A Good Deed — published May 23, 1856

As will be seen by telegraph, Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, after the adjournment of the Senate on yesterday, administered to Senator Sumner, the notorious and foulmouthed Abolitionist from Massachusetts, an elegant and effectual caning. We are rejoiced at this. The only regret we feel is, that Mr. Brooks did not employ a horsewhip or a cowhide upon his slanderous back, instead of a cane. We trust the ball may be kept in motion. Seward others should catch it next.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Friday Morning, May 23, 1856, p. 2

Mr. Sumner — published June 13, 1856

Mr. Sumner is improving as fast as could be reasonably expected, after the very severe concussion his brain mug have suffered. The wounds of the scalp are healing but his nervous system has not yet recovered its usual tone, and would be sheer follow for him to think of taking his seat in the Senate, or resuming accustomed labors in his present condition. The wonder to us is, that under such blows as were dealt with the might of a powerful arm, his cerebral organization should have escaped without radical injury. Much time and care will be required for the restoration of his wonted health. We need hardly say to his friends that he bears this affliction with the quiet dignity and cheerful patience a man, who can see no humiliation in being made the victim of unexpected violence, and is incapable of stooping to the indulgence of the low passion of revenge.

The above bulletin, taken from the National Era of Thursday, is the latest we have received concerning the health of the “caned” Senator from Massachusetts. He is still “improving,” it seems, although his “nervous system has not yet recovered its usual tone.” This latter is a very interesting fact. Our own opinion is that the possuming fellow will hardly ever recover, so as far as his “nervous system” is concerned. The derangement of his “nervous system” has all along constituted the sum and substance of his illness. He was, no doubt, mighty scared, and we suspect he still dreads another flagellation. And hence the present condition of his “nervous system.”

We renew our suggestion for the appointment of a committee of one Southern man to ascertain the true condition of Mr. Charles Sumner. We believe he is possuming, and we want the fact officially made known. In the meantime, however, we shall keep our readers apprized of the daily Abolition reports concerning his health. The are all very curious, instructive, suggestive, and pleasant.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Friday Morning, June 13, 1856, p. 2

Quizzing — published June 7, 1856

The people of Worcester, Mass., have been made indignant at the reception of the following [telegraphic] despatch by the President of the “American Council” in that city:

“ALEXANDIRA, Va., May 31.—To the President of the American Council, Worchester. Your resolve to defend Massachusetts men in Congress from further outrages, at an hour’s notice, has induced this proposition:—

“We will meet any number you may choose, at any central point, with Sharpe’s rifles, to test your defence of blackguardism.

(Signed)

A COMMITTEE OF THE STATES’ RIGHTS CLUB OF ALEXANDRIA.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Saturday Morning, June 7, 1856, p. 3

The Late Case of Assault in the Senate Chamber — published June 7, 1856

The report of the Hon. Howell Cobb and Hon. A. B. Greenwood, the minority of the committee of the House of Representatives, appointed to investigate the facts touching the assault by one of its members on a member of the Senate, is a long but able document, and sets forth very clearly, the privileges of the House and the Senate as well as their respective members, and the authority the House has to punish one of its own members for a violation of the privilege of a member of the Senate. We quote as follows:

The first allegation is that the privilege of Mr. Sumner has been violated in this: that he has been questioned for the delivery of a speech in the Senate, in violation of that provision of the constitution which declares that “for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.” This provision of the constitution was evidently intended to protect members of Congress from such legal liability as they might incur for words spoken in debate in their respective houses. It can hardly be supposed that the constitution was providing against a mode of questioning which in itself, even without such provision, would have not only been unauthorized by law, but in direct violation of the criminal law of the land. It is far from being settled that this immunity from responsibility goes to the extent claimed for it by those from whom we differ in this matter.

