CHAPTER SECOND. OF THE RELATION OF THE DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF THE LEGIS- 731. According to the constitution of parliament, as above delineated, and of those of other similarly constituted legislative bodies, two principles evidently lie at the foundation of all its proceedings, namely, that the concurrence of each of the branches of which it is composed is necessary to the doing of every legislative act; and that, in coming to such agreement or concurrence each of the several branches is entitled to proceed with entire freedom, and in perfect independence of both the others. From these two principles, it follows, first, that each of the three branches should do every thing in its power to promote, and should refrain from every thing that might prevent a good correspondence and harmony between the several branches; second, that each should do all in its power to facilitate the proceeding of the others, in a parliamentary way; and, third, that each should abstain from all such interference with the proceedings of the others, as may tend to injure their freedom and independence, by exerting any undue influence upon them in respect to any pending measure. These principles are equally applicable to the legislative assemblies of this country. The topics thus suggested will form the subject of the three following sections. SECTION I. OF THE GOOD CORRESPONDENCE AND HARMONY WHICH 732. In order to the efficient action of parliament, as a collective body, to which the concurrence of all its members is necessary, nothing is or can be more essential than the existence of harmony and a good correspondence among the several branches. In order to insure these desirable objects, it is necessary that each branch should on all occasions pursue the accustomed methods of proceeding, and observe the usual ceremonies in whatever communications take place between the several branches; that they should respectively abstain from every proceeding inconsistent with the legisla tive prerogatives of the crown, or the privileges of either house; that the members of the two houses should respectively abstain from all offensive and unparliamentary remarks, either in debate or in any other parliamentary proceeding, of or towards the other or its members, or towards the executive; and that the two houses should extend to each other and their members respectively all the accustomed courtesies and civilities, which are due from one equal to another. 733. If either of the two branches has any ground to complain ̧ of the proceedings of the other, for any of the causes above mentioned, the course of proceeding is to make a representation of the matter of the complaint by means of a conference, and to leave to the other house to do what it thinks proper in the premises; as neither house has any power over the other or its members, except that which results from the justice of its demands, and the proper temper and spirit with which they are made. It may be added, as essential to a good correspondence between the several branches, that, when a member, officer, or servant of either, has been guilty of any offence either against the other house, or against its members, which would be punishable by the latter if committed by one of its own members, officers, or servants, it is the duty of the house. to which such offender belongs, upon being apprised of the fact, to take proper measures to inquire into and punish the offence in a proper manner. SECTION II. OF THE DUTY OF EACH BRANCH TO FACILITATE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHERS. 734. In the course of the proceedings in one house, it frequently becomes necessary to have the attendance of the members or officers of the other as witnesses, or to obtain a knowledge of its proceedings, or to have the evidence of some one in its custody. In all such cases, the former, as it cannot command, or exercise any power, makes its request to the latter; and, accordingly, whenever any such request is made in a parliamentary manner, it is the duty of the house so applied to, to grant the request. 735. The attendance of the members or officers or persons in the custody of one house, in the other, as witnesses, will be treated of in connection with that of witnesses generally. In regard to the communication of documentary evidence, upon which bills or other measures, agreed to in one house and sent to the other for concur rence, is founded, it is not the custom 1 to transmit it with the bill, but if the house to which the bill is sent desire to have it, that house sends to the other house for it, which transmits it accordingly. This proceeding may take place either by message, or by conference; which latter is the more proper mode. In this country, it is believed to be the practice, generally, to transmit the evidence, in the first instance. 