summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/48314-h/48314-h.htm
blob: 7febfb0028176415936597a60685975ec0c563c0 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
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
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
9172
9173
9174
9175
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
9233
9234
9235
9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
9260
9261
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
9286
9287
9288
9289
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303
9304
9305
9306
9307
9308
9309
9310
9311
9312
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9400
9401
9402
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
9459
9460
9461
9462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
9487
9488
9489
9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
9513
9514
9515
9516
9517
9518
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
9544
9545
9546
9547
9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
9567
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
9602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
9626
9627
9628
9629
9630
9631
9632
9633
9634
9635
9636
9637
9638
9639
9640
9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
9687
9688
9689
9690
9691
9692
9693
9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
9714
9715
9716
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
9740
9741
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760
9761
9762
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
9770
9771
9772
9773
9774
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
9791
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
9799
9800
9801
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825
9826
9827
9828
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
9852
9853
9854
9855
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890
9891
9892
9893
9894
9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
9912
9913
9914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
9939
9940
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
9965
9966
9967
9968
9969
9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
10026
10027
10028
10029
10030
10031
10032
10033
10034
10035
10036
10037
10038
10039
10040
10041
10042
10043
10044
10045
10046
10047
10048
10049
10050
10051
10052
10053
10054
10055
10056
10057
10058
10059
10060
10061
10062
10063
10064
10065
10066
10067
10068
10069
10070
10071
10072
10073
10074
10075
10076
10077
10078
10079
10080
10081
10082
10083
10084
10085
10086
10087
10088
10089
10090
10091
10092
10093
10094
10095
10096
10097
10098
10099
10100
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10116
10117
10118
10119
10120
10121
10122
10123
10124
10125
10126
10127
10128
10129
10130
10131
10132
10133
10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
10148
10149
10150
10151
10152
10153
10154
10155
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164
10165
10166
10167
10168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173
10174
10175
10176
10177
10178
10179
10180
10181
10182
10183
10184
10185
10186
10187
10188
10189
10190
10191
10192
10193
10194
10195
10196
10197
10198
10199
10200
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
10207
10208
10209
10210
10211
10212
10213
10214
10215
10216
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
10226
10227
10228
10229
10230
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
10236
10237
10238
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10248
10249
10250
10251
10252
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
10258
10259
10260
10261
10262
10263
10264
10265
10266
10267
10268
10269
10270
10271
10272
10273
10274
10275
10276
10277
10278
10279
10280
10281
10282
10283
10284
10285
10286
10287
10288
10289
10290
10291
10292
10293
10294
10295
10296
10297
10298
10299
10300
10301
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
10307
10308
10309
10310
10311
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10326
10327
10328
10329
10330
10331
10332
10333
10334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
10343
10344
10345
10346
10347
10348
10349
10350
10351
10352
10353
10354
10355
10356
10357
10358
10359
10360
10361
10362
10363
10364
10365
10366
10367
10368
10369
10370
10371
10372
10373
10374
10375
10376
10377
10378
10379
10380
10381
10382
10383
10384
10385
10386
10387
10388
10389
10390
10391
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
10397
10398
10399
10400
10401
10402
10403
10404
10405
10406
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441
10442
10443
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
10451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10456
10457
10458
10459
10460
10461
10462
10463
10464
10465
10466
10467
10468
10469
10470
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10476
10477
10478
10479
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
10486
10487
10488
10489
10490
10491
10492
10493
10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
10514
10515
10516
10517
10518
10519
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
10528
10529
10530
10531
10532
10533
10534
10535
10536
10537
10538
10539
10540
10541
10542
10543
10544
10545
10546
10547
10548
10549
10550
10551
10552
10553
10554
10555
10556
10557
10558
10559
10560
10561
10562
10563
10564
10565
10566
10567
10568
10569
10570
10571
10572
10573
10574
10575
10576
10577
10578
10579
10580
10581
10582
10583
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589
10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
10600
10601
10602
10603
10604
10605
10606
10607
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10626
10627
10628
10629
10630
10631
10632
10633
10634
10635
10636
10637
10638
10639
10640
10641
10642
10643
10644
10645
10646
10647
10648
10649
10650
10651
10652
10653
10654
10655
10656
10657
10658
10659
10660
10661
10662
10663
10664
10665
10666
10667
10668
10669
10670
10671
10672
10673
10674
10675
10676
10677
10678
10679
10680
10681
10682
10683
10684
10685
10686
10687
10688
10689
10690
10691
10692
10693
10694
10695
10696
10697
10698
10699
10700
10701
10702
10703
10704
10705
10706
10707
10708
10709
10710
10711
10712
10713
10714
10715
10716
10717
10718
10719
10720
10721
10722
10723
10724
10725
10726
10727
10728
10729
10730
10731
10732
10733
10734
10735
10736
10737
10738
10739
10740
10741
10742
10743
10744
10745
10746
10747
10748
10749
10750
10751
10752
10753
10754
10755
10756
10757
10758
10759
10760
10761
10762
10763
10764
10765
10766
10767
10768
10769
10770
10771
10772
10773
10774
10775
10776
10777
10778
10779
10780
10781
10782
10783
10784
10785
10786
10787
10788
10789
10790
10791
10792
10793
10794
10795
10796
10797
10798
10799
10800
10801
10802
10803
10804
10805
10806
10807
10808
10809
10810
10811
10812
10813
10814
10815
10816
10817
10818
10819
10820
10821
10822
10823
10824
10825
10826
10827
10828
10829
10830
10831
10832
10833
10834
10835
10836
10837
10838
10839
10840
10841
10842
10843
10844
10845
10846
10847
10848
10849
10850
10851
10852
10853
10854
10855
10856
10857
10858
10859
10860
10861
10862
10863
10864
10865
10866
10867
10868
10869
10870
10871
10872
10873
10874
10875
10876
10877
10878
10879
10880
10881
10882
10883
10884
10885
10886
10887
10888
10889
10890
10891
10892
10893
10894
10895
10896
10897
10898
10899
10900
10901
10902
10903
10904
10905
10906
10907
10908
10909
10910
10911
10912
10913
10914
10915
10916
10917
10918
10919
10920
10921
10922
10923
10924
10925
10926
10927
10928
10929
10930
10931
10932
10933
10934
10935
10936
10937
10938
10939
10940
10941
10942
10943
10944
10945
10946
10947
10948
10949
10950
10951
10952
10953
10954
10955
10956
10957
10958
10959
10960
10961
10962
10963
10964
10965
10966
10967
10968
10969
10970
10971
10972
10973
10974
10975
10976
10977
10978
10979
10980
10981
10982
10983
10984
10985
10986
10987
10988
10989
10990
10991
10992
10993
10994
10995
10996
10997
10998
10999
11000
11001
11002
11003
11004
11005
11006
11007
11008
11009
11010
11011
11012
11013
11014
11015
11016
11017
11018
11019
11020
11021
11022
11023
11024
11025
11026
11027
11028
11029
11030
11031
11032
11033
11034
11035
11036
11037
11038
11039
11040
11041
11042
11043
11044
11045
11046
11047
11048
11049
11050
11051
11052
11053
11054
11055
11056
11057
11058
11059
11060
11061
11062
11063
11064
11065
11066
11067
11068
11069
11070
11071
11072
11073
11074
11075
11076
11077
11078
11079
11080
11081
11082
11083
11084
11085
11086
11087
11088
11089
11090
11091
11092
11093
11094
11095
11096
11097
11098
11099
11100
11101
11102
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
11110
11111
11112
11113
11114
11115
11116
11117
11118
11119
11120
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125
11126
11127
11128
11129
11130
11131
11132
11133
11134
11135
11136
11137
11138
11139
11140
11141
11142
11143
11144
11145
11146
11147
11148
11149
11150
11151
11152
11153
11154
11155
11156
11157
11158
11159
11160
11161
11162
11163
11164
11165
11166
11167
11168
11169
11170
11171
11172
11173
11174
11175
11176
11177
11178
11179
11180
11181
11182
11183
11184
11185
11186
11187
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192
11193
11194
11195
11196
11197
11198
11199
11200
11201
11202
11203
11204
11205
11206
11207
11208
11209
11210
11211
11212
11213
11214
11215
11216
11217
11218
11219
11220
11221
11222
11223
11224
11225
11226
11227
11228
11229
11230
11231
11232
11233
11234
11235
11236
11237
11238
11239
11240
11241
11242
11243
11244
11245
11246
11247
11248
11249
11250
11251
11252
11253
11254
11255
11256
11257
11258
11259
11260
11261
11262
11263
11264
11265
11266
11267
11268
11269
11270
11271
11272
11273
11274
11275
11276
11277
11278
11279
11280
11281
11282
11283
11284
11285
11286
11287
11288
11289
11290
11291
11292
11293
11294
11295
11296
11297
11298
11299
11300
11301
11302
11303
11304
11305
11306
11307
11308
11309
11310
11311
11312
11313
11314
11315
11316
11317
11318
11319
11320
11321
11322
11323
11324
11325
11326
11327
11328
11329
11330
11331
11332
11333
11334
11335
11336
11337
11338
11339
11340
11341
11342
11343
11344
11345
11346
11347
11348
11349
11350
11351
11352
11353
11354
11355
11356
11357
11358
11359
11360
11361
11362
11363
11364
11365
11366
11367
11368
11369
11370
11371
11372
11373
11374
11375
11376
11377
11378
11379
11380
11381
11382
11383
11384
11385
11386
11387
11388
11389
11390
11391
11392
11393
11394
11395
11396
11397
11398
11399
11400
11401
11402
11403
11404
11405
11406
11407
11408
11409
11410
11411
11412
11413
11414
11415
11416
11417
11418
11419
11420
11421
11422
11423
11424
11425
11426
11427
11428
11429
11430
11431
11432
11433
11434
11435
11436
11437
11438
11439
11440
11441
11442
11443
11444
11445
11446
11447
11448
11449
11450
11451
11452
11453
11454
11455
11456
11457
11458
11459
11460
11461
11462
11463
11464
11465
11466
11467
11468
11469
11470
11471
11472
11473
11474
11475
11476
11477
11478
11479
11480
11481
11482
11483
11484
11485
11486
11487
11488
11489
11490
11491
11492
11493
11494
11495
11496
11497
11498
11499
11500
11501
11502
11503
11504
11505
11506
11507
11508
11509
11510
11511
11512
11513
11514
11515
11516
11517
11518
11519
11520
11521
11522
11523
11524
11525
11526
11527
11528
11529
11530
11531
11532
11533
11534
11535
11536
11537
11538
11539
11540
11541
11542
11543
11544
11545
11546
11547
11548
11549
11550
11551
11552
11553
11554
11555
11556
11557
11558
11559
11560
11561
11562
11563
11564
11565
11566
11567
11568
11569
11570
11571
11572
11573
11574
11575
11576
11577
11578
11579
11580
11581
11582
11583
11584
11585
11586
11587
11588
11589
11590
11591
11592
11593
11594
11595
11596
11597
11598
11599
11600
11601
11602
11603
11604
11605
11606
11607
11608
11609
11610
11611
11612
11613
11614
11615
11616
11617
11618
11619
11620
11621
11622
11623
11624
11625
11626
11627
11628
11629
11630
11631
11632
11633
11634
11635
11636
11637
11638
11639
11640
11641
11642
11643
11644
11645
11646
11647
11648
11649
11650
11651
11652
11653
11654
11655
11656
11657
11658
11659
11660
11661
11662
11663
11664
11665
11666
11667
11668
11669
11670
11671
11672
11673
11674
11675
11676
11677
11678
11679
11680
11681
11682
11683
11684
11685
11686
11687
11688
11689
11690
11691
11692
11693
11694
11695
11696
11697
11698
11699
11700
11701
11702
11703
11704
11705
11706
11707
11708
11709
11710
11711
11712
11713
11714
11715
11716
11717
11718
11719
11720
11721
11722
11723
11724
11725
11726
11727
11728
11729
11730
11731
11732
11733
11734
11735
11736
11737
11738
11739
11740
11741
11742
11743
11744
11745
11746
11747
11748
11749
11750
11751
11752
11753
11754
11755
11756
11757
11758
11759
11760
11761
11762
11763
11764
11765
11766
11767
11768
11769
11770
11771
11772
11773
11774
11775
11776
11777
11778
11779
11780
11781
11782
11783
11784
11785
11786
11787
11788
11789
11790
11791
11792
11793
11794
11795
11796
11797
11798
11799
11800
11801
11802
11803
11804
11805
11806
11807
11808
11809
11810
11811
11812
11813
11814
11815
11816
11817
11818
11819
11820
11821
11822
11823
11824
11825
11826
11827
11828
11829
11830
11831
11832
11833
11834
11835
11836
11837
11838
11839
11840
11841
11842
11843
11844
11845
11846
11847
11848
11849
11850
11851
11852
11853
11854
11855
11856
11857
11858
11859
11860
11861
11862
11863
11864
11865
11866
11867
11868
11869
11870
11871
11872
11873
11874
11875
11876
11877
11878
11879
11880
11881
11882
11883
11884
11885
11886
11887
11888
11889
11890
11891
11892
11893
11894
11895
11896
11897
11898
11899
11900
11901
11902
11903
11904
11905
11906
11907
11908
11909
11910
11911
11912
11913
11914
11915
11916
11917
11918
11919
11920
11921
11922
11923
11924
11925
11926
11927
11928
11929
11930
11931
11932
11933
11934
11935
11936
11937
11938
11939
11940
11941
11942
11943
11944
11945
11946
11947
11948
11949
11950
11951
11952
11953
11954
11955
11956
11957
11958
11959
11960
11961
11962
11963
11964
11965
11966
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
11975
11976
11977
11978
11979
11980
11981
11982
11983
11984
11985
11986
11987
11988
11989
11990
11991
11992
11993
11994
11995
11996
11997
11998
11999
12000
12001
12002
12003
12004
12005
12006
12007
12008
12009
12010
12011
12012
12013
12014
12015
12016
12017
12018
12019
12020
12021
12022
12023
12024
12025
12026
12027
12028
12029
12030
12031
12032
12033
12034
12035
12036
12037
12038
12039
12040
12041
12042
12043
12044
12045
12046
12047
12048
12049
12050
12051
12052
12053
12054
12055
12056
12057
12058
12059
12060
12061
12062
12063
12064
12065
12066
12067
12068
12069
12070
12071
12072
12073
12074
12075
12076
12077
12078
12079
12080
12081
12082
12083
12084
12085
12086
12087
12088
12089
12090
12091
12092
12093
12094
12095
12096
12097
12098
12099
12100
12101
12102
12103
12104
12105
12106
12107
12108
12109
12110
12111
12112
12113
12114
12115
12116
12117
12118
12119
12120
12121
12122
12123
12124
12125
12126
12127
12128
12129
12130
12131
12132
12133
12134
12135
12136
12137
12138
12139
12140
12141
12142
12143
12144
12145
12146
12147
12148
12149
12150
12151
12152
12153
12154
12155
12156
12157
12158
12159
12160
12161
12162
12163
12164
12165
12166
12167
12168
12169
12170
12171
12172
12173
12174
12175
12176
12177
12178
12179
12180
12181
12182
12183
12184
12185
12186
12187
12188
12189
12190
12191
12192
12193
12194
12195
12196
12197
12198
12199
12200
12201
12202
12203
12204
12205
12206
12207
12208
12209
12210
12211
12212
12213
12214
12215
12216
12217
12218
12219
12220
12221
12222
12223
12224
12225
12226
12227
12228
12229
12230
12231
12232
12233
12234
12235
12236
12237
12238
12239
12240
12241
12242
12243
12244
12245
12246
12247
12248
12249
12250
12251
12252
12253
12254
12255
12256
12257
12258
12259
12260
12261
12262
12263
12264
12265
12266
12267
12268
12269
12270
12271
12272
12273
12274
12275
12276
12277
12278
12279
12280
12281
12282
12283
12284
12285
12286
12287
12288
12289
12290
12291
12292
12293
12294
12295
12296
12297
12298
12299
12300
12301
12302
12303
12304
12305
12306
12307
12308
12309
12310
12311
12312
12313
12314
12315
12316
12317
12318
12319
12320
12321
12322
12323
12324
12325
12326
12327
12328
12329
12330
12331
12332
12333
12334
12335
12336
12337
12338
12339
12340
12341
12342
12343
12344
12345
12346
12347
12348
12349
12350
12351
12352
12353
12354
12355
12356
12357
12358
12359
12360
12361
12362
12363
12364
12365
12366
12367
12368
12369
12370
12371
12372
12373
12374
12375
12376
12377
12378
12379
12380
12381
12382
12383
12384
12385
12386
12387
12388
12389
12390
12391
12392
12393
12394
12395
12396
12397
12398
12399
12400
12401
12402
12403
12404
12405
12406
12407
12408
12409
12410
12411
12412
12413
12414
12415
12416
12417
12418
12419
12420
12421
12422
12423
12424
12425
12426
12427
12428
12429
12430
12431
12432
12433
12434
12435
12436
12437
12438
12439
12440
12441
12442
12443
12444
12445
12446
12447
12448
12449
12450
12451
12452
12453
12454
12455
12456
12457
12458
12459
12460
12461
12462
12463
12464
12465
12466
12467
12468
12469
12470
12471
12472
12473
12474
12475
12476
12477
12478
12479
12480
12481
12482
12483
12484
12485
12486
12487
12488
12489
12490
12491
12492
12493
12494
12495
12496
12497
12498
12499
12500
12501
12502
12503
12504
12505
12506
12507
12508
12509
12510
12511
12512
12513
12514
12515
12516
12517
12518
12519
12520
12521
12522
12523
12524
12525
12526
12527
12528
12529
12530
12531
12532
12533
12534
12535
12536
12537
12538
12539
12540
12541
12542
12543
12544
12545
12546
12547
12548
12549
12550
12551
12552
12553
12554
12555
12556
12557
12558
12559
12560
12561
12562
12563
12564
12565
12566
12567
12568
12569
12570
12571
12572
12573
12574
12575
12576
12577
12578
12579
12580
12581
12582
12583
12584
12585
12586
12587
12588
12589
12590
12591
12592
12593
12594
12595
12596
12597
12598
12599
12600
12601
12602
12603
12604
12605
12606
12607
12608
12609
12610
12611
12612
12613
12614
12615
12616
12617
12618
12619
12620
12621
12622
12623
12624
12625
12626
12627
12628
12629
12630
12631
12632
12633
12634
12635
12636
12637
12638
12639
12640
12641
12642
12643
12644
12645
12646
12647
12648
12649
12650
12651
12652
12653
12654
12655
12656
12657
12658
12659
12660
12661
12662
12663
12664
12665
12666
12667
12668
12669
12670
12671
12672
12673
12674
12675
12676
12677
12678
12679
12680
12681
12682
12683
12684
12685
12686
12687
12688
12689
12690
12691
12692
12693
12694
12695
12696
12697
12698
12699
12700
12701
12702
12703
12704
12705
12706
12707
12708
12709
12710
12711
12712
12713
12714
12715
12716
12717
12718
12719
12720
12721
12722
12723
12724
12725
12726
12727
12728
12729
12730
12731
12732
12733
12734
12735
12736
12737
12738
12739
12740
12741
12742
12743
12744
12745
12746
12747
12748
12749
12750
12751
12752
12753
12754
12755
12756
12757
12758
12759
12760
12761
12762
12763
12764
12765
12766
12767
12768
12769
12770
12771
12772
12773
12774
12775
12776
12777
12778
12779
12780
12781
12782
12783
12784
12785
12786
12787
12788
12789
12790
12791
12792
12793
12794
12795
12796
12797
12798
12799
12800
12801
12802
12803
12804
12805
12806
12807
12808
12809
12810
12811
12812
12813
12814
12815
12816
12817
12818
12819
12820
12821
12822
12823
12824
12825
12826
12827
12828
12829
12830
12831
12832
12833
12834
12835
12836
12837
12838
12839
12840
12841
12842
12843
12844
12845
12846
12847
12848
12849
12850
12851
12852
12853
12854
12855
12856
12857
12858
12859
12860
12861
12862
12863
12864
12865
12866
12867
12868
12869
12870
12871
12872
12873
12874
12875
12876
12877
12878
12879
12880
12881
12882
12883
12884
12885
12886
12887
12888
12889
12890
12891
12892
12893
12894
12895
12896
12897
12898
12899
12900
12901
12902
12903
12904
12905
12906
12907
12908
12909
12910
12911
12912
12913
12914
12915
12916
12917
12918
12919
12920
12921
12922
12923
12924
12925
12926
12927
12928
12929
12930
12931
12932
12933
12934
12935
12936
12937
12938
12939
12940
12941
12942
12943
12944
12945
12946
12947
12948
12949
12950
12951
12952
12953
12954
12955
12956
12957
12958
12959
12960
12961
12962
12963
12964
12965
12966
12967
12968
12969
12970
12971
12972
12973
12974
12975
12976
12977
12978
12979
12980
12981
12982
12983
12984
12985
12986
12987
12988
12989
12990
12991
12992
12993
12994
12995
12996
12997
12998
12999
13000
13001
13002
13003
13004
13005
13006
13007
13008
13009
13010
13011
13012
13013
13014
13015
13016
13017
13018
13019
13020
13021
13022
13023
13024
13025
13026
13027
13028
13029
13030
13031
13032
13033
13034
13035
13036
13037
13038
13039
13040
13041
13042
13043
13044
13045
13046
13047
13048
13049
13050
13051
13052
13053
13054
13055
13056
13057
13058
13059
13060
13061
13062
13063
13064
13065
13066
13067
13068
13069
13070
13071
13072
13073
13074
13075
13076
13077
13078
13079
13080
13081
13082
13083
13084
13085
13086
13087
13088
13089
13090
13091
13092
13093
13094
13095
13096
13097
13098
13099
13100
13101
13102
13103
13104
13105
13106
13107
13108
13109
13110
13111
13112
13113
13114
13115
13116
13117
13118
13119
13120
13121
13122
13123
13124
13125
13126
13127
13128
13129
13130
13131
13132
13133
13134
13135
13136
13137
13138
13139
13140
13141
13142
13143
13144
13145
13146
13147
13148
13149
13150
13151
13152
13153
13154
13155
13156
13157
13158
13159
13160
13161
13162
13163
13164
13165
13166
13167
13168
13169
13170
13171
13172
13173
13174
13175
13176
13177
13178
13179
13180
13181
13182
13183
13184
13185
13186
13187
13188
13189
13190
13191
13192
13193
13194
13195
13196
13197
13198
13199
13200
13201
13202
13203
13204
13205
13206
13207
13208
13209
13210
13211
13212
13213
13214
13215
13216
13217
13218
13219
13220
13221
13222
13223
13224
13225
13226
13227
13228
13229
13230
13231
13232
13233
13234
13235
13236
13237
13238
13239
13240
13241
13242
13243
13244
13245
13246
13247
13248
13249
13250
13251
13252
13253
13254
13255
13256
13257
13258
13259
13260
13261
13262
13263
13264
13265
13266
13267
13268
13269
13270
13271
13272
13273
13274
13275
13276
13277
13278
13279
13280
13281
13282
13283
13284
13285
13286
13287
13288
13289
13290
13291
13292
13293
13294
13295
13296
13297
13298
13299
13300
13301
13302
13303
13304
13305
13306
13307
13308
13309
13310
13311
13312
13313
13314
13315
13316
13317
13318
13319
13320
13321
13322
13323
13324
13325
13326
13327
13328
13329
13330
13331
13332
13333
13334
13335
13336
13337
13338
13339
13340
13341
13342
13343
13344
13345
13346
13347
13348
13349
13350
13351
13352
13353
13354
13355
13356
13357
13358
13359
13360
13361
13362
13363
13364
13365
13366
13367
13368
13369
13370
13371
13372
13373
13374
13375
13376
13377
13378
13379
13380
13381
13382
13383
13384
13385
13386
13387
13388
13389
13390
13391
13392
13393
13394
13395
13396
13397
13398
13399
13400
13401
13402
13403
13404
13405
13406
13407
13408
13409
13410
13411
13412
13413
13414
13415
13416
13417
13418
13419
13420
13421
13422
13423
13424
13425
13426
13427
13428
13429
13430
13431
13432
13433
13434
13435
13436
13437
13438
13439
13440
13441
13442
13443
13444
13445
13446
13447
13448
13449
13450
13451
13452
13453
13454
13455
13456
13457
13458
13459
13460
13461
13462
13463
13464
13465
13466
13467
13468
13469
13470
13471
13472
13473
13474
13475
13476
13477
13478
13479
13480
13481
13482
13483
13484
13485
13486
13487
13488
13489
13490
13491
13492
13493
13494
13495
13496
13497
13498
13499
13500
13501
13502
13503
13504
13505
13506
13507
13508
13509
13510
13511
13512
13513
13514
13515
13516
13517
13518
13519
13520
13521
13522
13523
13524
13525
13526
13527
13528
13529
13530
13531
13532
13533
13534
13535
13536
13537
13538
13539
13540
13541
13542
13543
13544
13545
13546
13547
13548
13549
13550
13551
13552
13553
13554
13555
13556
13557
13558
13559
13560
13561
13562
13563
13564
13565
13566
13567
13568
13569
13570
13571
13572
13573
13574
13575
13576
13577
13578
13579
13580
13581
13582
13583
13584
13585
13586
13587
13588
13589
13590
13591
13592
13593
13594
13595
13596
13597
13598
13599
13600
13601
13602
13603
13604
13605
13606
13607
13608
13609
13610
13611

