I must confess that I cannot appreciate the force of the argument. In
cases of war and desolation, in times of peril and disaster, we should
look at the substance and not the shadow of things. I envy not the
feelings of the man who can reason coolly and calmly about the force
of precedents and the tendency of examples in the fury of the war-cry,
when 'booty and beauty' is the watchword. Talk not to me about rules
and forms in court when the enemy's cannon are pointed at the door,
and the flames encircle the cupola! The man whose stoicism would
enable him to philosophize coolly under these circumstances would
fiddle while the Capitol was burning, and laugh at the horror and
anguish that surrounded him in the midst of the conflagration! I claim
not the possession of these remarkable feelings. I concede them all to
those who think that the savior of New Orleans ought to be treated
like a criminal for not possessing them in a higher degree. Their
course in this debate has proved them worthy disciples of the doctrine
they profess. Let them receive all the encomiums which such sentiments
are calculated to inspire."[167]

His closing words were marked with much the same perfervid rhetoric,
only less objectionable because they were charged with genuine
emotion: "Can gentlemen see nothing to admire, nothing to commend, in
the closing scenes, when, fresh from the battlefield, the victorious
general--the idol of his army and the acknowledged savior of his
countrymen--stood before Judge Hall, and quelled the tumult and
indignant murmurs of the multitude by telling him that 'the same arm
which had defended the city from the ravages of a foreign enemy should
protect him in the discharge of his duty?' Is this the conduct of a
lawless desperado, who delights in trampling upon Constitution, and
law, and right? Is there no reverence for the supremacy of the laws
and the civil institutions of the country displayed on this occasion?