<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VI]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_cciv.wais]

 
                            Chapter CCIV.

                        PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE.

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

   1. Invasion of prerogatives. Section 571.
   2. As to the membership. Section 572.
   3. As to the integrity of procedure. Sections 573-577.
   4. Related to committee procedure. Section 578.
   5. Related to admission to the floor. Section 579.
   6. Charges against House and Members. Sections 580-583.
   7. Relations of one House with the other. Section 584.
   8. Records and membership privileged as to process of courts. 
     Sections 585-588.

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

  571. A resolution alleging that the rights and dignity of the House 
have been invaded by the Executive presents a question of privilege.
  On February 23, 1909,\2\ Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, claiming the 
floor for a question of privilege, submitted the following:

  Whereas on the 26th day of January, A. D. 1909, this House of 
Representatives being then in session at the Capitol, and having under 
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
H.R. 26305, in ``general debate,'' the Hon. Henry T. Rainey, a 
Representative in the Congress of the United States from the State of 
Illinois, then and there delivered from his place on the floor of the 
House an address in which he discussed the manner in which the 
Government of the United States acquired rights on the Isthmus of 
Panama, with relation to the proposed canal across said Isthmus; the 
manner of consummating the contract for the purchase of the canal 
property; the conduct of certain persons, official and nonofficial, 
connected therewith; and the general subject of the acquirement, 
construction, and management of the said Panama Canal, as well as the 
acts and doings of the said persons in and about the same; and
  Whereas on the 29th day of January, A. D. 1909, in the open session 
of the House of Representatives, the same being in Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, and having under consideration 
in ``general debate'' H.R. 26915, the said Hon. Henry T. Rainey, a 
Representative as aforesaid, again further addressed the House in 
Committee of the Whole as stated, on the subject aforesaid, and in 
continuation of his address so delivered as aforesaid on the said 26th 
day of January, A. D. 1909; and
  Whereas on the 9th day of February, A. D. 1909, the Hon. Robert 
Bacon, Secretary of State of the United States, caused to be composed, 
written, printed, and published in certain and numerous newspapers, 
which are published in the city of Washington and elsewhere throughout 
the United States, and which are of general circulation in the United 
States and elsewhere, as well as making the same by filing therein a 
part of the permanent records of the State Department of the United 
States, a certain document alleged to be in reply to a communication 
said to have been
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter LXXXI.
  \2\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 2950.
Sec. 571
received by him, the said Hon. Robert Bacon, Secretary of State as 
aforesaid, and to have been written by some official of the Government 
of the Republic of Panama, taking exception to and complaining of the 
said addresses of the said Hon. Henry T. Rainey, a Representative as 
aforesaid, in behalf of his Government, the said Republic of Panama, 
and which said document so composed and published by the said the Hon. 
Robert Bacon, Secretary of State as aforesaid, as the same was 
published and appeared in the Washington Post, a daily newspaper 
published at the city of Washington, D.C., in its issue of the 10th day 
of February, A. D. 1909, and which said newspaper has and enjoys a wide 
circulation throughout the United States, was and is as as follows, 
viz:
  ``Sir: The President directs me to say in answer to your 
communication of February 9, 1909, that the remarks complained of were 
made in the House of Representatives. Under our Constitution we have, 
for what we regard wise reasons, provided that for any speech or debate 
in either House they (the Senators and Representatives) shall not be 
questioned in any other place.
  ``This provision we regard as essential to secure full liberty of 
speech to the elected representatives of the people; and we feel that 
such liberty of speech should be preserved even though it may 
occasionally be abused.
  ``It ought to be understood that the utterances of individual Members 
are not to be taken as expressing the views either of the Government of 
the United States or the House in which such remarks are made. As 
regards the statement in question made by Representative Rainey, the 
President attached so little importance to him that he had not even 
read them until your protest came. He has now read them, and none of 
them concerning which he has knowledge have any foundation in fact.
  ``The President wishes me to recall to your attention that the attack 
was made even more upon Americans, including the President-elect, than 
upon the officials of Panama. The President need hardly say that this 
Government disavows all responsibility for the remarks of 
Representative Rainey, to which you refer.
  ``Accept, sir, the renewed assurance of my high consideration.
                                                 ``Robert Bacon.''
Now, therefore, be it resolved:
  First, That the matter of the said communication of the said the Hon. 
Robert Bacon, Secretary of State of the United States, to the said 
official of the Government of the Republic of Panama and a matters 
connected therewith, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives for the 
careful consideration of the said committee to determine:
  (1) If the said communication of the said Hon. Robert Bacon, 
Secretary of State as aforesaid, constitutes a breach of the privileges 
of a Member of the House and of the House, violating either in letter 
or spirit section 6 of Article I of the Constitution of the United 
States, where it is provided that a Representative in Congress ``shall 
not be questioned in any other place'' for ``any speech or debate'' in 
the House.
  (2) If there has been such violation, what remedy, if any, exists.
  (3) If there has been such violation and it is found that no remedy 
exists, to suggest some plan to prevent such violations and to punish 
them in the future.
  Second, That the said Committee on the Judiciary make full report 
herein to the House of Representatives within five days from the 
reference to said committee of this resolution.

  Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
resolution did not present a question of privilege.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair has listened carefully to the reading of the preamble and 
the resolution. It seems to the Chair that if a question of privilege 
be presented at all by this resolution, it is presented in the 
communication by the Secretary of State by direction of the President 
to another government. It is true that a Member of the House shall not 
be called in question in the performance of his duty. As to what is 
meant by being ``called in question'' is a matter that the House must
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 572
determine for itself when the matter is presented by proper resolution. 
The Chair takes it that a citizen might criticize the remarks of a 
Member of the House, from a friendly or an unfriendly standpoint, 
without violating the privileges of the House.
  In this case neither the Secretary of State nor the President has 
sent any communication to the House. It has referred in answering the 
communication from a foreign government to the words spoken by a Member 
of the House. If the Secretary of State, as an individual, had made 
this criticism, the Chair thinks it is entirely possible that there 
would have been no question of privilege presented, or if in a 
newspaper editorial such a remark had been made touching the speech of 
a Member, the Chair very much doubts whether it would present a 
question of privilege.
  There are some precedents, however, where more than one Speaker has 
submitted the matter to the House as to whether a question of privilege 
is stated in the resolution. The Chair prefers in this case not to pass 
upon the point of order, sustaining the same, but believes it would be 
better to take such action as it seems proper by overruling the point 
of order; and whether a question of privilege is involved, or even a 
shadow of a question of privilege, will be for the House to determine. 
Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

