Thibodaux minerva. [volume] (Thibodaux, La.) 18??-1858, 1856-06-07
Mr., Brooks Assault upon Mr. Sumner.

At the opening of the session in both houses
Of Congress, on yesterday, the attention Of the
two bodies was called to the rencounter which
took place on Thursday afternoon between Hon.
Preston s. Brooks of South Carolina, and Chas.
Sumner, of Massachusetts, In the Senate the
| occurrence was briefly detailed by Mr.. Wilson,
after which Mr.. Seward offered resolution to
raise committee of FIVE to investigate the facts,
and report thereon, as well as to report the
opinion of the committee. The resolution was
adopted without objection, and the Senate pro-
ceeded to elect Us the committee, Messrs. Cass,
Geyer. Pearce, Dodge and Allen.
In the House, Hon. Lewis D. Campbell brought
the subject before that body by the introduction
of q preamble, in which the alleged facts are
briefly stated, and resolutions raising a commit
tee of investigation similar to that appointed in
the Senate. Mr.. Campbells preamble and res
olutions were passed with but little discussion,
because of the application of the previous ques-
ton. The Speaker appointed the following
committee:
Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio, A. c. NJ. Pen
nington of New jersey, Howell Cobb Of Georgia,
A. B. Greenwood Of Arkansas, and F. E. Spin
ner of New York.
In each house the proceedings were based up
on the assumption that Mr.. Brooks made the as
sault on Mr.. Sumner whilst in his seat and en-
gagged in his public business. In the House
these facts were assumed in the preamble of MIR.
Campbell, and in the Senate they were distinctly
assumed by Mr.. Wilson in his opening remarks
1t is hardly doubtful that the proceedings in
the two houses were the result of concert; and
it is fair inference, therefore, that the juris-
diction in the is rested the facts assumed,
that MIR. Sumner at the time of the assault was
not only in his seat, but engaged in his public
duties rs q Senator. As these seemed to be the
only material facts about which there may be
controversy, we feel at iberty+to state briefly
what we think will be found to be the truth as
to the occurrence.
The Senate had adjourned, and most of the
Senators and persons in the galleries had left
the chamber, when Mr.. Brooks approached near
to Mr.. Sumner, who still occupied his seat and
said: ''
"Mr. Sumner, have read your speech with
care and with as much impartiality as am Ca
pable Of, and feel it my duty to tell you that
you have libeled my State and slandered a kins-
man who is aged and absent, and must punish
you for it,
Mr.. Brooks then struck Mr.. Sumner violent
blow across the head with n gutta percha cane
AT first Mr.. Sumner manifested disposition to
defend himself, but was finally Frustrated by
the repeated blows of his assailant; when sew
eral of the bystanders interfered, and removed
Mr.. s. in asenseless condition to one Of the ad-
joining rooms. Supposing these to be substan-
TALLY the facts, it may be remarked that the
offence of Mr.. Sumner consisted in his having
attacked, in a late speech, in most wanton
and atrocious manner, not only the State of
South Carolina, of which Mr. Brooks is a Rep
resentative but Senator Butler, who is a near
relative of Mr.. Brooks, an aged gentleman, and
now, and at the time of the attack, absent at
home. As the attack was made by Mr.. Brooks
when the Senate was not in session, and when
the chamber is open to all persons, we presume
that the place where it was made can have no
bearing on the legal question which may be in
volved. Whether Mr.. Sumner was at the time
engaged in his public duties, and if he was,
whether that is material circumstance in the
case, are questions on which the committees
raised will report the facts and their opinions;
and until such reports, we deem it premature to
indulge in further remarks.