Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1856-07-26

Mr.. Savage, of Tenn. made speech. which,
for low abuse, has never been equaled on the
floor OF the House. He said Mr.. Sumner was
a contemplate scoundrcl, and Brooks, instea d
Of being punished for beating him, ought 70.
have statue erected 81
Mr.. Oliver, Of New York, made a constitu-
tional argument, proving that the House had
cognlzance Of the offense.
Mr.. Houston, of Alabama, thought not.
Mr.. Kunkel. Of Pennsylvania, showed that
the House had nothing to do with the question,
whether there was breach OF privilege. The
Senate-the only body to decide that question
in this case-have almost unanimously decided
that there was breach Of privilege, notwith.
standing two-thirds Of the members of that
body are opposed to Mr.. Sumner. Then it
only remained for the House TO decide what the
punishment should be- Mr.. Kunkel made
very clear and able argument on this point.
He appealed to the South to know if they
wished the country to understand that freedom
of speech is 10 be met with freedom of the
cudgel. Ii SO, the North would like to know it.
Mr.. DaInrell, OF Massachusetts, made an
eloquent speech, demanding, in the name of
Massachusetts, the expulsion Of the offending
member The assault upon Mr.. Sumner
should not be regarded as the act of single
man. an ebullitlon Of personal passion. In
Preston 5. Brooks was represented not only
South Carolina but the whole slave power of
the South. ba
Mr. Campbell, OF Pennsylvania said he was
surprised at the remarks made by his colleague
OF the Philadelphia District, (Cadwalader,)
that to exercise a power in this case. which he
acknowledged the House has jurisdiction over,
would be supplementary, illegal and injuri-
Gus. Mr.. Campbell said such sentiment did
not prevail in any ward OF any city in Penn
sylvania, or anywhere in the State. He spoke
in the strongest terms Of condemnation of the
act committed by Mr. Brooks, and should vote
to punish the act The speech of Mr. Camp
bell was bold castigaton of his colleague.
Mr.. r. B. Hall, of Massachusetts, now
claimed the attention of the House, and truly
he got it, for better speech, so far as could
Judge by the time allowed him, has not been
made, nor has better attention been paid to
member. This was his maiden speech, and it
was happy success He went into search
ing constitutional argument, showing the right
of the House to take cognizance of this case
| and punish the ofense. He deemed the Sen
ate the righuul and sole Judge whether there
was breach of its privilege. 1t has decided
there was. and the House could only decide
upon the punishment. He analysed closely
the testimony, and especially the declaration
of Brooks, when the following interruptions
! occurred:
| Mr.. Brooks take it for granted that the
| gentleman has no desire to do me Injustice.
| desire now to state to the House that | did not
hear the seconl days part of Mr.. Summers
| speech, which was the most Objectionable part;
and heard only small portion of the first
days.
Mr.. Hall Then will the gentleman allow
me to ask HIM question! Was it to the first
part Of the speech which he had heard that he
referred in the conversation with Gov. Brown,
when he said When he delivered it, | de-
terlnined to punish him.
Mr.. Brooks cannot pretend to be accu-
rate. 1t was loose conversation that had
with Gov. Brown. had no reference at the
time to the discrimination between heasng and
reading. Ii was a mere accidental expression
that | used. Upon my responsibility, and upon
my oath. if necessary, say that did not hear
the speech made on the second day, which was
the most offensive and heard very little of the
first days speech.
WI. ildii- ne Seutietnan from OOuln Cdr-
DINA will understand me 10 speak now from
the evidence in. my possession.
Mr. Brooks--Oh, certainly, Sir.
Mr. Kett-i wish 10 make remark in re-
latIon to the point raised between the gentle
man from Massachusetts { Mr.. Hall) and my
colleague { Mr.. Brooks.) He Brooks) said
IN the conversation which ensued between that
gentleman and Gov. Brown, that he determined
on his course after he had read the speech.
Tha, has been and still is my decided Impress
ion; aud it is enhanced by the fact, which
remember very distinctly that he proceeded i'm
medlalely to repeat what had passed between
hun and Senator Sumner-that he had said +,
Mr.. Sumner when he approached him: j" |
have read your speech twice. and carefully"
&c That was part Of the res geste. | am
sure that he told Gov. Brown that he deter
mIned on his course after reading the speech.
Hessrs. Durfee, of r. l.. Purviance, of Pa,
aed Lester, OF Ohio, advocated the majority
resolution; and Ready, of Tenn, Florence, of
Pa, and Letcher, of Va, defended freedom
OF the bludgeon.
4 A y Il y