If members of Congress seek this shield and protection which the constitution gives them, is it an onerous condition imposed upon them that their speech shall be proper and legitimate in the discharge of their constitutional duty? Ought they to be permitted to avail themselves of the position given them by a confiding constituency to indulge in language and reflections in no wise necessary for the discharge of their official duty, nor promotive of the public good? And, even granting this right to the fullest extent, and they go beyond this exercise of speech or debate, and afterwards publish and circulate, in pamphlet form, libelous matter under the pretext that it is in this published form privileged speech or debate in Congress? Even the British Parliament, with all its disposition to protect its members, and, under the doctrine of privilege, to extend to them powers and immunities, refused to extend the doctrine beyond the strict limits of debate upon the floor of Parliament. The language of our constitution in this respect is drawn from the parliamentary law, and we suppose it will not be contended that our members of Congress have greater latitude in this respect from the members of the British Parliament.

Here the report quotes from Justice Story’s work on the Constitution, in support of their view. Judge S. says:

“Although a speech is delivered in the House of Commons is privileged, and the member cannot be questioned respecting it elsewhere, yet, if he publishes his speech, and it contains libelous matter, he is liable to an action and prosecution therefore, as in common cases of libel.

“And the same principles seem applicable to the privilege of debate and speech in Congress. No man ought to have a right to defame others under color of performance of the duties of his office. And if he does so in the actual discharge of his duties in Congress, that furnishes no reason why he should be enabled, through the medium of the press, to destroy the reputation and invade the peace of other citizens. It is neither within the scope of his public duty nor in furtherance of public rights or public policy. Ever Citizen has good a right to be protected by the laws from malignant scandal, and  false charges, and defamatory imputations, as a member of Congress has to utter them in his seat. If it were otherwise, a man’s character might be taken away without the possibility of redress, either by malice of indiscretion or overweening self-conceit of a member of Congress.”

We again quote from the report:

“The only provision of the Constitution under which the power can be exercised, on which the majority of our committee have relied, is the one already quoted, which declares that ‘each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.’

It is a question which has been much discussed, and one which it is important to decide correctly. To what extent is the power given to the two houses by this provision of the constitution to punish their members? Taking the whole paragraph in its connected sense, it seems to us that it has reference to the House while in session in the actual discharge of its constitutional duties. The power of providing rules for its proceedings, it will be seen, is coupled in that same sentence with the power to punish its members for disorderly behavior, and the power with the concurrence of two-thirds, to expel a member. If it had been contemplated that the power conferred in this provision were to be exercised to the extent now claimed for them, they would hardly have been placed in such intimate connexion with the simple power of providing rules for the proceedings of the two houses. We entertain no doubt that the whole of this provision looks to the session of the House, to the providing of rules for its proceedings during its sessions, to punishing its members for such disorderly conduct as would interrupt its session, and, where that conduct amounted to such an outrage upon the rules and proprieties of the House as would justify it, to expel the member.

To place any other construction upon this provision would be to make the members of each house, and their moral conduct and deportment, subject to the whim caprice and discretion of a majority of the body. Extend it beyond the presence of the session of the house and it becomes an unlimited power, operative not lonely during the session of Congress, but during the recess; to be exercised not only in reference to the conduct of members when in Washington city or in the District of Columbia, but when they have returned to their respective homes, and even when they have gone beyond the limits of the country. When you have passed the limits which are her laid down, there is no other boundary short of Congressional discretion. And we cannot believe that it was the intention of the framers of the constitution to place the moral conduct and deportment of members of the two houses of Congress under the control and discretion of a majority of either house.

The report, in conclusion, contends that there has been no violation in this case of the privileges of either House of Congress, or any member thereof, over which the House has jurisdiction. Whatever offence may have been committed, it says, is properly cognizable before the courts of the country, and it proposed to dismiss the subject to that jurisdiction provided by the constitution and laws of the country for its investigation.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Saturday Morning, June 7, 1856, p. 3

A few days before he delivered his speech . . .

 . . . Sumner wrote a letter to Theodore Parker, of which the following is an extract:

“The tyranny over us is complete. Will the people submit to it? When you read this, I shall be saying in the Senate that they will not. I shall pronounce the most through philippic ever heard in this legislative body.”

He delivered his “most thorough philippic,” and received therefore a most thorough caning.

