Tribune and telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1855-1856, 1856-06-12
- q - -.
A 49, ~ - -
A Plain Statement.

n
F"'s3 at's From the y. Y. Tribune
I HssTa 9es@A Plain Statement.
II Tits extraordinary to observe that some pal.
baton of the attack on Dir. Sumner is attempt
ca in Northern journals, on the ground that his
recent speech was beyond the pale of parlia.
meutary discussion. Now that speech is before
the world, and any man is challenged to show
wherein, by word or sentence, it violates the
well known rules of public debate. 1t was Sc
we're. 1t was intended to be severe, 1t was
sarcastic, scornful, and powerful in its invec-
tive; but 1t was not personal in any offensive
sense. The Senator weighed his words and
kept within the bounds of that propriety de-
lnanded by the rules of parliamentary discus
sion To palliate the attack on this ground is
thus to do Mr.. Sumner great justice, and what
is worse, 1t is to ndertake TO abridce the proN
er scope OF controversy, and to justify assaults
upon the freedom of debate.
F. For every word that Mr.. Sumner uttered and
for more than he uttered, he has had ample
provocation in this very Kansas discussion, and
in this view the pallation referred to, becomes
still more unjust and reprehenSible, And if we
go back, the provocation increases at every step.
The friends of Freedom in the Senate are few
They are hated by many of their associates with
mahgnancy that to be understood must be seen
and felt; but it cannot be expressed In every
way, this minority, feeble in numbers, is made
to feel the force of pro-slavery hostility Not
only all kinds of parliamentary discourtesy, but
by gesture, by look, by Calculations "out Of or
der'' that do not get into print, by disturbing
conversation, OF the most personal and offensive
character, during the delivery of their speeches,
as well as by open, long, elaborate, intense and
brutal vituperation, the condensed essence of
personal remuneration, have they been at va
rious, and, indeed, at all times, assaulted. The
debates, as published in the GlObe, will Justify
this Characterization of the speeches, but the
written record conveys no idea of the manner in
which they are uttered, The insulting tone,
and contemptous gesticulation and attitude can
not be conveyed through print
No member of the Senate has been more pre-
eminentlythe victim of these attacks than Mr..
Summers To say nothing of past occurrences,
Mr.. Buffers personalities, in this debate, have
been as marked as ever before. He rudely as
sailed Mr.. Harlan, of Iowa, who is clergyman
by putting questions TO him about his profes-
sion, and haunting him with ignorance; address
sing him in his seat wholly out of order; telling
him he IButler1 knew as much of Latin as he
tHarlan] did of English, and such like unman-
nerly discourse, of which he has always been
full. This particular point to which we here
alude is more offensive, since Butler, though
full of scholarly pretensions, is no scholar, and
NY little while since told friend he was sor
~ to have quarrelled with Sumner, for he used
to get all his scholarship out Of him; which, IN
deed, was the fact, since it was we'll known that
Butler always used to pass up his Latin quota
tons to Sumner to be corrected before putting
them into his printed speeches. But this is on
ly sample of his ordinary conduct.
Without denying to Mr. Butter the posses
sion of some good qualities and considerable tai
ent, lie is yet as VIGOROUSLY aggravating and
otficious in his hostility to all anti.slavery senti
ment as he is Incorporate in his personal habits,
1t is his wont to vent monysyllable wrath at
those whose views on Slavery aud constitutions
al duty do not accord with his own, as though
he were the standard and measurer Of opinion Of
every other Senator. 1t is the rude interruption
it is the Supercillious manner, the arrogant
tone and temper, the lordly, flashing, plantation
way in which these things are DONE that often
constitutes ground of offence greater than is
offered by the mere words. Yet Mr.. Butler, on
many former, set occasions, has spoken out and
recorded most offensive language against Mr..
Sumner. He has twitted HIM OF "hagrantly
nlisrepresenting history" of making "fourth of
July orations' in the Senate of using 'vapid
rhetoric of making flaming speeches to infuri-
ate mobs,' of being "servi}e orator. and 9th
erwise maligning him by all manner of implied
censure and rebuke, on points where everything
of the sort could not be otherwise than inperti-
nens, Other Senators of Buffers party have
habitually been equally insolent and black guar
dish, Indeed the one great fact iii all the alter
cation on the subject of Slavery III the Senate,
is this: that the pro-Savery men hold a lordly
and contemptuous tone, and assume OF all coca.
sions asuperciliOus and overbearing manner
designed to intimidate expression, and overcome
it by an assumed superiority, as aggravatIng as
it is insoent. They have attempted to cow
down Anti-Slavery men by an insufferabe
hauteur, as well as by fierce assaults; 50 that it
has required good deal of holiness to even
rise and express modest opinion amid the
shower of contemptuous missiles hurled at the
head of the Speaker BY an overwhelming mass
of acknowledgements. .
And now, after years of this treatment, when
Mr.. Sumner rises and makes speech in which
he overcomes this systenlatiZed scheme OF sub
DUNG freedom of utterance; when lie defes the
conspiracy to tread personal independence and
disagreeable truth under foot, and routs the
whole host by sound blows upon each division
of it, what is done to him! Beaten in argu-
ment, beaten in sarcasm, beaten in inveetve,
beaten in prompt reply in wo.dy encounter
of their own choosing, one thing is yet left TO
his opponents-Sumner can be beaten with a
stick And when it was done. when the vo-
lence which shocks all, is committed; Northern
journals are found that can palliate the attack
by saying that Mr. Sumner should have been
more mcaly-mouthed and tame, and subdued in
his utterances; that he should have been careful
to say nothing that would offend anybody-and
this, too, while Mr.. Sumner was strictly confn-
ing himself within the rules of parliamentary
discussion. If those who take this view of the
case he'd any candor left, the slightest reflection
upon the facts could not but make them blush
for an opinion so perverse, pusillanimoDs and
shameful.