  On motion of Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York. the resolution was 
laid on the table, yeas 188, noes 121.
  572. Consideration of a contested-election case presents a question 
of high privilege which takes precedence of a question involving the 
privilege of the House generally.
  On May 27, 1922,\1\ Mr. Royal Johnson, of South Dakota, claimed the 
floor for a question of privilege relating to the integrity of the 
procedure of the House.
  Simultaneously, Mr. Robert Luce, of Massachusetts, from the Committee 
on Elections No. 2, asked for the consideration of the report of that 
committee on the contested-election case of Campbell v. Doughton.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Luce, is now claiming 
recognition for the purpose of presenting a contested election case.
  According to endless precedents a contested-election case is the 
highest privilege of the House. Granting for the sake of argument that 
the contention of the gentleman from South Dakota is correct, it would 
certainly not give him the right to bring it up now in opposition to a 
contested-election case. Therefore, and on that account, the Chair 
declines to recognize the question of privilege.

  573. A motion relating to the introduction of bills without 
authorization was entertained as a question of privilege.
  On February 24, 1911,\3\ Mr. James A. Hamill, of New Jersey, rose to 
a question of the privilege of the House and moved that the bills (H. 
R. 27838 and H.R. 27839) and the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 244), 
which had been introduced under his name without his sanction or 
knowledge, be stricken from the files of the House.
  The Speaker \4\ recognized Mr. Hamill to present the motion as a 
matter of privilege, and the question being taken, the motion was 
agreed to and the bills were stricken from the files of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7808.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Journal, p. 361; Record, p. 
3311.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 574
  574. A resolution authorizing an investigation of the propriety of 
introducing bills in the name of more than one Member was held to 
involve a question of privilege.
  On February 10, 1909,\1\ Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, 
presented, as a question of privilege, the following preamble and 
resolution:

  Whereas it appears from the Record of February 9, 1909, that House 
Resolutions Nos. 548 and 551 purport to have been introduced by a 
number of Members of the House; and
  Whereas it is a question of serious doubt whether such a practice is 
in conformity with and is authorized under the parliamentary procedure 
governing the control and the conduct of the business of this House; 
and
  Whereas it is desirable to determine whether bills or resolutions may 
be presented to the House in the name of more than one Member:
  Resolved, That the Speaker be, and he is hereby, authorized and 
directed to appoint a select committee of five Members of the House to 
investigate and report as to the right of Members to present bills or 
resolutions as provided by the rules with the name of more than one 
Member of the House attached thereto.

  The Speaker \2\ recognized Mr. Fitzgerald to offer the resolution as 
privileged, and the House agreed to the resolution, on division, yeas 
120, noes 6.
  Whereupon, Mr. Charles L. Underhill, of Massachusetts, asked if the 
rule also applied to criticism on the floor of remarks made by Members 
of the other body outside the Chamber. The Speaker answered in the 
negative.\3\
  575. A resolution proposing an investigation of improper reporting of 
bills by a committee of the House was entertained as raising a question 
of privilege.
  An exceptional instance in which bills relating to the same subject 
and proposing the enactment of conflicting provisions of law were 
reported simultaneously with favorable recommendation, followed by 
announcement in reporting of a rule providing for their consideration 
that it was not to be taken as a precedent.
  On April 29, 1926,\4\ Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, rising to a 
question of the privilege of the House, offered the following 
resolution:

  Whereas the Committee on Agriculture has reported simultaneously, 
with favorable recommendation, the bills H. R. 11603, H. R. 11606, and 
H. R. 11618, relating to the same subject, having the same purpose, and 
proposing the enactment of conflicting provisions of law; and
  Whereas such action is without precedent, is not in conformity with 
the practice of this House, and is not authorized under the 
parliamentary procedure governing the control and conduct of the 
business of this House; and
  Whereas a far-reaching question of parliamentary procedure is 
involved, and a precedent of this importance should not lightly be 
established, and it is therefore desirable to determine whether 
standing committees may report simultaneously for the consideration of 
the House more than one bill dealing with substantially the same 
subject matter:

  Resolved, That the Speaker be, and he is hereby, authorized and 
directed to appoint a select committee of five Members of the House to 
investigate and report not later than April 30, 1926, as
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 2150.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Under the prevailing practice, it has been considered permissible 
to criticize on the floor statements of Members of the other body given 
to the press.
  \4\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 8455.
                                                             Sec. 576
to the right of a committee to report with favorable recommendation, 
under the provisions of the rules, more than one bill on the same 
subject, having in view the same purpose and proposing conflicting 
legislative enactments.

  Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
resolution was not privileged.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and held that the 
resolution presented a question of privilege and was entitled to 
immediate consideration.
  Subsequently \2\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, in reporting 
from the Committee on Rules a resolution providing for the 
consideration of bills referred to in the resolution, said:

  Mr. Speaker, the rule just read by the Clerk is somewhat different 
from the average rule presented by the Rules Committee. Let me say in 
the beginning that I do not want this rule to be considered as a 
precedent. The Rules Committee has gone further in trying to meet the 
wishes of the Agricultural Committee than it has ever done since I have 
been a Member of this House. We have gone further than I think the 
committee would do on a report from any other committee in the House. 
We have done it because each Member is deeply interested in 
agriculture; we recognize it as a basic industry, and we are willing 
and anxious to do everything in our power to aid in passing legislation 
that will be a definite benefit to the agricultural interests of the 
country. It was for this reason that we have gone beyond the original 
precedents in drafting this rule for the consideration of this 
legislation.