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
    <title>
      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 18 (of 20), by Charles Sumner.
    </title>
<link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
<style type="text/css">

body {
    margin-left: 10%;
    margin-right: 10%;}

h1, h2 {
    text-align: center;
    clear: both;
    page-break-before: always;}

h3, h4 {
    text-align: center;
    clear: both;}

p {
    margin-top: .75em;
    text-align: justify;
    text-indent: 1em;
    margin-bottom: .75em;
}

hr.tb   {
    width: 30%;
    margin-left: 35%;
    margin-right: 35%;
    margin-top: 1.5em;
    margin-bottom: 1.5em;
    visibility: hidden;
}

hr.chap {
    width: 65%;
    margin-left: 17.5%;
    margin-right: 17.5%;
    margin-top: 1em;
    margin-bottom: 1em;
}

hr.r15 {
    width: 15%;
    margin-left: 42.5%;
    margin-right: 42.5%;
    margin-top: 1em;
    margin-bottom: 1em;
}

table {
    width: 90%;
    margin-left: 5%;
    margin-right: 5%;
    max-width: 100%;
}

th {
   font-weight: normal;
}

.blockquote {
    margin-left: 10%;
    margin-right: 10%;
}

.caption {font-weight: bold;
    font-size: smaller;
    text-align: center;
    text-indent: 0;
    margin: 0.25em 0;}

.center {text-align: center;
    text-indent: 0em;}

p.dropcap {
  text-indent: 0em;
}

p.dropcap:first-letter {
    float: left;
    margin: 0.03em 0.1em 0em 0em;
    font-size: 250%;
    line-height:0.85em;}

.figcenter {
    margin: auto;
    text-align: center;}

.footnote {margin-left: 10%;
    margin-right: 10%;
    font-size: 0.9em;}

.footnote .label {position: absolute;
    right: 84%;
    text-align: right;}

.footnotes {
    border: dashed 1px;
}

.fnanchor {
    vertical-align: super;
    font-size: .6em;
    text-decoration: none;}

.hanging {text-indent:-1em;}

td.hanging {padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;}

.plabeln {text-align: center;
    font-size: 100%;
    font-weight: bold;
    text-indent: 0em;}

.medium {font-size: 85%;}

.noindent {text-indent: 0em;}

.pagenum {color:#800000;
    position: absolute;
    left: 92%;
    font-size: smaller;
    text-align: right;}

.poetry-container {
    text-align: center;
    text-indent: 0em;}

.poetry {
    text-align: left;
    display: inline-block;}

.poetry .verse {
    text-indent: -3em;
    padding-left: 3em;
    font-size: 95%;}

.poetry .indent2 {
    text-indent: -1em;}

.poetry .indent6 {
    text-indent: 3em;}

.right {text-align: right;}

.sig {margin-left: 10%;}

.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;}

.tdc {text-align: center;}

.tdpdl {padding-left: 2em;}

.tdr {text-align: right;}

@media handheld {
p.dropcap:first-letter {
    float: none;
    margin: 0;
    font-size: 100%;}
  img {max-width: 100%; width: auto; height: auto;}

  .poetry
  {
    display: block;
    margin-left: 1.5em;
  }

  .blockquote {
    margin-left: 5%;
    margin-right: 5%;
    font-size: smaller;
  }
}

    </style>
  </head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 48314 ***</div>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 498px;">
<img src="images/frontispiece.jpg" width="498" height="600" alt="Ulysses S. Grant" />
<p class="caption">ULYSSES S. GRANT</p>
<p class="caption"><small>A. W. Elson &amp; Co., Boston</small></p>
</div>

<hr class="r15" />

<h1 style="visibility: hidden;">Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 18 (of 20)</h1>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</a></span></p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 401px;">
<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="401" height="650" alt="Cover page" />
</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[Pg ii]</a></span></p>

<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Copyright</span>, 1880 <span class="smcap">and</span> 1882,<br />
<small>BY</small><br />
FRANCIS V. BALCH, <span class="smcap">Executor</span>.</p>

<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Copyright</span>, 1900,<br />
<small>BY</small><br />
LEE AND SHEPARD.</p>

<p class="center">Statesman Edition.</p>

<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><small>Limited to One Thousand Copies.</small></span></p>

<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><small>Of which this is</small></span></p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 100px;">
<img src="images/issuenumber.jpg" width="100" height="21" alt="No. 320" />
</div>

<p class="center">Norwood Press:<br />
<span class="smcap"><small>Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.</small></span></p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p>

<h2>CONTENTS OF VOLUME XVIII.</h2>

<table summary="contents" style="max-width: 50em; margin: auto;">
  <tr>
    <td></td><td class="tdr">PAGE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#ADMISSION_OF_MISSISSIPPI_TO_REPRESENTATION"><span class="smcap">Admission of Mississippi to Representation in Congress.</span>
Speech in the Senate, February 17, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_FIRST_COLORED_SENATOR"><span class="smcap">The First Colored Senator.</span> Speech in the Senate, on the
Admission of Hon. Hiram R. Revels, a Colored Person,
as Senator of Mississippi, February 25, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#CONSIDERATION_OF_TREATIES_IN_OPEN"><span class="smcap">Consideration of Treaties in Open Senate.</span> Remarks in
the Senate, March 17, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#ELIGIBILITY_TO_THE_SENATE_QUESTION"><span class="smcap">Eligibility to the Senate: Question of Inhabitancy.</span>
Remarks in the Senate, on the Admission of General
Adelbert Ames as a Senator of Mississippi, April 1, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#RATIFICATION_OF_THE_FIFTEENTH_AMENDMENT"><span class="smcap">Ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment.</span> Speech at
a Serenade before Mr. Sumner’s House in Washington, April 1, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">20</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#ADMISSION_OF_GEORGIA_TO_REPRESENTATION"><span class="smcap">Admission of Georgia to Representation in Congress.</span>
Speech in the Senate, April 5, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">23</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#INCOME_TAX"><span class="smcap">Income Tax.</span> Remarks in the Senate, April 7, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">40</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#MORE_WORK_TO_BE_DONE"><span class="smcap">More Work to be done.</span> Letter to the American Antislavery
Society at its Final Meeting, April 8, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#EDUCATION"><span class="smcap">Education.</span> Remarks in the Senate, May 9, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">47</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#NO_EXCLUSION_OF_RETIRED_ARMY_OFFICERS"><span class="smcap">No Exclusion of Retired Army Officers from Civil
Office.</span> Remarks in the Senate, May 12, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">51</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#ARCTIC_EXPEDITIONS"><span class="smcap">Arctic Expeditions.</span> Remarks in the Senate, May 27, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">54</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#ONE_CENT_POSTAGE"><span class="smcap">One Cent Postage with Abolition of Franking.</span> Speech
in the Senate, June 10, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">57</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#CHINESE_INDEMNITY_FUND"><span class="smcap">Chinese Indemnity Fund.</span> Report in the Senate, of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, June 24, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">115</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#TAX_ON_BOOKS"><span class="smcap">Tax on Books.</span> Remarks in the Senate, June 30, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">141</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#NATURALIZATION_LAWS_NO_DISCRIMINATION"><span class="smcap">Naturalization Laws: No Discrimination on Account
of Color.</span> Remarks in the Senate, July 2 and 4, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">144</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_ITS_PAST_AND"><span class="smcap">The Republican Party: its Past and Future Work.</span>
Speech at a Ratification Meeting in Faneuil Hall, October
15, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">169</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE"><span class="smcap">The Duel between France and Germany, with its Lesson
to Civilization.</span> Lecture in the Music Hall,
Boston, October 26, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">175</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_PATRIOT_DEAD_AT_ARLINGTON"><span class="smcap">The Patriot Dead at Arlington.</span> Speech in the Senate,
on a Joint Resolution to remove their Remains, December
13, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">254</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#NABOTHS_VINEYARD"><span class="smcap">Naboth’s Vineyard.</span> Speech in the Senate on the Proposed
Annexion of San Domingo to the United States, December
21, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">257</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#NEW_YEARS_DAY"><span class="smcap">New Year’s Day.</span> Article in the New York Independent,
January 5, 1871</a></td><td class="tdr">300</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#ITALIAN_UNITY"><span class="smcap">Italian Unity.</span> Letter to a Public Meeting at the Academy
of Music in New York, January 10, 1871</a></td><td class="tdr">307</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#RESPONSE_TO_A_TOAST"><span class="smcap">Response to a Toast.</span> Remarks at a Complimentary Dinner
to Colonel John W. Forney, at Washington, January
28, 1871</a></td><td class="tdr">310</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#DUTY_OF_THE_YOUNG_COLORED_LAWYER"><span class="smcap">Duty of the Young Colored Lawyer.</span> Address at the
Commencement Exercises of the Law Department of
Howard University at Washington, February 3, 1871</a></td><td class="tdr">314</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging"><a href="#CHARITY_TO_FRANCE_OR_GERMANY"><span class="smcap">Charity to France or Germany?</span> Speech in the Senate,
February 4, 1871</a></td><td class="tdr">319</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="ADMISSION_OF_MISSISSIPPI_TO_REPRESENTATION" id="ADMISSION_OF_MISSISSIPPI_TO_REPRESENTATION"></a>ADMISSION OF MISSISSIPPI TO REPRESENTATION
IN CONGRESS.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, February 17, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>February 8, 1870, Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
to whom had been referred a bill from the House for the admission
of Mississippi to representation in Congress, with conditions
the same as in the case of Virginia, reported it back with an amendment
striking out all these, and admitting the State unconditionally.</p>

