Mr.
Lunt was a poet, a lawyer, and a politician, and without excellence in
either walk. In public life he was destitute of the ability to adapt
himself to his surroundings. In those days the farmers constituted a
majority of the House. They were generally men of intelligence, and
they held about the same relation to the business of the House, that
juries hold to the business of the Courts. They listened to the
arguments, reasoned upon the case, and not infrequently the decision
was made by them. Occasionally they gave a verdict upon a party
question, adverse to the arguments of the leaders of the party in
power. In his opening argument, Mr. Lunt was unwise, to a degree
unusual even for him.
The question he maintained was one which lawyers alone were competent
to understand, and he also maintained that the majority of the House
ought to accept their views. "The question" said he "is _sui generis."_
I was opposed to the bill. At that time Richard Fletcher, then
recently a member of Congress, had been engaged in a controversy with
the Boston _Atlas,_ a leading organ of the Whig Party. A question of
veracity was raised and to the disadvantage of Fletcher. Thereupon he
resigned his seat in the House and returned to Massachusetts.
Mr. Frank B. Crowninshield was opposed to the bill, and anxious to
secure its defeat, but he was unwilling to take the responsibility of
contributing openly to that result.
Pages:
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160