[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 11. Questions of Privilege]
[E. Basis of Questions of Personal Privilege]
[§ 33. Criticism of Members Collectively]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 1694-1696]
CHAPTER 11
Questions of Privilege
E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Sec. 33. Criticism of Members Collectively
Criticism of Unnamed Members
Sec. 33.1 A statement in a radio address by a cabinet officer that
persons advocating a certain measure were deliberately misleading
the public was held not to give grounds for a question of personal
privilege to a Member who had advocated the measure, but who had
not been named in the address.
On Apr. 17, 1935,(9) Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of
Massachusetts, as an advocate of the repeal of a certain textile
processing tax, presented as involving a question of personal privilege
the statement made during a radio address by a cabinet officer that
persons advocating the repeal of the tax were deliberately misleading
the public. A point of order was made by Mr. Hampton P. Fulmer, of
South Carolina, that she had not stated a question of personal
privilege. In his ruling sustaining the point of order, the Speaker
(10) stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 79 Cong. Rec. 5854, 5855, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 5855, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1695]]
The Chair will state that the rule provides that a Member may
rise to a question of personal privilege where the rights,
reputation, and conduct of Members in their individual capacity
only are assailed.
The name of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts was not
mentioned, in the first place, and the Chair fails to see where
there is a question of personal privilege involved in the statement
referred to by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, and therefore
must, of course, rule that she has not raised a question of
personal privilege.
Sec. 33.2 A newspaper article charging Members of the House with
demagoguery and willingness to punish the District of Columbia was
held a criticism of the House and not to constitute a question of
personal privilege.
On May 21, 1941,(12) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman; of Michigan,
rose to a question of personal privilege and read from a newspaper
article which charged the Members of the House with demagoguery and
with a willingness to punish the District of Columbia to win votes at
home. After the submission of the article for the Chair's inspection,
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 4307, 4308, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (13) Where does the article refer to
the gentleman from Michigan personally?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: It does not so refer, but it refers to all those
Members of the House who voted in opposition to that bill. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will read that part of the rule which
affects Members, so far as personal privilege is concerned:
Second, the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members
individually in their representative capacity only.
There is nothing in this matter that refers to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] either individually or in his official
capacity. The Chair would hesitate to hold a question of personal
privilege of Members of the House lies in a general criticism of
the action of the House. Therefore, the Chair is inclined to hold
that the gentleman has not stated a question of personal privilege.
Sec. 33.3 A newspaper article incorporating the statement that anyone
who charged the CIO with communistic control was ``a knave, a liar,
and a poltroon,'' was held not to give rise to a question of
personal privilege.
On Mar. 27, 1939,(14) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
rising to a question of personal privilege, called the attention of the
House to a newspaper article quoting labor union leader John L. Lewis
as saying that anyone who charged the CIO with com
[[Page 1696]]
munistic control was ``a knave, a liar, and a poltroon,'' it being
acknowledged that the Member had made such charges in debate on June 1,
1937. After the Member's presentation of the question, the Speaker
(15) made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 3362, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is ready to rule on this question of personal
privilege presented by the gentleman from Michigan.
The question now raised is the following language that was
purported to have been quoted in the March 23, 1939, issue of the
New York Times as coming from John L. Lewis, chairman of the
Congress of Industrial Organizations:
Maintaining that the C.I.O. was an American institution,
Mr. Lewis denied that it was controlled by Communists, saying
that anyone who charged such communistic control was a knave, a
liar, and a poltroon.
The gentleman from Michigan takes the position that because of
something that he may have said heretofore on the floor of the
House, brings him within the purview of the definition given by Mr.
Lewis. But in the language quoted there is certainly no reference
to any particular individual. The gentleman is not named, and for
aught appearing in this statement that has been made, the gentleman
who is quoted may have been referring entirely to some other
individual or some other group of individuals rather than the
gentleman from Michigan.
The Chair is clearly of the opinion that it would be stretching
the rule too far to construe the general statement here made as
giving the gentleman from Michigan a question of privilege.