The Brooks question absorbs all others just now in the public mind and papers. To satisfy the interest thus awakened, however ephemeral the excitement, we give in another place the debate in the Senate growing out of it.
The Washington correspondent of the Charleston News, on the 28th, has the following paragraph:
"Mr. Wilson's friends look upon Judge Butler's
expression of regret in the open Senate at the use
of the term "liar," which had
"Mr. Toombs, rumor says, has challenged Mr.
Wade for his remarks relative to his (Mr. Toombs)
expression of belief that Sumner had got what he
deserved. But there is no prospect of a fight there."
On the 29th, Brooks challenged the redoubtable
Senator Wilson, for designating the attack on
Sumner "Brutal, cowardly, and murderous." He
declined the summons, because violative of law
and inclination, but held himself ready to repel
personal attack. Watson Webb, who has sneaked
out of responsibility on his own account, pushes
Wilson forward, and endorses him as a
Although Sumner is represented in the North as in a critical condition, Washington letter writers affirm it is utterly untrue. A gentleman who saw him on the 30th says he appeared entirely easy, though still suffering with soreness about the head. A later report states that erysipelas had attacked Sumner, which is probably independent of the caning.
Special committees had been appointed in the Senate and House to investigate the question of privilege. The Senate Committee reported on the 28th ult. that they had no jurisdiction beyond complaint to the House, and their report was adopted and transmitted. The House Committee reported on the 30th, recommending the expulsion of Mr. Brooks, and also censure Messrs. Edmondson, of Virginia, and Mr. Keitt, of our State.
For ourselves, as a matter of taste, we dissent to the propriety of these presentations, while we would cordially sustain Mr. Brooks in the trying circumstances of his position. Should the House, through its free soil majority, enforce the extreme penalty recommended, his district must endorse him back with the ballot approval of every voter within its limits.
This document was produced as part of a document analysis project by Lloyd Benson, Department of History, Furman University. (Proofing info: Entered and proofed by Lloyd Benson. .) This electronic version may not be copied, or linked to, or otherwise used for commercial purposes, (including textbook or publication-related websites) without prior written permission. The views expressed in this document are for educational, historical, and scholarly use only, and are not intended to represent the views of the project contributors or Furman University.