Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

If the reading of the above speech even now stirs the blood, what must have been its effect when clothed in the impassioned declamation of the orator himself? The reader will see how varied were the sources from whence he drew his illustrations and how pointedly he applied them. Sacred and profane history, poetry and burlesque, fiction and fable were alternately called into play "to point the moral and adorn the tale." The impeachment struck the auditory nerve of the nation, and its tone re-echoed through the country, and no doubt contributed in no small degree to overthrow the administration of Mr. Van Buren.

CHAPTER XIII.

On the 21st of February the following very exciting drama occurred in Congress. It seems that, on the 16th and 17th of January, Dr. Alexander Duncan, of Ohio, offered certain resolutions about the Swartwout defalcation, accompanied by some remarks. Mr. Stanley, of North Carolina, in the beginning of his reply to the remarks of Dr. Duncan, insinuated that he (Dr. Duncan) was an abolitionist. The speech of Mr. Stanley afterwards appeared in the National Intelligencer, occupying four or five columns. On the 19th of February there appeared in the Globe newspaper the rejoinder of Dr. Duncan. In order to clearly understand the course pursued by Mr. Prentiss we quote some extracts from this publication of the Globe, which was signed by Dr. Duncan. After referring to his resolution about Swartwout, the article proceeds as follows:

"Mr. Stanley, of North Carolina, followed me in reply. At the com mencement of his remarks he insinuated that I was an abolitionist. I promptly pronounced the insinuation a base falsehood and a foul detraction, whether it dwelt upon the lips of the unprincipled calumniator or floated on the breeze in the corrupt, poisonous, and slanderous Federal sheets of the day. My intention at the time was to insult the member. So he understood me, so all who heard me understood me. My meaning was, that the member was a base liar and a foul calumniator, and the only reason that he was indirectly thus denounced was because the rules of the House prohibited me from doing it directly, without laying myself liable to its censure. All this was well understood at the time, and for this intended and well-understood insult I held myself in readiness to give the member any satisfaction which he might have the moral courage to seek; but no disposition to seek for redress was manifested within the time I had a right to expect it, or within the time it might be expected from a man who had any regard for his honor or reputation. So I was disposed to let the member go for what I believe him to be, a mean poltroon and a base liar, and which I believe he may at any time and in any place be pronounced with impunity."

It then alludes to the appearance of Stanley's reply in the National Intelligencer, etc., expresses surprise at its length, and says no leave was given by the House to publish it, etc., and continues:

"I say that the speech published in the National Intelligencer of the 4th inst., purporting to be the remarks of Mr. Stanley in reply to Dr. Duncan,' never was delivered in the House of Representatives, nor any other place, except through the polluted columns of the corrupt, bank-bought, servile, degraded sheet through which it makes its appearance, therefore its very caption or title contains a base falsehood and a mean attempt at fraud and imposition upon the public."

Here follow letters from Messrs. Turner, Bynum, and Moore, going to show that Stanley's reply could not have exceeded fifteen minutes, and further, that Mr. Slade (a distinguished abolitionist of the day) was prompting Mr. Stanley by pointing out certain extracts from one of Dr. Duncan's letters. For this presumptuous interference on the part of Slade Dr. Duncan was highly indignant. After stating that Stanley must have consumed a great part of the fifteen minutes in answering him, and the other part in reading garbled extracts from his letter, and that he, Stanley, had "shown the white feather," the publication continues, as follows:

"The member (Stanley) first regretted that he had not the letter (of Dr. Duncan) in his possession, but it was soon furnished. Who furnished it? Mr. Slade, of Vermont. Ah, Mr. Slade! I am happy to meet you on this board of exposition. I have been talking all this time about (to use a vulgar phrase) 'the little end of nothing,' a thing that it requires the use of a telescope to see, if it be at any considerable distance, hardly the ninth part of a man, a thing now out of time and out of place, a thing that the Almighty never intended for any other purpose than the use of the bodkin, shears, and thimble. But you, sir, are a man six feet five in your shoes. I feel a freedom in talking to you, and in order to have a full and ample case I will splice the member from North Carolina to you, and for a short time will consider you in cahoot, and in that capacity I will hold myself responsible to you for all I say. You profess to be an abolitionist, religiously, morally, patriotically, and civilly, a modern abolitionist, even, so I have been told, to amalgamationism. You furnished the member from North Carolina, did you, with my answer to the abolitionist, from which to read garbled extracts? You stood at his elbow, did you, prompting him and pointing out suitable passages of my letter to enable him to make an anti-abolition speech, and attach to my name that of

