22 Mr. Fairfield in reply to interrogatories in the House, were confirmed by other witnesses, and Mr. Wise himself in a speech made the admission that he was armed with deadly weapons, saying, “ I watched the motion of that right arm, [of the witness,] the elbow of which could be seen by me, and had it moved one inch, he had died on the spot. That was my determination.” All this will be found in the 13th volume of the Congressional Debates, with the evidence in detail, and the discussion thereupon. Here is another instance of similar character, which did not occur in a Committee-room, but during debate in the Senate Chamber. While the pompromise measures were under discussion in 1850, on the 17th of April, 1850, Mr. Foote, a Slave-master from Mississippi, in the course of his. remarks, commenced a personal allusion to Mr. Benton. This was aggravated by the circumstance that only a few days previously he had made this distinguished gentleman the mark for most bitter and vindictive personalities. Mr. Benton rose at once from his seat, and, with an angry countenance, but without weapons of any kind in his hand, or, as it appeared afterward before the Committee, on his person, advanced in the direction of Mr. Foote, when the latter, gliding backwards, drew from his pocket a five-chambered revolver, full loaded, which he cocked. Meanwhile Mr. Benton, at the suggestion of friends, was already returning to his seat, when he perceived the pistol. Excited greatly by this deadly menace, he exclaimed, “ 1 am not armed. I have no pistols. I disdain to carry arms. Stand out of the way, and let the assassin fire.” Mr. Foote remained standing in the position he had taken, with his pistol in his band, cocked. “ Soon after,” says the report of the Committee appointed to investigate this occurrence, “ both Senators resumed their seats, and order was restored.” All this will be found at length in the 21st volume of the Congressional Globe, Another instance, which belongs to the same class, is given by the Hon. William Jay, a writer of singular accuracy, and of the truest principle, who has done much to illustrate the history of our country. It is this: Mr. Dawson, a Slave-master from Louisiana, and - a member of the House of Representatives, went up to another member on the floor of the House, and addressed to him these words: “ If you attempt to speak, or rise from your seat, sir, by G—d, I’ll cut your throat.” The duel, which at home in the Slave States is “twin” with the “street fight,” is also “ twin ” with these instances. It is constantly adopted or attempted by Slave-masters in Congress. But I shall not enter upon this catalogue. I content myself with showing the openness with which in debate it has been menaced, and without any call to order. Mr. Foote, the same Slave-master already / mentioned, in debate in the Senate, 26th of 4 March, 1850, thus sought to provoke Mr. Benton. I take his words from the Congressional Globe, vol. 21, p. 603: “ There are instances in the history of the Senator which might well relieve a man of honor from the obligation to recognise him as a fitting antagonist • yet it is notwithstanding true, that, if the Senator from Missouri will deign to acknowledge himself responsible to the laws of honor, he shall have a very early opportunity of proving his prowess in contest with one over whom I hold perfect control; or, if lie feels in the least degree aggrieved at anything which has fallen from me, he shall, on demanding it, have full redress accorded to him, according to the said laws of honor. I do not denounce him as a coward; such language is unfitted for this audience ; but if he wishes to patch up his reputation for courage, now greatly on the wane,he will certainly have an opportunity of doing so whenever he makes his desire known in the premises- At present he is shielded by his age, his open disavowal of the obligatory laws of honor, and his Sena- ,, torial privileges.” With such bitter taunts and reiterated provocations to the duel was Mr. Benton pursued ; but there was no call to order, nor any action - of the Senate on this outrage. Here is another instance. In debate in the Senate on the 27th February, 1852, Mr. Clemens, a Slave-master of Alabama, thus directly attacked Mr. Rhett for undertaking to- settle their differences by argument in the Senate, rather than by the duel. “No man,” said he, “ with the feeling of a man in his bosom, would have sought redress here. He would have looked for it elsewhere. He now comes here not to ask redress in the only way he should have sought it.” There was no call to order. Here is still another. In the debate of the bill for the improvement of Rivers and Harbors, 29th July, 1854, (Congressional Globe, vol. 29, appendix, page 1163,) the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. Benjamin,] who is still a member of this body, ardent for Slavery, while professing to avoid personal altercation in the Senate, especially “ with a gentleman who professes the principles of non-resistance, as he understood the Senator from New York does,” proceeded most earnestly to repel an imagined imputation on him by Mr. Seward, and wound up by saying : “ If it came from another quarter, it would not be upon this floor that 1 should answer it." And then, du.ring the present session, the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Davis,] who speaks so often for Slavery, in a colloquy on this floor with the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,] has maintained the Duel as a mode of settling personal differences and vindicating what is called personal honor; as if personal honor did not depend absolutely upon what a man does, and not what is done to him. “A gentleman,” says the Senator, “has the right to give an insult, if he feels himself bound to answer for it;" and in reply to the Senator from Vermont, he declared, that in case of insult, taking another out and shooting him might be “ satisfaction.” 1 do not dwell on this instance, nor on any of these instances, except to make a single com-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=