<p>In a speech, February 17th, in reference to the proposed amendment,
Mr. Sumner said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;Throughout the long struggle
anterior to the Rebellion, and then throughout
the Rebellion itself, Slavery had two voices by which
it was heard in this Chamber and in the country. The
first was that by which its continued existence was vindicated,
or, if you please, the right of Slavery; the other
was that of State Rights. By these two voices was
Slavery heard. Happily, the first is silenced; but the
other is still sounding among us, crying out against
those generous efforts by which Human Rights are assured.</p>

<p>I am not wrong in this statement. From the beginning
it has been the same. How often in times past
have we heard the cry of State Rights! At every proposition
concerning Slavery, at the presentation of every
petition against this tyrannical wrong, at every allusion
to it, the cry was heard. And when the Rebellion broke<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span>
forth, the same cry was raised against those great measures
of self-defence by which Slavery, our real enemy,
was assailed; and then at each stage of Reconstruction
it was the same. Not a measure of Reconstruction
which has not encountered this pretension of State
Rights. It broke forth in the Virginia debate. It
breaks forth on the present occasion. Again we hear
the voice of Slavery.</p>

<p>This pretension, which is so constantly manifest, finds
partisans naturally on the other side of the Chamber.
It is easy for Senators who have upheld Slavery to uphold
that interpretation of the Constitution which was
the constant ally of Slavery; but it is incomprehensible
how Senators fresh from the great battle with Slavery
should continue in dalliance with the constant ally.</p>

<p>The argument for State Rights proceeds on a misapprehension.
Nobody doubts the right of a State to local
self-government, through which are supplied the opportunities
of political education, and also of local administration
adapted precisely to local wants. This is the
peculiarity of our national system, wherein it differs
especially from the centralized imperialism of France.
But while recognizing the State as the agency for all
matters properly local, it must not be allowed to interfere
with those other matters, being rights and duties,
which are not local, but universal.</p>

<p>Now, Sir, nothing can be clearer than that the Equal
Rights of All must be placed under the safeguard of one
uniform law which shall be the same in all parts of the
nation,&mdash;the same in Charleston and New Orleans as
in Boston and Chicago. It is absurd to suppose that
the rights of the citizen can differ in different States.
They must be the same in all the States; but this can<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span>
be consummated only by the national authority. Therefore,
on grounds of reason, I repel that pretension of
State Rights which would take this just prerogative
from the nation. Understand me, Sir, I do not seek
to <em>centralize</em>, but to <em>nationalize</em>. The partisans of State
Rights, in their efforts to decentralize, would <em>denationalize</em>.
In the name of local self-government they would
overthrow the nation.</p>

<p>If I am asked where I find these national powers, I
answer, that they are in those two great title-deeds of
the Republic, the Declaration of Independence and the
National Constitution. Whether viewed apart or together,
these two are one and the same; but the two
reinforce each other. The Declaration of Independence
finds proper machinery for its great purposes in the National
Constitution, while the National Constitution is
explained, invigorated, and elevated by the Declaration
of Independence. By the National Constitution the nation
is bound to assure a republican government to all
the States, thus giving to Congress the plenary power
to fix the definition of such a government; but by the
Declaration of Independence the fundamental elements
of this very definition are supplied in terms from which
there can be no appeal. By this Declaration it is solemnly
announced, first, that all men are equal in rights,
and, secondly, that just government stands only on the
consent of the governed. Other things may fail, but
these cannot. Whenever Congress is called to maintain
a republican government, it must be according to
these universal, irreversible principles. The power to
maintain necessarily implies all ancillary powers of
prevention and precaution, so that republican government
may be assured. All these powers are essentially<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>
national, and not local; they belong to the nation, and
not to the State.</p>

<p>So long as Slavery existed, this definition was impossible.
State Rights were set up against Human Rights;
but with the death of Slavery, followed by the extinction
of the Rebellion, this definition takes its just place
in our national system. Therefore whatever tends to
maintain a republican government and to place it beyond
assault, whatever tends to maintain the great principles
declared at our birth as a nation,&mdash;all this is
constitutional. As well deny that the sun shines,&mdash;as
well with puny arm attempt to drag the sun from
the sky; still it shines. God be praised! the day has
passed when State Rights can be exalted above Human
Rights.</p>

<p>It is for Congress to determine, in its discretion, how
republican government shall be maintained. Whatever
it does in this regard, whether by general law, or by
condition or limitation on States, is plainly constitutional
beyond all question. All is in the discretion of
Congress, which may select the “means” by which this
great guaranty shall be performed. It is a guaranty
by the express text of the Constitution, and it must be
performed. In selecting the means, Congress cannot
hesitate at any requirement calculated to secure the beneficent
result. By condition-precedent, by condition-subsequent,
by prohibitory legislation, by legislation
acting directly on the States or the people, by each
and all of these Congress may act, bearing in mind
always the great definition supplied by our fathers,
which must be maintained at all hazards.</p>

<p>It is vain to say that our fathers did not intend this
great power and foresee its exercise. There it is in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span>
Constitution, clear and commanding; and there is the
great definition in the Declaration of Independence,
clear and commanding. If our fathers did not fully
appreciate their mighty act, neither did the barons at
Runnymede, when they obtained Magna Charta, the
perpetual landmark of English rights. The words of
the poet are again fulfilled: “They builded better than
they knew.” But they did build. They built this vast
temple of Republican Liberty, and enjoined upon Congress
its perpetual safeguard, “anything in the constitution
or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”;
and, Sir, by the oath which you have taken to
support the Constitution, are you bound to watch and
protect this vast temple.</p>

<p>The recent war has had its losses, terrible and afflicting.
It has had its gains also. First among these gains
is that interpretation of the Constitution which makes
us a nation, and places the equal rights of all under the
protection of the national power,&mdash;being nothing less
than the fulfilment of the early promises of the Fathers.
Too slowly has this been accomplished; but it is accomplished
at last; and it is our duty to see that these
promises are in no respect neglected, and that the Republic,
One and Indivisible, dedicated to Human Rights,
and an example to mankind, is upheld in every part of
our wide-spread country.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The amendment striking out the conditions of admission was rejected,
and the bill passed in the form in which it came from the House,&mdash;Yeas
50, Nays 11.</p></div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="THE_FIRST_COLORED_SENATOR" id="THE_FIRST_COLORED_SENATOR"></a>THE FIRST COLORED SENATOR.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on the Admission of Hon. Hiram
R. Revels, a Colored Person, as Senator of Mississippi,
February 25, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;The time has passed for argument.
Nothing more need be said. I doubt if
anything more can be said in the way of argument.</p>

<p>For a long time it has been clear that colored persons
must be Senators, and I have often so declared. This
was only according to the irresistible logic of the situation,
to say nothing of inherent right.</p>

<p>If I do not discuss the question, it is partly because
it is now so plain, and partly because on other occasions
I have considered it at length. There is not a point in
the case which I have not argued long ago. Nearly a
generation has intervened since I insisted at home, in
Massachusetts, that all must be equal before the law,
without any distinction of color.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Several years have
intervened since here in this Chamber I insisted on the
same truth, and at the same time showed how, at the
adoption of the National Constitution, colored persons
were citizens according to the terms of all the State
Constitutions, except that of South Carolina, and perhaps
Virginia and Georgia.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> These arguments and authorities<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span>
were not answered then. They cannot be answered.
It is useless to interpose ancient pretensions.
They are dead beyond resurrection. It is useless to interpose
the Dred Scott decision. Born a putrid corpse,
this decision became at once a stench in the nostrils
and a scandal to the Court itself, which made haste to
turn away from its offensive offspring. By the subsequent
admission of a colored lawyer to practise at its
bar this decision was buried out of sight, to be remembered
only as a warning and a shame.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p>

<p>The vote on this question will be an historic event,
marking the triumph of a great cause. From this time
there can be no backward step. After prolonged and
hard-fought battle, beginning with the Republic, convulsing
Congress, and breaking out in blood, the primal
truths declared by our fathers are practically recognized.
“All men are created equal,” says the great
Declaration; and now a great act attests this verity.
To-day we make the Declaration a reality. For a long
time a word only, it now becomes a deed. For a long
time a promise only, it now becomes a consummated
achievement. The Declaration was only half established
by Independence. The greater duty remained
behind. In assuring the Equal Rights of All we complete
the work.</p>

<p>No man acts for himself alone. What he does,
whether for good or evil, is felt in widening circles,
according to the measure of his influence. This is true
of the Senate, whose influence is coextensive with the
Republic, and reaches even beyond its enlarging confines.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span>
What the Senate does now will be followed by
other bodies and associations. As the greater contains
the less, so does the Senate contain all these everywhere
throughout the land. In other places there may
be a brief struggle, but the end is certain. Doors will
open, exclusions will give way, intolerance will cease,
and the great truth will be manifest in a thousand examples.
Liberty and Equality were the two express
promises of our fathers. Both are now assured. And
this is the glory of the Republic, before whose mighty
presence, radiant with justice, kings and nobles must
disappear as the ghosts of night at the morning sun,
while the people, with new-found power and majesty,
take their place.</p>

<p>What we do to-day is not alone for ourselves, not
alone for that African race now lifted up. It is for
all everywhere who suffer from tyranny and wrong,&mdash;for
all everywhere who bend beneath the yoke,&mdash;for
all everywhere who feel the blight of unjust power; it
is for all mankind; it is for God Himself, whose sublime
Fatherhood we most truly confess when we recognize
the Brotherhood of Man.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>A motion by Mr. Stockton, of New Jersey, to refer the credentials
of Mr. Revels to the Committee on the Judiciary was, after a debate of
three days, defeated by a vote of 8 Yeas to 48 Nays; and on motion of
Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, Mr. Revels was thereupon, by the corresponding
vote of Yeas 48, Nays 8, admitted to a seat.</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CONSIDERATION_OF_TREATIES_IN_OPEN" id="CONSIDERATION_OF_TREATIES_IN_OPEN"></a>CONSIDERATION OF TREATIES IN OPEN
SENATE.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, March 17, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>On a resolution submitted by Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, providing
that “any treaty for the annexation to the United States of the entire
dominion of any foreign power shall be considered and the question
of its ratification decided in open session of the Senate,” Mr. Sumner
said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">From the beginning I have always held that the
Senate erred in the establishment of secrecy, particularly
with reference to treaties. I think the first
year that I had the honor of a seat in the Senate the
question of a change of our rule in that regard was presented,
and I voted in its favor. I have seen nothing
from that day to this to change my judgment upon that
particular point materially. I think that the rule of
secrecy was a traditional policy which we derived from
the diplomatic usages of the Old World. We came to
it naturally, and it has continued with us down to this
day. Now, personally, I incline to change it; but I
have two suggestions to present, applicable to the pending
question. The first is, whether it is advisable to
change it while it is known that an important treaty
is actually pending; whether the change, if such change
should be adopted by the Senate, should not be applicable
to the future rather than to any pending question.
I merely present that, without undertaking to determine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span>
it. The other point is, whether a change so important,
not to say so radical, whatever may be the
judgment of individual Senators, like the Senator from
Connecticut, or like myself, should not be referred to
the committee having charge of such questions. I
would therefore suggest that the proposition be referred
to the Committee on Foreign Relations. That
committee will meet next Tuesday, and I have no
doubt will take it at once into consideration.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The resolution was referred accordingly, and, upon the report of the
Committee, was indefinitely postponed.</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="ELIGIBILITY_TO_THE_SENATE_QUESTION" id="ELIGIBILITY_TO_THE_SENATE_QUESTION"></a>ELIGIBILITY TO THE SENATE: QUESTION
OF INHABITANCY.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on the Admission of General
Adelbert Ames as a Senator of Mississippi, April 1,
1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;I hesitate to say a word in
this debate. The question has been exhausted
on both sides, and to me, I must be pardoned for saying,
it is infinitely plain. It is plain in law; it is plain
in fact. When I say it is plain in law, I believe all the
Senate on both sides will concur,&mdash;for, indeed, the Senator
from Ohio [Mr. <span class="smcap">Thurman</span>] stated the law precisely
as I understand it.</p>

<p>We all know that in topography there are what are
called water-sheds, sometimes high, sometimes low, and
from these elevations flow in opposite directions the
currents which there find their fountains. Sir, the water-shed
of this debate is found in the intent; and this
water-shed may be high or low. Suffice it that it is a
water-shed; this is enough. Suffice it that the intent
appears; and this is all that is required, in order to determine
the character of the residence. Show me a citizen
actually in a State, then the intent to remain fixes
his inhabitancy.</p>

<p>The Senator from Illinois [Mr. <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>] substantially
admitted this rule of law. I agree with him that
there are but two things to be shown: first, what the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span>
old books call the <i>factum</i>, and, secondly, what the same
old books call the <i>animus</i>. What is the <i>factum</i>? It is
residence. What is the <i>animus</i>? It is intent to stay.
Now in point of law you can add nothing to these.
You may argue till doomsday, you may cite authorities
without number, but you can add nothing to these
two simple requirements, residence and intent.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Thurman.</span> Will the Senator allow me to interrupt
him?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Thurman.</span> As he has referred to my statement of
the law, I will say that I did state that those were the two
things necessary, residence and intention,&mdash;that you want
to find out what is residence that creates inhabitancy, and
what is intention that creates inhabitancy; and what I said
was, and I maintain yet, that a residence which is enforced
is no residence, and an intention that the party has no power
to execute so long as he remains in the Army is no intention
at all: an intention that the party has no power to execute
has no virtue whatever.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Very well,&mdash;I will come to that. The
Senator and myself agree that in point of law there are
two things to be established, and only two,&mdash;residence
and intent. The question that remains is one of evidence;
it is not a question of law. If the Senator were
on the bench, which he once adorned, he would be
obliged to charge the jury in this way. The rule of law
is positive. All that remains comes under the head of
evidence. Now I say by law you must show those two
things, residence and intent, and you cannot add to either
a tittle.</p>

<p>On this occasion, the most important requirement is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span>
that of intent. This is the requirement that has been
most argued. And here I go back to that original Latin
phrase which dominates this case, and which is in itself
an all-sufficient rule: I mean the <i>animus manendi</i>.
Why is this phrase, so often repeated, handed down for
successive centuries? Simply because, like maxims of
law, or like proverbs, it contains in one short phrase a
rule. You have there a chapter of jurisprudence, if you
please, or a volume. It is the mind, or the intent to
remain, which governs. This is all that the law says.
The law does not go forward and require, as the Senator
from Illinois has argued to-day, that there must be an
act. You find no such requirement in the rule. The
rule is explicit, precise; and here I challenge contradiction.
It is simply the intent to remain, the <i>animus
manendi</i>. Step beyond that and you are lost, if you
undertake to state the law. There is no rule of law
outside of this simple sum-total.</p>

<p>I come, then, to the point that we have before us,
simply a question of intent. I might cite authorities
here. I have some of them before me. I will read one.
For instance, here is Vattel, quoted by Judge Story in
his article on <span class="smcap">Domicile</span> in the “Encyclopædia Americana,”
which Senators familiar with this subject know
is of authority:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Vattel seems to define it to be a fixed residence in any
place with an intention of always staying there.”<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p>

</div>

<p>On this Judge Story very properly remarks:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“This is not quite accurate. It would be more correct to
say that that place is the home or domicile of a person in
which his habitation is fixed, without any present intention
of removing therefrom.”</p>

</div>

<p>Here are words completely applicable to the case now
before us. The learned author then proceeds to say:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“It is often a mere question of intention.”</p>

</div>

<p>And then adds:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The mere dwelling or residence in a place is not of itself
sufficient to make it the domicile of the party. He must be
there with the intention of remaining, <i>animo manendi</i>.”</p>

</div>

<p>Mark the old recurring phrase, with its light and
limitation. Here again I say is the rule. You cannot
go outside of it. If you go outside of it, you are lost.
I am speaking of the rule of law. I know that there
can be no addition to that, because, if you do undertake
to add to it or to take from it, you must depart from
the jurisprudence of every civilized country,&mdash;not only
of our own country, not only of England, but of every
civilized nation on the continent of Europe. In the
jurisprudence of every one of those countries you will
find this same distinct, precise, simple rule.</p>

<p>Now, Sir, allow me to say,&mdash;I say it with entire respect,&mdash;the
confusion in this debate has arisen from
confounding the rule of law with the evidence under
that rule. The rule, I say, is precise, that there must
be intent. But how shall the intent be proved? Sometimes
in one way, sometimes in another; sometimes by
long-continued residence,&mdash;by purchase of property,&mdash;by
the establishment of a home,&mdash;by the establishment
of a place of business,&mdash;by all those circumstances and
incidents which show fixity of purpose. All this comes
under the head of evidence. It does not touch the rule
of law behind.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span></p>