This letter was read to an abolition meeting in Boston—and received with great applause. Mr. Parker also read the letter from Hale, which expressed the opinion that all the Northern voters needed just such blows as Sumner received—which did not meet with as much applause. Also a letter from Wilson, which states, that he would have grappled with Brooks, if he had been present—that the times are stormy in Washington—that the eyes of bloody men are upon them as they walk the streets, &c. Parker then stated: “that Keitt had threatened to flog Wilson, if he met him in the street, when Wilson went and walked in front of his lodgings, Keitt was at the door, but did not interfere.”

We see by this sort of proceeding, that these people are for provoking more outrages. When they get what they seek, we hope they will not annoy the country with their howls.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Friday Morning, June 6, 1856, p. 2

Mr. Sumner’s Condition — published June 5, 1856

WASHINGTON, Thursday, May 29, 1856

Mr. Sumner is more comfortable this morning and the symptoms of erysipelas are subsiding. Drs. Perry, Miller and Lindsly held a consultation this morning. No one is yet admitted into his room.

WASINGTON, May 30th.

Mr. Sumner passed a comfortable night, but is in a very bad condition. It turns out that the scalp was torn from the [skull] for an inch or two in width beyond cuts, which was not observed when they were first sewed up.—The surface of inflammation and suppuration is thus very extensive, and exhibits a malignant and serious wound.—Two physicians are in attendance this morning. The greatest care has to be taken to keep the patient quiet. It is likely to be long before he can get to the Senate. He will be removed from the city as soon as his condition will permit.

WASINGTON, May 31st.

A consultation of physicians was held at 10 o’clock this morning in regard to the state of Mr. Sumner’s health.—No person whatever is yet admitted to see him, absolute repose being necessary for him. He was rather more comfortable last night.

WASHINGTON, June 1, 1856.

Mr. Sumner is weak and feeble, but his wounds are doing as well as could be expected. He has been able to sit up about an hour to-day.

We copy the above from the N. Y. Tribune—being the four days’ bulletins of the martyred Sumner’s critical condition. When one bears in mind, that the man has never been seriously hurt—that he might have gone about his business the next day—with what ineffable scorn must he regard this whining hypocrisy? It is even more disgusting than the falsehoods they have put forth in regard to the outrages in Kansas. We see that these last are to be used as Yankees use every thing—for turning a penny. Accounts are already made up for property destroyed to the amount of $100,000—which the Government at Washington will be called upon to pay. We don’t know but they have some such scheme in expatiating upon the intense suffering, and “extensive suppuration” of Sumner. The greater his afflictions—the greater should be the bill for damages.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Thursday Morning, June 5, 1856, p. 2

The Sumner Assault—Mr. Brooks’ Letter — published June 4, 1856

WASHINGTON, June 2.—The following is Mr. Brooks’ letter to the President of the Senate, referred to in the Senate proceedings of yesterday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 2, 1856

 

Sir:—I have seen in the public journals of this morning the report of the Senate Committee to whom was referred a resolution of the Senate Directing an inquiry into an assault made by me on the 22d inst., on a senator from Massachusetts. It is with unfeigned regret, I find in their report that what I had intended only as a redress for personal wrong, has been construed into, or must necessarily be held as a breach of the privilege of the Senate. Whilst making a full and explicit disclaimer of any such design or purpose, I ask leave to say that, for the occasion, considering myself only as a gentleman in society and under no official restraint as a member of the House of Representatives, I did not advert to or consider there was any alternative restraint imposed upon me by reason that the offence came from a member of the Senate. I had read attentively and carefully a speech delivered on the 19th and 20th ult. by a Senator of Massachusetts, and found therein language which I regard as unjustly reflecting not only on the history and character of South Carolina but also upon a friend and relative. To such language I thought I had a just right to take exception, under the circumstances,—the Senator from South Carolina, who was effected by these remarks being absent from the Senate and the city. I had reason to believe that the personal responsibility for wrongs in personal deportment which would have saved me the painful necessity of the collision which I sought; and in my judgement, therefore, I had no alternative but to act as I did.

 

That the assault was made in the Senate Chamber was caused only by the fact that, after a careful search elsewhere, on the previous as well as the same day, the offender could not be found outside of the walls of the Senate Chamber, and the Senate had just adjourned for more than an hour previous to the assault.

