THE ASSAULT BY MR. BROOKS ON MR. SISINER, SPEECH ' ( DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 12, 185G. Tlie House having Tinder consideration the report of the coimnittee on the alleged assault of Hon. Preston S. Brooks on Hon. Charles Sumner, of the Senate : Mr. ETHERIDGE said: Mr. Speaker: I do not desire, to consume un~ necessarily the time of the House. 1 shall be brief in what I wish to say. 1 do not propose to ' consider the questions which have been r.aised, and Y/hich have been so fully discussed by others. The range of debate has been very wide, and the points raised in the argument very numerous—so much so, that I cannot do more than advert very briefly to some few of them. First, we have those who advocate or defend the efficacy of the bludgeon; others, who, professing to be lawyers, insist that the House has no jxirisdiciion over the case; and others again, who will be satisfied with nothing less than a sentence of expulsion. Upon the first of these propositions, I think I shall be able, in view of an arrangement I have made, to give great satisfaction to "that portion of my con¬ stituents who, for th,e last two years, have pro¬ fessed to be so sorely exercised about what they have been pleased to call my “unsoundness” upon the slavery question. They are few in num¬ ber, I admit, but they will doubtless be delighted to know, that, upon this occasion, I am very much for the South, in proof of which I point them to the fact that I have “ paired oft” with tiL’o northern gentlemen; I allude to the member from Ohio, [Mr. Leiter,] and thp member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Edie,] who will aggregate not loss than five hundred pounds, avoirdupois. Should a general free fight occur here, I can neu¬ tralize these gentlemen by simply commanding them to “ keep the peace.” [Laughter.] If any southern gentleman can show a better arrange¬ ment for his section than I have made, I should like to know it. I see gentlemen laugh; it is a good symptoip. I have read somewhere—and I have seen it copied in the National Intelligencep— “ Blessed are the peace-makers.” We are now in rather bad temper, and we need the kind offices of the peace-maker. I know, however, that /- ■ I f nothing I may say in regard to this benevolent class of persons w'ill bo regarded by any gentle¬ man here as “personal,” or call him up to an “ explanation.” The case before us has excited a high degree of interest throughout the country—less from the facts of the unfortunate transaction, than because of its supposed connection with other matters,, about which the jiublic mind has been highly excited for the last two years. But we should derive consolation from the reflection that this is not the first time we have had intense party and sectional feeling aroused. The debates in Con¬ gress during the last ten or fifteen' years, will show that, in the opinions of many public men, we have been all the while on the verge of dis¬ ruption— that some particular section v/as sorely oppressed, and the public liberty in danger. “ The end is not yet,” however, and I still have faith in the good fortunes of my country. When¬ ever it shall appear that there is danger to our institutions, the people, the real people, who are attached to the Government for its blessings, and Vv^ho have an interest in its preservation, will be found both able and willing to preserve and take care of it. All will yet be well, in spite of those who too soon despair, or recklessly peril our in¬ ternal peace. The case is this: A member is arraigned for alleged improper conduct. Some have character¬ ized it as a mere “ chunk of a fight;” others as an assault and battery; while not a few have spoken of it as a “ murderous attack upon a Sen¬ ator,” and a “ blow at the freedom of speech.” The reportof the majority of the committee have declared the assault of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Brooks] upon Senator Sumxer to have been “ not only a breach of the privileges of the Senator assaded, and that of the Senate and House, as declared by the Constitution, but as an act of disorderly behavior.” They have therefore i’eported the following: “ Resolved, Tliat Preston S. Brooks be, and he is forth- .. vvitli, expelled from this House as a Representative from the State of South Carolina.” 2 The minority of the committee have reported upon the facts, and recommended the adoption of tliis resolution: ^‘Resolved, Tlifit. tliis House has no jurisdiction over the assault alleged to iiave been coininitted by the Hon. Pres¬ ton S. Brooks, a ujeniber of this House from the State of South Carolina, upon the Hon. Charles Sumner, a Sen¬ ator from the State of Massachusetts; and therefore deem it improper to express any opinion on the subject.” The majority of the committee have also re¬ ported a resolution censuring Messrs. Keitt and Edmondson. As, from present appearances, I shall be almost alone from the South, in the vote I shall give upon the question of jurisdiction, I shall speak to the report of the minority and the resolution recommended by that report, and which asserts that the House has no jurisdiction.” This, sir, is purely a legal question, one which law¬ yers ought to be most competent to decide. Yet, in determining this question, members from the South are rallying in a body to one legal con¬ clusion, while the members from the free States are concentrating with like unanimity in the other direction, as if there was anything in cli¬ mate, latitude, or longitude, which ought to con¬ trol the judgment of a lawyer in