{"character_count": 2847, "word_count": 496, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9696999788284302], "ccnet_perplexity": [2035.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The following remarks or the IIous- ton case, from the New York Courier and Enquirer, we conceive contain a just view of the question, provided it were true that "Gen. Houston made no attack upon Mir. Stanberry for words spoken in debate"-iet 1t be recollect- ed, however, that Mir. Stanberry stated Oh oath that the assault 7uaS 'edDozcedly for zrords spoken in ndebate." We very much di shke an effort by individuals, under any circumstances, to redress their own grievanccs,i a country where no ono ought 10 be ashamed 10 be gui- ded and protected by the laws; and certainly think that violence towards Representative of the people is more taggravated offence than towards a pri- vate individual; inasmuch as 1t tends to restrain them in the discharge of their duty, and opens the door for those justly accused on the floor of Congress to revenge themselves upon their accu- sers. We mean these remarks as gen. erai, and do not apply them to the case which called them forth.--National Banner.

 0E-7-"The Houston Case" as it is call ed, has deservedly excited much atten- tion; and now that the affair has lost some ofits novelty and much of the par ty character which Stanberry and

 few opposition prints, attempted to give if, 1t may be well to look dispassionately into its merits.

 There is no privilege which the press should be more jealous in preserving,

 than the freedom of debate secured to

 every member of Congress by the Con- stitution of the United States. On the preservation of this privilege, depends

 the pcrmanency of our institutions, and

 we feel proud at all times in lending our feeble aid in it's support. But we

 have another and an equally important

 duty to perform, in the protection which our Constitution secures 10 the PEOPLE.

 The Constitution, as we'll as the Repre- sentatives, has rights, and the 9sghfs of the former should at all times be strict Y guarded by the press for the good cause that they have delegated their posrer to the latter. In the case in question, NIT. Stanberry charged in his place in the House of Representatives. that Gen. Houston had contemplated a fraud upon the Government. If he deemed it hisduty to make such charge. there can be no doubt he had a right te do SO; and had Gen. Houston immadi- ateiy thereafter, inflicted personal chas- ltlsement, it is equally certain that it would have been the duty, as it vas the right of the House of Representa- tiyes, to have punished him for breach Iof It's privileges. But this is not the state of the case. Gen. Houston made no attack upon Mir. Stanberry afor words spoken in debate,n-but when Mir. Stanberry prepared his speech,for publication, and sent it forth to the world, he punished him for 90 doing and in this he was perfectly justi6abie.l and subject only to an action for dana. ges sin Court of Law, or to indictment