  576. Charges published as newspaper advertising that ``Bad bills pass 
without reading'' and ``Steals are attempted'' were held so to reflect 
upon the integrity of the proceeding of the House as to support a 
question of privilege.
  A telegram reprinted in a newspaper charging that a Member had been 
influenced in his official acts by unworthy motives was held to involve 
a question of personal privilege.
  In debating a question of personal privilege a Member may not discuss 
extraneous or irrelevant matters.
  On June 2, 1930 \3\ following the administration of the oath to Mr. 
Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, who had been elected to fill an unexpired 
term, Mr. Robert H. Clancy, of Michigan, submitted the following 
resolution as involving a question of the privilege of the House:

  Resolved, That the paid advertisement appearing in the Abilene Daily 
Reporter, a newspaper of Abilene, Tex., on May 19, 1930, setting forth 
the following, vitally affects the rights of the House collectively, 
its dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and second, the 
rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, individually in their 
representative capacity:

 ``service or sentiment--vote may 20 for year's service--the last few 
                   weeks of every session of congress
  ``Toward the close of each session of Congress many Members leave 
Washington. Those who remain become careless, with minds preoccupied 
with approaching campaigns and thoughts of home. During this period 
waste and extravagance run rampant, and bad bills of every kind
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \2\ Record, p. 8691.
  \3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 9892; Journal, 
p. 14.
Sec. 576
pass without reading. Rules are suspended. Junketing trips abroad are 
arranged. It is at this time, more than any other, there is urgently 
needed on the floor at all times some Member to stand guard and watch 
the interests of the people.
    ``blanton on the floor at all sessions
  ``When Governor Moody called this special election, why was it that 
the press reported a howl from some leaders in Washington? They 
believed that the people would return Blanton to Congress. They knew he 
would upset some of their riotous spending and their arrangements for 
summer junkets.
* * * * * * *


      ``blanton needed on guard in closing weeks of this congress
  ``If you elect Blanton on May 20, he will be sworn in on May 22. He 
will take his seat immediately. He will begin functioning immediately. 
He knows the rules and precedents as well as any other Member. He knows 
how to stop and kill steals when they are attempted. And he will attend 
the special session contemplated by Hoover in September and the regular 
session from December 1, 1930, to March 4, 1931. And during this time 
the 500,000 people of this district will have a man of experience to 
attend to their business with the several hundred bureaus of 
Government.''
  Resolved further, That the Speaker appoint a select committee of 
three Members of the House and that such committee be instructed to 
inquire into the above-mentioned charges, and for such purposes it 
shall have the power to send for persons and papers and enforce their 
appearance before said committee and to administer oaths and shall have 
the right to report at any time what action should be taken.

  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that 
the resolution did not present a question of privilege.
  After debate, the Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The question is whether these quoted statements form the basis for a 
question of privilege.
  Rule 9 provides as follows:
  ``Questions of privilege shall be, fast, those affecting the rights 
of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of 
its proceedings.''
  Query. Does this statement affect the integrity of the proceedings of 
the House; that is, the words--
  ``During this period waste and extravagance run rampant and bad bills 
of every kind pass without reading.''
  And in another place--
  ``He, Mr. Blanton, knows how to stop and kill steals when they are 
attempted?''
  The only precedent of which the Chair is aware occurred on January 3, 
1917, when Mr. Wood, of Indiana, rose to a question of privilege on 
some newspaper statements of Thomas W. Lawson, of Boston, in which, 
among other things, he used this phrase:
  ``The good old Capitol has been wallowing in Wall Street leaks for 40 
years, wallowing hale and hearty.''
  The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, supported it on the ground 
that this affected privileges of the House, and the Speaker so held.
  It seems to the Chair that the statements in the advertisement 
reflecting on the integrity of the proceedings of the House are at 
least as bad as those of Mr. Lawson. The Chair therefore holds that the 
resolution is privileged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 577
  Thereupon, Mr. Clancy requested recognition and submitted as 
involving a question of personal privilege a telegram from Mr. Blanton 
appearing in a Texas newspaper, as follows:

  Until governor's commission arrives a new Member can qualify only by 
unanimous consent; hence any Member can object. Clancy is exercising 
long-existing grudge. In former Congresses I blocked several of his 
wasteful, extravagant measures, and he retaliates by depriving me of 
remuneration for enormous district business I am now performing.

  The Speaker held the matter to involve a question of personal 
privilege and recognized Mr. Clancy to debate it.
  In the course of his remarks Mr. Clancy referred to extraneous 
matters and Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, raised a question of order.
  The Speaker ruled:

  The Chair thinks the gentleman from Michigan should confine himself 
to the question of privilege which pertains to himself alone.
  The gentlemen from Michigan should confine himself to questions which 
attribute wrongful motives to himself. The other circumstances are 
entirely extraneous, and the gentleman from Michigan will confine 
himself to his own personal privilege.

  577. Lack of authority to convene a committee in the absence of the 
chairman having prevented the consideration of legislation, a 
resolution directing the committee to meet at a designated time was 
held to involve a question of the privilege of the House.
  On January 29, 1931,\1\ Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, offered, 
as involving the privilege of the House, the following resolution:

  Whereas the chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' 
Legislation is unavoidably absent on account of illness and unable to 
be present and preside over said committee; and
  Whereas there is no one else authorized to act for him in calling 
said committee together and presiding over its deliberations; and
  Whereas there are pending before that committee various and sundry 
bill providing for relief for the disabled veterans of the World War, 
their widows, and orphans; and
  Whereas it is vitally necessary that said committee meet and consider 
such legislation without delay: Therefore be it
  Resolved, That the members of the said Committee on World War 
Veterans' Legislation be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed 
to meet in the committee room now provided for said committee on 
Tuesday, February 3, 1931, at 10 o'clock a. m., to elect a temporary 
chairman and consider the legislation pending before said committee.

  Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, questioned the privilege of the 
resolution.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The Chair is inclined to think that inasmuch as this committee is a 
legislative agent of the House and the question deals with legislative 
procedure, it is a matter of privilege.
  The Chair desires to emphasize the fact that he has said repeatedly 
it is always within the power of the House to call a meeting of a 
committee if it so desires under such circumstances as these.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session of Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3481.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 578
  578. Charges that Members of a committee were holding secret meetings 
or excluding other Members from the committee conferences were held not 
to involve a question of privilege.
  A question of the privilege of the House may not be presented except 
by resolution.
  On July 2, 1913,\1\ Mr. Charles A Lindbergh, of Minnesota, claimed 
the floor for a question of personal privilege on the ground that the 
majority members of the Committee on Banking and Currency, of which he 
was a member, were holding meetings from day to day from which he was 
excluded.
  A point of order by Mr. Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia, that no 
question of privilege was involved, was sustained by the Speaker .\2\
  Mr. Lindbergh then submitted that the holding of secret meetings of a 
committee from which other members of the committee were excluded 
infringed upon the privilege of the House.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said:

  Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that no matter is before the 
House at the present time. A matter of personal privilege can be 
brought before the House without a preliminary resolution, but a matter 
involving the privileges of the House, a matter of high privilege, must 
be brought before the House in the form of a resolution, not in the 
form of a statement.

