The U. S. Senate.Columbus, Ohio, State Journal [Republican](6 June 1856)
Our leading papers, and letter-writers from
Washington, are expressing great surprise and
indignation at the action of the Senate on the
breach of privilege committed on that body by
the ruffianly assault on Sumner. The indignation
is well enough, but the surprise surprises
us. Since Clay, Webster,
Calhoun, Mangum,
Benton and such like spirits have vacated their
seats in that body, what has it become? A place
for free debate and high-souled sentiment? Not
a bit of it. It has degenerated into an arena
for the display of low demagoguery and political
legerdemain; it has sunk its character for statesmanship;
under the lead of a partisan majority
below the common respect of the country.
Why then the manifest surprise at this last step
of degradation? Having lost the respect of the
country, why should it make a show of maintaining
its own self-respect?
The freedom of discussion has been discountenanced
in the Senate ever since 1852. Since
that period, backed by such willing tools as
Toucey of Connecticut, Douglas of Illinois, and
Pettit of Indiana, the Slave Oligarchy have
ruled that body with a rod of iron. Discourtesy
and insult have, over and over again, been
heaped on Senators from the Free States in
debate, with a view of suppressing free speech.
When now it is found that this will not do, what
more natural than that violence should be
substituted and justified, even within the sacred
precincts of their Hall? The men who have
done this thing, had shown themselves willing
to sink the character of gentlemen when acting
in their legislative and representative capacity.
As American Senators, looking to the changes
which are constantly going on in political
ascendancy, they should have cherished the
privileges guaranteed by the Constitution of freedom in debate, as the most sacred right committed
to their charge. On it depends the rights of the
minority -- on these again hang the Liberties of
the People. When freedom in debate is struck
down, there remains but one step more to be
taken, and that step is one of form, not of substance --
Despotism is inaugurated, and Tyrant
Power sits enthroned in the place of Popular
Liberty!
Why then express surprise at the open
manifestation of a principle already recognized by
the majority? If the Senate choose to inaugurate
club-law in the place of the peaceable guarantees
of the Constitution -- if it chooses to protect
in the person of a stranger to their body
the violator of privileges which they themselves
have set at naught, who shall question the act?
The Parliamentary law is stricken down -- its
shield is withdrawn, and what remains? Brute
force opposed to brute force! And if one of the
majority is felled upon the floor of the Senate
for unpalatable speech by the hand of one of
the outraged People -- one of the real Sovereigns
of the land, who shall complain? Not the
majority certainly. They have invited the remedy.
Let them look to the consequences.
[<<Previous Editorial][Next Editorial>>]
|