 

I submit the forgoing statement from high respect for the Senate of the United States, and ask that it may be received as a full disclaimer of any design or purpose to infract its privileges, or offend its dignity.

 

I cheerfully add, should the facts as reported by the Committee of the Senate be nevertheless necessarily considered as a breach of privilege, as a conclusion of law, my earnest desire to atone for it, so far as may be by this unhesitating and unqualified apology, and that you will oblige me by communicating this to the Senate as its presiding officer.

 

I have the honor to remain, sir, with great respect, your servant,

P. S. BROOKS.

Hon. Jesse D. Bright, Pres’t of the Senate.

 

The Majority report of the select committee of the House, to inquire into the assault, concludes as follows:

That this House is of opinion that it not only has the power to punish Preston S. Brooks for a breach of privilege, but for an act of disorderly behavior.

 

And whereas it further appears that Henry A. Edmundson and Lawrence M. Keitt, some time previous to the said assault, were informed that it was the purpose of the said Brooks to commit violence on the person of said Sumner, for words passed by him in debate as a Senator, in the Senate, and took no measure to discourage or prevent the same, but on the contrary, anticipating the commission of the violence, were present on one or more occasions to witness the same as friends of the assailant, therefore

 

Resolved, That Preston S. Brooks be and he is forthwith expelled from this House as representative from the State of South Carolina.

 

Resolved, That this House hereby declares its disapprobation of said act of Henry A. Edmunson and Lawrence M. Keitt in relation to said assault.

Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, presented a minority report; both reports were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. The minority report argues that no breach of privilege, under the Constitution, had been committed, and that the House has no power to go beyond the Constitution, in deciding that a breach of privilege had been committed.

The Majority report is signed by Messrs. Campbell of Ohio, Pennington and Spinner.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, June 4, 1856, p. 2

We expressed our regret, that Mr. Brooks did not . . .

 . . . give notice to Mr. Sumner of his intention to chastise him for his foul defamation of his absent kinsman and the people of his State. We do not know that such a notice was due. The speech itself justified brooks in any line of conduct—and Sumner expected and was prepared for an attack.

We now learn from the Washington correspondent of the Charleston Mercury, that Sumner was informed of Mr. Brooks’ intention to chastise him. The writer says:

“In deciding upon the craven conduct of Sumner, it must be recollected that he is physically of fine proportions and weighs of least twenty or thirty pounds more than Brooks, and that he was duly informed by the latter of his intention to administer the chastisement.”

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, June 4, 1856, p. 2

Just as We Expected! — published June 4, 1856

The Washington Star says that Sumner’s friends have been circulating false accounts about his condition. There has been no consultation of physicians—no critical condition—all humbug, put forth to excite the tears of the tender-hearted women and chicken-hearted men of Boston. The Star says:

“It is understood that the physician first called in to dress his wounds has said that Mr. Sumner could have gone out of his room the next day if he had chosen.”

This is as we supposed. We never believed that I hollow gutta-percha cane, which broke into pieces, could have wrought all the damage that was talked of. We suspect that Sumner fell as much from fear as from blows—and rather more from than the former than the latter.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, June 4, 1856, p. 2

Massachusetts Men to be Defended — published June 2, 1856

BOSTON, May 30.—The American Council of Worcester has resolved, in case of the commission of any further outrages on Massachusetts men in Congress, to hold themselves prepared to depart at an hour’s notice for Washington, and if necessary to defend them against any personal assaults.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, June 2, 1856, p. 2

The Assault on Mr. Sumner—Indignation Meeting In New York, published June 2, 1856

NEW YORK, May 30.—A meeting was held this evening in the Tabernacle to express the indignation entertained at the assault on Senator Sumner. Long before the hour of meeting the building was crowded to overflowing with one of the most respectable audiences ever convened there. Mr. G. Griswold presided, assisted by some twenty vice-presidents, including Moses H. Grinnell, P. Perritt, President of the Chamber of Commerce, Benj. F. Butler, Ex-Mayor Havemeyer, Ex-Mayor Kingsland, Wm. C. Bryant, Wm. M. Eveasts, Erastus Brooks, and others.