determining a legal question. Is it possible that all the wisdom is in one section, and all the madness and folly in the other Sir, the very appearance of things in this Hall, the almost undivided front which each section presents at a time when we are attempting to arrive at a correct legal determina¬ tion, should make us distrustful. I have seen the passions of individuals aroused to madness, the prejudices of parties and sections inflamed, until madness would seem to rule the hour. In cases of this kind, if considered with refer¬ ence to individuals or parlies, the line of duty for a good man is not often found in yielding to the extreme opinions of either side. The path of wisdom, of safety, and of right, is not often strictly followed by those who feel, too strongly, the pressure of sectional or party demands. I think, sir, ifis so now. We partake somewhat of the excitement which prevailed here at the time of the occurrence. It unfortunately per¬ vades the country now, and has been increased, in both sections of the country, by means I regard as reprehensible. I have heard most of the speeches made during the last four days. I find, as I before remarked, the South and the North arrayed against each other. Every southern member has denied the jurisdiction of the House. Every northern speaker has asserted it. I dislike to difter with members from my own section of the Confeder¬ acy; but, in my judgment, they are misled by the minority report, and I cannot vote with them. ] The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Boyce] who has just spoken, devoted his whole argument to a denial of our jurisdiction. To his reasoning and his conclusions I cannot subscribe. His col¬ league, [Mr, Brooks,] I am sure, does not desire to rest his defense upon a legal technicality, and I shall not place it there. The South has long ago taken its position upon the point of power; its record is made up upon the question of jurisdiction. Upon that record our own section, our predecessors, are fully com¬ mitted, Our most eminent living statesmen have asserted and exercised power similar, in most respects, to that which I now claim for this body. It was exercised against northern men, and I pro¬ test now against a change of our position, when the same power is sought to be used against a gentleman from the South. Itis not the first time 1 have had to protest against an abandonment of that to which my own section stood committed. Two years ago I resisted the favorite measure of this Administration—the repeal of the Missouri compromise. It was the beginning of all our present troubles. The case before the House is a sequel to it. History, I think, has already vin¬ dicated the wisdom of my conduct, and I now feel anything but regret at the course I then pur¬ sued. I know it has become the fashion of late, with a certain class of public men, to attach but little, if any, importance to precedents, whether legis¬ lative or judicial; laws, however old, precedents, I however numerous and well considered, if in the way of the opinions of gentlemen, are dis¬ posed of by the general allegation that they are “ not binding,” or, as is most generally the case, “unconstitutional.” The latter charge is re¬ garded by some as perfectly conclusive in almost every variety of case — everything, almost, of late, is set down as “ unconstitutional.” I once heard an argument between a Whig and a Dem¬ ocrat, as to the propriety of a measure before Congress. The Whig seemed to have the better of the argument, when the Democrat, with a complacent smile playing upon his face,as though he had made some new discovery, said: “See here, it is unconstitutional.” “ Oh, no,” replied the Whig, “the constitutionality of the measure has been expressly determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” “ It cannot be pos¬ sible,” said the Democrat. “ It is certainly so,” replied iheWhig. “ But what if it did so decide ?” said the Democrat, rather indignantly, “does not everybody knoio the Supreme Court itself is uncon¬ stitutional ?” [Laughter.] Now, if I were to pile precedent upon prece¬ dent, and decision upon decision, some gentleman would coolly tell you: “Oh! precedents do not amount to anything—they bind no one besides those who made them.” I live in a State where precedents and judicial decisions are highly re¬ garded—where the peoply are taught the neces¬ sity of sustaining them. Here, it would appear that nothing is settled, unless it be that every thing is unsettled. If precedents or judicial de¬ cisions are wrong, or prove oppressive to the rights or liberties of the people, they know the ballot-box is the place to apply the remedy, and they will apply it whenever a proper case occurs. Many of the people of the State from which I I come will remember the exciting times of 1832 and 1833, when the danger of a collision between South Carolina and the Federal Government was imminent. I do not mention this to criticise the causes which produced the troubles of that day, but to show how the people of that State were at this perilous juncture in our history. Public meetings were held all over the State to consider the condition of public affairs, and to give ex¬ pression to the sentiment of the ^people. 