  The Speaker sustained the point of order.
  Thereupon Mr. Lindbergh sent to the desk a preamble and resolution 
providing for the appointment of a committee to investigate and report 
if such meetings were being held.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald made the point of order that the resolution 
did not present a question of privilege.
  The Speaker said:

  And the Chair rules that there is no question of privilege of any 
character in it whatsoever.

  579. An alleged violation of the rule relating to admission to the 
floor presents a question of privilege.
  The privileges of the floor do not extend to departmental employees 
assisting committees in the preparation of bills.
  On December 10, 1924,\3\ when the House concluded the consideration 
of the bill (H. R. 2688) reported by the Committee on Naval Affairs and 
providing for sundry matters affecting the naval service, Mr. Tom 
Connally, of Texas, claiming the floor for a question of privilege, 
said:

  I have just been informed that this afternoon in the course of the 
deliberation on this bill the Naval Committee has had an admiral of the 
Navy here on the floor of the House advising, helping, and directing 
this legislation, and I want to inquire if that is true if the rules do 
not----

  The Speaker \4\ said:

  The Chair is responsible for it. The Naval Committee asked the Chair 
if they could bring--the Chair did not know it was an officer of the 
Navy, but a civilian--somebody familiar with the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session, Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 2307.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 433.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 580
bill on the floor. The Chair said they could. The Chair think it is the 
custom of a committee to bring somebody who is familiar----
  Mr. Connally interposed:
  I was not talking about a civilian, but an admiral of the Navy and my 
understanding is the Judge Advocate of the Navy has been here this 
afternoon.

  Mr. Fred. A. Britten, of Illinois, from the Committee on Naval 
Affairs, explained:

  By direction of the committee on yesterday I asked the Speaker of the 
House if that committee might have the services of a civilian employee 
of the Navy Department to help us in the consideration and passage of 
the reserve bill, which is a very complicated bill, and the Speaker 
said that if we did not have a clerk on the floor we were entitled to 
bring in a Government employee.

  The following colloquy was had:

  Mr. Connally of Texas. I ask the gentleman if he knows whether or not 
Admiral Latimer has not been here on the floor during the progress of 
this naval bill this afternoon?
  Mr. Britten. He has not.
  Mr. Connally of Texas. He was in the cloakroom?
  Mr. Britten. Yes; he was called up twice on my account.
  Mr. Connally of Texas. That is part of the floor of the House.
  Mr. Britten. A gentleman on that side asked if an amendment he had 
prepared would be acceptable to me. I said I thought the language of 
the bill was best but that I would ask the Judge Advocate General of 
the Navy, Admiral Latimer.
  Mr. Connally of Texas. He is not a civilian?
  Mr. Britten. No.
  Mr. Connally of Texas. That is not the man to whom the Speaker 
referred. I am not objecting to a civilian, but I am talking about 
admirals being on the floor of the House. My information is that one of 
the employees of this House said he was on the floor and in the 
cloakroom----
  Mr. Britten. He was in the cloakroom, but not on the floor or the 
aisles of the floor.
  Mr. Connally of Texas. The cloakroom is generally recognized as part 
of the Chamber.

  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, submitted:

  Mr. Speaker, of course it was a violation of the rules of the House 
for anyone to be in the cloakroom as much as to be upon the floor, 
because the rule applies to the cloakroom just as it applies to the 
floor of the House.

  The Speaker said:

  The Chair was asked yesterday by one of the members of the committee 
if they could have on the floor a civilian employee of the Navy who had 
aided them in drafting the bill. The Chair, not remembering that that 
was contrary to the rules and knowing that it had often been done, said 
it could be done here. But hereafter, if it is the desire of the House, 
the Chair will undertake to enforce that rule strictly.

  580. A resolution charging conspiracy to influence Members of 
Congress improperly was considered as a matter of privilege.
  In presenting a question of the privilege of the House, a Member is 
required to submit a resolution and may not proceed in debate until the 
resolution has been read at the desk.
  A decision by the Speaker defining the term ``representative 
capacity.''
  Mere criticism of a Member, even though in his representative 
capacity, does not present a question of privilege.
Sec. 580
  On March 1, 1910,\1\ Mr. Halvor Steenerson, of Minnesota, claiming 
the floor for a question of privilege, sent to the desk a newspaper 
article, saying:

  I think it will be necessary, in order to understand the charge made, 
to read the part of the article that I have marked. I have marked some 
parts, and other parts I have marked out. For instance, there is a 
table of wages. I have marked that out. Of course I can insert the 
whole thing in the Record, and I will refer to each charge in my 
remarks, but I think it has already appeared unquestionably that this 
attacks me in my capacity as a Member of Congress and as a member of 
the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, and my official 
fidelity and honesty is questioned.

  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that a 
question of privilege was not involved. On suggestion of Mr. Payne, the 
matter was deferred until March 3,\2\ when the Speaker \3\ rendered the 
following decision:

  On Tuesday last the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Steenerson, arose 
to a question of personal privilege, and after some discussion, by 
unanimous consent, the matters involved in the alleged question of 
personal privilege were printed in the Record of Tuesday. The gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Payne, interposed the point of order that the matter 
therein contained does not constitute a question of personal privilege. 
In the meantime the Chair has very carefully examined in the Record the 
statements or allegations covering the alleged question of personal 
privilege, and the Chair is ready to rule upon that question.
  The rule of the House defines questions of personal privilege as 
those affecting--``the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, 
individually, in their representative capacity only.''
  The meaning of the words ``representative capacity'' involves the 
whole question at issue. Is a letter, written by a Member to a private 
individual to explain acts of the Member in his ``representative 
capacity,'' itself an act in that capacity? If it is, then any other 
act of his in explanation outside the House, as a campaign speech in 
his district, is an act in the ``representative capacity.'' It seems to 
the Chair that to extend the right to occupy the floor of the House as 
to so wide a range of controversy as that between the Member and the 
newspapers or between the Member and the public generally as to his 
letters or his addresses outside the House would vastly encumber the 
proceedings of the House.
  As to the portions of the article in question referring to acts of 
the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Steenerson, in his ``representative 
capacity''--that is, in relation to his acts on the floor or in a 
committee--it seems to the Chair that there is nothing which goes 
further than a mere criticism of such acts. There is no charge, so far 
as the Chair finds, which amuses the gentleman from Minnesota of 
corrupt acts or any other conduct implying more than error of judgment.
  The precedent of 1890, to which the gentleman from Minnesota referred 
the Chair, appears, on examination, to have been a case wherein a 
Member read in Committee of the Whole a letter from a citizen assailing 
other Members for words spoken in debate. The Chair held that one of 
the assailed Members was entitled to the floor on a question of 
privilege. That case was therefore very different from that presented 
by the gentleman from Minnesota.
  The Chair now holds that the gentleman from Minnesota does not 
present a question of personal privilege.