<p>The Senator from Illinois says there must be an act.
Allow me to say that words are sometimes acts, and especially
if associated with important events. It is a familiar
phrase of law that language enters into what we
call the <i>res gestæ</i>; language is welded into the transaction
and becomes a part of it. Words then become
things; and when were words more things than when
the commanding general in Mississippi distinctly declared
his purpose to resign his commission in the
Army of the United States and accept a nomination
as Senator? Here was a declaration constituting part
of the <i>res gestæ</i>, and in itself an act.</p>

<p>I am not speaking merely on theory. I have in my
hand a case, which I think, when I read it, you will
see is applicable: I refer to Metcalf’s Reports, volume
three, page 200, the case of <i>Kilburn</i> v. <i>Bennett</i>. In the
statement of facts is the following passage:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“For the purpose of showing with what intent the defendant
went to Tyngsborough on the 27th of April, he offered to
prove that about three weeks before that day he told S. Shattuck,
in whose house he then resided, that he should leave
Groton before the 1st of May, and remove with his family to
Tyngsborough, to reside at his brother’s, and make his house
a home, until he should go to Illinois. But the judge ruled
that the evidence was inadmissible, and rejected it.”</p>

</div>

<p>The case was carried before the full bench, when the
ruling of the judge below was set aside, and the Court
observed as follows:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The Court held that this, being the mere declaration of
the defendant, was not competent evidence in his favor, and
it was rejected. The general rule undoubtedly is, that a party
cannot give in evidence his own declarations in his favor,
unless they accompany some act, and are a part of the <i>res
gestæ</i>. But it appears to us that the declarations offered to
be proved are within the qualification of the rule. They were
made in the ordinary course of business, and in relation to
the defendant’s removal, and they were made to the owner
of the house in which he was at the time residing. This
giving notice of his intended removal is to be considered an
act which he might prove in any case in which it became
material; and if so, all that he said explanatory of his intention
in relation to his removal seems to us to be admissible
in evidence.”</p>

</div>

<p>Now on the authority of this case it seems to me that
the declaration of General Ames, accompanied by the
acceptance of candidacy as a Senator, is clearly an act.
But I do not argue that the Senate is now bound by
any technical rule of this kind. It is enough if the
Senate is satisfied with regard to his intent on the evidence
adduced. No rule of limitation or exclusion can
prevail. If the Senate believes that he had at the time
the <i>animus manendi</i>, it must act accordingly.</p>

<p>Is the Senate, on the evidence before it,&mdash;without
the application of any technical rule of evidence, without
recognizing his declaration as part of the <i>res gestæ</i>,&mdash;is
the Senate satisfied that at the time named he
intended to reside in Mississippi? This is the whole
case. On this question of fact each Senator will judge
for himself, on the evidence before him. This evidence
I will read in the Report of the Committee, being the
language of General Ames in a written statement to
them, as follows:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“A number of persons in Mississippi visited this city to
find arguments by which I might be influenced to become
a candidate. I hesitated, because it would necessitate the
abandonment of my whole military life. Finally, for personal
and public reasons, I decided to become a candidate
and leave the Army. My intentions were publicly declared
and sincere.”</p>

</div>

<p>On which the Committee remark:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The intentions thus declared were not only to become a
candidate for the Senate, but to remain and reside in Mississippi.”<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Sir, what more can you ask? On the report of your
own Committee you have explicit evidence of the intent
of General Ames to reside in Mississippi; and
where intent is enough, you need add nothing to it.
There is no necessity for any act beyond this declaration,
which, as I have already said, is in itself an act, as
the Senator from Michigan [Mr. <span class="smcap">Howard</span>] says, taken
in connection with his personal presence on the spot,&mdash;and
I would add, taken in connection with all the necessary
implications from his position, and from his acceptance
of the candidacy. This is not a case in a justice’s
court, or even in a county court. This is the
Senate of the United States; and we are considering
the evidence with regard to the declarations of a gentleman
already chosen by a State of this Union to take
his seat among us. We cannot apply to these declarations
any technical rule which possibly might be applied
in an inferior tribunal. We are to look at the
case in its essence, and, if satisfied of the intent, we
cannot go further. The Senate does not sit in chains.
It may act according to its conscience on the evidence,
without any constraint, except from the rule of law requiring
intent.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span></p>
<p>Much stress has been laid upon the fact that General
Ames held a commission in the Army of the United
States, and was actually the military commander and
provisional governor of Mississippi. What then? Does
this affect his position now? Is a soldier or officer in
the Army, is the commander of an army, shut out from
the same privileges that belong to you, Sir, and to me?
Each of us may change his domicile as he pleases, and
to-morrow or next week transfer his home to another
State of the Union, and nobody can say, No. Has the
soldier or the officer fewer rights than you and I have?
I think not; and I am sure that both reason and authority
sustain my conclusion. I have in my hands a
volume of the California Reports,&mdash;the twenty-eighth
volume. I call attention to the case of <i>The People</i> v.
<i>William Holden</i>, and I will not trouble you with anything
more than one clause from the marginal note, as
follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“<i>Residence while in the service of the United States.</i>&mdash;The
clause in the Constitution of this State, which declares that
‘no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence
by reason of his presence or absence while employed
in the service of the United States,’ does not prevent a
person who removes to a county while in the service of
the United States from acquiring a residence in that county
while in the said service, if it is his intention so to do.”</p>

</div>

<p>“If it is his intention so to do.” These words are
strictly applicable to the case of General Ames. There
was nothing in his service in Mississippi, nothing in his
high military command, to prevent him from establishing
an inhabitancy in that State, if it was his intention
so to do.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span></p>

<p>Thus at every point are we brought back to the single
rule of law and the evidence under it,&mdash;the rule being
that there must be an intent to remain, and the evidence
being open to the judgment of the tribunal before
which the question is raised. Especially must this be
the case with the Senate, which will look through all
technicalities, all cobwebs, to find the truth. Nor can
the Senate be so unjust to any class of citizens as to say
that a military commander may not acquire inhabitancy
in a State where he is fixed by military duties, provided
he so intends. All the adverse presumptions from military
residency will be overcome at once by the <i>animus
manendi</i>, so soon as this is proved.</p>

<p>Do you remember, Sir, a pointed remark made by
Lafayette in the French Chamber, shortly after Louis
Philippe was crowned King? Astonishment was expressed
that the great defender of Liberty should espouse
the cause of a Bourbon and help him to the
throne. Lafayette, with remarkable condensation of
phrase, replied, that he was in favor of Louis Philippe,
not <em>because</em>, but <em>notwithstanding</em> he was a Bourbon,&mdash;“not
<em>because</em>, but <em>notwithstanding</em>.” And in
this famous saying of the great French-American you
have terms strictly applicable to this case. General
Ames, soldier, officer, military commander in Mississippi,
became an inhabitant thereof, not <em>because</em>, but
<em>notwithstanding</em> he was soldier, officer, and military
commander.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>A resolution of the Committee on the Judiciary, declaring General
Ames “not eligible,” was on motion of Mr. Sumner amended by striking
out the word “not,”&mdash;Yeas 40, Nays 12,&mdash;and thus amended
was agreed to without a division.</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="RATIFICATION_OF_THE_FIFTEENTH_AMENDMENT" id="RATIFICATION_OF_THE_FIFTEENTH_AMENDMENT"></a>RATIFICATION OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech at a Serenade before Mr. Sumner’s House
in Washington, April 1, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>The occasion was the promulgation by the Secretary of State of the
ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution. A large
number of citizens, after calling upon the President and Vice-President,
by whom they were addressed, proceeded to the house of Mr.
Sumner, who appeared with his friend, Mr. James Wormley, and spoke
as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">FELLOW-CITIZENS,&mdash;I congratulate you upon
the great result that has been accomplished. For
years my hope and object have been to see the great
promise of the Declaration of Independence changed
into performance,&mdash;to see that that Declaration became
a reality. [<i>Cheers.</i>] This at last is nearly consummated.
I do not say entirely consummated, for it
is not.</p>

<p>It is my nature, fellow-citizens, to think more of
what remains to be done than of what has been done,&mdash;to
think more of our duties than of our triumphs;
and only to-day I have heard from Philadelphia of a
decision in a court of justice that a person of foreign
birth could not be naturalized in this country because
of color. This is in pursuance of one of those old statutes
of the days of Slavery, before the word “white”
was stricken from the laws. Repeatedly, from my seat
in the Senate, I have made appeals for the expunging<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span>
of that word from the laws. I have now a bill before
the Judiciary Committee to strike this word from our
naturalization laws. What the Committee will do remains
to be seen. I need not say that I shall try to
impress upon the Senate the importance of passing this
bill. It remains also, that equal rights should be secured
in all the public conveyances and on all the railroads
in the United States, so that no one shall be excluded
by reason of color.</p>

<p>It further remains that you here in Washington
shall complete this equality of rights in your common
schools. You all go together to vote, and any person
may find a seat in the Senate of the United States; but
the child is shut out of the common school on account
of color. This discrimination must be abolished. All
schools must be open to all, without distinction of color.
In laboring for this, you will not only work for yourselves,
but will set an example for all the land, and
most especially for the South. Only in this way can
your school system be extended for the equal good of
all. And now, as you have at heart the education of
your children, that they may grow up in that knowledge
of equal rights so essential to their protection in the
world, it is your bounden duty here in Washington to
see that this is accomplished.</p>

<p>Your school system must be founded on Equal Rights,
so that no one shall be excluded on account of color.
In this way Human Rights will be best established.
And I would remind you, although this has not been
effected, the victories already gained are the assurance
that all that should be done will be done.</p>

<p>You have progressed, step by step, until you have
reached your present position; and now it only remains<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span>
that you should continue to the end earnest, faithful,
and determined; then will the work be completed.</p>

<p>Returning you my sincere thanks, and offering my
felicitations on this occasion, I bid you good night.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="ADMISSION_OF_GEORGIA_TO_REPRESENTATION" id="ADMISSION_OF_GEORGIA_TO_REPRESENTATION"></a>ADMISSION OF GEORGIA TO REPRESENTATION
IN CONGRESS.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, April 5, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>Representatives from Georgia had been admitted to seats in Congress
in July, 1868, under the Act of June 25th of that year; but the
subsequent action of her Legislature in expelling its colored members
and filling their places with whites, and the continued outrages upon
loyalists, had the effect of preventing the admission of her Senators,
and in the next Congress of excluding her from representation altogether,&mdash;involving
the necessity of measures for her reconstruction
and admission anew. The first of these was the Act of December 22,
1869, providing, among other things, for the reorganization of the
State Legislature, by reinstating its colored members in their seats
and purging it of its disloyal elements. To this succeeded a bill in
the same terms with the Acts for the admission of Virginia and Mississippi,
which was passed in the House with the following amendment,
moved by Mr. Bingham, of Ohio:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“<i>Provided</i>, That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to vacate
any of the offices now filled in the State of Georgia, either by the election
of the people or by the appointment of the Governor thereof by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate of said State; neither shall this
Act be construed to extend the official term of any officer of said State beyond
the term limited by the Constitution thereof, dating from the election
or appointment of such officer, nor to deprive the people of Georgia of
the right under their Constitution to elect Senators and Representatives
of the State of Georgia in the year 1870; but said election shall be held in
the year 1870, either on the day named in the Constitution of said State or
such other day as the present Legislature may designate by law.”</p>

</div>

<p>In the Senate, after several days’ discussion of this proviso, as in
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved a
substitute of opposite character, as follows:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“<i>Provided</i>, That, in consequence of the failure of the General Assembly
of Georgia to perfect a legal organization for a period of over eighteen
months, it be, and hereby is, declared that the term of service of the said
General Assembly shall date from the 26th of January, 1870, and shall continue
until the persons to be chosen on the Tuesday after the first Monday
of November, 1872, as members of the General Assembly of said State, are
qualified: <i>Provided</i>, That the last clause of the second subdivision of the
first section of the third article of the Constitution of Georgia, in the following
words, ‘The General Assembly may by law change the time of
election, and the members shall hold until their successors are elected and
qualified,’ shall never be by any Legislature exercised so as to extend the
term of any office beyond the regular period named in the said Constitution;
and the said General Assembly shall by joint resolution consent to
this fundamental condition before this Act shall take effect.”</p>

</div>

<p>April 5th, Mr. Sumner spoke on the pending question as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;Whatever its result, this debate
will be ever memorable. For the first time
the African has pleaded in this Chamber.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> But the curious
observer cannot fail to note that he was obliged
to plead still for his long-oppressed race. The Senator
from Mississippi sits among us, and speaks; but the
battle is not yet won. Slavery still asserts her ancient
predominance, finding strange voices. No longer is the
claim made directly. Nothing is said of Slavery, but
the old cause is defended under an <i>alias</i>. It is now
State Rights which are invoked, or it may be alleged
irregularities,&mdash;as if State Rights or any irregularities
could prevail against the sovereign duty of Congress to
see that Georgia is so organized that good people shall
be protected in their rights. To this end all else must
be tributary, while every pretext of State Rights and
every allegation of irregularity are of less consequence
than the breath with which they are urged.</p>

<p>It is sad that the Senator from Mississippi should be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>
doomed to encounter this spirit. As he entered the
Chamber, the evil genius should have departed; but it
is not so. And strange to say, the voices by which it
has spoken have been the voices of friends. But so it
has been always. How often in other days have the
opponents of Slavery been saddened by encountering
the voices of friends! The argument of technicality is
always at hand, as the well-seasoned weapon of the
lawyer,&mdash;and this debate is no exception.</p>

<p>I had hoped that this question would be decided
without debate, at least on our side,&mdash;in short, that
all would appreciate the exigency, and unite harmoniously
in applying the remedy. I am disappointed.
But I shall say very little. Feeling as strongly as I
do, and seeing the way as clearly as I do, I cannot be
entirely silent.</p>

<p>The case is very simple. From unquestionable evidence
it appears that Georgia, while still in transition
from the old to the new, while still in process of Reconstruction,
and before the work is completed, has lapsed
into a condition of insecurity and uncertainty, so that,
without the intervention of Congress, the people cannot
be assured in the enjoyment of their rights.</p>

<p>This is the broad statement, which is confirmed by
the present as well as the past. By an unparalleled
audacity colored citizens were expelled from the Legislature
simply on account of color, while the orgies
of the Ku-Klux-Klan prevailed throughout the State.
And now this same Ku-Klux-Klan continues its terrors,
while former Rebels threaten to regain their pernicious
power. The State is in peril. I do not use too strong
language. All evidence is at fault, if it be not as I say.
To allow these Rebels to prevail is to sacrifice Reconstruction,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span>
and to offer up the Unionists, white and
black. It is to do a deed of shame and desertion.
Are you ready for this degradation? Shall Congress
descend to this vileness?</p>

<p>Again I use strong language; but only in this way
can I picture the enormity which is now proposed.
Among national obligations which cannot be declined
or postponed, and which rest primarily on Congress, is
the duty of protecting Reconstruction. <em>Show that Reconstruction
is in peril, and you must act.</em> Now that it
is in peril there can be no question. Concurring testimony
from opposite quarters, public acts, and open
menace, all attest the condition of Georgia. Others in
this debate have entered into details. I give you the
irresistible, unanswerable conclusion.</p>

<p>And here occurs the Bingham Amendment, which,
however intended, is only an engine of Rebel power.
This is its true character, and nothing else. Howsoever
it may seem, it must be regarded in its consequences.
We must look from the word to the thing.
It is not enough to see how it reads; we must see how
it works. According to its text, the present Legislature,
whose natural existence has been changed by wrongful
addition and wrongful subtraction proceeding directly
from the old Rebellion, is terminated at a specified day
in the coming autumn, and a new election is ordered,
without taking into consideration the past or the future,&mdash;without
considering that thus far it has sat as a provisional
Legislature only, although chosen to sit under
the State Constitution,&mdash;without considering how it has
been despoiled of its legislative character and just rights
by hostile influence, and how a new election will be a
direct appeal to this same hostile influence, giving to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span>
it a letter of license and unloosing the Ku-Klux-Klan.
The Bingham Amendment is in few words, but they are
words of despair to the loyal men of Georgia, and words
of cheer to the disloyal.</p>

<p>I have listened to the arguments in its favor. Do I
mistake, when I say that they all resolve themselves
into technicality? At one moment we have allegations
of “irregularity,” and at another of “estoppel”; and
such technicalities play their part, while the good people
of Georgia are sacrificed. We are estopped, so it is
said, by the Act of December 22, 1869, which, failing
to provide for the re-performance of certain conditions-precedent,
recognized the validity of the legislative acts
by which they had been performed. Very well,&mdash;suppose
the legislative acts are recognized as valid, what
then? Because the ratification of the Constitutional
Amendments is recognized, does it follow that Congress
is thereby “estopped”&mdash;such is the word&mdash;in
completing the work of Reconstruction? I cannot comprehend
this reasoning. It would be of value in a county
court, but it is out of place in the Senate of the United
States, on a question of Reconstruction. To my mind,
all this is a matter of supreme indifference. The powers
of Congress are above any such incident, and nothing
has occurred to impair them in any way. They
exist now as at the beginning, awaiting the discretion
of Congress.</p>

<p>Do you ask where these powers are found? Of
course, in the two Constitutional Amendments already
proclaimed,&mdash;being ample sources, if none others existed.
Out of these Congress is authorized to do all that
is needed to enforce Emancipation and to protect the
rights of the citizen. This is plain, very plain.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span></p>