1 now remember two of those meetings—one of which was palled at Nashville, and the other at Colum¬ bia—both convened at the instance of the most ' reputable men of the State. Over t]ie first, Gov- 3 ernor Carroll, well known to fame, presided; the secretary of the other was A. O. P. Nicholson, Esq., thepresenteditorof the Washington Union, the recognized organ of the Administration which is soon to close. At each of these meetings strong resolutions were passed, approving the conduct of President Jackson, and declaring, among other things— “ Tliat all acts passed by the requisite majority of Con¬ gress, and approved by tile President, do thereby become the laws of the land, and that the only mode of testing their validity known to the Constitution of the United States, isby a decision of the Federal Judiciary, and if they are there decided to be constitutional, it becomes the duty of the Government to see that they be faithfully executed, peaceably if it can, but forcibly if it must: and that every attempt by an organized force to resist their execution will be treason.” I know this resolution has no apparent relevancy to the question before the House, yet the present times are suggestive of contingencies, in which the sentiments it breathes may be properly con¬ sidered. Notwithstanding numerous precedents maybe cited, (and I shall hereafter refer to some of them in support of the jurisdiction of the House,) the minority report disposes of the w'hole of them in this summary way. They say ; “ Although we have been unable to acquiesce in the prin¬ ciples of all the precedents which are to be found in the history of Congress, yet we find it unnecessary, in the con¬ sideration of this branch of the subject, to assail any of those precedents, as none have gone to the extent now claimed—of one House assuming Jurisdiction over the priv¬ ileges of the other, for the purpose of alfording protection to them.” The majority of the committee also declined to look into the precedents. They say they did not deem it necessary, as they regarded the question of privilege as being settled by the raising of the j committee by the House. Then, sir, neither from the majority or minority report can we get any information as to the past action of Congress | in cases of this kind, and each member is left i to pursue the investigation for himself. If the minority report, submitted by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Cobb,] is right—if his rea¬ soning is correct and the conclusion to which he arrives, the law of the case, then I do not hesitate to say, that the past action of both Houses of Congress, in cases which I regard as not differ¬ ent in principle from the present one, has been to override the Constitution. I desire to refer southern gentlemen, who deny the power of the House, to the action of this body within the last few years, in two cases which obtained notoriety at the time. I allude to the cases of Mr. Adams, . of Massachusetts, and the senior gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings.] On the 25th of January, 1842, Mr. John Guincy Adams presented a “petition to dissolve the Union.” It was signed by fifty persons. As * soon as it was read, Mr. Holmes said: “This is a petition for the dissolution of the Union.” To this remark, Mr. Adams replied: “ r move its reference to a select committee, with in¬ structions to report an aiiswuTr to the petitioners, showing the reasons why the prayer of it ought not to be granted.” I cite this case to meet the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Boyce.] He—following up the minority report—is of opin¬ ion that no offense can be committed outside of the House, of which it would have jurisdiction, until that offense is defined by some rule of the House, and a penalty imposed for its violation. The minority, in their report, say: “The admission of such a right would constitute either House of Congress a legislative, judicial, and an executive power combined ; having the power of aljcgislature to pass the law, the power of a judge to expound it, and the power to execittd it. A rtiore perfect despotism never has and never can exist (han-^if such be the fact—does exist in either branch of Congress. “ To appreciate properly the enormity of this power, and the abuse to which its exercise rniglit lead, it is only neces¬ sary to add, that from the very nature of the case, this law, thus made, and thus enforced, is an ex post facto law, direct¬ ly violative of the letter of the Constitution, and repugnant to the whole spirit of our American institutions.” Now, if offenses must first be defined by rules of the House, and penalties attached for their violation, I ask what rule of the House did Mr. Adams violate, when he presented this petition.^ It was never alleged that his “ behavior” was “disorderly;” nor did he make any offensive remark at the time he offered the petition. The only restriction which the rules of the House then imposed upon the right of petition was the cel¬ ebrated 21st rule, which prohibited the reception of petitions, memorials, and resolutions, “pray¬ ing the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave trade between the States or Territories of the United States.” Mr. Adams did not violate this rule. We all know Mr. Adams was a sort of monomaniac on the right of petition; and I have heard it said that, on one occasion, he submitted a petition from some slaves in Virginia, asking for his own expulsion fi-om the House. Mr. GIDDINGS. I will correct the gentleman, as to a historical fi\ct, if he will allow me. Mr. ETHERIDGE. Certainly. If wrong, I shall be glad to be corrected. Mr. GIDDINGS. I only wish to say, as a matter of history, that Mv. Adams presented no such petition. He only asked the Speaker whether it would be in order to present it.