736. If either house of parliament desires to know what takes place in the other, with reference to any particular measure, the information can be obtained (a committee being appointed for the purpose) from the votes and proceedings, which are now printed and distributed from day to day in both houses.2 Formerly, if the house of commons had occasion and desired to know the proceedings of the house of lords, in which the votes were not printed at all, and the journals not until some time after the termination of the session, the course was to appoint a committee to search the lord's journals, with reference to the matter in question, and to report the proceedings to the house.3 The journals of the lords being a record to which every one may resort for information, the committee of the commons had a right to make such inspection, and it was of course the duty of the clerk or officer having the custody of the journals, or of the minutes from which the journals were to be made up, to afford the committee the needful facilities to accomplish their mission. In modern times, the proceedings of the two houses of the British parliament, as well as those of our legislative assemblies, are practically so far public, that what is done in one branch, with reference to any parliamentary matter, is commonly sufficiently known in the other without searching the journals of the former. SECTION III. OF THE INTERFERENCE OF ANY OF THE BRANCHES IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHERS. 737. As it is highly expedient, for the due preservation of the privileges of the separate branches of the legislature, that neither should encroach upon the other; it is equally important that neither should interfere in any matter depending in the other, so as to preclude, or even influence, that freedom of debate or of action, which is essential to a free council; and, therefore, neither the king, nor lords, nor commons, are to take notice of any bills, or other matters depending, or of votes that have been given, or of speeches that have been made, by the members of either of the other branches, until such proceedings have been communicated to them in the usual and parliamentary manner.1 738. For the same reason, it is irregular and disorderly for a member to make use of the name of the sovereign in debate, for the purpose of influencing the decision of the house. In this country, it is equally irregular and disorderly to allude to the executive department, for the same purpose, even in those States where the executive has no veto power. 739. So it is unparliamentary, in one house, to inform the other, to which a bill or other measure is sent for concurrence, by what majority it passed in that branch; though where a bill passes by an unanimous vote, in which case the fact appears in the indorsement by the clerk, it is not considered irregular thus to notify the house to which it is sent of the fact.2 So it is equally irregular in the house, from which a bill or other measure is sent for concurrence, to call on the house to which it is sent to be informed of the reasons, why that house has proceeded in the particular manner, in which it has proceeded, or why it has not proceeded at all. 740. But, it is no improper interference for one house to remind the other of bills which have been sent to it for concurrence; or for one house to request the other to remain sitting, in order that the first may have an opportunity to send a message to it; both which proceedings are of frequent occurrence. CHAPTER THIRD. OF THE EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION ON WHICH PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS ARE FOUNDED. 741. This chapter will treat, in the first place, of the nature and applicability of the evidence, upon which a parliamentary proceeding is grounded; and, secondly, of some particular kinds of evidence which are much in use in legislative assemblies. The latter consist 1 Hatsell, II. 356. 2 Parl. Reg. XV. 238. mainly of the evidence of common fame, and of the statements of members. SECTION I. OF THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDING MAY BE FOUNDED. 742. The proceedings of a legislative assembly frequently render it necessary to institute inquiries into matters-of-fact, and, of course, to receive and judge of the various kinds of evidence upon which human conduct is predicated, and which may be submitted to its consideration. In the every-day affairs of life, and in reference to matters in which their own interests are alone involved, men act upon every kind of evidence, which has any even the slightest tendency to induce belief. But in regard to affairs in which parties are adversely interested, and in which there are conflicting rights and claims to be adjusted, the law has wisely provided, that only such evidence shall be received, and under such circumstances as shall afford reasonable security both against designed falsification and unintentional mistake. Between the highest kind of this evidence, and the lowest of that before alluded to, there is of course. an infinite diversity of degrees of proof, ranging from the one extreme to the other; all of which are receivable and entitled to consideration in parliamentary proceedings, according to the nature of the subject-matter, to which the evidence is to be applied.1 SECTION II. HOW THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF EVIDENCE ARE APPLICABLE. 743. The rules of evidence by which courts of justice are governed, and by which their proceedings are regulated, in the investigation of the cases which come before them, make a part of the civil right of the citizens, as much as the rules regulating the acquisition, the enjoyment, or the transmission of property, or which govern any other matter of civil right; and, when a question of the same nature is pending in the legislature, involving private interests only, no good reason can be assigned why the rules of evidence should not be the same. It would seem reasonable therefore to regard it as a rule of parliamentary practice, that when the private interests of individuals are the subject of investigation, or, in other 1 See also Cong. Globe, XVIII. 653. |