<p>But there are three other sources, each of which is
overflowing. The first is from the necessity of the case,
<i>ex necessitate rei</i>. This is one of the grounds on which
Chief-Justice Marshall asserted the power of Congress
over the Territories;<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> but it is equally applicable in the
work of Reconstruction. From the necessity of the case
this power must be in Congress, as without it Reconstruction
could not be completed. You must renounce
Reconstruction or recognize this power.</p>

<p>Then comes the “guaranty” clause, which is another
bountiful, all-sufficient fountain. The United States
are to guaranty a republican form of government to the
States. But this guaranty can be executed only through
Congress. This clause is at once old and new. It is old
as the Constitution itself, but it is new in its practical
exercise. And the reason is obvious. So long as Slavery
prevailed, this mighty power slept; but it was the
sleep of a giant. At last it has awaked, never again
to sleep or slumber. From this time forward the duty
of the nation to guaranty a republican government to
all its parts will be constant and ever-present; and this
duty is reinforced by all needful powers. The guaranty
is continuing and perpetual, and it must be executed
at all hazards. In its execution Congress must fix the
definition of a republican government. How often have
I said this!&mdash;but I shall not fail to repeat it so long as
the occasion requires. To Congress belongs the duty of
determining what is a republican government, and then
it must see that such a government prevails in every
State.</p>

<p>If in any State the existing government fails according
to the just standard, or if it is in any way menaced,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>
then must Congress interfere to execute the sleepless
guaranty. And in this interference it may act according
to its discretion, determining the occasion and the
“means” to be employed. It may act by repression or
by precaution, and it may select any “means” proper
for the purpose. To say that it may not act by precaution
as well as by repression is contrary to reason, and
I may say to common sense. Whatever may be done
by repression may be done by precaution also. Such is
the experience of life in other things, and this obligation
of guaranty is subject to the universal law. In the
selection of “means” the whole field and the whole arsenal
are at its command. Not an instrument, not a
weapon, proper for the purpose, which it may not grasp.
Here the language of Chief-Justice Marshall, so often
quoted, harmonizes with the claim of power which I
now make:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The Government which has a right to do an act, and has
imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according
to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means;
and those who contend that it may not select any appropriate
means, that one particular mode of effecting the object is
excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing
that exception.”<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>

</div>

<p>In our recent debates able Senators have denied everything.
They will not concede the “means”; and
they even ignore this great clause, which, as Cicero said
of the ancient <i>Senatusconsultum</i>, has rested so long like
a sword in its scabbard.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> But there it is. Senators<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span>
may ignore it; they may not see it; but there it is in
the Constitution. In attempting to belittle this clause
Senators only show how little they appreciate the lofty
unity of the Republic. Other clauses are important
in the machinery of government; but this guaranty
makes the Republic one and indivisible, being One out
of Many, and places the rights of all under the protecting
power of the nation.</p>

<p>Before the extinction of Slavery, State Rights were
successful against this guaranty. To invoke this tyrannical
pretension was enough. How often was it heard
on this floor! How completely did it dominate the
Constitution itself! But the habit still continues, and
we are still compelled to hear this same pretension, under
which States <em>played the turtle</em>, drawing head, legs,
and tail all within an impenetrable shell. With the
overthrow of the Rebellion on the bloody field this pretension
should have been abandoned and forgotten. A
State is not a turtle, which can shut itself within its
shell, and enjoy its own separate animal existence; but
it is a component part of this great Republic, with
which it is interlaced and interlocked so as to share
with every other State a common life, subject to one
and the same prevailing law. To insist that a State
can play the turtle now, as in the days when Slavery
ruled, is to dishonor the Constitution, and to abandon
the crowning victory over the Rebellion.</p>

<p>Do you ask for the power in the Constitution to enter
into a State and establish republican government?
I give it to you in an immortal text. To question it
is to show an ignorance of language which in this case
is clear beyond criticism, and an ignorance also of the
true genius of American institutions, where unity of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span>
rights is the Alpha and the Omega. The national
motto, <i>E Pluribus Unum</i>, is another expression of that
great unity by which the States are lost in the Nation.
And this guaranty I now invoke for the protection of
the good people of Georgia, and for the protection hereafter
of Human Rights, when imperilled anywhere within
the limits of the Republic.</p>

<p>But there are other and exceptional reasons why
Georgia is still within the control of Congress. The
process of Reconstruction in this State is not yet completed;
so that the government there is simply provisional,
and nothing else. This is only according to the
Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, where it is provided,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That, until the people of said Rebel States shall be <span class="smcap">by
law</span> admitted to representation in the Congress of the United
States, <em>any civil governments which may exist therein shall be
deemed provisional only</em>, and in all respects subject to the
paramount authority of the United States at any time to
abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same.”<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Nothing can be more explicit. Until the people of
the Rebel States are “by law” admitted to representation,
they are under the power of Congress. Everything
done is inchoate, and nothing more. But Georgia is not
yet “by law” admitted to representation, and we are
now considering when and how such admission shall
take place. Meanwhile, according to express language
of the Act, the government is “provisional only.” Nor
is this all; for the Act proceeds to declare further that
this government is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> “in all respects subject to the paramount
authority of the United States at any time to
abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same.” Words
cannot be stronger. “Abolish,” “modify,” “control,”
“supersede.” To argue against their plain meaning is
simply ridiculous. To insist that the existing government
is beyond the reach of Congress, to be extended or
abridged, to be recognized or superseded in its discretion,
is preposterous. The power is reserved in terms almost
excessive in fulness. Therefore do I say there can be
no question of power on the present occasion. As well
question that the sun shines or the river flows.</p>

<p>There being no question of power, there arises, then,
the obligation of duty. Congress has the power to protect
republican institutions in Georgia, and to protect
the good people there; and it has the further power to
superintend the work of Reconstruction to the end. All
this it must do. It cannot abandon the appointed work.
Of course it will ascertain the exact condition of things,
and will then apply the remedy. No excuse of State
Rights, no fine-spun technicality, no plea of irregularity,
no argument of “estoppel” can be heard. All these
are trivial and unworthy against the commanding duty.
Georgia must be saved to herself and to the Union, and
Congress must supply the means.</p>

<p>Several courses are open to Congress, and all equally
within its powers; for all are derived from the same
fountains.</p>

<p>1. Georgia may be remanded for an indefinite period
to a condition like that of the Territories, subordinate in
all respects to the jurisdiction of Congress, which may
meanwhile mould it into loyalty and order.</p>

<p>2. Or the State may be subjected to a military government,
until such time as it is fit in every respect
for self-government.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span></p>

<p>3. Or the existing provisional government may be invested
with the powers of the State, in such form and
way and for such term as Congress in its discretion
shall think best.</p>

<p>I doubt not that there are other modes within the
jurisdiction of Congress; but these are all contained
substantially in the three I have named.</p>

<p>It is not now proposed to remand Georgia to a territorial
condition, or to subject the State to a military
government. But it is proposed to place it in charge
of the existing provisional government, which is to continue
for a full constitutional term; and this is done as
the best way of guarding against disturbing forces from
the late Rebellion. It is said that this will be sufficient.
I hope that it may be. I am satisfied that it is
the least Congress can do in the exigency. Anything
short of this will be the betrayal of those who have a
right to our protection.</p>

<p>Against this simple and moderate proposition is interposed
the Bingham Amendment, which, however plausible
in form, is destructive in consequence. It is enough
that it hands over the State to misrule and violence.
Senators, how can you do this thing? How can you
hesitate to take every heed and precaution against even
the possibility of such an occurrence? You have the
power. Then must you exercise it. In the recent history
of Georgia nothing can be adduced to make you hesitate.
On the contrary, all things, when properly understood,
conspire to constrain the exercise of this power.</p>

<p>How feeble is the argument, that, <em>because</em> Governor
Bullock was chosen Governor and the Legislature commenced
its session at a given date now past, therefore
in this process of Reconstruction the constitutional term<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>
of the Governor and of the Legislature must be limited
to two years from that date! Besides ignoring all the
controlling powers of Congress, this assumption ignores
also the conduct of this very Legislature by which its
organization was for a while defeated. Nothing is clearer
than that the termination of the provisional government
in Georgia was contingent on the performance of
certain covenants, express and implied. These covenants
have been outrageously violated. The very form
of government underwent a change when persons clearly
ineligible from disloyalty were allowed to take part
in it, while citizens entitled to equal rights, and especially
protected by the Reconstruction Laws, were tyrannically
ejected from the Legislature. There was for
the time being a usurpation. Had this violation of
underlying covenants been anticipated, Reconstruction
would have been postponed. No Senator will pretend
the contrary. But Congress, in view of what has occurred,
may justly do what it would have done, had it
anticipated the result. It may postpone Reconstruction,&mdash;treating
the Legislature meanwhile as provisional,
and recognizing its acts only so far as in the judgment
of Congress they are fit to be recognized.</p>

<p>If instruction be needed on this point, it will be found
in the authoritative words of publicists, showing how
even the terms of a treaty may be disregarded where
there has been a change in the form of government.</p>

<p>Thus, Vattel does not hesitate to say,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“It may say, upon a good foundation, that it would not
have entered into an alliance with that nation, had it been
under the present form of government.”<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p>

</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span></p>
<p>One of our own publicists, Alexander Hamilton, has
dealt with the same question in congenial language:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Contracts between nations, as between individuals, must
lose their force where the considerations fail.</p>

<p>“A treaty pernicious to the state is of itself void, where
no change in the situation of either of the parties takes place.
By a much stronger reason it must become voidable at the
option of the other party, when the voluntary act of one of
the allies has made so material a change in the <em>condition of
things</em> as is always implied in a radical revolution of government.”<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p>

</div>

<p>We but follow the simple principles of these texts,
when we declare that the outrage perpetrated in Georgia
so far changed the condition of things that the
Legislature lost all title to recognition by Congress.
It ceased to be the Legislature contemplated by Congress.
Nor was it the first regular Legislature contemplated
by the State Constitution. It was irregular, abnormal,
revolutionary. To recognize such a body as the
first regular Legislature is a fraud on the State Constitution.
To insist that members chosen as the first regular
Legislature shall be treated as provisional only is
unjust to them. To insist that such members shall
be despoiled of the regular term is a direct surrender
to the disorganizers, who will rejoice to see Congress
sacrifice the true men to whom it owes protection.
To my mind there can be no surer rule than so to act
that these disorganizers shall not rejoice. Especially
will I not please them at the expense of patriot citizens.</p>

<p>In the exercise of this power Congress is acting on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span>
principles of Equity. And here allow me to say, that,
in superintending the process of Reconstruction, Congress
is a Court of Equity, bound to supply deficiencies
in the existing law, to enjoin against threatened wrong,
and generally to see justice done in spite of technicalities.
Here I only follow the best definitions of Equity
from the earliest times. No student can forget that
profound definition by Aristotle,<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> adopted by Grotius<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>
also,&mdash;“Equity is the correction of that wherein the
law by reason of its universality is deficient”; nor can
he forget the phrase of Lord Bacon, when he gives it a
higher character still, namely, “The general conscience
of the realm, which is Chancery.”<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> These two philosophers
were each right; for Equity is at once a correction
of law and the voice of conscience. In conformity
with these principles, an ample jurisdiction has been
established, under which, among other things, the powers
of ordinary courts are supplemented by more flexile
methods, the rules of law are prevented from becoming
instruments of injustice, persons are restrained from asserting
doubtful rights in a manner productive of irreparable
damage, and, in the absence of positive law, universal
justice is maintained. It has been a constant
aspiration to bring Law and Equity into harmony.
Lord Chancellor Eldon relates that on one occasion
Lord Chief-Justice De Grey said, he “never liked Equity
so well as when it was like Law”; and he adds,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span>
“The day before I heard Lord Mansfield say he never
liked Law so well as when it was like Equity.”<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>
In the same spirit, Bishop Burnet says of Sir Matthew
Hale:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“As great a lawyer as he was, he would never suffer the
strictness of law to prevail against conscience; as great a
chancellor as he was, he would make use of all the niceties
and subtilties in law, when it tended to support right and
equity.”<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Such is Equity, and such are the principles which
preside in its courts. No strictness of law can prevail
against conscience. The niceties and subtilties of law
are all to be used in support of right and equity. These
noble and authoritative rules are a pathway of light.
Against all strictness of law conscience must prevail.
If there are niceties and subtilties in the law, let them
all be employed on the side of right and equity. That
is according to reason and the harmonies of the Universe.
It is Equity.</p>

<p>Am I not right, when I now insist that Congress is a
High Court of Equity with Georgia at its bar? It only
remains that it should apply the principles of Equity,
especially supplying deficiencies in the existing law, enjoining
against threatened wrong, and seeing that justice
is done,&mdash;all technicalities to the contrary notwithstanding.
Against all strictness of law conscience must prevail;
and if there are niceties and subtilties in the law,
they must all minister to the completion of Reconstruction.
To this end, the process of Congress must go forth
in such form as will best establish peace and security in
that State under the safeguard of equal laws. With the
execution of this process Georgia will be a republican
government in reality as in name.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span></p>
<p>The assertion of this power is necessary now, not
merely for Georgia, where it will bring peace and security,
but also for the Nation, which will be elevated
in character and strengthened in that unity against
which the Rebellion dashed itself in battle. An ancient
sage has left in perpetual testimony, that the best
government is where an injury to a single citizen is redressed
as an injury to the whole nation. In harmony
with the saying of the sage is the fundamental law that
protection and allegiance are reciprocal, so that the Nation
owes protection in exchange for the allegiance it
receives. The duties of the Nation are correlative with
the duties of the citizen. Are we a Nation? Surely
we are not, if any State can without correction deny
Equal Rights within its border, or in any way imperil
the tranquillity of the Republic. There was a time
when all this might be done with impunity,&mdash;when
a State was permitted to exalt itself above the Nation,&mdash;when
a State determined for itself the standard of
Human Rights,&mdash;when there was one rule of citizenship
at Boston and another at New Orleans, and as
many different rules as there were States,&mdash;when State
Rights were made the protection for all that a State
chose to do, and the turtle, with its impenetrable shell,
was the prototype of a political community constituting
part of the Nation. But this time has passed. A State
can no longer play the turtle; State Rights have ceased
to be a protection for all that a State inclines to do;
there can be but one rule of citizenship in all the
States, being the same in Boston and New Orleans;
no State can determine for itself the standard of Human
Rights; no State can exalt itself above the Nation;
nor can any State without correction deny Equal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span>
Rights within its borders, or in any way imperil the
tranquillity of the Republic. The judgments of courts,
the arguments of Senators, with all possible learning
and all possible skill, are impotent against that prevailing
law which places the National Unity and the
Equal Rights of All beneath the safeguard of the Nation.
There they will remain from this time forevermore,
making the Republic more than ever an example
to mankind.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>After various amendments, the bill was finally taken into a new
draft, leaving the questions presented in the Bingham Amendment
to the determination of the State Constitution, and in this form passed
both Houses without a division.</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="INCOME_TAX" id="INCOME_TAX"></a>INCOME TAX.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, April 7, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>The Senate having under consideration a Joint Resolution from the
House, with an amendment by the Committee on Finance, declaratory
of the meaning and intention of the law relating to the Income Tax,
Mr. Sumner said,&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">I shall make no opposition to the amendment of
the Committee on Finance, as I understand it is
to relieve the Department from a difficulty which has
arisen in the interpretation of a statute; but I desire
to say now&mdash;and I take this earliest opportunity&mdash;that
I think the income tax ought not to be continued
any longer.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conkling</span> [of New York]. Reëstablished, you mean.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Very well; I accept the amendment
of the Senator from New York: it ought not to be reëstablished.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Scott</span> [of Pennsylvania]. It has expired.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> It has expired. There was an understanding,
when it was established, that it should live
only into the year 1870. It has now reached its natural
death, and no resurrection ought to operate upon it.
An income tax is a war tax. It ought not to be made<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span>
a peace tax. “The medicine of the Constitution should
not become its daily bread.” I am against the continuance
of this tax; and if the occasion required, I would
go forward and assign reasons. But I am unwilling
now to enter into any general discussion of the question,
as it is not directly presented by the proposition
before the Senate; but I hope the Senator from Ohio
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>], who has charge of this bill, and is Chairman
of the Finance Committee, will bear in mind the
radical objection to any reëstablishment of this tax, and
will also bear in mind another important proposition,&mdash;that
the taxes of the country must be reduced. I have
on another occasion, and more than once, said, “Down
with the taxes!”&mdash;and I repeat the cry now. We cannot
do better than to begin with a tax inequitable in its
operation, and which, according to the original understanding
when first adopted, was to end now.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>After further debate, in which different Senators participated, Mr.
Sumner spoke again, as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,&mdash;I should not have said another
word but for the very confident statement made by
my friend, the Senator from Ohio, that at a proper
time he will show the fairness of this tax. Sir, if he
can show its fairness, he will do what no person before
him has ever been able to do,&mdash;what no speaker in
Parliament, no speaker in Congress, no writer on taxation
or political economy has ever been able to accomplish.
The Senator assumes in advance a very considerable
task. Let me commend him to the candid,
absolutely impartial, and authoritative words of Mr.
McCulloch, in his work on Taxation and Funding. We
all know the authority of this writer; none better can<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span>
be adduced. A committee of this body might be well
satisfied, could it have the sanction of this writer. Now
what does he say of the tax on income? One would
think he had listened to my honorable friend on this
question. Of its effects he says:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“It would no doubt have the supposed effects, [<i>i. e.</i> be
successful,] could it be fairly assessed. But the practical
difficulties in the way of its fair assessment are not of a
sort that can be overcome. And the truth is, that taxes
on income, though theoretically equal, are in their practical
operation most unequal and vexatious.”<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p>