  Whereupon Mr. Steenerson charged that an organization was attempting 
to influence Members of Congress improperly in favor of ship subsidies.
  The Speaker said:

  So far as the gentleman has proceeded he is stating a question that 
might affect the House generally, but a question of general privilege 
is not a question of personal privilege. And in such
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2555.
  \2\ Journal, p. 871; Record, p. 2681.
  \3\ Joseph U. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 581
cases the practice of the House has been that the gentleman should 
present to the House a written proposition for action.

  Mr. Steenerson stated that he would submit a resolution at the close 
of his remarks and was proceeding in debate.
  The Speaker interposed:

  And the Chair will suggest that the gentleman would withhold until he 
is prepared to so present the matter.

  Mr. Steenerson said:

  The gentleman is prepared to submit a resolution at the end of his 
remarks. This not only affects the House generally but it affects me 
individually as a Member of this House and my action upon legislation 
pending herein.

  The Speaker ruled:

  The gentleman, under rules of the House, in the opinion of the Chair, 
before he makes his remarks touching a question of general privilege 
should send to the Clerk's desk and have read the foundation therefor. 
The gentleman will at once on mere suggestion see the propriety of that 
well-established practice.

  Thereupon Mr. Steenerson submitted a preamble and resolution thereon.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
resolution did not present a question of privilege.
  The Speaker held:

  While the written statement which has been read at the Clerk's desk 
is exceedingly general, upon allegation, ``it is alleged,'' and so 
forth, amounting, perhaps, to common rumor, yet there is one allegation 
in this statement, as follows:
  ``And whereas it is charged in the publications purporting to be 
issued by said Merchant Marine League, and also in the Texas Farmer, a 
newspaper published at Dallas, in the State of Texas, that large sums 
of money and corruption funds have been raised by foreign shipowners 
and ship companies, for the purpose of corrupting and influencing 
Members of Congress against said ship-subsidy legislation, and which 
sums and funds are now being used to improperly influence Members of 
Congress on said subjects''--
  And so forth. Then follows the proposed resolution. It may be true, 
as suggested by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Cooper, that if there 
be a conspiracy either upon the part of foreign shipowners or the 
Merchant Marine League to affect legislation, if such conspiracy in 
fact existed, the courts of law would have jurisdiction to proceed 
against parties who had formed the conspiracy, yet the allegation here 
is that these actions, on the one hand by the foreign shipowners for 
one purpose, and the Merchant Marine League for another purpose, as 
indicated in the statement. The most specific allegation is touching 
the foreign shipowners.
  In a later practice the Chair has made a preliminary decision, and 
then the House, upon that decision, has taken such action touching 
further inquiry or investigation as it deemed proper, and therefore the 
Chair overrules the point of order.

  581. A resolution for the investigation of an organization alleged to 
have raised money to influence legislation was considered as a matter 
of privilege.
Sec. 581
  On December 22, 1913,\1\ Mr. S. F. Prouty, of Iowa, submitted, as 
presenting a question of privilege, the following preamble and 
resolution:

  Whereas on Saturday, December 20, 1913, there appeared in the 
Washington Times, a paper published in the city of Washington and 
having a very large circulation throughout the United States, an 
article headed in large type clear across the front page, the 
following:

``nation-wide fight on crisp-bill backers--district champions unite in 
                     effort to prevent reelection.
  ``Plans for a concerted fight against the reelection of the Members 
who voted for the measure are already under way. Their respective 
districts will be flooded with letters protesting against their 
unpatriotic stand toward the National Capital. Voters throughout the 
country will be appealed to in the hope that Congressmen will be urged 
to take the welfare of this District at heart and aid in making the 
capital city of the United States the queen metropolis of the world. 
Members of the executive committee of the joint committee of Chamber of 
Commerce, the Board of Trade, and the Retail Merchants' Association 
have been notified by Chairman William H. Singleton of the committee 
that they must be ready at a moment's notice to answer a call to meet 
and determine on some concerted action immediately;'' and
  Whereas said alleged threat, if carried into effect, would menace the 
freedom of action of the Members of this body in the discharge of their 
legislative duties: Therefore be it
  Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the Committee on the 
District of Columbia, or a subcommittee thereof appointed by the 
chairman, be instructed and empowered to make a full and thorough 
investigation of the truth of the facts set out and alleged in said 
article.
  That said committee or subcommittee be instructed and empowered to 
ascertain whether there is now or at any time in the past has been any 
organization in the District of Columbia or elsewhere that has or has 
had as its purpose or object the securing or preventing of legislation 
affecting the relation between the Federal Government and the District 
of Columbia or the citizens or institutions thereof;
  That said committee or subcommittee be instructed and empowered to 
ascertain whether there is now being raised or whether at any time in 
the past there has been raised any money by the citizens, residents, 
property owners, corporations, or organizations of Washington or the 
District of Columbia for the purpose of influencing, either directly or 
indirectly, legislation; and if such money has been raised in the past, 
to ascertain for what purpose and in what manner it has been used; and 
if any money is now being raised for that purpose the committee or 
subcommittee shall ascertain in what manner it is proposed to use the 
same;
  The said committee or subcommittee be instructed and empowered to 
ascertain whether there is now or in the past has been maintained a 
lobby in the city of Washington for the purpose of influencing or 
affecting legislation or appropriation for and on behalf of the 
District of Columbia or the people, corporations, or institutions 
thereof, and said committee or subcommittee will ascertain methods and 
agencies employed for the purpose of affecting said legislation;
  That said committee or subcommittee be, and is hereby, authorized to 
issue subpoenas and call for books, papers, and records; that the 
chairman of said committee, or any member thereof in his absence, is 
hereby authorized to administer oaths and to compel the attendance upon 
the committee of any person or persons whom said committee may wish to 
interrogate relative to the matters set out in this resolution;
  That said committee or subcommittee in conducting this investigation 
is authorized to use the official committee stenographers.
  Upon the conclusion of its investigation the said committee shall 
report fully to this House the results of its investigation and 
findings thereon.