A series of appropriate resolutions were adopted, in which the assault on Mr. Sumner was characterized, in the language of Senator Wilson, as “brutal, murderous and cowardly;” and calling upon the House to expel, immediately and unconditionally, Mr. Brooks from his seat.

The resolutions were advocated by Daniel D. Ford, Charles King, President of Columbia College, E. D. Morgan, John A. Stevens and others. The tenor of the speeches was that party feeling among the patriotic conservative Union loving men of the North must henceforth be sunk at the North and a united effort be made to avenge the insult put upon it.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, June 2, 1856, p. 2

Brooks and Wilson—Dueling, Street-Fights, or Personal Abuse, published June 2, 1856

The New York Courier has the following dispatch:

“WASHINGTON, THURSDAY NIGHT.

Mr. Brooks, by Mr. Lane of Oregon, sent today a note to Gen. Wilson, demanding that Gen. Wilson should either retract the words “murderous, brutal, and cowardly,” used by him in characterizing Mr. Brooks’ assault on Mr. Sumner, or indicate where he would receive a hostile message from Mr. Brooks. Gen. Wilson, in answer refused to retract or qualify his words, declined receiving a challenge, but said he would defend himself from personal violence. For some hours after this correspondence had passed, a street fight was expected, as General Wilson was well armed, and was surrounded by armed friends.—Mr. Brooks left for Cincinnati this afternoon, and General Wilson will go North tomorrow. General Wilson proposes to address a Republican meeting at Newburgh on Saturday night.”

General Webb adds the following telegraphic item:

“General Wilson’s refusal to fight Mr. Brooks, on the ground that dueling is contrary to the laws of God and man, is approved, but there are those who condemn him for inviting the challenge, while entertaining such sentiments, and think he has lost ground by the affair, and that Mr. Brooks has benefitted in the same ration. There will be no more bullying and blustering, and the peace will not be disturbed by the principals or the friends.”

We are not advised by whom Wilson’s refusal to fight is approved, and it is rather unintelligible, on connexion with what follows, that he had lost ground for refusing a challenge after having defied it. We suppose the meaning of it to be that Wilson was unwilling to engage in a fair fight, but was not adverse to a row, surrounded by armed friends, in which he might hope for some undue advantage. Whatever be the fact, we are not surprised to hear that even his own section is ashamed of him. Wherever English blood flows, and the English language is spoken, a man who acts the bully, or indulges in personal abuse of others, must suffer in public estimation, if, when called on for honorable satisfaction, he refuses to accord it. It is proper it should be so. It is the right of society to make those suffer who outrage the recognized laws of good breeding. We may say what we will of the absurdity and immorality of dueling, and of its ineffectiveness as a mode of personal redress; but, as human nature is constituted, there is no alternative, except street fights, or secret associations, or a disgraceful system of vilification and calumny, attended by slander suits. Poisoning, or some other secret mode of murder, was the system in earlier times, and continued to a quite late day in Italy. The duello superseded it among all the chivalrous nations of modern times, and wherever the “code of honor” has been established, it has maintained, speaking generally, a high and courteous bearing between man and man. Many individuals may have lost their lives by it; but society reaped the benefit. This was the mode of adjusting private wrongs, which prevailed throughout our Republic in its earlier days. It then knew no North or South—it bore sway everywhere. But in later times, a great change has taken place. Mercantile caution, purantic hypocrisy and the spirit of knavish attorneys at the North, have combined to ignore this mode of adjustment, and substituted slander suits. Our intercourse with the North as affected us some what, and, under its influence, we have enacted anti-duelling laws; though popular opinion continues to damn a man if he does not fight, and then doubly damns him if he does. Society, however, still exacts its dues here, and insists that those who outrage its prerogatives shall pay the penalty of their crimes, and from Gen. Webb’s despatch it appears that they cannot escape altogether undamaged even at the North.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, June 2, 1856, p. 2