</div>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> Read the paragraph immediately before
that, in which he speaks of the theory of an income tax.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I should rather read a paragraph after
it, with the permission of the Senator. [<i>Laughter.</i>] I
have read the chapter, and I understand it; and there
are words here to which I call the attention of my
friend:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“After the Legislature has done all that can be done to
make it equal, it will be most unequal.”</p>

</div>

<p>Strong language that!</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“To impose it only on certain classes of incomes, or to impose
it on all incomes, without regard to their origin, is alike
subversive of sound principle. Nothing, therefore, remains
but to reject it, or to resort to it only when money must be
had at all hazards, when the ordinary and less exceptionable
means of filling the public coffers have been tried and exhausted,
and when, as during the late war, Hannibal is
knocking at your gates, and national independence must be
secured at whatever cost. An unreasoning necessity of this
sort is the only satisfactory justification of taxes on property
and income.”<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p>

</div>

<p>This is the voice of Science. It is not the voice of a
political partisan, or of the representative of any Administration
anxious to establish a system of taxation,
but it is the voice of Science itself, speaking by one of
its&mdash;I may say chosen authorities. How can this testimony
be answered? If you come back to an authority
of a different character, take a statesman. The Senator
from California [Mr. <span class="smcap">Casserly</span>] has referred to Sir
Robert Peel, who is known as the modern author of the
income tax; but he has left his testimony behind. I
quote words from different speeches, showing how he
has characterized it. He admitted that it was “a tax
which had hitherto been reserved for time of war”;
and that “the question of its imposition was, whether
the political necessity was of such magnitude and urgency
as to justify it”; and then that it “ought to
be accompanied by measures of simultaneous relief.”
Then, “he did not deny that it was an inquisitorial
tax”; and again, that “a certain degree of inquisitorial
scrutiny was inseparable from an income tax”; and
further, that “a good deal of inconvenience inevitably
arose from the inquiries that must be instituted into
the properties of men, in the imposition of an income
tax”; moreover, that “one great objection to the income
tax was, that it fell with peculiar severity upon
those who were determined to act honestly.”<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span></p>

<p>In harmony with his testimony is that also of Mr.
Gladstone, named by the two Senators who have preceded
me. The Senator from Ohio reminds us that Mr.
Gladstone has sustained an income tax. Have we not
all sustained an income tax?</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>. He does it this very year.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> This very year, and why? The Senator
knows perfectly how England is pressed by taxation,&mdash;how
difficult it is to find objects for taxation in order
to meet the great demands upon her exchequer. He
knows that England is obliged now, in time of peace,
to meet the responsibilities of war. It is on account
of that terrible war debt which still hangs over her,
the interest of which must be annually paid, that she
is obliged to assume even in a period of peace this
responsibility. I think we are in no such condition.
Our war is happily over, and I know no reason why
the responsibilities and obligations assumed during that
period should be prolonged now during the reign of
peace. Sir, let us put an end to the war. And I know
no better way to give our testimony to the end of the
war than by stopping that taxation which was born of
the war.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="MORE_WORK_TO_BE_DONE" id="MORE_WORK_TO_BE_DONE"></a>MORE WORK TO BE DONE.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Letter to the American Antislavery Society at its
Final Meeting, April 8, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="blockquote">

<p class="right medium"><span class="smcap">Senate Chamber</span>, April 8, 1870.</p>

<p class="dropcap">GENTLEMEN,&mdash;You propose to celebrate the triumph
of Equal Rights at the ballot-box, and at
the same time to abandon that famous shibboleth by
which you once rallied the country against Slavery.</p>

<p>It was said of Wolfe, the conqueror at Quebec, that
he died in the arms of Victory; and such will be the
fortune of your noble Society. “They run!” was the
voice that fell on the ears of the expiring General.
“Who run?” he exclaimed. “The enemy,” was the
answer. “Now, God be praised, I shall die in peace,”
said he, and his battle ended.</p>

<p>The Antislavery Society may now die in peace. Slavery
is ended. But I do not doubt that the same courage
and fidelity which through long years warred against
this prodigious Barbarism will continue determined to
the end in protecting and advancing the work begun.</p>

<p>I do not think the work finished, so long as the word
“white” is allowed to play any part in legislation,&mdash;so
long as it constrains the courts in naturalization,&mdash;so
long as it rules public conveyances, steamboats, and railroads,&mdash;so
long as it bars the doors of houses bound by
law to receive people for food and lodging, or licensed as
places of amusement,&mdash;so long as it is inscribed on our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span>
common schools;&mdash;nor do I think the work finished until
the power of the Nation is recognized, supreme and
beyond question, to fix the definition of a “republican
government,” and to enforce the same by the perfect
maintenance of rights everywhere throughout the land,
according to the promises of the Declaration of Independence,
without any check or hindrance from the
old proslavery pretension of State Rights. It must be
understood that every State, while perfectly free in its
local administration, is subject to the supremacy of the
Nation, whenever it touches the Rights of Man,&mdash;so
that, according to the ancient words of Demosthenes,
the law shall be “a general ordinance, <em>equal and alike
to all</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> Let there be Equality before the Law, and all
rights are assured. In this cause count me always as
your devoted and grateful fellow-worker.</p>

<p>Accept my thanks for the invitation with which you
have honored me, and believe me sincerely yours,</p>

<p class="sig"><span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.</p>

<p class="noindent medium"><span class="smcap">To the Committee of the Antislavery Society.</span></p>

</div>
<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span></p>



<h2><a name="EDUCATION" id="EDUCATION"></a>EDUCATION.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, May 9, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>The question being on an amendment to the Legislative Appropriation
Bill, reducing the appropriation for the Bureau of Education from
$14,500 to $5,400, in conformity with a previous reduction of the clerical
force, Mr. Sumner said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;I hope there may be no hesitation
in refusing to agree to this amendment.
It seems to me that the House of Representatives has
acted wisely in increasing the appropriation, and we
shall act very unwisely, if we fail to unite with the
House. We, Sir, are a Republic; we are living under
republican institutions; and, as I understand them, one
of their essential elements is Education. Now, Sir, here
is an agency associated with the National Government,
having education for its object; and what is the appropriation
proposed by our excellent committee? It is
$5,400: that is all. Looking on the opposite page of
the bill, I find an appropriation of $9,000 for stationery,
furniture, and books for the Interior Department; I find
an appropriation of $16,000 for fuel and lights for the
Interior Department; and yet we propose to give only
$5,400 to create and support a Bureau of Education!
Sir, is that decent? It seems to me, in this age, at this
period of our history, when more than ever we are beginning
to see the transcendent advantage of education,
how much we owe to light,&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Hail, holy light!”&mdash;</div>
</div>
</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span></p>

<p class="noindent">it seems to me strange that we should now cut down
the appropriation for the Bureau of Education. Turning
on, I come to the Department of Agriculture, and
there I find an appropriation of $72,170; and then I
turn back again to the $5,400 for the Bureau of Education.
I think the House did not go far enough, when
it made the appropriation $14,500. I would make the
appropriation as large as that for the Agricultural Department;
and I know full well the period is at hand
when all of you will rejoice to make an appropriation
for the Educational Bureau twice more than that for
the Agricultural Department.</p>

<p>As to the question whether there is any existing statute
to sanction this appropriation, I dismiss it entirely.
It is merely a technicality; and it ought not now, on
this Appropriation Bill, at this stage, after the vote of
the House, to be allowed to stand in the way.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, supported the amendment as a step toward
the abolition of the Bureau, which he regarded as useless,&mdash;at the
same time urging the withdrawal, for consideration in a full Senate, of
a proviso, just voted, for the restoration of the original clerical force;
and it being thereupon suggested that the whole matter be passed over
till the next day, Mr. Sumner said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p>Before that passes away, I wish to make one comment
on a single word of the Senator from Ohio. The
Senator said that he hoped we should take no backward
step; and yet his speech and his proposition were a
backward step. Sir, there is nothing that any State or
any nation can do for education that is not for civilization
itself; and now the Senator from Ohio is against
appropriating a paltry sum of $10,000 for education.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> No,&mdash;for two or three clerks.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> My friend will pardon me,&mdash;for education.
He is against making this paltry appropriation
for education; and he reminds us that in his great State
$3,000,000 are set apart for this purpose. Is it not
shameful, that, while $3,000,000 are set apart for this
purpose in his great State, so small a sum as is now
proposed is to be set apart by the Nation? Am I told
that the Nation has nothing to do with this question?
Allow me to reply at once, it has everything to do with
it; it has more to do with it than the State of Ohio, inasmuch
as in the Nation are all the States. Ohio is
only one State; all the States compose the Nation; and
the Nation is responsible for the civilization of all the
States. The Nation is the presiding genius, not only
of Ohio, but of all the associate States of the Union.
Therefore, Sir, should the Nation by every means in its
power, by appropriation, by a department, by a bureau,
by clerks, by officers, do everything possible to promote
the interests of education.</p>

<p>But the question may be asked, What can it do?
With the sum proposed, unhappily, very little,&mdash;too
little. But let us not give up doing even that little.
A little in such a cause is much. If nothing else, information
may be accumulated, statistics may be gathered,
facts may be brought together, which can be laid
before those interested in education all over our own
country and in foreign lands. That may be a specific
object of the Bureau of Education.</p>

<p>Then, again, it may supply a general impulse to education
in every State,&mdash;even in Ohio, with its $3,000,000
appropriated to that purpose. Permit me to say, the
State of Ohio, great as it is, is not yet above the reach
of educational influences; and I am sure that this Bureau,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span>
if properly organized, might be of advantage even
to the great State which my friend represents with so
much ability on this floor. I therefore adopt the language
of my friend, when he said, “Let us take no
backward step.” I would increase this appropriation,
rather than diminish it. I wish it were $100,000,&mdash;ay,
Sir, $500,000.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The amendment was rejected,&mdash;Yeas 19, Nays 38.</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="NO_EXCLUSION_OF_RETIRED_ARMY_OFFICERS" id="NO_EXCLUSION_OF_RETIRED_ARMY_OFFICERS"></a>NO EXCLUSION OF RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS
FROM CIVIL OFFICE.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, May 12, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>The Senate having under consideration a bill for the reduction of
the Army, reported by Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, from the Committee
on Military Affairs, as a substitute for one from the House, and
the pending question being on an amendment by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois,
restoring to its original form in the House bill the provision
“That it shall not be lawful for any officer of the Army of the United
States on the active list to hold any civil office,” by striking out the
words “on the active list,” Mr. Sumner said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;There is a principle of our institutions,
to which reference is constantly made
in this debate, which is worthy of constant memory. It
is the subordination of the military to the civil power.
Mr. Jefferson, in his Inaugural Address, so memorable
as a representation of the fundamental principles of republican
institutions, expressly declares the subordination
of the military to the civil an essential element of a
republic. I accept that idea; and I confess that I have
always admired in our system that the Navy Department
and the War Department each is in charge of a
civilian; that neither a naval officer nor a military officer,
in the ordinary course of affairs, takes his place at
the head of either of these Departments, to the end that
the Navy and the Army shall see in a civilian the visible
head of each. In that I recognize the genius of the
Republic.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span></p>

<p>But now, Sir, for the application. I confess I agree
entirely with the argument of the Senator from Ohio
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>]. I consider that the demands of republican
institutions are completely satisfied, if we exclude
men in active service from taking part in civil life. To
go further is to tie the hands of the appointing power,&mdash;to
take from the country the opportunity of securing,
it may be, important service,&mdash;and, I think, is to be
needlessly hard on men who in their day have rendered
good service to the country. It does seem to me that
cases may occur where it may be important to take into
the civil service a retired officer. Why may not that
occur in the natural course of events? There is talent,
there is experience. Are our offices so well filled, is the
public service so completely performed, that we can afford
to exclude talent and experience?</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conkling.</span> Is not that much more true in regard to
active officers?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> There, Sir, you come in conflict with
the fundamental principle of republican institutions.
You cannot, as I submit, fill civil offices from the active
service of the Army or Navy without conflict
with that fundamental principle.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conkling.</span> Why?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> But I find no such conflict, if you
take an officer on the retired list.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conkling.</span> Will the Senator point out the distinction?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> The Senator asks, “Why?” For the
obvious reason, that, when the officer is on the retired
list, he has, for all the ordinary purposes of the service,
ceased to be an officer,&mdash;he enjoys what I think has
been called a pension, which in reality is a pension
under another name,&mdash;and he has ceased to be in the
active, practical service either of Navy or of Army. On
that account I see a clear distinction.</p>

<p>Therefore it seems to me, for the sake of the public
service, and that we may not be guilty of hardship to
any portion of the community, that the words introduced
by my colleague in the pending bill ought to be
preserved. I hope they will not be struck out.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The amendment prevailed,&mdash;Yeas 34, Nays 22.</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="ARCTIC_EXPEDITIONS" id="ARCTIC_EXPEDITIONS"></a>ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, May 27, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>On the question of an appropriation of $100,000 for “one or more
expeditions towards the North Pole,” moved by Mr. Sumner, under a
resolution of the Committee on Foreign Relations,&mdash;it being objected
by Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, that “we could not afford to embark in
such an enterprise,” that “the money was needed for purposes altogether
more pressing,” Mr. Sumner remarked,&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">The Senator from Vermont has just moved and carried
a large appropriation for the extension and
adornment of the Capitol grounds, and now he opposes
a smaller appropriation having for its object the extension
of geographical knowledge in this hemisphere.
I voted gladly for the proposition of the Senator; but
he does not favor mine. He is against the North Pole.
His mood is not unlike that of Lord Jeffrey, when he
broke forth against it. Somebody, to whom he had
spoken impatiently on the subject, complained to Sydney
Smith of the language he had employed, being
nothing less than “Damn the North Pole!”&mdash;when
the great wit endeavored to soothe the injured man,
saying, “Do not be concerned; I have heard him speak
disrespectfully of the Equator.” I presume the Senator
from Vermont would do the same thing, if there were
any question of exploration under the Equator.</p>

<p>I doubt not that in former days the Senator has
circulated under his frank Herndon’s “Exploration of
the Valley of the Amazon.” Here was an Equatorial<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span>
exploration by which our country has gained honor.
There is nothing in our history by which we have acquired
a better fame than what we have done for science.
The scientific reports on our Western territory
are much valued where science is cultivated. And the
United States Exploring Expedition, organized by the
care of John Quincy Adams, has given to our Republic
a true renown. Who would blot from our annals
this invaluable record? But we, too, may do something
not unworthy of companionship with this early
expedition.</p>

<p>Thus far our Government has attempted nothing for
Polar exploration. Kane and Hayes have added to
our geographical knowledge, and inscribed the names
of honored countrymen on Arctic headlands; but their
expeditions proceeded from private munificence. The
time has come when the Government should take up
this work, nor leave the monopoly to foreign powers.
Perhaps I desire too much; but I would have my country
explore this whole North American Continent, not
only in the interest of science, but for the sake of the
near future. It is easy to see that our Capitol grounds
will be broader than anything included in the amendment
of the Senator from Vermont, and I hope we shall
not delay their exploration.</p>

<p>Nor should we be daunted by difficulties. I cannot
doubt that the time will come when every quarter of
the globe, with every corner, every recess, whether at
the Equator or the Pole, whether land or sea, will be
brought within the domain of knowledge, and find its
place on the map, so that there shall be no <i>Terra Incognita</i>;
but we must do our part in this triumph. Do
not say that this knowledge is without value. Just in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span>
proportion as we know the earth can we use and enjoy
it. Therefore, for our own advantage and for our good
name&mdash;&mdash;</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">The Vice-President.</span> It is the duty of the Chair to remind
the Senator from Massachusetts that his five minutes
have expired.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>The appropriation was voted,&mdash;Yeas 28, Nays 25.</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="ONE_CENT_POSTAGE" id="ONE_CENT_POSTAGE"></a>ONE CENT POSTAGE,
WITH ABOLITION OF FRANKING.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, June 10, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having under consideration
the House bill “to abolish the franking privilege,” Mr. Sumner said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;This debate began with a simple
proposition to abolish the franking system,
sometimes called “the franking privilege.” The bill
for this purpose rudely terminates the existing system,
without supplying any substitute, and without taking
advantage of the proposed change to reduce the rate of
postage. The bill is destructive, but in no respect constructive.
It pulls down, but does not pretend to set
up. It abolishes an old and time-honored, if not beneficent
system, under which the people have grown in
knowledge; but it does not attempt to provide any
means by which the original object of the system shall
be accomplished. It is a raw, crude, naked proposition.
To adopt it in its present form would be as if you voted
the destruction of this Capitol, without providing any
place for the meeting of Congress, or economizing the
ruins you made.</p>


