The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-07-24

morals unknown to the more enlightened civil
ization of the free States, he sat in Judgment
upon the case, and determined the Senator
guilt. He pronounced the parliamentary law,
the rules of the Senate, the laws of the land,
and that higher tribunal of our country-public
| opinion-defective and impotent in the admin
istration of justice; and, assuming the right to
avenge his supposed wrongs, he entered that
| inner sanctuary of the people, and, while the
Senator was engaged at his table, struck him
| down with bludgeon, and in barbarous
manner continued to beat his PROSTATE and
| apparently lifeless form, until gentlemen came
from distant parts of the hall, and forcibly took
| him from his victim. Of these facts there is
neither denial nor doubt. The record of the
testimony and avowals of the accused have
| placed them beyond controversy, and it is no
purpose of mine to aggravate or extenuate
them.
The natural result has followed the commits
| sion of this offence. The State of Massachu-
sets has been thus far deprived of the services
| of her Senator. The people Of our nation have
lost the benefit of his labors. The cause of
Human Progress, of Civilization, of Christian
| ity, have lost the efforts of an able advocate.
We are not trying a case of assault and bat
| terry, as some gentlemen have represented. The
crime which we are investigating was commit
ted against the most vital principles of the Con-
stitution, against the Government ITSELF against
| the sovereignty of Massachusetts, against the
people of the United States, against Christianity
| and Civilization. For these great crimes, the
| accused is now arraigned before the Represent
stives of the people.
There are considerations which cannot be
separated from this case. The Senator from
Massachusetts, was not the mere representative
of State, or party, or section. He labored for
1 Il r.
kind. His efforts were not limited to the East
or the West, to the North or the South. In him
and in his labors, the STAKEHOLDER, the abolition
! ist, and the slave, were equally interested; and
the blow which struck him to the earth, throbbed
in the temples of twenty-five millions of people.
He had travelled extensively in Europe, had
made the acquaintance OF her leading states
men and philanthropists. In Great Britain and
on the continent, he was known as an able and
devoted friend Of humanity; and when they
learned that he had entered the Senate, they
were strengthened in their belief that this grand
experiment, which is now testing the ability of
man to govern himself, would succeed. But
when they read of this outrage, they felt the
wound which had been inflicted upon the cause
of TRUTH Justice, and free institutions. Sir, the
great and the good in other lands deeply SYM
pathize with the friends of Freedom in our own
country. Their confidence in the success of
that high and pure philanthropy, of which the
Senator from Massachusetts devoted ad
vocate, was impaired by this assault upon him.
Wherever Christianity has friends, good men
will lament, bitterly lament, this sad outrage.
Borne down by the weight of these conside-
rations, we turn TO the particular friends of the
accused; we call on them for some excuse
or justi6ation, or mitigating circumstance, at
tending this violent assault upon our free insti-
tutions. They reply, that this is ordinary
case of assault and battery, punishable only by
municipal laws. After the very clear distinc-
ton shown by my colleague Mr.. BINGHAM
betw cen the assault and battery which was an
offence against the peace of the community,
punishable in municipal courts, under municipal
law, and this great crime against the Constitu-
ton, against the sovereignty of Massachusetts,
and against the people of all the States, cogni-
Fable only in this high judicatory, this argu-
ment on behalf of the accused does injustice
to the moral and legal acumen of those who
make it. The municipal court had no juris-
dictiOn of this outrage upon the Constitution,
nor have we Jurisdiction of the offence against
the municipal laws. We cannot fine the accu-
sed, nor could that court expel him from this
body. But | will not argue this objection fur
Their, as it has been already fully answered by
other gentlemen.
Gentlemen plead to the Jurisdiction Of this
body. They first deny that the authority of
the Constitution to punish for disorderly con-
duct, and, by vote Of two-thirds, to expel a
member, extends to offences committed outside
these walls. The long array of cases cited by
| my eloquent colleague, Mr.. BINGHAM, and by
| the able chairman of the Committee on Foreign
| Affairs, Mr.. PENNINGTON, and by the astute
| gentleman who presides over the Committee on
the Judiciary, Mr.. SIMMONS would seem to
have placed this point beyond controversy.
| But, without referring to those authorities or
| precedents, | have no hesitation in saying that
every court of justice and every legislative body
is clothed with the inherent right, with the
moral duty, and that the political necessity
rests upon it, to protect itself. Without the
exercise of this right aud power, no legislative
body can exist.
Gentlemen next meet US with the argument
that this body cannot punish its members for
| contempt, or for offences, or disorderly con-
duct, unless we shall have defined the crime
and prescribed the penalty by existing rules or
statute.
This point has been often urged, perhaps
may say it has been brought forward in almost
every case since the time of Jefferson, but never
successfully. 1t has also been fully met by
the gentlemen referred to. They have placed
it in such a clear and distinct light, that il
|
upon it. | would, however, add, that we are
here as the Representatives of the people, for
the purpose of legislating, clothed with the no
cessary powers to discharge that duty. We
are at all times equally supreme. We may
make a law to-day, and repeal it to morrow
We may establish rules to-day, and repudiats
them Ut our next sitting Our only law is thai
great fundamental law, the Constitution and
the only court in which our errors can be re
viewed or corrected, is the enlightened tribuaa
of popular opinion, where retributive Justice Il
: dealt out to us, and to those whom we Judge
We should bear in mind that we are not sittinl
! as a nisi prius court, holding our sessions un
der and by virtue of statute laws, and actins
in conformity to the dictates and decisions O
some more dignifed tribunal.
Yet this argument against the exercise o
any and of sll discretion by this body, is urget
with great ability by gentlemen from the South
ern section of our Union. Gentlemen from tn,
, slaveholding States are distinguished usual,
for what they term "strict construction o
the Constitution; and, on the present occa
sion, this doctrine has been urged, and its ap
plicstion insisted on, by every gentleman from
, our saveholding States. | have reason to know
that they have not at all times been tenacious o
: either the doctrine, or its application. States
| men should hsvs memories
e Fifteen years since, witnessed differen
{ scene in this Hall. The Hon. John Quinc
). Adams, at that time a Representative fron
= Massachusetts, was placed on trial. The diff
. Guilty ut THAI time, as well as on the preseu
e occasion, originated in the conflict betwee
, Freedom and Slavery. Some of the peopl
3 of Massachusetts, feeling burdened with til
8 / expenses which the support of that institutio
e had brought upon our Government, sent to thi
q body respectful petition, praying Congress t