THE RHODE ISLAND RESOLUTIONS ON THE SUMNER ASSAULT. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 16, 1856, ON THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF RHODE ISLAND, RELATIVE TO THE ASSAULT ON MR. SUMNER. MR. BROWN. I object to the printing of these resolutions; and I know the responsibility which I assume in objecting to printing resolutions coming from a sovereign state of this Union. I make the objection without expecting to succeed in it. Mr. WELLER. I believe the rule of the Senate requires the printing of resolutions coming from state legislatures. I present the point of order, that the rule requires the printing of memorials and resolutions of state legislatures, and you cannot abrogate or change that rule without presenting a proposition for that purpose, which requires one day's notice. Mr. BROWN. I suppose it at least admits of debate, whether we shall print the resolutions or not. Mr. SEWARD. Freedom of debate requires that. Mr. BROWN. As I have already said, I do not expect to succeed in my opposition. I am aware of the rule to which the senator from California alludes. When the legislature of Massachusetts thought proper to send us resolutions in reference to what she conceived to be an outrage on one of her senators, I thought it well enough to let the matter pass without discussion; but when another state conceives it to be her duty to take up the question, and come in with her resolves, denouncing the transaction which took place here as a cowardly and brutal outrage, and as an attempt to stifle debate, it strikes me as presenting the subject altogether in a new light. I have seen nothing in this matter which struck me as an attempt, on the part of any one, to stifle or check the utmost freedom of debate, here or elsewhere. A senator from Massachusetts, in the exercise of his privilege, delivered himself, with the utmost freedom, of his opinions upon certain very delicate questions; and in the progress of his remarks, took occasion to reflect severely upon the historic character of one of the states of this Union, and to reprobate, in strong and pointed personal terms, the conduct and bearing of one of the senators from that state, who was then absent. A representative from South Carolina felt it to be his privilege to call that senator to personal account for what he said on that occasion. Now, sir, I know what are the guarantees of the Constitution; but in the wildest flights of my imagination, I never dreamt that the Constitution guarantied, or undertook to guaranty, to me, or to any other member of the American Senate, the unrestrained privilege of denouncing states, and senators, and private citizens, in such terms as I might think proper to employ, and yet of claiming under the Constitution immunity from all account, out of doors, for what I might say. I had supposed, and I do yet suppose, that if, in the exercise of my privilege as a sena tor, I denounce any gentleman in terms to him personally offensive, I am, as a gentleman, accountable to him for what I say; and the Constitution never undertook to shield and protect me against that. Mr. JAMES. The honorable senator and myself perfectly agree in that respect. Mr. BROWN. I dare say that I perfectly agree with my gallant friend from Rhode Island; but do I agree with "little Rhody?" Does Rhode Island agree to this? If she does, why comes she here with these resolutions? Why does she, in her sovereign capacity, as a member of this confederacy, undertake to interpose in a mere personal quarrel-in a mere personal controversy between two individuals? I take it for granted that the honored state from which my friend comes, believes that a great outrage has been committed on the Constitution; that there has been a bona fide attempt here to restrain the freedom of debate; that the South, in the person of the representative from South Carolina, has undertaken the grave task of restraining the North, in the person of the senator from Massachusetts, in the full exercise of that freedom of speech which is guarantied by the Constitution. That is the light in which I am to suppose Rhode Island views the case, judging by the resolutions which she has sent here, and which are now on your table. I do not regard the transaction in any such view. If, as I said at the outset, a senator has made a gross personal assault by words upon any senator, or upon a representative, or upon anybody out of doors, then, in his person, not as a senator, but as an individual, I hold that he is accountable for such insult and outrage. Heaven forbid that I should ever undertake to protect myself under the panoply of the Constitution for words spoken here. So long as I confine myself to the legitimate discussion of questions fairly before the Senate, avoiding personalities, it would be an outrage on the freedom of debate if any one here or elsewhere should undertake to call me to account, or prevent me saying what I choose to say in respect to questions before this body; but if I go outside of the line to offer a personal affront to a brother senator, a personal indignity to a member of the House of Representatives, to a state of the Union, or to any private citizen, I must be accountable for it; and the Constitution, I apprehend, never undertook to guaranty me against being called to account if I thus trespass on the rights of others. Rhode Island must either be mistaken as to what are the facts of the case, or understands the Constitution of our country in a different light