<h3>THE FRANKING SYSTEM, AND NOT THE FRANKING
PRIVILEGE, IN OUR COUNTRY.</h3>

<p>In England the power to frank was originally conferred
as a “privilege,” and it assumed this character<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span>
completely with time. When O’Connell wrote to a
young aspirant, who had just been elected to Parliament,
“You can frank to-night,” he announced a privilege.
So far as this power in our country can be regarded
as a privilege, it has no title to favor,&mdash;not the
least. But whatever may be its character, nothing is
clearer than that it should not be a burden on the
postal service. With regard to the frank there are
two obvious principles: first, so far as it is a privilege,
it must be abolished; and, secondly, so far as it is allowed
to remain, it must not be at the expense of the
Post-Office, but, like other national services, be paid by
the National Treasury. Better still, let it all disappear
in a renovated system, where the rate of postage shall
render the frank unnecessary.</p>

<p>The franking system in our country cannot be treated
alone. It is part of a larger system, being the postal
service of the country, and must be regarded in its relations
to this service. In its most simple statement it
is the freedom of certain letters, documents, pamphlets,
and seeds in the public mails; but its true character
is seen only in its operation. The franking system
is that part of the postal service by which the people
are enabled without cost to address their Senators and
Representatives in Congress, and also the Departments
of Government, while these answer without cost, thus
bringing all near together; it is also that part of the
postal service by which public documents are circulated
throughout the country, and though much is distributed
to little purpose, yet much is of unquestionable
advantage. Seeds, speeches, and pamphlets are
also distributed in the same way; nor can there be any
question of the good influence from this agency. All<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span>
these are component parts of the existing postal system.
Strike out these, and the postal system of our country
is changed. It is not the system which has existed
from the beginning of our Government, under which the
country has grown in knowledge and power.</p>

<p>To those who speak lightly of the franking system I
indicate briefly what it has done. It has brought the
people and the Government nearer together than people
and Government ever were before. It has distributed
innumerable documents by which knowledge in government,
in science, and in the practical arts has been advanced.
It has lent itself to the dissemination of truth,
especially in speeches; so that it has been preacher
and schoolmaster, with the whole people to hear and
to learn. During the long tyranny of Slavery it was
by the franking system that the arguments and protests
against this wrong were carried among the people;
and when Slavery broke forth in rebellion, the
franking system became the powerful ally of the national
cause; and now in the education of the States
lately in rebellion this very franking system is the same
powerful ally. It may be politic, discreet, and economical
to dispense with it, but not, I think, without providing
some substitute or commutation.</p>


<h3>PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE.</h3>

<p>To meet the exigency of the pending proposition I
have introduced a bill, whose character may be seen
in its title,&mdash;being “to simplify and reduce the rate of
postage, to abolish the franking system, to limit the cost
of carrying the mail, and to regulate the payment of
postage.”<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> While abolishing the franking system, I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>
try to provide a substitute, and at the same time, by
associate provisions, to simplify and reduce the rate of
postage. Taking advantage of the proposed change, I
would revise the whole postal service, and bring it into
harmony with the demands of republican civilization.
Here the example of England is an important guide.
The franking system there was an indulgence, or privilege,
and little else. The “Quarterly Review,” while
recognizing it as an abuse, likened it to “the concomitant
and greater one which stands on the same ground,&mdash;<em>exemption
from arrest</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> It was not a system important
in the relations between Government and people,
and yet it was abolished only in conjunction with the
establishment of a uniform letter-postage at one penny.
But just in proportion as the franking system is important
with us should its abolition be accompanied by
a corresponding reduction in postage.</p>

<p>The copper unit of value in England is a penny, and
this was adopted as the rate of postage there. With
us the copper unit of value is a cent, and this I would
adopt as the rate of postage here.</p>

<p>There are other provisions in the bill to which I call
attention, especially the new facilities for newspapers
and periodicals; also the requirement that all the business
of the Post-Office shall be by stamps, so that no
money shall be collected or received by any clerk in the
office. By this process, at once simple, economical, and
efficient, all postages will be collected, and there will be
no necessity for accounts. The stamp office will be the
universal money office, and the vendor of stamps will
be the universal collector.</p>

<p>Do you ask for economy? I show you a way, simple<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span>
and certain, by which receipts will be assured, while
business is simplified. All dues will be collected at
the minimum of cost, so that there will be no loss from
frauds or supernumerary hands. There will be both security
and economy, besides simplicity; but simplicity
is economy as well as convenience, in the Post-Office as
in mechanics.</p>


<h3>FOREIGN EXAMPLES.</h3>

<p>If we go to foreign countries for example, we shall be
obliged to stop in England. There is nothing in any
nation of the European continent which is not a warning.
Everywhere on that continent, from time immemorial,
postage has been exorbitant. The great Revolution
which popularized the institutions of France did
not popularize the Post-Office. Kings and nobles disappeared,
while equal rights prevailed; but France, fruitful
in ideas, did not conceive the idea of the Post-Office
as a beneficent agent of civilization and the handmaid
of social life. Nor at that time was England in advance
of France. Everywhere postage was high and
the mails were slow. In England the service had a
burden in the circumstance that every peer of the Upper
House and member of Parliament had a defined
power of franking,&mdash;being the power to send ten letters
daily and to receive fifteen.<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> As the letters sent
and received by each privileged person were limited in
number, the Post-Office was obliged each day to verify
every frank and to count the letters thus sent and
received. Here was what may be justly called “the
franking privilege,” while the whole postal service was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span>
costly and cumbersome. Like that of the United States,
it was the growth of accident, and it was administered
with a particular eye to profits, as if this were the first
object of a post-office. Economy there should be always,
but profits never. In Great Britain the surplus
of receipts above the cost of administration was carried
to the general treasury. In the United States the
surplus received on certain lines has been employed
down to this day in extending mail facilities to the
sparse settlers in other parts of the country, besides defraying
the expense of the franking system; and the letters
of the people have been subjected to this tax.</p>


<h3>IN ENGLAND THE POST-OFFICE REGARDED ORIGINALLY
AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE.</h3>

<p>From a proposition submitted to the King in 1635,
and still preserved in the State-Paper Office, it appears
that the postal service was of the slenderest character:
letters, it is said, “being now carried by carriers or
foot-posts sixteen or eighteen miles a day, it is full two
months before any answer can be received from Scotland
or Ireland to London.”<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> But just so soon as it
attracted attention the Post-Office was regarded as a
source of revenue. In 1657 a voice in Parliament
declared that it would “raise a revenue”; while a
wise statesman replied, with little effect, “Nothing can
more assist trade than this intercourse.”<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> It was often
farmed out for hire. The posts, both inland and foreign,
under the Commonwealth, were farmed for £10,000<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span>
a year.<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> In 1659 the Report on the Public Revenue
contains the following item: “By postage of letters in
farm, £14,000.”<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> Under Charles the Second the same
system was continued, and his first Postmaster-General
contracted to pay to the King a yearly rent of £21,500.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a>
A little later we meet the statute of 15 Charles II. c. 14,
with the suggestive title, “An Act for settling the profits
of the Post-Office on his Royal Highness the Duke
of York and the Heirs male of his body.” Under Queen
Anne, what were called the “cross-posts” were farmed
to Ralph Allen, who made great improvements in their
management upon an agreement that the new profits
so created should be his own during life. The bargain
was so excellent for the contractor that during forty-two
years he netted an average annual profit of nearly
twelve thousand pounds,<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> which was enormous for those
days. It is pleasant to think that the money thus obtained
was well spent, as will be confessed when it is
known that this contractor was the <em>Allworthy</em> of Fielding,
and won from Pope that famous praise,&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Let humble Allen, with an awkward shame,</div>
<div class="verse">Do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame.”<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The Post-Office was not only farmed to contractors,
but it was burdened with pensions, sometimes to a
royal mistress or favorite. This system was begun by
James the Second, who, in execution of the wishes of
his brother, Charles the Second, granted to Barbara,
Duchess of Cleveland, £4,700 annually, and to the Earl
of Rochester £4,000 annually, payable by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span>
Post-Office.<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> Among the rewards lavished at a later day
upon the Duke of Marlborough was an annual pension
of £5,000, charged upon the Post-Office;<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> so that the
victor of Ramillies and of Blenheim was a stipendiary
upon the correspondence of the kingdom, every letter
contributing to his annual income.</p>

<p>As the correspondence of the kingdom was charged
with pensions, so also was it called to bear the burden
of war. The statute of 9 Anne, c. 10, tells the story in
its title: “An Act for establishing a General Post-Office
for all her Majesty’s dominions, and for settling <em>a weekly
sum out of the revenues thereof for the service of the
war</em> and other her Majesty’s occasions.” This statute
was not short-lived, and its success as “war measure”
encouraged the imposition of other burdens, so that the
great English commentator, Sir William Blackstone, selected
the Post-Office as a favorite pack-horse. “There
cannot be devised,” says he, “a more eligible method
than this of raising money upon the subject; for therein
both the Government and the people find a mutual benefit.
The Government acquires a large revenue; and
the people do their business with greater ease, expedition,
and cheapness than they would be able to do, if no
such tax (and of course no such office) existed.”<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> Here
is the rule authoritatively declared which so long prevailed
with regard to the Post-Office.</p>


<h3>ORIGIN OF FRANKING PRIVILEGE IN ENGLAND.</h3>

<p>The English franking privilege was the natural parasite
of such a system, where the true idea of a post-office<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span>
was entirely forgotten. Its origin belongs to this argument.
It was in 1657, beneath the sway of the great
Protector, while the Postage Act was before the House,
that Sir Christopher Pack is reported as saying, “The
design of the bill is very good for trading and commerce;
… as to that of letters passing free for members,
it is not worth putting in an Act”;<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> and this is
the earliest allusion to “letters passing free for members.”
The idea showed itself again just after the Restoration,
while the Act of 12 Charles II., c. 35, was under
discussion. The proposition to frank all letters to
or from members of Parliament during the session was
carried on a division and after considerable debate, in
the course of which Sir Heneage Finch, so eminent as
lawyer and judge, characterized it as “a poor mendicant
proviso, and below the honor of the House.” Among
its partisans was Sir George Downing, a graduate in the
first class of Harvard College. The Speaker, Sir Harbottle
Grimston, was unwilling to put the question, saying,
“I am ashamed of it.”<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> The Lords struck it out of
the bill, ostensibly for the reasons which had actuated
the Opposition in the Commons, but really because there
was no provision that their own letters should pass free.
Although the proposition failed at that time to obtain
legislative sanction, yet the object was accomplished
indirectly. In the indenture with the contractor to
whom the Post-Office was farmed occurred a proviso
for the free carriage of all letters to or from the King,
the great officers of State,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> “and also the single inland
letters only of the members of the present Parliament
during the continuance of this session of this Parliament.”<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>
And thus began the “franking privilege”
in England. Defeated in Parliament, it was smuggled
into a Post-Office contract. With such an origin,
it became a mere perquisite of office; and afterward,
when sanctioned by statute, it was employed at the
mere will of its possessor, who sometimes distributed
his franks among his friends and sometimes sold them
for a price.<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p>


<h3>POST-OFFICE IN THE COLONIES.</h3>

<p>The postal service in the Colonies was on a small
scale. Authentic incidents show its beginnings. The
Government of New York in 1672 established a post
to go monthly from New York to Boston, advertising
“those that bee dispos’d to send letters, lett them bring
them to the Secretary’s office, where, in a lockt box,
they shall bee preserved till the messenger calls for
them. All persons paying the post before the bagg be
seal’d up.”<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> Thirty years later this monthly post was
fortnightly.<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> In Virginia the postal service was more
simple. The Colonial law of 1657 required every planter
to provide a messenger for the conveyance of dispatches,
as they arrived, to the next plantation, and so
forward, on pain of forfeiting a hogshead of tobacco for
each default.<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> Until after 1704 there was no regular<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span>
post further East than Boston, or further West than
Philadelphia. In that year Lord Cornbury, writing to
Government at home, says:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“If I have any letters to send to Virginia, or to Maryland,
I must either send an express, who is often retarded for want
of boats to cross those great rivers they must go over, or else
for want of horses, or else I must send them by some passengers
who are going thither. The least I have known any
express take to go from hence to Virginia has been three
weeks.”<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Shortly afterward stage-coaches were established between
Boston and New York, and between Boston and
Philadelphia; but no post-office was established in Virginia
until 1732; nor did any postal revenue accrue to
Great Britain from the Colonies until 1753, when Benjamin
Franklin became Postmaster-General for the Colonies.<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p>

<p>The same genius which ruled in philosophy and in
politics was not wanting in this sphere of duty. The
office was remodelled, and the sphere of its operations
extended. But the efforts of Franklin in this department
became tributary to the revenues of the mother
country. On his removal, in 1774, he was able to say,
“Before I was displaced by a freak of the ministers we
had brought it to yield <em>three times as much clear revenue
to the Crown</em> as the Post-Office of Ireland. Since
that imprudent transaction they have received from it&mdash;not
one farthing.”<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> Revenue! always revenue! Even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span>
Franklin shows no sign of ascending to the true idea of
a post-office. The Revolution was now at hand, when
the Crown ceased to receive revenue from any source in
the United States. But in separating from the mother
country the Post-Office was left unchanged in character.
It was an undeveloped agency, with receipts always
above expenses.</p>


<h3>REFORM AND PENNY POSTAGE IN ENGLAND.</h3>

<p>Meanwhile in the mother country the Post-Office
continued to be a source of revenue; but its natural
capacities were impaired by a defective system, without
an animating soul. It was merely a machine for carrying
a few letters and putting money into the public
treasury. Though still on a small scale, its processes
were multifarious. The rates were constantly altered,
and generally increased in amount, as also in number,
in each of the three kingdoms, and without uniformity
in either two. From two or three, in 1710, they rose
in number until they reached the climax of absurdity
and inconvenience in twelve different rates for England
and Scotland in 1812, and thirteen for Ireland in 1814.<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a>
The impracticable system, with rates at once numerous
and high, led to perpetual evasions, while the franking
privilege was a charge without an equivalent. At last
the day of revolution came. After careful inquiry the
old system was swept away, and with it no less than
one hundred and fifty Acts of Parliament by which it
was incumbered.<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> The old was succeeded by the new,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>
and the change was complete. No institution in history
ever underwent at once a transformation so beneficent
as that of the British Post-Office.</p>

<p>Next after Benjamin Franklin, Rowland Hill will be
enrolled as the most remarkable character in the history
of the Post-Office. The son of a schoolmaster, of simple
life, and without any connection with the postal service,
he conceived the idea of radical reform. It is not too
much to say that he became the inventor or author of
cheap postage. More than all Franklin did for the Colonies
Hill did for Great Britain. Call him inventor or
author, there are few on either list more worthy of honor;
and since what is done for one country becomes
the common property of the world, he belongs to the
world’s benefactors.</p>

<p>Rowland Hill well observed, that, while population,
business, and all other sources of national revenue had
greatly increased during the preceding twenty years,
the revenue of the Post-Office had actually decreased;
that, for instance, the revenue from stage-coaches had
risen from £217,671 in 1815 to £498,497 in 1835, or
one hundred and twenty-nine per cent., while the postal
revenue, which at a corresponding rate of increase
should have exhibited a gain of £2,000,000, in point of
fact showed an absolute loss of near £20,000, having
declined from £1,557,291 in 1815 to £1,540,300 in
1835.<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> Evidently there was something abnormal, when
the conveyance of persons and parcels yielded a revenue
so much beyond that of letters. After showing the
loss to the revenue, the generous reformer demonstrated
clearly that the actual cost of carrying a letter by coach
in the mail from London to Edinburgh, being four hundred<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span>
miles, was only one thirty-sixth part of a penny,<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a>&mdash;from
which it was properly inferred that the actual
difference of expense between transporting a letter one
mile and delivering it and transporting it four hundred
miles and delivering it did not justify a different rate of
postage. His conclusion was, that the large cost of distributing
letters grew out of a complex and multifarious
system, springing especially from many rates,&mdash;that all
this would be superseded, if postage were charged, <em>without
regard to distance, at a uniform rate</em>, and that this
uniform rate should be one penny; and he did not hesitate
to declare that with this change there would be an
increase in correspondence “at least five and a quarter
fold.”<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> In his original proposition, Rowland Hill relied
especially upon a uniform rate at a penny, regardless of
distance,&mdash;and from this promised simplicity, economy,
and an immense increase of correspondence. But, offensive
as the franking privilege had become, and burdensome
to the postal service, he did not at first propose its
excision.</p>

<p>His plan encountered that honest opposition which
improvement of all kinds is obliged to overcome. The
record is most instructive. The Postmaster-General,
Lord Lichfield, said in the House of Lords: “Of all
the wild and visionary schemes which I have ever
heard of, it is the most extravagant.” On another occasion
the same high official assured the House, that, if
the anticipated increase of letters should be realized,
“the mails will have to carry twelve times as much in
weight; and therefore the charge for transmission, instead
of £100,000, as now, must be twelve times that
amount. The walls of the Post-Office would burst; the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>
whole area in which the building stands would not be
large enough to receive the clerks and the letters.”<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> In
the same spirit with his chief, Colonel Maberly, the experienced
Secretary of the Post-Office, in his testimony
before the Committee, did not hesitate to say: “It appears
to me a most preposterous plan, utterly unsupported
by facts, and resting entirely on assumption.”
And he proceeded to predict a loss of revenue from its
adoption, saying, that, if postage were reduced to one
penny, the revenue “would not recover itself for forty
or fifty years.”<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> The London “Quarterly Review,” with
its habitual obstructiveness, set itself against the new
plan and its promised result, saying: “Common sense
is astounded at such a result and refuses to believe it,
though it cannot at first sight discover where the fallacies
lie; but a little examination will show, that, as
usual, common sense is right, even against the assumed
accuracy of arithmetic.”<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> I give these as illustrative
examples of the opposition encountered.</p>