  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
resolution did not involve a question of privilege.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1370.
                                                             Sec. 582
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order.
  On motion of Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, the resolution was 
referred to the Committee on Rules, yeas 171, noes 86.
  582. A resolution charging that a Member's action in his 
representative capacity had been influenced by support received in his 
election to the House was presented as a question of privilege.
  A resolution reflecting on the official conduct of a Member of the 
House was expunged from the Record.
  Proceedings expunged from the Record by order of the House are not 
journalized.
  On August 24, 1922,\2\ Mr. George Holden Tinkham, of Massachusetts, 
submitted, as involving the privilege of the House, a resolution and 
preamble charging Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, with having 
received support in his campaign for election to the House from the 
Anti-Saloon League and having in return supported legislation in which 
that organization was interested. The resolution requested Mr. 
Volstead's resignation as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and provided that in event of his failure to resign within 10 days the 
chairmanship should be considered vacant.
  During the reading of the resolution by the Clerk, Mr. Leonidas C. 
Dyer, of Missouri, made the point of order that the resolution was not 
privileged. The reading was continued and was completed, and Mr. Dyer 
moved to expunge the resolution from the Record.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, inquired if an order expunging 
proceedings from the Congressional Record operated to expunge such 
proceedings from the Journal of the House.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair is informed by the Journal clerk that when the House has 
ordered anything to be expunged from the Record it is not carried in 
the Journal.

  The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Dyer to expunge the 
resolution from the Record, on division, it was decided in the 
affirmative, yeas 141, noes 3.
  583. Charges that Members do not vote in accordance with their 
personal views do not present a question of privilege.
  A motion to strike from the Record remarks made in order is not 
privileged.
  On July 15, 1919,\4\ Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, rising to a 
question of privilege of the House, said:

  Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, the highest privilege 
of the House. During the debate yesterday on the prohibition 
enforcement bill, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Gallivan, used 
the following language:
  ``I am opposed to this amendment unless the gentleman from Kentucky 
will provide that the inspector and agents visit the House Office 
Building. I shall ask that every Member of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 515; Record, 
p. 11758.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2637.
Sec. 584
Congress who votes dry on this proposition be honest to his country and 
his conscience and that he place in the Congressional Record the amount 
of liquor that he has saved up for himself either in his home or in his 
office. * * * I have heard, Mr. Chairman, of Members of this House who 
have said that they have in their private wine cellars enough liquor to 
take care of them and their friends for 20 years.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a reflection upon the integrity and the standing 
of every Member of this Congress. I submit that it is an unwarranted 
aspersion upon the standing and the integrity and dignity of this 
House, whose Members are as strictly sober as any 435 men with whom I 
have ever been associated before.

  The Speaker \1\ held that a question of privilege was not involved.
  Thereupon Mr. Blanton proposed a motion to strike the language quoted 
from the Record.
  The Speaker held the motion was not privileged and declined to 
recognize Mr. Blanton to offer it.
  584. A Senator in debate in the Senate having assailed the Speaker, a 
resolution declaring the language of the Senator a breach of the 
privilege of the House was treated as a matter of privilege.
  A Member assailed outside the House may reply outside the House 
without limitation and may reply from the floor of the House if 
personalities are avoided.
  On March 24, 1924,\2\ Mr. Allen T. Treadway, of Massachusetts, rose 
to a question of privilege and said:

  Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The question of 
privilege is one affecting the rights of the House in its safety, 
dignity, and integrity, under Rule IX.

  In response to a request of the Speaker that the resolution be 
withdrawn, Mr. Treadway said:

  I realize the attitude of the Speaker, and at the same time I do not 
feel that the membership of the House should yield to his personal 
wishes. It affects the dignity of the House rather than the 
individuality of the Speaker, and I claim the right to present the 
resolution. I regret I can not accept the Speaker's request.

  The Speaker \3\ announced:

  The Chair has requested the gentleman to withdraw his question of 
privilege. The gentleman refuses and the Chair lays the resolution 
before the House.

  After debate, Mr. Treadway withdrew the resolution, and the Speaker, 
calling a Member to the chair, addressed the House.
  At the conclusion of his remarks, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry from Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, the Speaker said:

  Well, the Chair thinks, no matter what a person says outside, a 
Member attacked has a right outside to say what he pleases and has a 
right also on the floor of the House to answer any argument or attack, 
provided he does not violate the rule as to personalities. As to them 
the Chair thinks the rules apply, no matter what the provocation may 
be.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4813.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 585
  585. Instance wherein permission was given the clerk of a committee 
and the Clerk of the House, to respond to subpoena or subpoena duces 
tecum. and to make deposition with proviso that they should take with 
them none of the files.
  On August 23, 1921,\1\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, from the 
Committee on Rules, by direction of that committee, reported, as 
privileged, the following preamble and resolution:

  Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall proceed to the consideration of the following resolution, 
to wit:
  ``Whereas in a case of libel now pending in the Circuit Court of 
Putnam County, Tenn., at Cookeville, styled Cordell Hull against Oscar 
Clark and Wynne F. Clouse, in which among other questions, the vote of 
the said Cordell Hull, who was a Member of the Sixty-sixth and prior 
Congresses, with respect to proposed bonus legislation for the benefit 
of certain American ex-soldiers and sailors of the World War is 
involved; and in which also it is the contention of defendants that the 
vote or votes of said Cordell Hull as a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee of said House during the second session of the Sixty-sixth 
Congress in the executive sessions of said committee with respect to 
the said proposed soldier and sailor bonus legislation, and 
particularly with reference to the consideration and reporting out by 
said committee of H. R. 14089, is material to the issues raised in the 
above-styled case; and in which it is the contention of the plaintiff 
that if testimony as to his said votes in the executive sessions of 
said committee is offered it then becomes material for the entire 
context to be shown in evidence, viz, the various motions, bills 
considered, questions arising on each, and votes of each member of said 
committee thereon with respect to all of the amid proposed soldier and 
sailor bonus legislation and tax measures to pay for same pending 
before the said committee during the said Sixty-sixth Congress: Now, 
therefore be it
  ``Resolved, That the clerk of the Ways and Means Committee of the 
House of Representatives of the Sixty-sixth and Sixty-seventh 
Congresses of the United States and the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives be authorized to respond to any subpoena or subpoena 
duces tecum, or to appear before any person authorized by law to take 
depositions, at the instance of either party to the above-styled case, 
but neither of said clerks shall take with him any book, document, or 
paper on file in his office or under his control or in his possession 
as such clerk;
  ``That either of the parties to the above-styled lawsuit have full 
permission to take the depositions of either or both of the said clerks 
in respect to any and all phases of the executive and other proceedings 
of the said Ways and Means Committee in connection with its 
consideration of each and all the proposed soldier and sailor bonus 
measures referred to said committee under H. Res. 470 during the Sixty-
sixth Congress, including evidence as to all motions made, questions 
arising, measures considered, and votes of each member thereon, the 
purpose and effect of each, and to this end permission to either party 
to the lawsuit aforesaid is given to take copies of any documents or 
papers in possession or control of either of said clerks so as, 
however, the possession of said documents and papers by the said clerk 
or clerks shall not be disturbed, or the same shall not be removed from 
their place of custody under said clerk or clerks.''
  And the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
resolution to final adoption.

