The Abbeville banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1847-1869, 1856-06-26

pay list of New England, you may take the
fighting days-if you have mind TO com.
pute it as you would labor-you may take
the fighting days during which tho troops
Of South Carolina were engaged, and in
the computation tho balance will Le found
greatly against Massachusetts,. II you have
mind to draw some other test-if YOU
wish tc test tho question of sacrifice and
measure it by blood, South Carolina has
poured out hogsl,eads of blood where gal
Ions have been poured out 10y MassacLu.
setts."
The Senator has the following in refer
cnce to the resolutions of the Massachu-
sets Legislature, condemning BRooKs
punishment of Mr.. SUMNER, and branding
it as gross breach of parliamentary priv-
lcgc, an Infringement Of tho liberty Of
speech, &c:
"These resolutions give rise to more Sc.
rious reflection than anything which has
occurred to me in my time. | have been
in the Senate for ten years, and this is III,
first occasion tina, have ever seen one Of
tho sovereign States of the Union taking
cognizance Of matters which occurred in
| NOhS 'CooS VIII view " luuuenC0 the lutlp-
ment Of Congress in relation to one of their
members. This is the first occasion of Tho
kind in the history Of the country. 1t has
been done from an &c parte view of the
subject; for it is now very apparent that
the resolutions of Massachusetts were intro
duced and passed without regard to the
evidence. These resolutions anticipated
and asserted what may not he true-what
the public may not think true--what the
House OF Representatives may not think
true; and yet the sovereign State of Mas
sachusetts, before there was any evidence,
indicted my relative upon rumor-a meas
ure which would have taken Stafford TO the
gallows. What! sir; indict a man in the
language of these resolutions upon the ru-
NOR of newspapers? These rcso!utions-I
say it moro in sorrow than in anger be-
tray temper and prccipitancy Of judy-
lncnt that do not look like having a rrgar!
to that dignity which is associated with
justice. shall speak respectfully. So far
as have spoken Of Massachusetts hitherto,
no exception can be taken; but, when
speak Of Massachusetts now, it must he of
Massachusetts as she has sent forth these
resolutons-undcr the influence of feel
ing which pervades HEREUNDER the inllu-
ence Of Il sentiment which denied Daniel
Webster tho right to speak in Fancuil Hail.
and threw of the coffin Of Lincoln because
he had fallen in performing his professional
duties in the cause Of his country. Boston
now is not the Boston that she was When
Hancock wrote, and Adams spoke, AMI
Otis thought, and Warren fell. They
would not recognize her. She is no more
the same. Yet, from tha, very hoibcd Of
bitter feeling to the South, and especially
10 South Caroiin;., have to look for the
feelings which dictated these resolutions.
have to meet an indictment - for
whata 1t is said tina, the liberty of speech
has been violated. Upon that point in
tend TO deliver some remarks which. whe.h-
er they he correct or not, shall throw out.
Our ancestors were people Of hardy NOR
aity. Generally, when they spoke, they
spoke directly from the heart Such i,
thing rs printing speeches beforehand, or
having them printed without being altered
IN the Senate, was unhcard Of in their day.
They were men who stood on their legs.
and spoke out. They had hearts and
mouths. They did not resort TO the appli-
ances of paper and printing before they
brought their speeches here. IF The Sena
tor from Massachusetts were present, and
would answer me, would put the question
to him, WAS not that speech OF yours
printed and published before you spoke it
in the Senate Of the United StatesT-
What is the meaning of that provision of
the Constition. which says that Il Senator,
or member of the House, for any speech
or debate in either House, shall not be
questioned in any other place9 Does ii
mean 10 give tho Congress of the United
States the power Of deciding what is privi,
lege without the courts questioning it! II
so, it goes far beyond the settled doctrine
in Great Britain at this day.. which was
maintained by Chief Justice Denman, in
the case Of Stocktlale Us. Hansard and
that case has much TO do with the matter
now under consideration. Uansard had
undertaken, under the authority of Parlil.
mcnt, to publish book wlicl, contained a
libel. Without such license or pri, iIegc all
agreed that he was responsible. The Eng
lisIl House of Commons said that having
granted him the license, it was their prv
lege. Chief Justice Denman took cngn
zance of the case, OH the broad ground that
the courts could determine what was priyi-
lege under the Constitution Of England.-
lie said: as n common law Judge will
show the Parliament whether am not
capable of deciding on my responsibility
rs one Of the great departments Of this
Government. Can it be maintained and
it is one of the most eloquent decisions |
ever read that the House Of Commons,
| by claiming q privilege, shall thereby an
propriate it to themselves, aud screen Il
william from the consequence OF his libel T.
The judge said that although by the law
of Parliament newspapers were passed
through the country under the frank of
members without paying pastagc. that
privilege did not give them the right to
make use of newspaper as libel. He
uses the strong expression: God forbid
that Parliament should afford such pre-
text for doing wrong ! say tho same