^ Mr. ETHERIDGE. I stand corrected. I was not here at the time, though, I have no doubt, I ought to have been. [Great laughter.] immediately after Mr. Adams had presented the petition to which I first referred, Mr. Gil¬ mer, of Virginia—I am glad he was from Vir¬ ginia, for my Democratic friends from that State are always sound upon the Constitution, “as th(;y understand it,” familiar with the resolu¬ tions of 1798, and well acquainted with the secret debates—Mr. Gilmer, I say, offered a resolution censuring Mr. Adams. It is very modest in its terms. Virginia statesmen are always modest [Laughter.] Here is the whole of it: “ Resolved, That in presenting to the consideration of this tlouse a petition for the dissolution of the Union, the mem¬ ber trom iMa.ssachusetts [Mr. Adams] ha.s justly iucurrresentment or indict¬ ment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in tlie land or i naval forces, or in the militia, wlien in actual service in i time of war or public danger;' nor slial! any person be sub- j ject for the same oliense to be twice put in jeopardy of life n or limb, nor shall be compeHed in any ciiininal case to be a J witness agaijist himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or i' property, without due process of law.” jj Mr. Adams, when on trial before the House, ! rested his defense upon a denial of the jurisdic-ll tion of this body. The point now raised by the minority report is not new. I read from the j Congressional Globe, vol. 2, part I, second ses- j sion Twenty-Seventh Congress, p. 180: 1 ‘‘ The Speaker gave the lloor to Mr. Limlerwood ; but Mr. Adams rose and demaiuled the Inmelits of the sixth article of } the ameiidmeuts to ihe Constitution of tlie United States, j wliieh said article is in tlie I'ollovving words : I “‘In all criminal prosecutions, the ticcuscd shall enjoy | the right to a speedy and pulilic trial by an impartial jury ] of the State and district wlierein the crime shall have been , committed, tvliich district shall have been previously ascer- j lained by law; and to lx; informed of tlie nature :ind cause J of the, accusation ; to he conr'rontial with the witnesses I against him ; to have compulsory (irocess for olitaiuing wit nesses in his favor, and to have tlie assistance of counsel j I'or his defense.’ j “And iMr. Adams desired that the motion might he entered i on the Journal.” j Here we find, sir, that Mr. Adams rested his j defense upon a denial of power and jurisdiction; | yet 1 am not aware that any member of that Con- i gress coincided with him in ojhnion, while almost ! every member from the South voted against lay- ! ing the resolution of censure upon the t;ible. 1 Among the negative votes, the names of the fol¬ lowing from Tennessee are to be found : Jlaron r. Brown, Milton Brown, William B. Campbell, Carutliers, Gentry, Turney, Walterson, and C. H. Vtilliums. The session of 1841-’42, seems to have been prolific in matters of this kind. It was during this session that the genlleinaii from Ohio [Mr. , Giddings] got himself into a similar difiiculty. | It was a most unfortunate one tor the country | in many respects, the chief of which was, that j the alfair was so managed as to make the old political sinner a “ fixture ” in this body, 1 fear, for life. [Laughter.] The House adopted a res¬ olution of censure. He fell that he was a mar¬ tyr. He then became indignant, and resigned his commission, which enabled him to unite the qualities of martyr and hero. The result of it all has been, that his constituents have ever since retained him here for the inspection of the curi¬ ous and inquisitive, [Laughter.] I predict, sir, that Mr. Sumner, who is regarded by the people of Massachusetts as a sort of martyr to the cause of human liberty, will be long retained in the Senate, and that the gentleman from South Car¬ olina [Mr. Brooks] will be also a member of that body, and successor to his venerable relative, whose name has been identified with this unfor¬ tunate affair. Each of those gentlemen will be the gainers, politically, by the occurrence. Be¬ yond this, nothing else will result from it, except the temporary political capital which is being manufactured for the Presidential campaign. Fighting, however reprehensible, is never con¬ sidered dishonorable, especially if one gets the best of it. The sympathies of the world are always with him who comes off “first best.” Let two gentlemen go out in the presence of a crowd to test their manhood, or settle a difficulty, by “ a fair free fight,” and you will always find everybody crowding around and congratulating the fellow who chances to be victorious. The poor devil who has to cry “enough!” is often left without a friend to “hold a pan for him.” [Great laughter.] Sir, I speak the truth; and we are dignifying this affair without a corre¬ sponding benefit to the country. I must return to the case of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings.] On the 2Ist of jMarch, 1842, he presented a series of resolutions, some of which related to the mutiny of slaves on the brig Creole. The reading of the resolutions pro¬ duced much excitement in the House at the time, and Mr. Giddings withdrew them. It was said that the resolutions justified mutiny and murder; and Air, Bolts, to test the sense of the Blouse, submitted the following: “ Resolved, That tins Ilou.se holds the conduct of the said member as altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable, and (teserviua: tlie severe, condemnation of the people of this coinitrj', and of this bodj' in particular.” This affair led to a debate quite as violent, though less protracted thati that which attended the trial of