Fizzled Out — published June 2, 1856

“Wilson has fizzled out, contrary to the expectations of his friends.” So writes the Herald correspondent at Washington, in respect to the notorious Abolition Senator from Massachusetts. After denouncing the conduct of Col. Brooks as “brutal, murderous and cowardly,” this courageous Abolition incendiary, when applied to for satisfaction in the most usual form, refuses to give it, upon the ground that he is no “duelist.” Fizzled out he has sure enough; but not “contrary to the expectations” of anybody but a fanatic like himself. And yet Wilson is the fellow who employs brave language in his speeches, goes armed, and at last is afraid to move about Washington unless surrounded by a half dozen friends as white-livered as himself.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, June 2, 1856, p. 2

Sympathy For Sumner — published June 2, 1856

NEW YORK, June 1.—A very large meeting was held in Brooklyn last night, denunciatory of the assault on Senator Sumner. Spirited speeches were made and appropriate resolutions adopted.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, June 2, 1856, p. 1

Cane For Mr. Brooks — published May 30, 1856

We understand that a very large meeting of the University of Virginia was held on Tuesday evening to take into consideration the recent attack of the Hon. Preston S. Brooks on Charles Sumner, in the U. S. Senate chamber.

Several very eloquent speeches were delivered, all of which fully approved the course of Mr. Brooks, and a resolution was passed, to purchase for Mr. B. a special can. The cane is to have a heavy gold head, which will be suitably inscribed, and also bear upon it a device of the human head, badly cracked and broken.—Petersburg Express.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Friday Morning, May 30, 1856, p. 4

Mr. Sumner — published May 30, 1856

WASHINGTON, May 29.—Hon. Mr. Brooks of S. C., sent a challenge to-day to Senator Wilson of Massachusetts, for having, in the Senate, charged him with having made a “cowardly and murderous assault upon his colleague, Mr. Sumner.” Gen. Lane, Oregon, was the bearer of the note to Mr. Wilson. He replied that he was not a duelist, but would use such language as he thought proper in debate, and if assailed, he knew how to defend himself.—Mr. Brooks expressed himself satisfied with Gen. Webb’s letter in the courier and Enquire.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Friday Morning, May 30, 1856, p. 3

Mr. Sumner — published May 28, 1856

WASHINGTON. May 28.—A change has take place in Mr. Sumner’s condition, and he is now considered in a critical condition.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, May 28, 1856, p. 4

Sumner’s Blood Shirt Sent To Boston — published May 28, 1856

This maltreated garment, we learn, has been conveyed by carful hands to Boston. In advance of the august ceremonies which doubtless will mark its advent, his patriotic constituency, will have had their minds and hearts, if they have either, well stored for “mutiny and rage,” by the fervid eloquence of their Beecher Saint.

This meek and holy priest is, we suppose, to officiate upon the occasion of the shirt demonstrations which will be made. As it is a new theme, and may draw to heavily upon his imagination, we suggest to him to read Mark Anthony’s speech over the body of the beloved Caesar.—As Thus: “If you have tears, prepare to shed them now. You all do know this “garment.” I remember the first time Sumner put it on—‘twas on a summer’s morning, in his room. That day he hoped to overcome the triumvirate. oh! Now you weep! And I perceive you feel the dint of pity; these are gracious drops! Kind souls, what weep you, when you but behold our Sumner’s vesture stained? Look you to yonder Southern city, where is himself, marred by the hands of traitor!

“1st Cit. O, piteous spectacle!

“2d Cit. O, Noble Sumer!

“3d Cit. O, woeful day!

“4th Cit. O, traitor villain!

“1st Cit. O, most bloody sight!

“2nd Cit. We will be revenged! revenge! About—seek—burn—fire—kill—slay—let not a traitor live!”

Stop right here holy Beecher, the stones of Boston begin to rise and mutiny!

It is a most excellent oration and has well done its work—grateful, too, to the sufferer, it will be, for the mindful consideration of his classic taste.—Was. Sentinel.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, May 28, 1856, p. 2

Investigation Of The Sumner Assault — published May 28, 1856

We find the following in the Baltimore Papers. With regard the Sumner’s statement, we may remark that it disagrees, in important particulars, with authentic accounts heretofore published.

