23 Union, or without the Union, to defend ourselves, and with the blessing,of Provideneeletus do right, and leave the consequences to God . To him who intrudes his opinion upon us—to him who has no right to make an inquiry as to our domestic affairs, I have only to say, “ There is the southern slave; he speaks for the institution of slavery in our section; produce-to us the same number of African negroes in bondage or otherwise, and in any other country, who have made the same progress fn improvement, and then we may acknowledge your right to reproach us; but, until you do that, w’e are entitled rather to the yoice of approbation. Mr. Hunter then proceeds to defend Virginia from the aspersions cast upon her by the Senator from Massachusetts, and remarks upon that part of the Massachusetts resolutions— “ in which she undertakes to sit in judgment on a case here pending, and not merely to request her Representatives, and to instruct her Senators, as other States do, but to “demand” of us that we should carry out her fiat and execute her judgment.” He, also, considers, at length, the question whether the assault of Mr. Brooks upon Mr. Sumner was a breach of privilege of the Senate, and says, that, though in the outset inclined to thiqkit such, upon mature consideration, he does not “ believe that, so far as we are concerned, it was a breach of privilege.” In support of this opinion, he sites numerous precedents of American decisions sustaining his views, and continues: I say then, sir, that, so far from being governed by law in the course which we have taken, I respectfully suggest that we have departed from the true view of the power which the Constitution has given us; that we have acted upon the false light of precedents, whose principles do not apply to our case; and that we have made a mistake in the course which we have pursued. At any rate, I will say that surely we have no right to invoke the exercise of an arbitrary jurisdiction of any extreme discretionary power which may be lodged in the other House. We know that the free States of this Confederacy constitute a majority of it. Suppose they were all of them-to act in the spirit of these Massachusetts resolutions; suppose they were to encourage their Senators to insult the members from the slave States; suppose they were to say: “ If this is resented, you must expel him if you can find two thirds to do it; and if you cannot, you must annoy him by the power of your majority until you make his seat intolerable to him:”—I ask, under such circumstances, how long would it be before there would be a dissolution of such an assembly ? I ask, what southern man would be willing to sit here if he was thus to be governed by such a power, exercised in such a manner? Air. President, I know it may be said, on the other-side, is there not danger that freedom of speech will be abridged, if men undertake to resent or punish its excesses? I admit that evils may occur on that side, but not so great on that horn of the dilemma as on this; because it is always to be remembered that, in the other alternative, the courts of law are open, where you may sue by private action for damages, where you may indict for assault, and where the_court has power and jurisdiction to punish for the offense, in either person or property; so that there is a fall remedy and an impartial tribunal for any such injury. Besides that, we must further remember that one man is about as able to defend himself as another is to assail him, and that in such contests there are two to be engaged, so the probability is that’, in the end, no very great mischief can ensue. At any rate, if scenes did occur which were to be deplored, if events did take place which were to be condemned, still we know there is not near so much danger on that side as there would be in employing the arbitrary and discretionary power of the House, vested in it only for extreme occasions, in cases where the judgment might be attributed notsd much to the sense of right as to sectional feeling, or to party bias. I think that, under such circumstances as these, it is always best to transfer such feuds frpm the Houses of Congress to the courts of law—from a tribunal 1 which must of course be, to some extent, prejudiced and partial, to one which is unprejudiced and impartial. I give this counsel for the sake of peace. I j advise such a measure, as one which seems to j me to afford a solution by which we may escape from some of those difficulties'that seem to threaten us with so much exasperation and strife. I believe that the merits of the whole case may thus be reached, and thus, too, we may save ourselves from the agitation which, rely upon it, is doing great mischief here and abroad. I think the Senate ought to reverse its position. Indeed, it would be but acting under the precedent in the case of Gunn, (a Senator who challenged a member of the House of Representatives,) if we were to withdraw our application after the apology of the member from South Carolina. In that case the proceedings were dropped the moment the Senator declared his contrition for what had happened. I believe that if this were done here, and the case were left to the courts, we should save both Houses from a scene of strife and exasperation which every patriot and every lover- of his country must deplore. . Suppose that two foreign nations were mutually to instruct their representatives to insult and abuse each other: how long would peace be maintained? Suppose that the members of the same family were to use their opportunities of daily intercourse for the purpose of mutual'vituperation: how long would harmony exist? Suppose that States which belonged to the same Union should use the common hall of their deliberations for the purpose of mutual crimination and recrimination: how long would that Union be maintained ?. Sir, “in the letter which killeth” it might endure, for a while, but in “ the spirit which giveth life” it would soon be gone and lost forever. Now, sir, I ask if these are not considerations which should be impressed upon all? .Our institutions rest not upon parchment securities, but upon the broad basis of public affection. Who shall measure the crime of him that disturbs the waters of the stream of public opinion which to us are the very waters of life—of him who troubles the stream at its fountain that he*may defile it through the whole length of its course, until we *7 / _ "7 /fa •"U
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=