gallagher recognition for one hour 
on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 13491-97, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sedition

Sec. 29.6 Any pamphlet, newspaper, or document which accuses a Member 
    of being seditious presents a question of personal privilege.

    On Mar. 26, 1946,(11) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of personal privilege and presented a publication in 
which he was accused of sedition. In ruling on the question, the 
Speaker (12) said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 2624, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. For additional 
        illustrations involving accusations of sedition, see 91 Cong. 
        Rec. 12456, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 20, 1945; 90 Cong. Rec. 
        2908, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 22, 1944; 90 Cong. Rec. 2519, 
        78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1944; and 90 Cong. Rec. 816, 78th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1944.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . [T]he Chair states that any pamphlet or 
    newspaper or document that accuses the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Hoffman] of being seditious certainly presents a question of 
    personal privilege.
        The gentleman is recognized.