The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-11-18

Sumner, or is 1t an expression of opinion
upon certain subject? The Virginia doc
trine of obstruction" in its full force and
meaning, has become obsolete, but it IS an
ordinary form of resolution of state leg
islatures on national affairs, to resolve that
''our senators be instructed and our repre-
''sentatives be requested" etc. But what
is the purport and effect of the resolution |?
1t declares that "this attempt merits un-
qualified condemnation and disapproval.
The disapproval, etc, is of the object aim
ed at, not necessarily of the mover of the
resolution. Is the senator, in terms, CEN
sured Not breath of it. A legislature
| disapprove and condemn recommendation
OF governor, do they, thereby, censurc
| the governor ? No one will claim it, The
legislature do not ccnsure Mr.. Sumner, but
| they disapprovc and condemn his resolu-
| ton. We honor ami revere Mr.. Sumner
| He has his faults as well as the rest of us,
but he is an able, far-secing statesman
| lives and works for his country's and hui
manity's sake. We unqualifedy condemn
| and disapprove of the crasurc of the in
| scriptions, etc, "from the flags of the re-
"public and from the register of the army;
but we do not think that we either directly
or indirectly censure Charles Sumner by the
| expression of such a belief. We may be
| stupid, but il seems to us that there is a
| wide difference between a "votc of CEN
| eirnN Of a ip1ix.i1pal onI
| proval and condemnation of particular
measure, even, If that individual senator
was the author thereof. The other clause
| construed as a censure is that closing with
! the words ''thus misreprcsentcd. Read
| ing the resolution carefully does it mean
| any more, or any less. than that the scnti-
mcnts of the people of the commonwealth
are ''misrepresentcd" by the sentiments of
the resolution? But taking the construc
ton claimed, is it not true that so far as re-
spects the ideas embodied in the resolution
offered by Mr.. Sumner, he ''misrcpresent-
cd the people of Massachusetts Sup
posing that the question should be present
ed to the legislature or the people, whether
in every vote cast by a senator or repre-
sentative they represented or misreprcsent-
ed their constituents, and, as often would
be the case, it should turn out that they had
''misrepresented' their constituents would
there in such a declaration be a vote of
censure 1t seems to us the hight of folly
so to claim. Unless the integrity, sincerity
and honesty of purpose is impugned, there
is no censure, unless censure is directly,
not indirectly, cast. Whether Charles Sum-
ner was or was not censured is, however,
matter of little concern il. comparison to
the graver outrage which seems imminent.
As we have said, the resolution was
passed on the eighteenth day of December,
1872. 1t was the expressed will of the peo-
pie OF Massachusetts, acting through their
representatives. Whether right or wrong,
1t VIII always remain as such. An attempt
was made at the next regular session of the
general court of Massachusetts - which
lasted from January 2d to June 12th-to
rescind, repeal or ''expunge" this resolution
but it failed. 1t may fairly be inferred,
o.
lutons were still in accord with those of
the peopleo of Massachusetts. Since the last
election, however, it is evident that large
majority of both branches of the general
court Of Massachusetts, are in favor of ''ex
punging this resolution. Words or argu-
ments will be powcrless to prevent it, be-
cause such course has been determined
upon. 1t may be gratifying to the feelings
OF Mr. Sumner to have the resolution ''ey-
Plunged, but it seems to us to he a revolu
tionary measure. The representatives of
the people of Massachusetts, in 1874 have
no right to say what were the opinions OF
the people and their representatives in 1872
and 1878. They may have changed for all
we know. But declaration of their
principles as they were in 1872 cannot
be changed by declaration of another
and different sentiment entertained year
later. The resolution, "expunged" or not,
must remain as their ideas at that time We
know that Colonel Benton and the demo-
cratic party established precedent for
''expunging," in the case of resolution
censuring General jackson. Might, how
ever, does not make right. We hold,
with Daniel Webster, that legislative and
congressional journals and records are too
sacred to be tempered with. The PROPOSE
ton is, in effect, to alter the records of a
legislature, whose legal existence expired
long ago 1t is not proposed to express
confidence in Mr.. Sumner, but to erase
solemn resolution from the statute book.
Such an act cannot alter existing facts, and
can only be justified upon the principle
that might makes right.
Hay FEVER. 1t is now explained that il