Air. Adams. On the next day the vote was taken and the resolution adopted—yeas j 125, nays 69—every southern member but Air. j Underw’ood, of Kentucky, I believe, voting in the ! affirmative. Now, sir, 1 should be pleased if I some of my southern friends would point out the I rule of the House, the statute, or common law, or I any clause of the Constitution which was violated by the member from Ohio in oflering the resolu¬ tions I have named. There was no ]iretense that ihe had been guilty of “ disorderly behavior.” The censure was rightfully based on the right which this House has tb punish a member, whose conduct is such as to unfit him for his public I duties, or whose opinions or general character I may be such as to render him odious. The power to censure involves the power of expulsion, were the House disposed to inflict that punishment. 1 Our power, Air, Speaker, over cases of this 5 t kind is derived from that clause of the Constitu¬ tion which reads as follows: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punisli its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expefa member.” It is argued by the gentleman from South Car¬ olina [Mr. Boyce] and others, that the power to “determine rules,” to punish for “disorderly behavior,” and to “ expel a member,” must be construed in pari materia; that rules must first be adopted by the House, and penalties imposed for their violation, and that the power to punish for “ disorderly behavior,” and to “ expel a mem¬ ber,” can only be exercised by the House with reference to such rules as may be adopted and violated by members. Now, sir, I do not sub¬ scribe to this reasoning. Suppose you were at¬ tempting to explain this part of the Constitution to a child, you might, without doing any violence to its meaning, read it thus: “ Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings— each House may punish its members for disorderly behavior —each House may, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.” First, we have the power to adopt the rules of our proceedings—we have done this—and we have a volume of rules which relate, almost exclusively, to the order of actual business. We then have the power to punish for “disorderly behavior;” but gentlemen speak of this power as if it was only for a viola¬ tion of the rules of the Flouse. If the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Boyce] be correct, the Constitution should read: “ Each Flouse may determine the rules of its proceedings, and punish members for a violation thereof but the punishment spoken of is for “ disorderly behavior.” What, sir, is meant by “ disorderly behavior.^” It was decided here, a few days ago, that the Bible is good authority. I think so, and I go further. I humbly submit that Webster’s Dictionary for many purposes is, also, good authority. The North and the South, 1 think, will be agreed on this, though the author was a northern man. Webster gives the meaning of “ disorderly” thus: “ Lawless; con¬ trary to law; violating or disposed to violate law and good order.” Now let us substitute Web¬ ster’s definition of “ disorderly” for the words, “disorderly behavior.” The Constitution would then read: “ Each Flouse may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for that which is lawless, contrary to law, violating or disposed to violate law and good order.” Lastly, each House, “ with the concurrence of two thirds, may expel a inember.” The word “ punish,” as used in the Constitution, is a. gen¬ eric term; it includes censure, reprimand, sus¬ pension, ana expulsion. There is no restraint upon the House until it attempts to pass a judg¬ ment of expulsion. A majority of the House may censure, reprimand, or suspend; but when we expel we must have a vote of two thirds, because it is so written in the Constitution. This restraint is imposed upon our power—it is the only one which the Constitution imposes—but none what¬ ever is imposed upon our discretion. That ife left wutli the House; and each case must be tried and determined upon its own merits, and the House must judge for itself if it deserves the se¬ vere punishment of expulsion. This power is j not so much necessary to punish the offending j member, as to enable the Flouse to get clear of his presence, and protect itself. It has been urged in argument, that if the Flouse is left to its own discretion, and may de¬ termine for what cause it will expel, it will soon 1 become a despotism-, overriding the Constitution, and prostrating the liberties of the people! If this were so, it does not prove our want of power or jurisdiction, but only that it may be abused. But, sir, discretion must be lodged somewhere; it is lodged in the executive, legislative, and judi- I cial departments of the Government for many purposes, and no doubt has been often abused; but 1 challenge gentlemen to show me any depart- menf of this Government, to which a discretion¬ ary power is given by the Constitution or laws, which has been exempt from popular complaint. If any has been wholly so, it has been the two Houses of Congress in matters of this kind. Your present Executive is denounced every day for alleged abuse of his constitutional discretion. Your Supreme Judiciary has been charged with deciding cases in obedience to the behests of the slave power. Your officials, everywhere, are charged with abuses in matters involving their discretion; but who has ever heard either House of Congress censured for expelling or punishing a member.