
    United States v. Cooper.
    
      Privilege.
    
    A member of congress is not excempt from the service nor obligations of a subpoena, in a oriminal case.
    The defendant, being indicted for a libel on the President, applied to the court, for a letter to be addressed by them, to several members of congress (congress being in session) requesting their attendance as witnesses on his behalf. In support of the application, a variety of similar cases, arising under the government of Pennsylvania, were referred to.
    
      
       See Cooper’s case, in Wharton’s State Trials 659.
    
   Chase, Justice.

— The constitution gives to every man charged with an offence, the benefit of compulsory process, to secure the attendance of his witnesses. I do not know of any privilege to exempt members of congress from the service or the obligations of a subpoena, in such cases. I will not sign any letter of the kind proposed. If, upon service of a subpoena, the members of congress do not attend, a different question may arise ; and it will then be time enough to decide, whether an attachment ought, or ought not, to issue. It is not a necessary consequence of non-attendance, after the service of a subpoena, that an attachment shall issue. A satisfactory reason may appear to the court, to justify or excuse it.

Peters, Justice.

— I know the-practice in Pennsylvania to be as it has been stated ; for I have received such letters from the supreme court, while I was speaker of the house of representatives, requesting that members might be permitted to attend as witnesses. In the present case, I should have no objection to acquiesce in the defendant’s application, with the concurrence of the presiding judge.

Motion refused.  