4 we are of a “ breed” who wear them as part of our dress. I am sorry to see such things creeping into the public mind. They mortify me; they annoy me. But now I come to the resolutions of Massachusetts. 1 ask that they be read. The Secretary read them as follows: Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the year 1855. Resolves concerning the recent assault upon the Hou. Charles Sumner, al Washington. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of ■ the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, That we have received j] with deep concern, information of the recen (.violent assault I committed in the Senate Chamber at Washington. upon die person of the Hon, Charles Sumner, one of our Senators in Congress, by Preston S. Brooks, a member of the Bouse of Representatives from South Carolina;—an assault Which no provocation could justify—brutal and cowardly iij itself—a gross breach of parliamentary privilege—a ruthless attack upon the liberty' of speech—an outrage of the deceii- etes of civilized life, and an indignity to the Commonwealth j of Massachusetts. Resolved?, That the Legislature of Massachusetts, in the name of her freehand enlightened people, demands for her representatives in the National Legislature entire freedom of speech, ami will uphold them in the proper exercise of that essential right of American citizens. Resolved, That we approve of Mr. Sumner’s manliness •nd courage in his earnest anil fearless declaration of free i Ill d t lo soui|i Carolina, have 1 to look for the feeling'S gnnciples, and Uis delense of human nghts and tree tem- I w|^h diclatcd res„ludo„s. [ baVt t0 m?et Jory, Resolved, That the Legislature of Massachusetts isimper- •lively called upon by die plainest dictates of duty, from-a decent regard to the rights of her citizens, and respect t'or her Character as a soveietgn State, to demand, and the Legisjattireof Massachusetts hereby i a mi. mi m u . , . i i n । , za :bv does demand, of the national/ they be correct or not, I shall throw out. Our ~ ,............. _ . .. . ...___ „ . ........................... 1 .. .......Ur.. fS__ Congress, a prompt and strict investigation into the recent assault upon Senator Sunnier, and the expulsion by the House ofReprcsentativesof Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, •ml any oilier member concerned with him in said assault. Resolved, That Ins excellency the Governor he requested to traiKum a copy of the foregoing resolves to the President Of tile Senate, amt Speaker ol The House of Representatives, and to each.of the Senators and members of the House of Reprwtimtives from this Common wealth, in the Congress of the United States. House of Bfthesbntatives, May29, 1855. Passed. Passed.. Approved. CHARLES A. PHELPS, Speaker. In Senate, May ,30, 1855. ELIHU C. BAKER, President. May 31,1856. HENRY J. GARDINER. Secretary’s Office, Boston, May 31, 1855. I certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original resolves. Attest: FRANCIS DeWITT, Secretary of the Commonwealth. Mr, BUTLER. These resolutions give rise to more serious reflection than anything which has occurred to me in my time. 1 have been in the Senate for ten years, and this is the first occasion that 1 have ever seen one of the sovereign States of the Union taking cognizance of matters which Occurred in Congress, with a view to influence the judgment of Congress in relation to one of their members. This is the first occasion of the Kind in the history of the country. It has been done from an ex parte view of the subject; for it is now very apparent that the resolutions of Massachusetts were introduced and passed with- <tmt regard to the evidence. These resolutions anticipated and asserted what may not be true— what the public may not .think true—what the Senate may not think true—what the House of | Representatives may not think true; and yet the j one of the most eloquent decisions 1 ever read- sovereign State of Massachusetts, before there! “thattheHouse of Commons, by claiming a privwas any evidence, indicted my -relative upon rumor—a measure which would have taken Stafford to the gallows. What’ sirijndict a man in the language of these resolutions upon the rumor of newspapers? These resolutions— I suy it more in sorrow than in anger—betray a temper and precipitancy of judgment that do hot look like having a regard to that dignity which is associated with justice. I shall speak respectfully. So far as 1 have spoken of Massachusetts hitherto, no exception can be taken; but, when I speak of Massachusetts now, itunust be of Massachusetts as she has sent forth these resolutions—- under the influence of a feeling which pervades her—under the influence of a sentiment which denied Daniel Webstpr the right to speak in Faneuil Hall, and threw.oft'the coffin of Lincoln because he had fallen in performing his professional duties in the cause of his country. Boston now is not the Boston that she was when Hancock wrote, and Adams spoke, and Oris thought, and Warren fell. They would not recognize her. She is no more the same. -Yet, from that very hot- b>d of bitter feeling to the South, and especially • an indictment—for what? It is said that the lib— i ertyof speech has been violated. Upon that point । 1 intend to deliver some remarks which, whether ancestors were a people, of hardy morality. Generally, when they spoke, they spoke directly from the heart.. Such it thing as printing speeches beforehand, of having them printed without being uttered in the Senate, was unheard of in their day. They were men who stood on their legs, and spoke out. They had hearts and mouths. They । did not resort to the appliances of paper and print- I ing before they brought their speeches here. If the Senator from Massachusetts were present, and would answer me, 1 would put the question to him, “Was not that speech of yours printed and published before you spok" it m the Senate of the United States?’’ What «s the meaning of ■ tliat provision of the Constitution, which says I that a Senator, or a member of the House, for j any speech or debate in cither House, shall I not be questioned in any other place? Does it ! mean to give the Congress of the United States i the power of deciding what is privilege without I the courts questioning it? If so, it goes far be-- | yond the settled doctrine in Great Britain at this i day, which was maintained by Chief Justice i Denman, in the case of Stockdale vs. Hansard; i and that case has touch to do with the matter now i under consideration. Hansard had undertaken, ‘ under the authority of Parliament,.to publish a । book which contained a libel. Without such I license or privilege, all agreed that he wasrespons- : ible. The English House of Commons said that having granted him the license, it was their privilege. Chief Justice Denman took cognizance of the case, on the broad ground that the courts could determine what was privilege under the Constitution of England. He said: “ad a common law judge, 1 will show the Parliament whether I am not capable of d ciding on my responsibility asone of the great departments ofthis Government. Can it be maintained”— and it ia
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=