WASHINGTON, May 26.—The House committee of investigation waited on Mr. Sumner to-day in discharge of their duty regarding the resent assault. He was in bed but have is testimony and was also cross-examined. He was unable to set up during the visit of the committee, but did so a short time today. He is still very week and his physicians counsel him not to move out of the House for a week.

The following is Mr. Sumner’s statement on oath.—“I attended the Senate as usual on Thursday the 22nd of May. After some formal business a message was received from the House of Representatives, announcing the death of a member of that body from Missouri. This was followed by a brief tribute to the deceased from Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, when, according to usage and out of respect to the deceased, the Senate adjourned. Instead of leaving the Chamber with the rest on the adjournment, I continued in my seat, occupied with my pen. While thus intent, in order to be in season for the mail, which was soon to close, I was approached by several persons, who desired to consult with me, but I answered them promptly and briefly, excusing myself, for the reason that I was much engaged.

When the last of these persons left me, I drew my arm chair close to my desk, and with my legs under the desk, continued writing. My attention at this time was so entirely drawn from all other objects, that, though there must have been many persons in the Senate, I saw no body. While thus intent, with my head bent over my writing, I was addressed by a person who approached the front of my desk, so entirely unobserved that I was not aware of his presence, until I heard my name pronounced. As I looked up, with my pen in my hand, I saw a tall man, whose countenance was not familiar, standing directly over me, and at the same moment I caught these words:—“I have read your speech twice over carefully.—It is a libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler who is a relative of mine.”

While these words were still passing from his lips, he commenced a succession of blows with a heavy cane on my head, by the first of which I was stunned so as to lose sight. I no longer saw my assailant nor any other person or object in the room. What I did afterwards was done almost unconsciously, acting under the instincts of self-defence, with my head already bent down, I rose from my seat, wrenching up my desk which was screwed to the floor, and then pressed forward while my assailant continued his blows.—I had no other consciousness, until I found myself ten feet forward in front of my desk, lying on the floor of the Senate, with my bleeding head supported on the knee of a gentleman, whom I soon recognized by voice and manner as Mr. Morgan of New York. Other persons there were about me offering friendly assistance, but I did not recognize any of them. Others there were at a distance, looking on and offering no assistance of whom I recognized only Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, Mr. Toombs of Georgia, and, I thought, also my assailant standing between them.

I was helped from the floor and conducted into the lobby of the Senate, where I was placed upon a sofa. Of those who helped me there I have no recollections. As I entered the lobby I recognized Mr. Slidell, of Louisiana, who retreated; but I recognized no one else until I felt a friendly grasp of the hand, which seemed to come from Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, I have a vague impression that Mr. Bright, President of the Senate, spoke to me while I was on the floor of the Senate or in the lobby. I make this statement in answer to the interrogatories of the committee and offer it as presenting completely all my recollections of the assault and of the attending circumstances, whether immediately before after. I desire to add that besides the words which I have given as uttered by my assailant, I have an indistinct recollection of the words “old man,” but these are so enveloped in the mists which ensued from the first blow, that I am not sure whether they were uttered or not.

On the cross examination Mr. Sumner said that he was entirely without arms of any kind, and that he had no notice or warning of any kind direct or indirect, of this assault.

In answer to another question, Mr. Sumner replied:—That what he had said of Mr. Butler was strictly responsive to Mr. Butler’s speeches.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, May 28, 1856, p. 2

Mr. Brooks Bailed — published May 27, 1856

In compliance with the requisition of the warrant of Justice Hollinghead, the Hon. P. S. Brooks presented himself at the justice’s office at four o’clock on Saturday afternoon to answer the charge of assaulting and beating the Hon. Charles Sumner in this county on Tuesday last. On the reading of the charge Mr. Brooks pleaded guilty thereto, whereupon Mr. James Maguire and Mr. Truxton Beale afforded themselves and were accepted as bail for the appearance of Mr. Brooks at the next term of the Criminal Court, being the third Monday in June. This done, defendant was discharged. The specific charge laid in the warrant was “assault and battery,” and the amount of bail $1000.—National Intellegincer.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Tuesday Morning, May 27, 1856, p. 4