  Mr. Snell said:

  There are several precedents for action of this kind in the House. I 
shall not take the time to call attention to more than one. This one 
seems to be exactly the same as what is desired to do at this time. 
That was in the Forty-second Congress, and it ran as follows:

  ``Resolved, That the clerk of the Committee on the Public Lands be 
authorized to attach to any deposition he may be required to give in 
the case of Hovey v. Valentine, now pending in the district court at 
San Francisco, Calif., a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the 
Committee on the Public Lands on House bill 1024 (Forty-second 
Congress), for the relief of Thomas B. Valentine.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session sixty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 452; Record, p. 
5572.
Sec. 586
  Therefore the committee thought it was entirely proper to present 
this resolution at this time.

  After discussing the precedent created, the resolution was agreed 
to--yeas 151, noes 45.
  586. A Member, being summoned before a Federal grand jury, presented 
the matter to the House as a question of personal privilege, expressing 
readiness to respond in event formal permission was granted by the 
House.
  On May 3, 1926,\1\ Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, rose to a 
question of personal privilege and said:

  Mr. Speaker, on March 24 of this year, during the present session of 
Congress, I made certain statements on the floor of this House in 
reference to the enforcement of law in the State of Ohio and in the 
State of Indiana. Since then there have been some informal statements 
made to the press, and on my return to my office this morning I found 
what purports to be a subpoena duces tecum addressed to me calling on 
me to respond on the 5th of May, 1926, before the United States court 
in the city of Indianapolis, in violation of my privileges as a Member 
of this House and in violation of the protection of the House 
guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.

  This is what I found on my desk to-day, and I ask the Clerk to read 
it.
  There being no objection, the Clerk read:

    subpoena ticket--duces tecum, district of columbia
To Fiorella H. Laguardia,
  Room 150, House Office Building.
  By virtue of a subpoena issued out of the United States court you are 
required to be and appear before the said court at Indianapolis at 9 
o'clock a.m. on the 5th day of May, 1926, then and there to testify on 
behalf of the United States in the case of United States grand jury and 
not to depart without leave.
  If you fail to obey such subpoena, you may be fined and imprisoned, 
as the court may direct.
                              E. C. Snyder, United States Marshal.

  Mr. LaGuardia continued:

  I can not obey that subpoena without the permission of this House. I 
will say that there is not a person in the Department of Justice here 
in Washington from the Attorney General down who will say I have 
information which is not in the possession of the authorities in 
Indianapolis, and from which they can obtain primary evidence, or that 
my presence in Indianapolis is required. If any Member of the House 
introduces a resolution granting me permission to go, I will not resist 
it.

  No resolution was offered and no further record appears.
  587. No officer or employee of the House may produce before a court, 
either voluntarily or in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum, any paper 
from the files without permission of the House first obtained.
  The Clerk of the House having been subpoened to produce before the 
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia certain papers from the 
files, reported to the House, and failing to receive permission 
disregarded the order of the court.
  A resolution authorizing the Clerk of the House to produce papers 
requested in a subpoena duces tecum is presented as a matter of 
privilege,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 8606.
                                                             Sec. 587
but such privilege is destroyed by incorporation in the resolution of 
extraneous and unprivileged matter.
  A motion may be withdrawn pending action thereon.
  On February 17, 1927,\1\ the Speaker laid before the House the 
following communication:
                                 House of Representatives,        
                                                Clerk's Office    
                               Washington, D.C., February 16,1927.
Hon. Nicholas Longworth.
          House of Representatives.
  My Dear Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform you that I have received from 
the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia subpoenas duces tecuin 
directed to me as Clerk of the House of Representatives commanding me 
to appear before Circuit Court, Division No. 1, on the 15th and 16th 
days of February, 1927, at 10 o'clock a.m., as a witness in the case of 
Charles B. Brewer v. A. S. Abell Co. (No. 70158 at Law), and to bring 
with me certain and sundry papers, documents, books, and testimony, 
therein described, in the files of the House of Representatives.
  The papers, documents, books, and testimony in question were adduced 
in evidence before the select committee appointed under House 
Resolution 231, Sixty-eighth Congress, to investigate the preparation, 
distribution, sale, payment, retirement, surrender, cancellation, and 
destruction of Government bonds and other securities, and are now in 
possession of the House of Representatives in the custody of the Clerk.
  Your attention and that of the House is respectfully invited to a 
resolution of the House adopted in the Forty-sixth Congress, first 
session (Congressional Record, p. 680), upon the recommendation of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, as follows:
  ``Resolved, That no officer or employee of the House of 
Representatives has the right, either voluntarily or in obedience to a 
subpoena duces tecum, to produce any document, paper, or book belonging 
to the files of the House before any court or officer, nor to furnish 
any copy of any testimony given or paper filed in any investigation 
before the House or any of its committees, or of any other paper 
belonging to the files of the House except such as may be authorized by 
statute to be copied, and such as the House itself may have made 
public, to be taken without the consent of the House first obtained.''
  And a resolution adopted by the House in the Forty-ninth Congress, 
first session (Congressional Record, p. 1295), from which the following 
is quoted:
  ``Resolved, That by the privilege of this House no evidence of a 
documentary character under the control and in possession of the House 
of Representatives can, by the mandate or process of the ordinary 
courts of justice, be taken from such control or possession but by its 
permission.
  ``That when it appears by the order of a court or of the judge 
thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the administration of the 
orders of such court or judge, that documentary evidence in the 
possession and under the control of the House is needful for use in any 
court of justice or before any judge or such legal officer for the 
promotion of justice, this House will take such order thereon as will 
promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges and rights 
of this House.''
  These resolutions resulted from the issuance of subpoenas duces 
tecum. upon the Clerk of the House to produce certain original papers 
in the files of the House.
  Permission to remove from their place of file or custody any 
documents or papers was denied by the House, but the court was afforded 
facilities for making certified copies. This seems to have been the 
uniform practice in respect to subpoenas duces tecuin issued by a court 
upon the Clerk of the House to produce in court original papers from 
the files of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 4031.
Sec. 587
  The subpoenas in question are herewith attached and the matter is 
presented for such action as the House in its wisdom may see fit to 
take.
    Very respectfully,
                                               Wm. Tyler Page,    
                            Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Thereupon, Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, offered as privileged 
the following resolution:

