The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-08-14
THE NATIONAL ERA wAsHINGToNlD C, AUGUST ID 1856

ual shield to the Representative forever, in re-
spect to words spoken in the course of official
duty. And it matters not, sir, whether his rep
resentative character has been Invested or not,
he is forever free from question in a court Of
justice.
But do gentlemen seriously contend that i'm
munities from civil liability are the only ones
contemplated by this provision of the Constitu-
ton? Is it true that, while you may not sub
iect mans pocket to depletion for words spo-
ken in debate, or speech delivered, you still may
beat him, that you may shoot or destroy him,
and that this is no questioning; that mem
Der may do this to fellow-member, and that
both remaining within the House, subject to its
laws, its jurisdiction, and yet that the offender
cannot be reached by any action here? That
such "behaviours is not disorderly-that such
conduct is not cause for expulsion, or any other
proper action of the body to which the offender
belongs? Mr.. Speaker, put this matter seri-
ously to the House-to this body, which, as the
direct representative of the people, ought to, if
it does not, possess high sense of the majesty
of the power which creates and sustains it. Are
the constitutional rights of life and personal Be-
curity of less consequence than the right of prop
erty? Are we to shield the members pocket,
and yet leave his life, his personal security, to
the reckless and lawless consequences of pas
sion, uncontrolled by law or reason? No, sir
nature and reason revolt at such a conclusion.
Yet, sir, such seems to me to be the inevitable
consequences of the positions assumed here by
gentlemen.
But, sir, for the benefit of the gentlemen of
the Opposition, wish to cite an authority in
reference to this point. need not say, Mr.
Speaker, that precedent is invariably opposed
to these assumptions. That free speech
must be accompanied with "free use of the
bludgeon," is a doctrine of latter-day invention
and application. But, sir, to my precedent -
/ allude, sir, to the difficulty between Mr.. Ran.
dolph of Virginia, and Mr.. Clay of Kentucky,
in 1926. For words, sir, much more personal,
more bitter in character, than those alleged as
a justification for this assault, Mr.. Clay chal-
lenged Mr.. Randolph. In the Thirty Years
View, by Colonel Benton, we are assured that
Mr.. Randolph adopted the resolution, in the
duel to be fought, not to fire at Mr.. Clay, for two
reasons. First, an unwilingness to injure Mr..
Clay; and secondly, because to do so would,
in the language of the author, be an implied
acknowledgment of Mr.. Clay's right to make
him answer. This he would not do, either by
implication or in words. He denied the right
of any person out of the Senate to question him
for words spoken within it. He took q distinc.
ton between man and Senator. As Sena-
tor, he had constitutional immunity given him
for a wise purpose, and which he would neither
surrender nor compromise. As an individual,
he was willing to give satisfaction for what was
deemed an injury.
And, again, upon page II of the same work,
we find the following:
{" Mr.. Randolph accepts the challenge of Mr..
6 Clay; at the same time, he protests against
the right of any minister of the Executive Gov
eminent of the United States to hold him re-
sponsible for aoords spoken an debate, as Sen
ator from Virginia."
This, sir, was the sense which one of the
great men of his age held in reference to this
question of privilege-this constitutional SAFE
guard of free discussion and shall show, Mr..
Speaker, before conclude, that precedents and
reason are upon the side of the majority of the
committee, and that their proposed action is
warranted by the laws and usages of our coun-
try. This much, Mr.. Speaker, for the argument
of this case. AS have no disposition to con.
sumo time, let me briefly present my under
standing of the facts in this case, and the grounds
upon which my opinion rests.
l have heretofore expressed my opinion of
the morale of this transaction. / have only to
say, in addition, that, in my judgment, the whole
matter affords the most melancholy evidence of
the political degeneracy of the times, of the Bit
terness and unworthiness of party strife, and the
evils flowing from perverted partisan legislation,
ever afforded by the history of our country.
IF you look in the Senate of the United States,
what do you see? The speech of Mr.. SUMNER
was characterized by extreme severity-gentle.
men here say it was incendiary, insulting, and
libellous in its character. am not here to draw
nice distinctions. With the peculiar views of
CHARLES SUMNER, have no sympathy; but, sir,
he is an American citizen; he has all the rights
belonging to that high Characterize right to
his opinions, and their free expression. l have
stood in the forum of Senatorial debate, and
have heard him denounced as a "moral traitor"
in common with others-not because there was
justice in such denunciations, but because it
was popular to ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS it. was the
sentiment of the locality which dictated denun-
citation rather than argument. Sir, have no
word to say in vindication of that speech. Such
as it was, it had passed unquestioned in that
body. No call to order had interrupted it; no
Senator arose in his place to urge that it violated
the privileges or the decorum of debate--not
one, And think, Sir, when gentlemen arrsign
that speech here, they are, granting their strict
ares to be true, very clearly demonstrating that
the standard of parliamentary courtesy and pro-
priety is a very low one in the Senate of the
United States.
If this speech was one for which its author
should have been held responsible in personal
encounter, it is one which should have been
checked in its delivery. Ii it was production
fit to subject It's author to the disgrace of per.
sonal chastisement, then it was disgraceful for
deiberative body to sit and listen to it. But,
sir, it was listened to by body jealous of its
privileges, courtesies, and rights-listened to,
sir, without interruption and l am bound, as
such is the fact, to take it as parliamentary.
Sir, shall regret it exceedingly, if this dis
cussion assumes personally offensive character.
My object in rising was not to inflame passion,
but to invite cool and deliberate Judgment.
We are not advocates to plead for the cendem.
nation of any man. Our committee has made
its presentment of facts, arguments, and con-
illusions, and We are judges-judges of the law
and the facts. Well, sir, let US examine these
dispassionately,
Sir, it is not controverted that
"The Hon. PRESTON S. Books, q member
of the House of Representatives from the State
present month, after the adjournment of the
Senate. and while Mr.. SUMNER was seated at
bis desk in the Senate Chamber, assault him
with considerable violence, striking him nu.
merous blows on or about the head, with walk.
ing stick, which cut his head, and disabled him
for the time being from attending to his duties
in the Senate"
This is the exact finding of the Senate, as to
the ASSAULT and the justification of the party
charged with the ofenee is also stated by the
Senate committee in his own words. 1t was be.
cause Mr.. SUMNER used language in debate, on
the Monday and Tuesday preceding, which Mr..
Books considered libellous ofthe State of South
Carolina, and slanderous of his near kinsman,
Mr.. BUTLER, Senator from that State, who,
at the time, was absent from the Senate and the
city. The committee of the Senate, sir, return
their finding as to what offence was committed.