Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1856-07-31
Brooks 4 Sumner.
SPEECH OF HON, P. S. BROOKS
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
On resigning his seat in Congress, delivered in the
House of Representatives, July IA, 1856.
Mr.. Brooks said:
Mr.,Speaker: Until this moment I have
felt that there was a proprietyin my remain
ing silent, and in trusting my defence to
friends who are ADLER and more learned than
myself T have heretofore felt that other
and highersinterests than any which affect
me personally we're involved in the proceed
iugs of this case The interests of my con-
stituents, Of this House, and of all, indeed,
who are concerned in The Constitution itself,
in my view, have been intimately and inscp,
arably complicated.
Here Mr. Brooks was interrupted by Mr..
Giddings, &c:
Sir, I am indebted to the House for even
this much courtesy. Twas about remarkine
that therewerc higher interests than my OWN
involved ia, this matter. I have been con-
tent, heretofore, to meet personally and in
silence all the consequences of these pro-
ceedings.
Sometime since Senator from Massachu-
setts alloyed himself, in an deliberately pre-
pared speech, to offer gross insult to my
State and to venerable friend, who is my
State-representatiye, and was absent at the
time.
Not content with that, he published to the
world, aud circulated extensively, this un-
called for libel on my State and my blood.
Whoever insults my State insults me. Her
history and character have commanded my
pious veneration, and in her defence I hope
shall always be prepared, humbly and mod,
estly, to perform the duty of a son. | should
have forfeited my own self-respect, and per-
haps, the good opinion of my countrymen,
ifI had failed to resent such an injury, by
calling the offender in question to personal
account. It was a personal affair and in ta-
king redress into my own hands I meant no
disrespect to the Senate of the United States,
or to this House. Nor, sir, did design dis
respectto the State Of Massachusetts,. was
aware of the personal responsibilities in
Cured, and was willing to meet them. |
knew, too, that was amenablc to the laws
of the country, which afford the same protec-
ton to all, whether they be members Of Con-
gress or private citizens. | did not, and do
not now, believe that | could be properly
punished, not only in 4 court Of law, but
here also, at the pleasure and discretion OF
the House. l did not then, and do not now,
believe that the spirit of American frccmcn
would tolerate SANDER in high places, and
permit amemberof Congress to publish and
circulate libel ON another, and then call up.
on either House to protect him against the
personal responsibilities which he had thus
incurred
But if I had committed breach of pri.
vilege, it was the privilege Of the Senate, and
not of this. House, which was violated ]
was answerablo there, and not here. They
had no right as it seems to me, to prosecute
me in these Halls, nor have you the right il
law OF under the constitution, as respect
fully submit, to take jurisdiction over often
ces committed against them. The constitu
ton does not justify them in making such ;
request, .northis House in granting.it If
unhappily, the day should ever come when
sectional or party feelings should run so high
as to control all other considerations of pub
lie duty or justice, how easy will it be to use
such precedents for the excuse of arbitrary
power, in either House, to expel members Of
the minority who may have rendered them
selves obnoxious to the prevailing spirit in
the House to which they belong
Matters may go smoothly enough when
one House asks the other to punish a member
who is offensive to a majority of its own
body, but how will it be when, upon a pre-.
tence of insulted dignity, demands arc made
of this House to expel a member who hap.
pens to run counter to its party predictions,
or other demands it may not be so agreeable
to grant? 1t could never have been design,
ed by the constitution of the United States
to expose thetwo Houses to such temptations
to collision, or to extend so far the discre-
tionary power which was given to either
House to punish its own members for the
violation of its rules and orders. Discretion
has been said to be the law of the tyrant,
and when exercised under the color of the
law and under the influence of party dicta,
tion, it may and will become terrible and
insuferable. despotism. .-...
This House, however, it would seem from
the unmistakable tendency of its proceed
ings, takes a different view from that which
deliberately entertain in common with many
others.
So far as the public interests or constitu
tional rights are involved, | have now. ex
hausted my means Of defence. may, then