  Whereas in the case of Charles B. Brewer v. A. S. Abell Co. (No. 
70158 at Law) pending in circuit court, division No. 1, Supreme Court 
of the District of Columbia subpcenas duces tecum. were issued by the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and 
addressed to William Tyler Page, Clerk of the House of Representatives, 
directing him to appear as a witness before circuit court, division No. 
1, on the 15th and 16th days of February, 1927, and to bring with him 
certain and sundry original papers, documents, books, and testimony in 
the possession and under the control of the House of Representatives: 
Therefore,
  Resolved, That by the privilege of this House no evidence of a 
documentary character under the control and in the possession of the 
House of Representatives can, by the mandate or process of the ordinary 
courts of justice, be taken from such control or possession but by its 
permission.
  Resolved, That when it appears by the order of the court or of the 
judge thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the administration 
of the orders of such court or judge, that documentary evidence in the 
possession and under the control of the House is needful for use in any 
court of justice or before any judge or such legal officer, for the 
promotion of justice, this House will take such order thereon as will 
promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges and rights 
of this House.
  Resolved, That William Tyler Page, Clerk of the House, be authorized 
to appear at the place and before the officer named in the subpoenas 
duces tecum before mentioned, but shall not take with him any paper or 
document on file in his office or under his control or in his 
possession as Clerk of the House.
  Resolved, That the said court, through any of its officers or agents, 
have full permission to attend with all proper parties to the 
proceeding, and then always at any place under the orders and control 
of this House, and take copies of any documents or papers in possession 
or control of said Clerk, and any evidence of witnesses in respect 
thereto which the court or other proper officer thereof shall desire, 
so as, however, the possession of said documents and papers by the said 
Clerk shall not be disturbed, or the same shall not be removed from 
their place of file or custody under said Clerk.
  Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the said 
court as a respectful answer to the subpoenas aforementioned.
  Resolved, That when the court before mentioned shall have disposed of 
the aforesaid case of Charles B. Brewer against A. S. Abell Co., the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives is hereby directed to return to 
the Treasury Department, taking receipt therefor, the original records, 
documents, books, and papers, inventoried, which were adduced as 
evidence before the select committee appointed under House Resolution 
No. 231, Sixty-eighth Congress, and by that committee turned over to 
the files of the House to accompany its report.

  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, submitted that the last paragraph 
was subject to a point of order for the reason that it was not 
privileged for consideration at the time.
  The Speaker \1\ acquiesced and stated that if the point of order was 
pressed it would be sustained and would carry y with it the entire 
resolution.
  Mr. Blanton suggested that the resolution be reoffered without the 
concluding paragraph and insisted on the point of order. Whereupon, Mr. 
Tilson withdrew the resolution and no further action appears of record 
until the Seventy-first
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
                                                             Sec. 588
Congress,\1\ when the last paragraph was offered as an independent 
resolution and agreed to by the House.
  588. The constitutional privilege of Members in the matter of arrest 
has been construed to exempt from subpoena, during sessions of 
Congress.
  A Senator being subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury of the 
District of Columbia, announced in the Senate that he would disregard 
it.
  A Senator declining to heed a summons to appear and testify before a 
Federal grand jury, the court held that if he failed to obey the 
subpoena voluntarily the court was without power to compel his 
attendance.
  On December 5, 1929 \2\ Mr. Coleman L. Blease, of South Carolina, 
exhibited in the Senate and caused to be printed in the Record a 
subpoena issued by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia 
directing him to attend and testify before a session of the grand jury.
  Mr. Blease announced that he would disregard the summons, and on the 
same day the grand jury of the District of Columbia reported:

To the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the 
District of
    Columbia:
  The grand jury of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for 
the October term, A. D. 1929, begs to report to the Court as follows:
  ``Upon information coming to the attention of the grand jury of the 
District of Columbia that Ron. Coleman L. Blease, United States Senator 
from the State of South Carolina, had certain knowledge with regard to 
the facts and circumstances relating to the death of Detective Sergeant 
Arthur B. Scrivener on October 13, 1926, the grand jury directed the 
issuance of a subpoena on December 4, 1929, commanding the Said Ron. 
Coleman L. Blease to appear before the grand jury at 10 a. In. on 
December 5, 1929.
  ``That said subpoena was issued in due course and served personally 
upon the said Ron. Coleman L. Blease in the city of Washington on 
December 4, 1929, by Deputy Marshal J. J. Clarkson.
  ``That the said Ron. Coleman L. Blease did not appear before the 
grand jury of the District of Columbia on December 5, 1929, at 10 a. 
In. as commanded by such subpoena and has not up to the time of the 
filing of this report so appeared.''
  Wherefore, the grand jury of the District of Columbia for the October 
term, A. D. 1929, reports the facts aforesaid to the honorable court 
for such action as the court may deem lawful and proper in the 
premises.
  For the grand jury:
                    (Signed)        James N. Fitzpatrick, Jr.,    
                                        Foreman of the Grand Jury.

  On receipt of the report Justice Peyton Gordon, of the court, 
addressed the grand jury and said:

  The Congress of the United States is now in session, and until 
yesterday I never heard of a precedent to this procedure in an instance 
of this kind.
  Section 6, Article I, of the Constitution of the United States, gives 
immunity to arrest to the Members of Congress while that body is in 
session. It does not say that they are privileged from subpoena, but if 
they do not obey, the only step the court could take would be to issue 
an attachment for their arrest. Since the Constitution provides 
immunity from arrest, in my opinion they are not subject to such 
action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 11639.
  \2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 109.
Sec. 588
  Justice Gordon then reviews a Pennsylvania case decided in 1800, 
holding that the court knew of no exception to the immunity of Members 
of Congress from the service of subpoenas, and concluded:

  Unless the gentlemen see fit to obey the subpoenas, this court at the 
present time has no power to compel them to do so.