_The School-Book Culprit's Speech in His Own Defense--His Attack
Upon Mr. Cathcart and The News and Courier--A Pleasant Colloquy
Between Hamilton and Leslie--The Close of the Discussion and Its
Result_
(From our special correspondent)
Columbia, S. C. February 25.--This has been a regular field day
in the House, very nearly the entire session being devoted to a
discussion of the report of the committee on privileges and
elections concerning the guilt and expulsion of J. D. Robertson,
of Beaufort.
Mr. Crittenden resumed, in a review of the evidence. He briefly
reviewed his own remarks of yesterday, and then proceeded to
quote from the letters of Robertson, while so endeavoring to
benefit the children of South Carolina, had never informed the
commission of his plans up to December 30th. One point Mr.
Robertson had made was that Ivison, Blakeman & Co. were
disappointed and for that reason they had made an attack upon
him. This, Mr. Crittenden said, was too thin, as the publishers
referred to were not that kind of men. He then concluded by
saying that he hoped the time had come when the people of South
Carolina would show to the world that the time had passed when
the adventurers could come from other portions of the country,
and with professions of love for the negroes and children of the
State, take advantage of their own pockets. The colored people
had learned better sense than to trust such people any longer.
Curtis, who was acting speaker, here asked what construction the
House placed on Act 2, section 16 of the constitution, which
relates to the number of votes required to expel a member, from
the floor. Mr. Orr held that the Supreme Court had decided that
two-thirds of the number present were competent to expel. Some
one else claimed that it required two-thirds of all the members
on roll. The speaker here cited a case in the House Journals in
which it was decided that two-thirds of the members present was
sufficient. Mr. Brayton stated that two-thirds of the House and
two-thirds of the Senate were necessary to impeach a judge, and
he thought that as much consideration should be shown to the
members of the House. In justice to themselves they ought to
insist upon the passage of the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is the sense of this House that in order to
expel a member a two-thirds vote of all the members elected is
required.
Freeman, of Charleston, spoke against the resolution, taking the
same ground as that held by Mr. Orr.
Bampfield rose to a point of order that it was the duty of the
chair to decide. If necessary an appeal could be had.
The chair stated that if he decided it would be in favor of the
view that it required two-thirds of the members present.
Freeman thought it very strange that no defense had been offered
by the friends of the accused, and proposed to amend Brayton's
resolution by striking out "elected" and inserting "present."
Mr. Orr said that no resolution of ruling of the chair was
necessary as they had the decision of the Supreme Court on the
matter, and that was their law. Richardson's Supreme Court
Reports, volume 4, has already decided this question, and he
didn't see the use of construing the law when it was already
construed by such authority.
Chancellor Johnson stated that the matter was purely a
constitutional question, and he quoted from the Constitution to
show that the House had the right to decide all such questions,
for itself.
On motion the resolution of Mr. Brayton was laid on the table.
Hirsch then called for a ruling from the chair, and the chair
decided that it would require two-thirds of the members present.
The Saint here became very much agitated, and requested that he
be allowed to speak in his own behalf, as no one else saw fit to
take up his cause. The request was granted, and he then spoke as
follows:
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: I will in the outset
simply draw your attention to the fact that my accuser has never
put his foot on the soil of South Carolina. If the House will not
defend me the courts will. No witnesses have been called here,
and when I asked you for your protection I am taunted with the
fact that I have offered no defence. If I had been accused in a
trial justice's court I would have had the proofs, and would have
the right to meet my accuser face to face. But here, when my
reputation and the reputation of my innocent children are at
stake, I am proved beyond doubt, and by respectable witnesses, to
be a wilful falsifier and perverter of the truth. Take notice of
this telegram from an honorable house, Messrs. Armstrong,
Scribner & Co.: "We have heard threats that the books chosen
shall not succeed, and that you shall be ruined." This is not the
first time that Ivison, Blakeman & Co., have made a similar fight
to this in the North. They have done so hundreds of times. I ask
the patience of the House, which has my future weal or woe in
their hands, to hear me yet further. Strike if you will but for
Heaven's sake hear me. Another curious phase of this matter is
that the house of Ivison, Blakeman & Co., when it suits their
convenience, do not hesitate to publish confidential
communications. And I would say here that a member of this House
has done the same thing, viz, has divulged to the press what took
place in the committee room, for his own ends.
Mr. Orr here rose and said that if Robertson referred to him he
told a malicious falsehood, and that he would get his pay for it.
Robertson said he had no doubt he would get paid for it; that he
had not mentioned Orr's name, but if he saw fit to appropriate
the remark he could not help it.
The speaker here interrupted, and put an end to the controversy.
Robertson continued: That he had married into one of the best
families of the State, and that his blood was mingled with
theirs, &c.
Holland, a coal-black representative, for what purpose or
actuated by what impulse must ever remain a mystery, here
interrupted, and asked if Robertson referred to him. Mr.
Robertson said no, he did not refer to him. This produced a roar
of laughter all over the House which the speaker had great
difficulty in suppressing.
Robertson continued: I have written some foolish things, it is
true, but I am done with Cathcart and Ivison, Blakeman & Co.
