7 from the Legislature of Massachusetts, are not only ex^parte, but I am sdkry to say that I fear : their* counselors were prejudice and malignity, even giving their counsels through the darkness of ignorance. I do not mean ignorance so far as regards the body individually, for I have no. doubt it is intelligent enough; but I mean ignorance, so far as regards pronouncing a judgment without understanding the facts on which that judgment ought to turn. I say that my friend has been condemned without a hearing. He has been condemned by a judgment which, if suffered to go into history uncontradicted, unexamined, and unrefuted, would consign him to a fate which his character does not deserve, and shall not receive as long as I can stand Here as his friend and advocate. But, yir, before I approach the constitutional and legal view of these resolutions, I must acquit myself of the duty which I in some measure assumed yesterday evening, of presenting to the public the circumstances under which the fracas, as it is termed, or the assault, on the Senator from Massachusetts, occurred. I said that my friend and relative was not in the Senate when the speech was being delivered, but he was summoned, here, as I have learned from others. Hewas excited and stung by the street rumors and the street coriimentaries, and by the conversations in the parlors, where even ladies pronounced a judgment; and, sir, woman never fails to pronounce a judgment where honor is concerned, and it is always in favor of the redress of a wrong. I would trust to the instinct of woman upon subjects of this kind. He could not go into a parlor, or drawing-room, or to a dinner party, where he did not find an implied reproach that there was an unmanly submission to an insult to his State and his countrymen. Sir, it ■was hard for any man, much less-for a man of his temperament, to bear this. I intended to reserve a commentary which Vias at once made on the speech of the Senator from Massachusetts as the most important part of my ; conclusion; but I find that I can apply it at no better time than this. I allude to the commentary which was pronounced at the time; not when a I controversy had arisen; not when it was supposed 1 that the temptations of an adversary, or ev«n the public mind, had so far made an issue that he was obliged to take one side or the other; but it was pronounced by a gentleman of distinguished position , a sage, a patriot, a man who had won laurels in the field, and justly deserved to be considered the Nestor of the Senate. Sir, the remarks made by the member from Michigan [Mr. Cass] struck' me as the most consuming piece of criticism; and I think, taking it all into consideration, it would be more terrible to me than all the arguments of an advocate, and all the array that could be brought on one side or the other. It was the testimony of Voluntary justice. “I have listened”—said that distinguished gentleman, [Mr. Cass,] who had worn the sword and the robes of the Senate, with distinction and dignity—“ with equal regret and surprise to the speech of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts. Such a ' speech—the most un-American and unpatriotic that ever grated on ears of the members of this high bodiy—as I hope never to hear again, here or elsewhere. But, sir, I did not । rise to make any comments on the speech of the honorable Senator, open as it is to the highest ■and disapprobation.” I am not as young a man as Mr. Sumner, not do I pretend to be in a condition to defy or place myself against the testimony which would put i into operation a current of public opinion, such as was pronounced by the honorable Senator from Michigan in his place; but, sir, I can say, that, with my nature, I could not have slept that night on my pillow with such a censure and such a criticism pronounced in the Senate of the United States. I should have been ready to send a message to make atonement in some way. I should have wiped out, as far as I could, by repentance and atonement, the unmanly aggression and insult which had been offered, and was concensure ; demned by the highest authority. I do not undertake to say what was the opinion of that 1 Senator, but I can quote from his Sta,te the most consuming judgment I ever heard pronounced. The sentiments expressed in the paragraph to which I allude, and in others, show that when the effervescence of popular prejudice shall have subsided, this case might be tried, even in Massachusetts itself. I should not be afraid to try it there. They are not slaves to be governed by fanatical madness. One of the journals there, in a remarkably well-written article, which I adopt, says: “ Charles Sumner’s recent speeches in the United States Senate have not in any respect enhanced his reputation as a man, as a debater, of as a statesman. It is impossible, it seems to us, for any fair-minded man, who loves truth and regards honor and decency, to read these effusions, all reeking with falsehoods, bitterness and wrath, and indecency, without feeling that Massachusetts has been disgraced by an unworthy son in the Senate Chamber, before the country and in the face of the world. We venture the assertion that no parallel to these vituperative outbursts of Sumner can be found in the annals of Congress, nor in the records of any legislative assembly in the world. Overpowering passion, madness itself, seems to have bereft him of his senses, and left him oblivious of truth' and hopor, of the courtesies of intelligent and dignified debate, and of the proprieties of civilized life. We do not, we cannotf use terms too strong in relation to this matter. It is not the character of Charles Sumner alone that is involved. The fair fame of Massachusetts suffers. Whatever may have been the political errors of Massachusetts, she has ever, heretofore, been represented in the Senate of the United States, and we might also say in the House of Representatives, by men, statesmen— Webster, Winthrop, Everett, Choate, Davis, and Bates— who knew their rights, and knowing dared to maintain, and maintained them with courtesy, dignity, and ability, in such a manner as to command the respect of their opponents, the applause of their friends, and the admiration of all their countrymen.” I knew some of the gentlemen here named, and. I should never be afraid to meet them in debate anywhere, because with them I should never apprehend the assaults of calumny and slander. I cajinot be reduced to such an issue that I must discount calumny and slander by the language of a blackguard. If it be the theory of gentlemen that when one uses language in debate transcending the sphere prescribed byproprietyandjustice, we are to resort to the same mode for redressand. satisfaction, I am a non-combatant; I cannot enter into a controversy with gentlemen in which they are to bandy words. These remarks are not without their direction. I have used them to show what was the impression on the public mind at the time when the assault was committed.' Mr. Bingham, a friend
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=