Washington sentinel., 1856-06-05
MADNESS RULES THE HOUR.


yelpng and snarling, succeeded in arousing to
great sensibility, the public mind.
The chastsement inflicted by Mr.. Brooks
upon Mr.. Sumner has given rise to some oi
those pitable scenes to which, alas! human ma
,ure, even in its best phase, is SO prone
Let US present the facts:
On the floor Of the Senate of the United
States, in full session. with gallery and the
lobbies filled to repetion, with ladies and
distinguished PERSONS who had come to listen
to carefully prepared oration, from Senator,
having the reputation Of memory better
stored with classical illustrations and pointed
epigrams, than any one of that body. The
Grafton, for Mr.. Summers speeches may most
ftly be termed orations,) had been long and
carefully prepared, revised, and re-reyised; it
was well considered in all its parts, its force
and tendency well understood 1t was prepar-
ed with knowledge that there would be a
large and expectant audiences it was deliber-
ately prepared and intended for extreme circu-
ation. 1t was prepared for delivery in that
Senate, where freedom Of debate is guaranteed,
and where, pd'i passu, the motiUes of Senator's
are shtetded from 'naputdtion and reproach.
The speech of Mr.. Sumner violated, and was
by him deliberately intended, to violate" that
" freedom of debate" guaranteed BY the Con-
stitution, and defined by parliamentary law.
Mr.. Sumner, regardless of these safe and we'll
defined limits, wantoniy and defautly stepped
outside, to indulge in strain of personal ri
badry towards venerable whi,e-haired Sena-,
tors, of such malignant character, that if
similar language had been used by him to any
one OF the many thousands who have Joined
in denunciation of Mr.. Brooks, he would beyond
all question have received from any of them,
just such retrbution as he did receive from Mr..
Brooks.
And yet we see most extraordinary com
motion throughout large portion of the
North, as though some vital principle were at
stake-as if an attack had been made upon the
freedom of debate" which would, in any de-
gree circumscribe the largest liberty of discus.
sion essential to the maintenance of the inter
ests, or the vindication of the rights of every
section and of every interest. We perceive en-
gulphed in the vortex of this excitement such
quiet and respectable persons as Daniel Lord
and such moderate and discreet men as the
Drooks. They join in wholesale, unqualified,
denunciations, involuntarily serving as instru.
ments to the wilfully designing, to enkindle
the hottest fires of sectonalsm.
WL,t al Ia ar II.
What should have been the discourse of Mr..
Lord and other we'll meaning men Of mind and
influence?
Should they not have defined, to the inham-
ed and inhammable assemblages, addressed by
them, what was that freedom of debate
alike guaranteed by the Constitution as essen.
tial to the maintenance of the rights and
interests of the States and people? Should
they not have said to the people, that whatever
measure of condemnation they may think the
assault merited, yet it was not induced by any
thing said by Mr.. Sumner within the EXTREMIST
limits allowed to freedom Of debate nor
even within the shadow of the walls which
secures liberty of speech-but that Mr.. Sumner
having defantly placed himself beyond the
limits Of this freedom of speech, rhich, uhile
II protects the Senator ,oho speaks, from attack,
equally protects from his sldnderous aspersions
the Senator's pho listen 10 him. That this at
tack Of Mr.. Sumner, though differing in kind.
from that Of Mr.. Brooks, was a not less clear
nor less dangerous uiolatiOa Of Tie freedom of
debate. Mr.. Lord might further have stated,
with perfect truth, that Mr.. Sumner might
have spoken until doomsday, might have said
everything that eloquence and wisdom could
utter in vindication Of the North, or OF his own
views, and in refutation of those contested bv
him, without the slightest cause for apprehen.
sion. That whatever opinion might be enter.
tanned Of the assault, however much, and for
what reason condemned, that yet it was very
clear that the assault was not caused by any
exercise Of that freedom of debate which
is essential to our rights, our honor, our inter
ests, or our liberty-but that it was for a
speech OF character, which If addressed by
one citizen to another would be almost certain
to cause breach Of the peace, and if the par.
"
and the speech we're put in evidence as to the
provocation, the verdict would be one cent
damages.
But Mr.. Lord and Mr.. Brooks might have
availed themselves Of the opportunity, after
thus explaining matters, to bring to focus
public opinion upon the pivot of the whole
matter, upon the, primum mobile, Of all such
occurrenees-to wit: 10 pat stop 10 the
wicked prorocation 70 illegal redress.
Let our State and National Legislative as
sembles hedge out unbridled calumny and
slander, as well as hedge round with safety the
"freedom Of debate"
Thousands of persons with hearts inaamed
and mind confused under the erroneous idea Of
protecting freedom Of debate are Fastening |
to sanction its most outrageous violation by
opening the doors to admit the bitter waters Of
calumny and slander.
Many papers have taken occasion 10 censnra