Chapter IX: Front Matter (9)

I next proceeded to cite the memorable veto by President Jackson, in 1832, of the Bank of the United States. It will be remembered that to his course at that critical time were opposed the authority of the Supreme Court and his oath to support the Constitution,--precisely as the Senator from Illinois now, with ignorance, or with want of logic greater than his ignorance, undertakes to revile me. Here is the triumphant reply of President Jackson:--

“If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground
of this Act, it ought not to control the coördinate authorities
of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the
Court must, each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of
the Constitution. _Each public officer, who takes an oath to
support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as
he understands it, and not as it is understood by others._
It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives,
of the Senate, and of the President, to decide upon the
constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be
presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the
Supreme Judges, when it may be brought before them for
judicial decision.… The authority of the Supreme Court must
not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the
Executive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but to
have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may
deserve.”

After this passage from General Jackson I proceeded as follows:--

“In swearing to support the Constitution at your desk, Mr.
President, I did not swear to support it as _you_ understand
it,--oh, no, Sir!--or as the Senator from Virginia understands
it,--by no means!--or as the Senator from South Carolina
understands it, with a kennel of bloodhounds, or at least
a ‘dog’ in it, ‘pawing to get free his hinder parts,’ in
pursuit of a slave. No such thing. Sir, I swore to support the
Constitution _as I understand it_,--nor more, nor less.”

Then explaining at some length my understanding of the clause, I concluded on this point in these words:--

“I desire to say, that, as I understand the Constitution,
this clause does not impose upon me, as Senator or citizen,
any obligation to take part, directly or indirectly, in the
surrender of a fugitive slave.”

Yet, in the face of all this, which occurred in open debate on the floor of the Senate, which is here in the records of the country, and has been extensively circulated, quoted, discussed, criticised, the Senator from Illinois, in the swiftness of his audacity, presumes to assail me. Perhaps I had better leave that Senator without a word more; but this is not the first, or the second, or the third, or the fourth time that he has launched against me his personalities. Sir, if this be agreeable to him, I make no complaint,--though, for the sake of truth and the amenities of debate, I could wish that he had directed his assaults upon my arguments; but since he has presumed to touch me, he will not complain, if I administer to him a word of advice.

Sir, this is the Senate of the United States, an important body under the Constitution, with great powers. Its members are justly supposed, from years, to be above the intemperance of youth, and from character to be above the gusts of vulgarity. They are supposed to have something of wisdom and something of that candor which is the handmaid of wisdom. Let the Senator bear these things in mind, and remember hereafter that the bowie-knife and bludgeon are not proper emblems of senatorial debate. Let him remember that the swagger of Bob Acres and the ferocity of the Malay cannot add dignity to this body. The Senator infused into his speech the venom sweltering for months,--ay, for years; and he has alleged matters entirely without foundation, in order to heap upon me some personal obloquy. I will not descend to things which dropped so naturally from his tongue. I only brand them to his face as false. I say also to that Senator, and I wish him to bear it in mind, that no person with the upright form of man can be allowed---- [_Hesitation._]

MR. DOUGLAS. Say it.

MR. SUMNER. I will say it,--no person with the upright form of man can be allowed, without violation of all decency, to switch out from his tongue the perpetual stench of offensive personality. Sir, that is not a proper weapon of debate, at least on this floor. The noisome, squat, and nameless animal to which I now refer is not the proper model for an American Senator. Will the Senator from Illinois take notice?

MR. DOUGLAS. I will,--and therefore will not imitate you, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. I did not hear the Senator.

MR. DOUGLAS. I said, if that be the case, I would certainly
never imitate you in that capacity,--recognizing the force of
the illustration.

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, again the Senator switches his tongue, and again he fills the Senate with its offensive odor. But I drop the Senator.

There was still another, the Senator from Virginia, who is now also in my eye. That Senator said nothing of argument, and therefore there is nothing of that to be answered. I simply say to him that hard words are not argument, frowns are not reasons, nor do scowls belong to the proper arsenal of parliamentary debate. The Senator has not forgotten that on a former occasion I did something to exhibit the plantation manners which he displays. I will not do any more now.