11 disturb me. But what think you of this denunciation—this rhetorical bombardment from the Senate of the United States, of a. class of individuals, as honorable and brave a set of men, I doubt not, as any other,'though, perhaps, reckless to - some extent. I regret the issue pending in Kansas. I said before, and now repeat, that the very last fate .to which this country should be reduced, would be to commit the arbitrament of great que^ons to the issue of the sword in the hands of youth willing to contend and pleased with the pride of engaging in arms, and having bestowed on them all the fascination which can be imparted by danger and trial. Mr. Butler then goes on to show Mr. Sumner guilty of what bears a very close similitude to an intentional misunderstanding in charging him (Mr. Butler) with saying that the people of Kansas should be disarmed; and also shows up Mr. Sumner’s — now notorious — imitation of the apostrophe of Demosthenes, which he admits is a remarkable imitation, and is the best part of his (Mr. Sumner’s) speech. He closes with the following scathing peroration: Mr. President, Ihave convicted the Senator of making a speech which was not in response to anything 1 said. I have convicted him of such historical errors as no man can mistake. I have convicted him of making allegations against me of being ignorant of law and of Constitutions, and yet when he undertook to quote and expound the constitution of South Carolina, I have shown that, he either never read that constitution, or he could not understand it, or, if he did understand it, he willfully misrepresented it. He has been guilty of the suppressio veri and the suggestio falsi. He , tan not escape from these propositions. 1 have a copy of the Senator’s speech before me, and now I am going to turn his gun upon him. I ask the Senate to see if I do not turn it upon him to such an extent as to allow me to apply the apposite quotation of which I have often made use: “ Mutato nomine, de te Fabula narratur.” Here is what he says of me: “ Willi regret I come again upon the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] who, omnipresent in this debate” Why, sir, I have counted the Congressional Globe, and my remarks make but twelve pages, while his are thirty-two. I have not gone into the subject at as great length as my friends from Alabama, [Mr. Clay,] Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] and others. My speeches all put together on this subject are but twelve pages, and his are thirty-two; while those of his coadjutors amount, I suppose, to a hundred more. Yet he said I was omnipresent in this debate 1 I will not say that1 he is omnipresent in this debate, but he is omnipresent everywhere out of the debate. He says that I “ overflowed with rage at the simple suggestion that Kansas had applied for admission a? a State, and, with incoherent phrases, discharged I the loose expectoration of his speech, now upon her representatives, and then upon her people.” I said it was a fraud, and the Senate said so. Why did he single me out? Again, alluding to me, he said: 1 I shall not compete with him in scholarship' “ There was no extravagance of the ancient parliamentary debate which he did not repeat; nor was there any possible deviation from truth which he did not make, with sq much of passion, I am glad to add, as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration.” I do not know that I have ever been an imitator in my life. Those who know me best say that I am rather sui generis. I never borrow from Demosthenes, and palm it off as my own. As for my deviation from the truth, let me ask, did he tellthe truth when he quoted the constitution of South Carolina, and there was no such clause in it as he stated? Did he tell the truth when he undertook to say, that her imbecility was shameful during the Revolution? I have shown that she absolutely sent bread to Massachusetts. Did he tell the truth when he meant to impute to me what he has charged here? I retort upon him everything that follows. I retort on him the very language which he applies to me. He accused me of such a proclivity to error that I could not conform to the line of truth, or was continually deviating from it. I have convicted him before the Senate, by the evidence which I have adduced, of calumniating the history and character of South Carolina, and of misrepresenting, her constitution; He has done this, not in response to anything I had said, or anything which was legitimately connected with the debate. He has undertaken to charge me with ignorance of the law and the Constitution, which is perfectly independent ol his arbitrary dictum—the dictum, allow me to sayj of a man who has never conducted a great case in this country. I believe no one would buy an estate worth $10,000 upon his opinion of the title. I would not engage him to conduct a causej not that he is not a clear man, but I would nol trust him as a lawyer. And yet he undertakes la be my judge. What right has he to pronounce judgment on me as a lawyer? I am reduced to a pretty predicament at this time of life, if 1 am te be subjected to such a judgment! It is a jtidgj ment about which I care little; and I do not suppose any man would give fifty dollars for it evea in Massachusetts. “ He cannot ope his mouth but outtjiere flies a blanket. I sincerely hope that what he has said is a blunder. I do not know but that he may have thought he would escape scrutiny and exposure; I hope that, when he opened his mouth and said what he did in reference to these matters, it was a blunder. He said of me, “ the Senator touched nothing which he does not disfigure.” I can say of him he has touched nothing which he has nol misrepresented, except it be in his general declamation, and there is no detecting^ man in that; it is a matter of taste. I appreciate highly the compliment I received this morning in the Bos I oh Courier as to the merit of my speech. The Senator says of me, that “the Senator touches nothing which he does not disfigure—with error sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact.’.’ J apply this to him with this exception: I say error nearly always of principle, sometimes of fact. 1 leave the Senate to decide between us in that respect. Again he said of me: “ He shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in staling the Constitution or in stating the law—whether in the details of statistics or the diversions of scholarship.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=