^ I admit this power may be abused, but it has not yet been so, and numerous cases may be cited which, while they prove our juris¬ diction, disprove the probability that it will ever be used as an instrument of oppression. If the absence of jurisdiction or power is to be inferred because it may be abused, the same ob¬ jection would apply to other things. The same Constitution which authorizes this House to I “ expel a member,” gives Congress power “ to declare war.” It is granted without limitation or restraint. It is easily abused, and a wanton ex¬ cise of it might be attended with most disastrous consequences. We have never exercised it with¬ out incurring the displeasure of a portion of the people. Why, sir, your war with Great Britain in 1812 was denounced by some of our most eminent statesmen. If I remember rightly, Mr. Buchanan, the pre.sent Democratic candidate for the Presidency, questioned its wisdom and de¬ plored the rashness which he regarded as pro¬ ducing it. In speaking of the war of 1812, Mr. Buchanan said: “ It tonic its rise from tlic overioeenins; partiality luhich the I Democratic party have uiiifoniily shown lor France, and the j consequent hatred which they fell against her great adver- sar\', England. To secure this foreign ivjiucnce hasheenthc j labor of their leaders far more than twenty years, and well 1 have they been repaid for their trouble,/u?- it has been one j of the principal causes for introducing and continuing them , i'll power. Immediately before the war, this foreign in¬ fluence HAD COMPLETELY EMBODIED ITSELF WITH EVERY POLITICAL FEELING OF A MAJORITY IN THE WeST; ITS VOICE WAS HEARD SO LOUD AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT that the President icas obliged to yield to its dictates or retire from office. The choice in this alternative was easily made by a man (.Madison) who preferred his private interest TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.” ****** ‘‘Tiie very Capitol of the United States, the lofty temple of liberty, which was reared and consecrated by Washing¬ ton, has been abandoned to its fate by his degenerate succes¬ sor, (Madison,) who ought to have shed his last drop of blood in its defense.” Take again the late war with Mexico. A very large party in this country pronounced it un¬ wise and unnecessary. They declared it ought to have been avoided; but that party was accused in return of moral treason, and of giving “ aid and comfort to the enemy.” Suppose, sir, Con¬ gress should at this session declare that, whereas the late bombardment of Greytown was a most brilliant military achievement, and has estab¬ lished our naval superiority throughout the world; and whereas 'all the rest of mankind should be subservient to our authority; suppose, sir, for no better or other reasons, we were to declare war against all the nations, Powers, and princi¬ palities throughout the world, what would be the judgment of mankind ? Yet, sir, this, or some¬ thing equally ridiculous, might occur; but will it be insisted that, because such an insane folly might be perpetrated, w'e therefore have no power “ to declare war?” If the argument as to the power of the House to expel a member is to prevail, it will' have to be applied, 1 suppose, to the discretionary power of Congress to declare war. In that event, we | should adopt rules and regulations forthwith, specifying for what particular provocation we will draw the sw’ord, and what forfeitures, pen¬ alties, and punishments we will inflict on those w^ho transgress our regulations. Nothing, I sup¬ pose, will be hereafter left to the discretion of Congress, for fear that discretion may lead to abuse. I will now briefly recur to some of the cases in which both Houses of Congress have asserted jurisdiction. About the year 1831, Sam Hous¬ ton was tried and reprimanded for an assault upon a member from Ohio. The assault oc¬ curred out of the House, and when it was not sitting. In 1797, William Blount, a Senator from Ten¬ nessee, w'as expelled by a vote which wanted but one to be unanimous. His offense was an attempt to bribe an agent among the Indians. Judge Story (at page 299, 2 Commentai'ies on | the Constitution) says of this case: j “ Tt was not a statutable offense ; nor was it committed in his official character; nor was it committed daring the j session of Congress; nor at the seat of Government.” * * i “ It seems, therefore, to be settled by tlie Senate, upon full I deliberation, that expulsion may be for any misdemeanor which, tkoagh not punisluihle by any statute, is inconsistent with the trust and duty of a Senator.” The same author says of the case of John Smith, (a Senator,) whose expulsion was moved in 1808, for supposed connection with the de¬ signs of Aaron Burr, and which failed by one vote: , “ The precise ground of the failure of the motion does not appear; but it may be gathered from the arguments of counsel, that it did not turn upon any doubt that the power of the Senate extended to cases of misdemeanor not done in the presence or view of the body.”— Ibid., 300. And, commenting further upon these cases, that learned justice says: “The power to expel a member is not, in the British House of Commons, confined to offenses committed by the party as a member, or during the session of Parliatnent; but it extends to all cases where the offense is such as, iti the judgment of the House, unfits him for parliamentary duty.”