from that in which I understand it. I rose, sir, to object to the printing of the resolutions, simply that I might have an opportunity of presenting my humble protest against their doctrines. In reply to Mr. Seward Mr. BROWN said:- If the senator from New York will allow me, I will state what I meant. He will understand me as saying that neither the senator from Massachusetts, nor any other senator, is responsible in a court of justice, as for a libel, for anything uttered on this floor; but he will also understand me as taking the ground distinctly, that, as a man and as a gentleman, he is responsible out of doors for what he says here personally offensive to other people. In other words, if I choose, on the floor of the Senate, to offer to the senator from New York a gross personal insult, as a mau and as a gentleman, I am responsible to him. The Constitution has never undertaken to shield me from that responsibility. While I say nothing of the conduct of other gentlemen, I say for myself, that, if I offered such an affront and the senator demanded of me satisfaction, and I undertook to shield myself behind the Constitution, all Christendom would say that I had acted meanly and cowardly. Mr. SEWARD. I do not misunderstand the honorable senator from Mississippi; at all events, I am sure I do not intentionally misunderstand him. I understand him to say that the state of Rhode Island takes alarm unnecessarily, and unwisely, and unjustly, for the freedom of debate in the Senate of the United States, under the circumstances presented on this occasion. Those circumstances are simply these-that a senator, for words spoken in debate, has been assailed, beaten, and brought to the floor of the Senate Chamber, by the hand of a member of the House of Representatives. Mr. BROWN. Allow me to say to the senator that I treat the transaction which chanced to happen in the Senate Chamber precisely as if it had happened anywhere else. I attach no special sanctity to this chamber, except when the body is in session. I prefer, as a mere matter of taste, that this transaction should have occurred elsewhere; but I say, I attach no special importance to its happening here. If Mr. Brooks committed any outrage upon Mr. Sumner, if his conduct was cowardly, if he crept upon him and struck him unawares, and thereby got the advantage, Mr. Sumner yet survives; he has a right to demand personal satisfaction. If he demands it, and Mr. Brooks refuses it, I shall then know where to put my denunciation. But this, I say again, is a matter of controversy between two persons, with which I think the states of the Union have no sort of connection. Mr. SEWARD rejoined, and Mr. BROWN replied as follows: There is only one point in the speech of the senator from New York on which I care to comment. He agrees with me that senators and representatives are not to be called to account by libel suits for words. spoken in debate; but he goes further, and takes the ground that they are not to be called to account in any manner, no odds what they may say. He thinks that a senator may get up here, and offer any sort of affront which he may choose to offer to a brother senator--may denounce in any manner, no matter how broad, a member of the House of Representatives-may utter every sort of denunciation against a private citizen, may belie, libel, and traduce a sovereign state of this Union; and yet for all this is protected by the Constitution, and that to call him to account outside of the Senate is a grave offence against the Constitution. So I understand the senator. He nods assent. Against all that doctrine I enter here, in the American Senate, my most solemn and emphatic protest. I am willing that it shall go to the country that, if I offend the senator from New York in debate, I am responsible to him, not as a senator, but as a man and as a gentleman; I am responsible to him out of doors, and the Constitution has thrown around me no protection in that regard. If I say of any man out of doors, who is entitled to be recognised as a gentleman, an offensive thing, I am responsible for having said so, in my personal character as a gentleman. If I choose to denounce the state of Massachusetts in gross and offensive terms, or the state of New York, and one of her citizens calls me to account for it, as a man, as a gentleman, I am responsible, and the Constitution has given me no immunity against such responsibility. The Constitution has guarantied to me the right to say what I choose in this chamber. Though it may be libellous, though it may be grossly scandalous, though it may be in the highest possible degree offensive, I am not to be called to account in a court of justice, as a senator, for what I say here; but the Constitution has given me no license to libel "all the world and the rest of mankind;" it has not guarantied to me the privilege of saying to the senator from New York that he is a black-hearted Abolitionist, or anything else that may be personally offensive to that senator, and then given me an immunity, a protection, a guarantee, against responsibility outside of this chamber. The Constitution, in my opinion, has given me no such guarantee; therefore, I say, as I did at the outset, without meaning to protract this debate, that the senator from New York and myself are pointedly at issue as to what are our constitutional rights on this floor. I mean, as a senator, so long as I occupy a position here, to be responsible out of doors for whatever I say-not in any libel suit-I