Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1856-06-07
WHAT THEY SAY.

The N. Y. Commercial Advertiser is one Of
the most conservative journals in this country,
but yet it cannot brook the assault in Senator
Sumner. 1t breaks forth in the following in
dignant manner:
A cotemporary heads an editorial upon this
specimen of cowardice. brutality and attempted
tyranny and despotism, with the impairment
question, what next! What, indeed Mat
tiers have come TO a pretty pass1f on the floor
Of Congress-the Parliament Of the United
States-a Senator cannot freely utter his sem
timents, we care not how extreme they may
be. withou, imminent danger to himself person.
ally from such ruffianly assaults. This is the
most direct blow to freedom Of speech yet made
in this country. 1t is utterly without excuse
or justification. If while Mr.. Sumner was
speaking, and supposing him to have been gull
ty OF unprevoked personalities, some Senator,
snarling under his invectives, had in a moment
Of excitement personally assaulted him, the act
might have had some excuse or palliaton.--
But here it was Otherwise. Mr.. Brooks was
not present when the speech was delivered, nor
was he member of that branch of the Ma
tional Legislature to which the speech was adj
dressed Whatever excitement was OCCASION
ed by its oral delivery had subsidized. In truth
there was no provocation whatever for Mr..
Brooks's outrage upon the senator, and the on
" Interpretation that can be put upon it is that
Messrs Brooks and Kei,t had deliberately
adopted the monstrous creed that any man who
dared to utter sentiments which they deemed
wrong or unjust should be brutality assailed in
order to deter others from like freedom of tho.
and speech. If this is to be tolerated, We may
well ask-what next?
We see the word chivalry used in connection
with this dsgraceful affair. But if there be
the faintest shadow Of a shade Of cbvalry in the
business, we are at loss to discover it, and
must have altogether mistaken the meaning of
the word. We have always attached to it the
idea of valor. heroism, gallantry. Which Of
these did Mr.. Brooks displaya Is there any
thing chivalrous in two men attacking one g.
In two men armed with canes, attacking one
totally unarmed? In two men armed with
canes, and free to choose their own attitude
and position, and having their limbs at perfect
liberty, attacking one man unarmed, IN SIT.
ting posture and his limbs under the constraint
of an ilnmovable piece Of furniture2 In two
men, with these advantages, deliberately choos-
ing their opportunity, lurking in wait for their
VICTIM and springing upon him unexpectedly,
when it was physical impossibility for him
either TO avoid or return the blow2 10 fall
upon and cruelty maItreat a man, not only with
out giving him chance to defend himself, bot
after you have satisfied yourselves that he is
positive belpIess-cal you this cht.alryl We
beg to call it by another name. II IS coward
ice aud worse than cowardice for it partakes
Of the treacherous and fendish malice Of the
assassin. hat is the plain truth Of the mat
ter, Messrs. Brooks and Keitt, and you may
make the worst Of it. Such conduct merits the
loathing and scorn Of every honorable, liberal,
chivalrous citizen, and It has ours.