—Jiid., 300, 301. The report of the case of Anderson vs. Dunn (6 Wheaton, 204—231) discloses the following; facts: Anderson, who was not a member, at- i tempted to bribe a Representative, for which he was arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in obedi¬ ence to an order of the House. Anderson for this brought an action for false imprisonment. In delivering the opinion, the court say: “ It is certainly true that there is no power given by the Constitution to either IHuise to punish for contempts, except when committed by their own members. Nor does the judicial or criminal power given to the United States in any part expressly extend to the infliction of punishment for contempts of either House, or any coordinate brand) of the Government. Shall we, therefore, decide that no such power exists? “ The idea is titopian that government can exist without leaving the exercise of discretion somewhere. Public se¬ curity agaijist the abuse of stich discretion must lest on responsibility, and stated appeals to the public approbation. VVheie all power is derived fiom the people, and public functionaries, at short intervals, deposit it at the feet of the people, to be resumed again only at their will, individual fears may be alarmed by the monstkrs of imagination, but individual liberty can be in little danger.” * * “The scienee of government is the most abstruse of all sciences, if, indeed, that can he called a science which has but few fixed principles, and practically consists in little more than the exeicise of a sound discretion, applied to the exigen¬ cies of the State as they arise. It is the science of experi¬ ment.” * * “I’he puWic functionaries must be left free to exercise the powers which the people have intrusted to them.” “ That a deliberative assembly, clothed with the -tnajesty of the people, and charged with the care of all that is dear to thorn, composed of the most distinguished citizens, selected and drawn together from every quarter of <1 great nation, whose deliberations are required by the public opin¬ ion to be conducted under the eye of the public, !ind whose decisions mu-st he clothed with all that sanctity which unlimited confidence in their wisdom and purity can in¬ spire,—that such an assembly should not possess the power to suppress rudeness, or to repel insult, is a supposition too wild to be suggested. And accordingly,'to avoid the pres¬ sure of these considerations, it has been urged that the right of the respective Houses to exclude from their pres¬ ence, and their absolute control within their own walls, convey with them the right to punish contempts committeii in their presence.” The action of both Houses of Congress has been, since the foundation of the Government, to assert an unquestioned jurisdiction in matters of this kind. It has also the sanction of higli ju¬ dicial authority. It is too late now to repudiate our past action, when it is sanctioned by such high authority, and sustained so well by reason. It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that if iliis ques¬ tion of jurisdiction were submitted to any law¬ yer who has been for ten years with a reasonable practice, or to any of our most respectable circuit judges, it would give them no embarrassmenL They are, generally, better lawyers than members of Congress. There is something in the atmos¬ phere about Washington, not very favorable to the development of legal talent. [Laughter.] The report of the majority of the committee arrives at conclusions to which I am reluctant to consent. Undue importance is, perhaps, given to the complaint which the Senate sent down to the House. The Senate has reported to the House: 1. “ That the Hon. Prkston S. Brooks, a member of tire House of Representatives from the State of South Carolina, did, on the 22d day of the present month, after the adjourn^ ment of the Senate, and while Mr. Sumnisr was seated at his d(!sk in the Senate Chamber, assault him with consid- er:ible violence, striking him numerous blows on or about the head with a walking-stick, which cut his head, and dis¬ abled him for the time being from attending to his duties in the Senate. 2. “ That this assault was a breach of the privileges of the Senate. 3. “ That ‘ the Senate, for a breach of its privileges, can¬ not anest a member of the House of Representatives, and, H fortiori, cannot try and punish him ; that such authority devolves upon the House of which he is a member;’ and therefore, ‘ that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Sen¬ ate, and can only be punished by the House of Representa¬ tives, of which Mr. Brooks is a member.’ “ The committee therefore report back the complaint of tlie Senate, with the journal of their proceedings and tire . 7 testimony taken in the premises, pursuant to the resolution of the House.” Our power to act in this matter is certainly independent of the Senate’s proceedings. It was very proper in that body to refer the matter to the House, and it furnishes an additional reason for our talcing cognizance of the assault. The circumstance that the violence was offered to the person of a Senator, and in the Senate Chamber, while it adds nothing to the jurisdiction of the House, will, and ought to be, considered with reference to tlm measure of punishment. Mr. Speaker, I shall not vote for the resolution of expulsion. I have many reasons, the chief of which is, that it will do no good. If the gen¬ tleman from South Carolina [Mr. Brooks] had intended to kill the Senator—if he had done so, or death had ensued from the blows—I should not hesitate for a moment in imposing the severest judgmentof this House, in addition to the punish¬ ment which the courts can inflict. But he had no such intention. His resentment was aroused, just¬ ly, as he supposed. His blood was up—whether from real or supposed