Here Mr. Sumner was called to order by Mr. McDougall, a Democratic Senator from California, who insisted that no Senator had a right to make use of such words in speaking of the President. Confusion ensued, with various calls to order. There was question as to what Mr. Sumner really said. The presiding officer [Mr. ANTHONY, of Rhode Island] decided that Mr. Sumner was in order, from which decision Mr. McDougall appealed, but finally withdrew his appeal, when Mr. Sumner continued.
When interrupted in the extraordinary manner witnessed by the Senate, I was presenting reasons in favor of the measure on which we are to vote, and I insisted as strongly as I could that the special duty of the hour was protection to loyal and patriotic citizens against the President; I was replying to what fell from the Senator from Maine, who seems, if I may judge from his argument, to feel that there is no occasion for special safeguard, and that the system left by our fathers is enough. In this reply I used language which, according to the short-hand reporter, was as follows: I read from his notes:--
“There, Sir, is the duty of the hour. There was no such duty on our fathers, there was no such duty on our recent predecessors, because there was no President of the United States who had become the enemy of his country.”
These were my words when suddenly interrupted. By those words, Sir, I stand.
MR. DOOLITTLE [of Wisconsin]. I raise a question of order, whether these words are in order, as stated by the Senator.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has already decided a similar point of order. The Chair will submit this question to the Senate.
The Presiding Officer decided that Mr. Sumner was in order. Mr. Doolittle appealed from this decision. Debate ensued on the appeal, when Mr. Lane, of Indiana, moved to lay the appeal upon the table. Amid much confusion, other motions were interposed. At last a vote was reached on the motion of Mr. Lane. The yeas and nays were ordered, and, being taken, resulted,--Yeas 29, Nays 10. So the appeal was laid upon the table. Mr. Sumner, who was in his seat, refrained from voting. The Senate then adjourned.
January 18th, Mr. Sumner, having the floor, continued.
It is only little more than a year ago that I felt it my duty to characterize a message of the President as “whitewashing.”[77] The message represented the condition of things in the Rebel States as fair and promising, when the prevailing evidence was directly the other way. Of course the message was “whitewashing,” and this was a mild term for such a document. But you do not forget how certain Senators, horror-struck at this plainness, leaped forward to vindicate the President. Yesterday some of these same Senators, horror-struck again, leaped forward again in the same task. Time has shown that I was right on the former occasion. If anybody doubts that I was right yesterday, I commend him to time. He will not be obliged to wait long. Meanwhile I shall insist always upon complete freedom of debate, and I shall exercise it. John Milton, in his glorious aspirations, said, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”[78] Thank God, now that slave-masters are driven from this Chamber, such is the liberty of an American Senator. Of course there can be no citizen of a republic too high for exposure, as there can be none too low for protection. Exposure of the powerful, and protection of the weak,--these are not only invaluable liberties, but commanding duties.