Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 4.
Frank Moore, Ed.

That they are of opinion the facts charged against Mr. Bright are not sufficient to warrant his expulsion from the Senate, and they therefore recommend that the resolution do not pass.

After a protracted and able debate, the vote was taken, with the result which the telegraph has announced. The resolution was passed by a vote of thirty-two to fourteen, the majority being one and one third more than two thirds of the members present.

The Senators who voted against the resolution are: Bayard, of Delaware; Cowan, of Pennsylvania; Carlisle, of Virginia; Harris, of New-York; Kennedy, of Maryland; Latham, of California; Nesmith, of Oregon; Pearce, of Maryland; Powell, of Kentucky; Rice, of Minnesota; Saulsbury, of Delaware; Ten Eyck, of New-Jersey; Thomson, of New-Jersey; and Willey, of Virginia. Among these are five of the seven members of the Committee of the Judiciary; and two, Harris, of New-York, and Cowan, of Pennsylvania, are Republicans.

The debate was distinguished by signal ability on both sides. Undoubtedly the most complete speech in favor of the resolution was that of Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts,, which, viewed as a clear, clean, and exhaustive argument on the case, as presented by the strict and simple record, has been seldom equalled before any tribunal. It was a masterpiece of forensic argumentation. Perhaps the finest speech against the resolution was that of Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, which was marked by singular dignity, cogency, and eloquence. Mr. Bright himself spoke as follows:

Mr. bright's speech.

He said, perhaps what he should say had better have been said weeks ago. He thanked the Judiciary Committee for the favorable report which had been made, though one of their number (Mr. Foster) had given way under unprecedented pressure. The reasons might be satisfactory to that member, but he doubted whether they would be to even-handed justice. His main object in speaking now was to place himself right on the page of history; if he could succeed in that, he would be content. He was amazed at the party spirit exhibited against him, and the numerous accusations brought against him. He might, with propriety, have asked for counsel; but, conscience having said that he had done, written, and voted for nothing inconsistent with his prerogative as an American Senator, he had not claimed that right, and he did not regret not doing so. He should not try to shield himself from partisan blows, but challenged investigation into all the acts of his political life. He had been honored by the State of Indiana thrice by a seat in the Senate of the United States, and had been in the confidence of the Senate, and had received the highest honor they had given. He said this in answer to those who question his antecedents, and sought to prejudice him in the minds of his countrymen. He referred them to the letter he had written to Mr. Jefferson Davis, and to the character given him by Mr. Lincoln, who had known him for many years, and who always considered him a worthy man He contended that that letter was a simple letter of introduction, and its address had no intention to recognise the right of Mr. Davis to any title; it was only a mere courtesy, and only followed the example of others on the floor of the Senate. The Senator from Maine, in his assault on him, had said his address was like a courtier. If the Senator had known him better, he would have known that was not one of his faults. If he had been sycophantic, he might have got votes, but all he asked was for justice. When the letter was written, he did not believe there would be war. He referred to the President's Inaugural, the acts of the Post-Office Department, and the Secretary of State's despatches, to show, that on the first of March, it was not believed generally that there would be war. He did not believe there would be war till the fall of Sumter. After this there was war, and he should not have given the letter to Davis. He had not the most distant recollection of having written a letter to Davis or other letter of introduction to Capt. Franklin. It had been argued against him that he had said that he would do the same again. He would repeat it, and he meant it, that if he believed there was to be no war, he would give such a letter to an old friend. If he had had the least gleam of suspicion that there would be war, he should not have given the letter; but no one who listened to the debate here will suppose that the letter really has anything to do with the attack on him. But he was considered unfit to associate with such patriarchs in the country's service as the Senator from Massachusetts, (Sumner,) and the Senator from New-Hampshire, (Clark,) and even the Senator from Pennsylvania, (Wilmot,) and the Senator from Tennessee, (Johnson,) were afflicted by his presence here as not loyal enough for them. Oh! he must have degenerated in ten years. In 1850 he was appointed on a Committee with such men as Clay, Webster, Calhoun, Clayton, and used his humble efforts to maintain peace. He had ever voted for peace, and never given a sectional vote. Every impulse of my heart, and every tie that binds me to earth, is interwoven with the form of Government under which we live, and to which I acknowledge my allegiance, and I will yield to no man in my attachment to it. Few men of my years have enjoyed more of her glorious advantages, and none have felt more grateful for them; and, though I have been assailed with all the fury of party spirit, and my character unjustly aspersed, and my loyalty and devotion questioned, this shall not alienate me from the faith of my life, or lessen the deep obligation I feel. I have devoted the humble energies of my life to the support of the Government under which we live, and which I would not exchange for any other on earth.

This may be the only opportunity I shall have of expressing my gratitude to the members of the Committee, who have, from that innate sense of justice that always governs the best judge, stood