abolitionism? Only think of this! A rank abolition Whig from the North in cahoot with a rank anti-abolition Whig from the South in exposing the pernicious doctrine contained in a letter which deprecates slavery in the abstract; or rather a Northern abolition Whig making a convenience and a parrot of a Southern anti-abolitionist, through which to expose the dangerous tendencies of an expression of hostility to slavery in the abstract, and its effects, without regard to time or place! What base sophistry, what black hypocrisy, what political swindling for base and corrupt party purposes! Yes, black hypocrisy, take it as you may," etc.

It then proceeds to show that though he, Dr. Duncan, was opposed to slavery in the abstract, still he was not an abolitionist; accuses Stanley of shirking the Atherton resolutions:

"No, he was not at his post. He was, spaniel-like, skulking from his duty and his post at the nod of party discipline, but when backed and prompted by the abolitionist Slade, he assumed all the pertness of a whiffet, hissed on, puppy-like, to do that which a bigger dog had not the courage to attempt," etc.

It seems that Stanley, in his speech, had turned to Mr. Southgate, of Kentucky, and asked him whether the ruin and desolation described in Dr. Duncan's letter applied to his (Southgate's) district, and the latter had replied, "No; it is a foul libel, a base slander upon my constituents and upon my State." The doctor denounces Southgate for this answer:

"I say if you had read my letter you would have had no grounds to warrant the remark you are said to have made. If you had never read the letter, and knew nothing of its contents, only from the base and unmanly manner in which its garbled fragments have been exhibited, you were wholly unjustifiable in your remark. You made the remark under the broad, protective shield of parliamentary privilege. You have not the moral courage to face me or any other man and make such a remark without the protection of such a privilege. It is a shield and a privilege under which many a puppy in man's shape has taken refuge. I think your remarks were unwarranted, uncalled for, and unprovoked. And, sir, on my own responsibility, and without claim to privilege, permit me, by way of offset and compromise, to reciprocate the remark by another, which I think better founded in truth, that is, that you are a liar and a scoundrel; and permit me to add, also, that in my opinion you are better qualified to adorn the gambler's board, the brothel, and the doggery than the halls of Congress."

The other portions of the publications refer bitterly to another

party, not, however, a member of Congress, who was accused. of being a defaulter.

The above extracts will give some idea of the violence of the publication. The whole may be found in page 210 of the Congressional Globe, Third Session, Twenty-fifth Congress.

Just after its appearance, that is, on the 21st of February, Mr. Prentiss, of Mississippi, said he rose to a question of privilege, and offered the following resolution :

"Resolved, That this House proceed to inquire, 1st, Whether Alexander Duncan, a member of this House from the State of Ohio, be the author of a certain publication or publications under his name in relation to the proceedings of this House and certain members thereof, published in the Globe newspaper of the 19th instant. 2d, Whether by said publication or publications the said Alexander Duncan has not been guilty of a violation of the privileges of this House, of an offence against its peace, dignity, and good order, and of such grossly indecent, ungentlemanly, disgraceful, and dishonorable misconduct as renders him unworthy of his seat in this House and justly liable to expulsion from the same."

Mr. Yell inquired as to his title to the floor on the report of the select Committee on Public Lands. The chair replied he was, but a question of privilege rode over everything else.

Mr. Prentiss then proceeded to comment at length upon the language used in the above publication as a forgery, a false libel, and he would not regard it, for the honor of the House, as authentic. Dr. Duncan here interrupted him, and said he would save the trouble of further proof. "I say, sir, I am the author of that publication and of every word contained in it."

Mr. Prentiss replied, however, he should proceed to comment on the language as if the avowal had not been made.

Wise, in his "Reminiscences," alludes to this speech as follows:

"Once I knew him to be awfully severe upon Dr. Duncan, of Ohio, because he took him for a mere party bully. Sometimes he would burst forth in invective, irony, sarcasm, and strains of indignant eloquence equalling any man who ever spoke."

After Mr. Prentiss had concluded, Mr. Legaré suggested that the resolution be couched in the form of an inquiry. Mr. Adams said, "As an inquiry he might be prepared to vote for it, but

« AnteriorContinuar »