Year: 1867

s Ihe t0llOWlng remarks were made in the
United States Senate, March 8. 1866, by Sen
ator Fessenden, in reply to speech by Sena-
tor Sumner,wh had spoken of two modes of
debate-one to attack the previous speaker
with personality Of criticism or manner; the
other to speak plainly on the question, and to
deal directly according to your convictions
with the principles involved"


The honorable Senator from Massacbu-
sets, MIR, Sumner,) in the commencement
of his speech, undertook to tell us that there
are two kinds OF parliamentary debate; one
was reply to a previous speaker. with per-
sonality OF criticism or manner; the other
was discussion OF principle, to which he
said he should c0nfine himself. am unable
to perceive that there is any impropriety in
answering a previous speaker in parliament
ary debate have been laboring under the
delusion all my life that the proper kind OF
parliamentary debate was to meet things as
they came; ii you have proposition to de-
fend, defend it; if you differ with the pre-
vious speaker in his views, answer him on
the spot, have discussion, sift the matter
from beginning TO end, and see where the
truth lies. What is to be understood by ''per-
sonality OF criticism" do not exactly know.
If you criticise the matter or the remedy, /
do lot see but that you are following very
legitimate and proper course. Ii you criti-
else the individual in relation to other mat
tens, that is anotherthing. lido not know that
anybody here is ever guilty oft What is un-
derstoOd by personality of manner" l am
very much at loss to conceive. We have a
different manner. 1t is very fortunate that
we are not all the same, or we should be a
very dull assembly. Variety is said to be
charming, and do not know but it is charm
ing in oratory, if there is any oratory among
US, as in anything else should hate to be
judged by my manner because il has not all
the suavity and elegance of some other gen.
tlemen. do the best can, and if | do not
equal in manner the Senator from Massachu-
sets or any other Senator, it is my misfortune,
and ought not to be charged on account of
any deficiency of that sort. g lI -i 1854


/ say then, that while entertain my pres
ent opinions shall regard it as true that 1
have right, standing here, to criticise a pre-
vious speaker; if he attacks my propositions,
to examine his arguments; if he offers a sub
stitute, to examine that substitute, and see
what there is in it or OF it; and so long as
do that in respectful language and in parlia-
mentary style, / cannot conceive that any
Senator has right to complain of my SO do
ing If his speech, or whatever it may be,
will not bear criticism, that is not my fault
and if fail in my criticism, it is my mis-
fortune. l think we are little too sensitive
upon this subject. r. Criticism upon speech
does not necessarily imply unfrenjliness; it
is not personality. know it has been called
so and some exception has been taken to, it,
and some little Nervousness has been exhibited
In regard to it. But, sir, q speech made BY
any Senator here is tair game, especially to
one who is opposed to its principles or its as
sumptions; and il Senator, commenting up
on it, deals with il fairly and honestly and
does not misrepresent it, he has a right to do
it, and it is his duty to do 1t.


Ihat is not the only distinction which ex-
Its IN parliamentary debate IL tbs country.
There are two kinds OF debate here, if thei
may be called debate. One kind is long,
labored, written, printed Grafton, prepared
carefully in the study, elaborated, proof cor
reeted, all the thunderbelts forged, and every
thing put into proper shape, and then read 10
the Senate. Another kind is when Senator
in unprecedented language and 10 the best oi
bis power, as occasion serves him. takes un
the subject and discusses it without the adj
vantage OF that previous study and examina
ton. 1t is not tor me to say which of these
is the best, which is the most parliamentary.
only know-I have been told; 1 never was
there-that in the Parliament of England.
ana IN France IN their Parliament, no man Is
ever permitted to read speech. He is serapeo
down, coughed down, and put down at once.
S"1 oniy say tudb u u Iian 70 .o
future ages, making history, and wants 10
leave something on record that will be cred
liable to him, perhaps the orationizng is vast
ly the best Of the two. But 90 not think
that Senators who do not have that ambition,
and If they had, cannot expect to crafty it,
and are obliged to get along as they can, and
10 do the best they can under the circumstan-
ces on the subject of debate, ought to be blam-
ed very much il they are willing to content
themselves with the little modicum OF repu
tation they make in that way. Sir James
Macintosh said that these written orations
proved nothing except the power of argu-
ment and imagination, and did not necessari-
ly denote capacity for affairs. That was his
opinion, | presume he was influenced very
much by the practice that prevailed in Eng
land, and to which he was accustomed.


There is another distinction that should
like to draw.d There are Two kinds Of person
atty in debate. One is a personality that is
aimed directly at an individual in the heat OF