will protect myself against that if I choose to do so, because that is my constitutional right; but for whatever I say here, as a man, as a citizen, and as a gentleman, I will be responsible out of doors. I believe the Constitution gives me no protection, nor did it ever design to give me protection against such responsibility. If it had undertaken to do it, the undertaking would be futile. There is no use in discussing this question. If men will give gross personal affronts to others, they must be responsible in their own proper persons; and no laws, no constitution, until our whole nature is changed, can alter this feeling of our common humanity. We must either be base, beneath the dignity of men, or elevated to the dignity of angels, before you can enforce any other rule, whether it be in the Constitution, in the law, or elsewhere. A person must be less than a man, and, from the very nature of his degradation, too low to resent a personal affront, or else he must be akin to the angels, and, therefore, so much above man, that there can be no occasion for his resenting personal injuries, before you can enforce that rule. The men who made the Constitution were human. They were like the senator from New York and myself. They never undertook to debase us below the dignity of men, or elevate us to the dignity of angels or demi-gods. They regarded us, I conceive, as mere mortals; took us as they found us, and made a Constitution which suited our condition as men-I trust, as dignified men. They protected us against vexatious suits for libel and damages for what, in the discharge of our duties, we choose to say here. They never gave us, in my opinion, an unlimited privilege of libelling all the world, and then saying to all the world, "Hands off; we are a privileged class; we are clothed with the panoply of the Constitution; here we stand in all cur majesty and in all our dignity; we say to you that you are rogues, thieves, liars, scoundrels, cowards, and everything which can make you infamous, and yet we are not responsible because we are senators." I believe no such thing, and will maintain no such doctrine here or elsewhere; and this I say independent of the fracas which occurred on the floor of the Senate Chamber-not in the Senate. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. On the 20th of March, 1858, Mr. BROWN made the following remarks :— I HAVE a very small matter of account to settle with the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson], and as it only concerns myself, it is not material that anybody but himself should be present. In a speech pronounced by him on the 4th of February--which I did not hear at the time he made certain quotations from a speech of mine delivered some years ago, and he did me (unintentionally, I have no doubt) very marked injustice. I did not reply at the time, because I did not chance to be in my seat. He quoted two paragraphs from my speech, and quoted them correctly. He then quoted what purports to be a third paragraph from the same speech; but I never should have known that it was taken from the same speech if he had not so stated; because, having read the whole speech over since, I find no such paragraph as the third one in it. It is only by that landmark that I was enabled to trace out in what speech of mine it was intended to locate that third paragraph, to which I now call the attention of the senator and of the Senate. He says-attributing the language which he quotes as being used by me in the speech alluded to: * * * "The senator makes professions of devotion to the Union. In the very speech from which I have before quoted, the senator says that"Our people have been calculating the value of the Union.' 'I tell you candidly we have calculated the value of the Union. will not keep us in the Union.' Love for the Union "The whole tone, temper, and sentiment look not to the support of the Union as our fathers made it, but to the triumph of a sectional southern policy, to the expansion of slavery, or to the ultimate overthrow of the government of this country." Now, sir, no such paragraph as is here quoted appears in the speech in which the first two paragraphs, quoted by the senator from Massachusetts, appear. It is a speech delivered by me on the 30th of January, 1850, in the House of Representatives, and reported at pages 250-258, and along there generally, of the Congressional Globe of that year. The three sentences embodied in that paragraph may possibly be found in the whole body of the speech. I believe they may be, by dividing sentences, and taking detached portions of paragraphs, and putting them together. What I assert is, that no such paragraph appears in the speech, and that the three sentences put together make up a paragraph which wholly distorts the meaning of the speech; and that I may set myself right before the Senate and the country, I shall send to the secretary's desk, and ask to have three paragraphs, which I have marked, read from that speech, in which, if any three sentences bearing the meaning of the three I have read appear at all in the whole speech, they will be found. I ask the clerk to read the three short paragraphs which I have marked, to show what was the general character of the speech, and to show that the senator from Massachusetts, in attributing that language to it, and saying that it contained such a paragraph, wholly misconceived the general scope and design of that speech. It was not, as he assumed, a disunion speech; it was not a speech |