Remember the words of the Holy Writ: "Judge not that ye be not
judged." I will now refer to the letter which the gentleman from
Greenville rolled as a sweet morsel under his tongue yesterday.
That letter was confidential, and you must remember that all this
trouble is made up out of confidential letters. Which of you
would be willing to have his confidential letters published?
Concerning Guerad, I certainly did offer to help him get a
situation, as he was worthy and needy. I was asked by him and
endeavored to get it for him; and who would not do the same? Mr.
Robertson then referred to his letter in _The News and Courier_,
which, he said, the publishers of the paper had done him the
justice to publish, and which contained a full account of the
whole matter in plain terms, without any attempt to conceal or
pervert the facts.
Mr. Robertson's time here expired, but on motion of Whipper he
was allowed fifteen minutes longer. He continued: Recollect that
two constructions can be placed upon this matter. One will ruin
me and the other will not. Choose between them.
Hamilton interrupted. What particular portion of the letters do
you deny?
Robertson. What I object to in this investigation is that copies
of letters are given here purporting to be mine, when I cannot
tell whether they are mine or not. Gentlemen, what can I say
more? I built the first schoolhouse that was ever built in my
district, and supported the first teacher we had to teach the
colored children in it. And now, gentlemen for this I am to be
expelled; expelled because I have labored for the good of the
children of the State; because in my anxiety I wrote letters
which the secretary of the commission ought to have written
himself. Gentlemen I am done. "Let him that is without sin among
you cast the first stone."
Hamilton. Keep down then, it is where you belong, and if you had
your deserts you ought to be down and out of the House. Hamilton
then went on, saying that he proposed to divest himself of all
personal feelings. He proposed to speak as he thought the people
would have him speak--justly. The first ground that he took
against Robertson was that he believed him guilty and thought
that every man in South Carolina believed the same and I will say
as he says, "Out of thy mouth thou shalt be convicted." No
private confidential letters could benefit the children of the
State; they benefit only the man who writes them. These letters
undoubtedly were written to benefit himself, not the children. I
express the sentiment of my people when I say that he is guilty
of murder, not of manslaughter. This man and such as he have
done an immense harm, and it is time we were getting rid of them.
We can't hold that class of men and be successful in politics. It
is with pain that I utter what I do. If this were some other
occasion, and the gentleman was from some other county, I ... of
... Cathcart. Hayne then went into a review of the testimony,
concluding with the remark that as to the expulsion of Mr.
Robertson bringing disgrace upon his children he did not deny; it
was mournful that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon
their children.
Black ... Davis then got up, and, as usual, talked a great deal
and said very little. The general tenor of the harangue, however,
was that if they expelled Robertson they would establish a
precedent that would work harm for the party. They would be
opening a door that they might not be able to shut when they
wanted to. That Republican material was scarce, and if they
punished this man it would discourage other white carpet-baggers
from coming down and help lead the party in this State.
Freeman of Charleston, then followed in a strong speech against
Robertson. He said that the question was one of peculiar
significance. It was whether the colored men of the State were
able to lead themselves, and capable of upholding their
self-respect. He had remained silent until he had heard the
defence entirely exhausted, and he was forced to say that the
accused had in his defence done nothing but make an admission
that the charges were true. He then read a letter of Robertson's
dated June 2d. This, he said, was a confidential letter, and no
public servant had the right to write such confidential letters
to put money in their own pockets. If he (Robertson) knew that it
was the character of these Northern firms to defraud the people
of the different States, as he says he did, then why did he go to
them? If he knew that they were swindlers, why did he go to them
to strike a bargain for the State. Robertson had cast an insult
upon the colored men that would not be tolerated by any other
race upon the face of the globe. He had flung out to the world
the insinuation--nay, the assertion--that the colored members of
the Legislature were for sale on every question. He hoped that
the colored members would assert their self-respect and hurl back
the charge with scorn, and show to the world that they had some
sense of honor, and will not be duped by unprincipled
carpet-baggers any longer.
Whipper then followed in a harangue in support of Robertson,
taking the old ground that the letters were not certified to,
and incompetent as testimony, &c., and wound up with a customary
slash at _The News and Courier_.
Mr. Brayton, of Aiken, followed Whipper in a strong technical
argument in support of Robertson, in which he claimed that the
form of trial was illegal, and the testimony was insufficient and
ex parte; not touching upon the guilt or innocence of Robertson
at all.
The accusers and defenders had exhausted their rhetoric and the
patience of their audience and themselves, so a vote was taken on
the question of expulsion, and resulted as follows--56 yeas and
25 nays. A few moments later and the hall was silent and in
darkness.
Nesbit and Pinckney, however, it seems, hadn't had enough of the
fight inside, but went to abusing each other about the course
they had pursued. Pinckney voted for expulsion and Nesbit against
it, and after some words they went to bruising each other in a
way that must have shocked the effigy of the father of their
country, around whose bronze form they shinned so mildly. The
entertainment broke up, however, before the gladiators had
entirely demolished each other.
The discussion of the Robertson matter in the House, if it has
done nothing else, has very clearly demonstrated that the
majority of the colored people of the State are tired of their
carpet-bagger leaders, and do not propose to be led by them any
longer.