wrong it is not necessary for me now to inquire, as the effect on him was the same—and, thus maddened by what he re¬ garded as a libel upon his State and kindred, he sought the Senator, not for the purpose of taking his life, but to degrade him by punishment. Such is the object of all men who attempt the infliction of personal violence in the presence of the public. Deeply aroused as he was, no doubt the assault was more violent than he intended—so much so as to excite his own regret at the extent of it. I shall not comment on the facts as disclosed in the evidence. Acting as a juror, I shall judge them fairly, and, I trust, dispassionately; but I shall defer something to human frailty. Other gentle¬ men may decide in a different spirit. My nature, my education, teaches me to remember man’s infirmities. I have never prosecuted the pleas of the State; unless my opinions change, I never shall. I hope there are no old prosecuting attor¬ neys here. Their judgments are always severe: as bloody and unrelenting as the oldest butcher in the market. [Laughter.] I recall that remark, if any one regards it as “ personal.” The politicians throughout the country have seized upon this lamentable affair to advance their political ends. It has been known here from the beginning that the gentleman from South Carolina could not be expelled. I have thought that the politicians at the North did not desire it. Were It done by southern votes it would deprive them of much of their present political stock; but they will be most happy to get the whole South com¬ mitted to the proposition that the House has no power over the conduct of its members outside of this Hall. In that event, they will renew their appeals to the already inflamed masses at the North—point them to the former record of south¬ ern statesmen, and show our abandonment of it at a time when the accused is from our own sec¬ tion. Much as I regret this deplorable affair, because of the pain it has given to the immediate parties, I deplore it still more on account of the influence it is to have, 1 fear, upon political ques¬ tions yef. iPUsettled. It is mingled with consid¬ erations—^wi.th political questions, upon which depend, in a great degree, the future peace of my country, and the preservation of that standard of political morality, which all good men prize so highly. The public meetings which have been held in different sections of the country, with reference to this affair, have, at this juncture of time, a marked significance. When befoi-e did an occur¬ rence of this kind seem to awaken such popular demonstrations? Never. For all sbeh meetings, whether of sympathy, or condemnation, I have no word of approval. 1 listened, a few days ago, to the animadversions of a distinguished Senator, upon the action of northern Legislatures and popular assemblies, in regard to this case. His rebukes were just and deserved. 1 only regretted that he had no word of rebuke for those who, living in the South, have made themselves like¬ wise obnoxious to his censure. A word as to the resolution which censures the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Edmondson,] and the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Keitt.] I shall vote against that resolution. It is partly predicated upon the allegation that they, “ some time previous to the assault, were informed that it was the purpose of the said Preston S. Brooks to commit violence upon the person of said Charles Sumner for words used by him in de¬ bate, as a Senator in the Senate, and took no measures to discourage or prevent the same.” I do not think it was ’the duty of either of these gentlemen to give notoriety to a disclosure v/hich, from its very nature, they should have regarded as confidential. It would, of course, have been different had they presumed Mr.. Brooks’s pur¬ pose to have been the infliction of dangerous or “ murderous” blows. But they had no right to presume any such thing, from the avowals of Mr. Brooks to them; and the proof does not justify any such presumption. Their position was a very delicate one. Mr. EoMUNDSONwas requested to be present as a witness—not to take any part in the alTair. He was not, however, present at the time of the assault. Mr. Keitt, it must be remem¬ bered, is the friend and colleague of Mr. Brooks. The gentlemen to whom Mr. Brooks communi¬ cated his purpose have been educated in a school which forbids such a violation of confidence— where the tattler and the “ tale-bearer” are de¬ spised. Mr. Brooks might have regarded them as not his friends, but his enemies. While many might have approved, they would have felt them¬ selves condemned. I say they have been edu¬ cated to hate the “ common informer”—a charac¬ ter always odious—so much so, that the pulpit will not screen from censure. I once heard of a good old deacon who, after long years of intemperance, had been induced to “join the sons.” Like all new converts, he was over-zealous. He imme¬ diately become a lecturer. On one occasion when liQ was holding forth, an old companion entered the church, very much “ under the influence of liquor. ’ ’ The deacon began to address his remarks to liim. He first persuaded—then grew vehement. At last he remarked, “ I will testify in the day of judgment that you are here drunk on the Sabbath day.” The offender could endure everything but this. Rising, he exclaimed, “ I do notcare if you do. The greatest rascals are sure to become evidence for the State.” [Great Laughter.] Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. J 1 V • .V' < " '•'If'. / f f i: • 'v.