<p>Against all these stood Rowland Hill, insisting that
the Post-Office, although now “rendered feeble and inefficient
by erroneous financial arrangements,” in contemplation
of the proposed reform “assumes the new
and important character of a powerful engine of civilization,
capable of performing a distinguished part in the
great work of national education.”<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a></p>

<p>The proposed reform was vindicated as practical and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span>
valuable, first by witnesses before the Parliamentary
Committee, and then in Parliamentary debate. The
Committee examined no less than eighty-nine witnesses.
These were from every rank and nearly every
trade and profession,&mdash;peers of the realm, members of
the House of Commons, authors, publishers, merchants,
bankers, mechanics, common carriers, clergymen, solicitors,
Post-Office officials, and others. Among the witnesses
were Richard Cobden, Charles Knight, Rowland
Hill, Dionysius Lardner, and Lord Ashburton.<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> The
testimony embraced eleven thousand six hundred and
fifty-four questions and answers, and filled three large
folio volumes bound in two, making altogether nearly
sixteen hundred pages. The Index alone makes one
hundred and fifty-three pages.</p>

<p>Among the many things testified before the Committee
I select the words of Lord Ashburton, as especially
valuable. Experienced in business and in public life,
he pictures truthfully the burden of excessive postage,
when he says:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I think it is one of the worst of our taxes. We have, unfortunately,
many taxes which have an injurious tendency;
but I think few, if any, have so injurious a tendency as the
tax upon the communication by letters.”</p>

</div>

<p>And then again:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“It is, in fact, taxing the conversation of people who live
at a distance from each other. The communication of letters
by persons living at a distance is the same as a communication
by word of mouth between persons living in the same
town. You might as well tax words spoken upon the Royal
Exchange as the communications of various persons living
in Manchester, Liverpool, and London. You cannot do it
without checking the disposition to communicate very essentially.”</p>

</div>

<p>At the same time Lord Ashburton hesitated to adopt
a rate as low as one penny. He was for twopence or
threepence.<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a></p>

<p>The doubts of Lord Ashburton as to the rate were encountered
by Mr. Cobden, who testified:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I consider the only way to produce the greatest possible
amount of revenue is to charge the lowest possible trading
profit; and it is in the Post-Office as in steamboats, or Paddington
coaches, or calicoes, or sugars, or teas, or anything
else which can be or ought to be an article of universal demand
and consumption. With that view I have regarded
Mr. Rowland Hill’s plan of Post-Office Reform; and taking
the cost of a letter, upon the presumed increase he has stated,
even at three-fourths of a penny each letter, I should say one
penny would then be a proper charge ultimately to produce
the greatest possible amount of revenue. I would reason
from analogy and experience in every other business, and in
none more than my own.”<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></p>

</div>

<p>On such a point nobody could speak with more authority
than Mr. Cobden.</p>

<p>But nobody showed more comprehension of the moral
ground for this reform than Mr. Jones Loyd, the eminent
banker and economist, afterwards Lord Overstone.
Nothing can be better than this:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I think, if there be any one subject which ought not to
have been selected as a subject of taxation, it is that of inter-communication
by post; and I would even go a step further,
and say, that, if there be any one thing which the Government
ought, consistently with its great duties to the public,
to do gratuitously, it is the carriage of letters. We build national
galleries, and furnish them with pictures; we propose
to create public walks, for the air and health and exercise of
the community, at the general cost of the country. I do not
think that either of those, useful and valuable as they are to
the community, and fit as they are for Government to sanction,
is more conducive to the moral and social advancement
of the community than the facility of intercourse by post.
<em>I therefore greatly regret that the post was ever taken as a field
for taxation</em>, and should be very glad to find, that, consistently
with the general interests of the revenue, which the
Government has to watch over, they can effect any reduction
in the total amount so received, or any reduction in the
charges, without diminishing the total amount.”<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></p>

</div>

<p>In all the voluminous testimony this beautiful passage
is like a beacon-light.</p>

<p>At last this important subject was transferred from
the Committee to Parliamentary debate; and here I
content myself with a few brief words from leading
speakers. Mr. Goulburn, one of the chiefs of Opposition,
admitted that the plan proposed would “ultimately
increase the wealth and prosperity of the country.”<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a>
Mr. Wallace declared it “one of the greatest boons that
could be conferred on the human race.”<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> Sir Robert
Peel admitted that “great social and commercial advantages
will arise from the change, independent of financial
considerations.”<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> Viscount Sandon, of the Opposition,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span>
struck a higher chord, when he declared that he
“had long been of opinion that the Post-Office was not
a proper source of revenue,” but “ought to be employed
to stimulate other sources of revenue.”<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> In the same
strain, and with higher authority, Mr. O’Connell declared
it “one of the most valuable legislative reliefs
that had ever been given to the people”; that it was
“impossible to exaggerate its importance”; and even if
it would not pay the expense of the Post-Office, he held
that “Government ought to make a sacrifice for the purpose
of facilitating communication.”<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> I group these testimonies
as important in the history of this reform, and
furnishing a guide for us.</p>


<h3>VICTORY.</h3>

<p>At last victory was assured. The Parliamentary
Committee reported in favor of change. But Parliament
hesitated to fix the change in permanent form.
By Act of 17th August, 1839, the Lords of the Treasury
were empowered by warrant under their hands to declare
the rates of postage according to weight, “without
reference to the distance or number of miles the same
shall be conveyed,”&mdash;and also to suspend, wholly or in
part, “any parliamentary or official privilege of sending
and receiving letters by the post free of postage, or any
other franking privilege of any description whatsoever.”
The Lords of the Treasury were contented with ordering
a uniform rate of fourpence, and without the abolition
of the franking privilege. This was not enough. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span>
people called for more, and the Lords of the Treasury
by another warrant declared the rate at one penny and
suspended the franking privilege.<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> This was followed
by the Act of Parliament passed 10th August, 1840, in
which the great change was consummated. The rate
was established at one penny, with stamps; and the
franking privilege was abolished, except in the case of
petitions to the Crown or to Parliament not exceeding
thirty-two ounces in weight. The clause of abolition
was as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That, except in the cases herein specified, all privileges
whatsoever of sending letters by the post free of postage, or
at a reduced rate of postage, shall wholly cease and determine.”<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p>

</div>

<p>The abolition of the franking privilege was more than
Rowland Hill had proposed. In his testimony before
the Parliamentary Committee he undertook to account
for the anticipated increase of letters “in some measure
from the <em>partial voluntary disuse</em> of the franking
privilege,”<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a>&mdash;thus mildly forecasting, not its abolition,
but its voluntary renunciation. And the Committee, in
their recommendations, treated its abolition as incident
to cheap postage. This is their language:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“It would be politic, … <em>if, on effecting the proposed
reduction of the postage rates</em>, the privilege of Parliamentary
franking were to be abolished, and the privilege of official
franking placed under strict limitation,&mdash;petitions to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span>
Parliament and Parliamentary documents being still allowed
to go free.”<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Thus was the abolition of the franking privilege announced
as subordinate to the reduction of the postage
rates, which was the main object.</p>

<p>Thus, after inquiry and debate lasting for three years,
this great reform was accomplished, and the English
Post-Office assumed an unprecedented character. The
new system was founded on a uniform rate for uniform
weight without regard to distance, and this rate the
lowest unit of coin,&mdash;with prepaid stamps, and the abolition
of the franking privilege. The experiment was
a prodigious success, although the first results showed
a falling off financially. The Post-Office authorities
had predicted that it would not pay expenses; but the
diminished receipts were more than enough for the
expenses, while the number of letters was more than
doubled.<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> There was a smaller net revenue for the National
Treasury, but an infinite benefit to the people.
The surplus of the first year was £500,789, against
£1,633,764 of the previous year.<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> But the improvement
financially was constant, so that here Rowland
Hill became a prophet. He had predicted that the
increase of correspondence and the economy of management
would in a reasonable time afford a probable
net revenue of £1,278,000.<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> In 1856 the net revenue
had reached £1,207,725,&mdash;while at the same time the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span>
letters were 478,393,803 in number, with 6,178,982
money orders, against 75,907,572 letters, with 188,921
money orders, in the last year of the old system.<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p>

<p>The smallest part of the result was in the revenue,&mdash;except
so far as this was advanced by the increased activity
of the country, represented by the added millions
of correspondence. Commerce and business were quickened
infinitely, while the ties of social life were brightened
and the heart was rejoiced. Here the testimony
is complete. Tradesmen wrote to Rowland Hill, their
benefactor, saying how their business had increased.
Charles Knight, the eminent publisher, who did so
much for the literature of the people, wrote that every
branch of bookselling was stimulated, while the country
seller was brought into almost daily communication
with the London houses. The publisher of the Polyglot
Bible in twenty-four languages, requiring a peculiar
revision, declared that it could not have been printed
but for penny postage. The Secretary of the Parker
Society, composed of Church dignitaries and influential
laymen, which has done so much for ecclesiastical literature
by reprinting the works of the early English Reformers,
stated that without penny postage the Society
could not have come into existence. Secretaries of other
societies, literary and benevolent, wrote how their
machinery had been improved; conductors of educational
establishments testified that people were everywhere
learning to write for the first time, in order to
enjoy the benefits of untaxed correspondence, and that
night classes of adults for this purpose were springing
up in all large towns. A leading advocate for the repeal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span>
of the Corn Laws gave it as his opinion that this
reform must have waited but for penny postage,&mdash;that
through this ally it reached its triumph two years earlier
than it otherwise could have done. All this is easy
to believe; for penny postage lends itself to all knowledge
and to every reform. Others wrote with rapture
of its operations. The accomplished naturalist, Professor
Henslow, of Cambridge, rejoiced over its “importance
to those who cultivate science,” and pictured the
satisfaction of the humble people about his country parsonage
“at the facility they enjoy of now corresponding
with distant relatives,” together with what he calls “the
vast domestic comfort which the penny postage has added
to homes like my own, situate in retired villages.”
Miss Martineau described its social benefits. Rowland
Hill himself, showing how much it had done for the
poor, said, “The postman has now to make long rounds
through humble districts where heretofore his knock
was rarely heard.”<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> And from the outlying Shetland
Islands a visitor in May, 1842, reported: “The Zetlanders
are delighted with penny postage. The postmaster
told me that the number of letters was astonishing.”<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a>
But perhaps the heartfelt exultation was never better
expressed than by the accomplished traveller, Mr.
Laing, when, after describing the Prussian system of
education, and giving the palm to penny postage as “a
much wiser and more effective educational measure,”
destined to be “the great historical distinction of the
reign of Victoria I.,” he proceeds to say, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> “every
mother in the kingdom, who has children earning their
bread at a distance, lays her head upon her pillow at
night with a feeling of gratitude for this blessing.”<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a>
Such was the unbought tribute from all quarters,&mdash;alike
the cottage of the lowly and the home of the
professor, the counting-house of the merchant and the
activities of benevolence, business in its various forms,
and the commanding efforts of the political reformer,
all, all confessing their debt to penny postage.<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></p>

<p>The benefactor was honored in no common way, but
not without tasting the lot of others who have served
Humanity. At first assigned to a position in the Treasury
connected with the Post-Office, then dismissed, and
then, with a change of Administration, not only restored
to the service, but appointed to a high position in the
Post-Office itself, he had the inexpressible satisfaction
of witnessing the triumph of his efforts and receiving
the grateful regard of a happy people. He was not rich,
and the considerable sum of £13,000 was presented to
him by a public subscription throughout the country,
with an address declaring the reform he had accomplished
“the greatest boon conferred in modern times
on all the social interests of the civilized world.” The
knighthood bestowed by his sovereign was another attestation
of his prevailing merit, destined to be followed
by a further gift from Parliament itself of £20,000.<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a>
This episode of honor and gratitude to the benefactor
has a peculiar interest for us, as furnishing new testimony
to the cause with which the name of Rowland
Hill is forever associated.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span></p>

<h3>THE SAME VICTORY MAY BE OURS.</h3>

<p>Such was the great reform by which the Post-Office
became an evangel of civilization; but all this may be
ours. The impediments overcome were greater than
any we are called to encounter, while the object proposed
is in undoubted accord with republican institutions,
where simplicity, harmony, and adaptation to
popular needs are acknowledged principles. This renovation
prevailed in England: how can it fail in the
United States? The Republic is the most advanced
type of government, as the human form is the most advanced
type of the animal world; but the Republic is
nothing else than an organization to promote the welfare
of men. Whatever makes for human welfare is essentially
republican. Nor can any loss of revenue be
set against this transcendent opportunity. Show me
how to promote the welfare of men, and I show you
an economy beyond any revenue; more still, I show
you a duty not to be postponed.</p>

<p>The ruling principle in England, from the beginning
down to the triumph of penny postage, was revenue;
and this is still the ruling principle with us, to which
all else is subordinated. England was accustomed to
say, and the United States now say, with Shylock, “We
would have moneys.” The abolition of the franking
system is proposed on this ground,&mdash;not to lighten
the existing burden of correspondence, not to cheapen
postage, not to simplify the postal service, not to provide
the American equivalent of the English penny
postage, but simply to increase the revenue. We are
summoned to give up a long-tried system, educational<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span>
in its influence, merely for the sake of the Treasury.
This is the object perpetually in view. Even the Postmaster-General,
who is so liberal in all his ideas, says,
in words which hardly do justice to the times, “As far
as lay in my power, during my short administration, I
have reduced the expenditures and increased the revenues
of the Department.”<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> Something better than this
remains to be done.</p>


<h3>COMPLEXITY AND MULTIFARIOUSNESS IN OUR SYSTEM.</h3>

<p>The postal system of the United States was kindred
in character to that of England until the latter was
transfigured by the felicitous genius of Rowland Hill.
Both had the same incongruities and incumbrances.
The rates in both were complex instead of uniform,
and dear instead of cheap. The Act of Congress, February
20, 1792, establishing the Post-Office, provided for
no less than nine different rates of postage, viz.,&mdash;six,
eight, ten, twelve and a half, fifteen, seventeen, twenty,
twenty-two, and twenty-five cents,&mdash;according to distance.
In 1799 the number of rates was reduced to
six, viz.,&mdash;eight, ten, twelve and a half, seventeen, twenty,
and twenty-five cents. In 1816 the number was
further reduced to five, viz.,&mdash;six, ten, twelve and a
half, eighteen and a half, (in 1825 changed to eighteen
and three fourths,) and twenty-five cents,&mdash;and so continued
until 1845, when, yielding partially to the English
example, the rates were established at five and ten
cents, with two cents for drop letters; then, in 1851, at
three and six cents for prepaid and five and ten cents<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span>
for unpaid letters, with one cent for drop letters; then,
in 1855, at three and ten cents prepaid, and one cent for
drop letters; then, in 1863, at three cents, or, failing
prepayment, six cents, with two cents for drop letters;
and finally, in 1865, at three cents prepaid in all cases,
with two cents for drop letters delivered by carriers, or
one cent where there is no delivery.<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a></p>

<p>The difference between a drop letter and what is
called a mailed letter, or letter from post-office to post-office,
causes frequent confusion, as is seen here in
Washington, where letters for Georgetown often have
the two-cent stamp, when they should have that of
three cents. The same confusion exists in other places.
But this ridiculous division and subdivision are peculiar
to the United States. It is not known that they
are to be found in any other postal service.</p>

<p>The rates on foreign letters were, if possible, more
chaotic. It was different with different countries, according
to existing treaties; and this difference prevailed
not only in the rate, but also in the unit of
weight. As late as 1849 the rate on letters to England
and Ireland was twenty-four cents, and was then
changed to sixteen cents, and in 1868 to twelve cents;
it is now six cents, being two cents for the sea postage
and two cents for the inland postage of each country,
allowing half an ounce of weight.<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> The treaty rate
with France is fifteen cents on one quarter of an ounce.<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a>
Letters to Canada and other British North American
provinces, when not over three thousand miles, are six<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span>
cents for each half-ounce, if prepaid, and ten cents, if
not prepaid; when over three thousand miles, ten cents;
to Newfoundland, ten cents.<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> Then, in the absence of
postal international convention, there is a general provision
by Act of Congress establishing the rate of ten
cents for each half-ounce carried to or received from
foreign countries “by steamships or other vessels regularly
employed in the transportation of the mails.”<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p>

<p>Such are the complexity and multifariousness of our
postal service,&mdash;at least three different rates on inland
letters, with an unknown variety on foreign letters.
Here is discord where there should be uniformity, and
out of this discord springs necessarily embarrassment
with untold expense. True, much has been done; but
much remains to be done before the service will have
that simplicity without which it is vain to expect the
desired combination of utility and economy. Every departure
from uniformity is an impediment and an expense.
It is with the postal service as with all else in
Nature and Art: it is efficient and economical in proportion
as it is simple. The rates of postage should be
uniform. Borrowing a phrase from our political victories,
<em>all letters should be equal before the law</em>.</p>

<p>Take by way of illustration the increased perplexity
from two rates: and here I follow an old official of the
Post-Office, Pliny Miles, who puts this very case. “Suppose,”
says he,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> “city or local letters were two cents, and
letters for a distance three or four cents. What a vast
amount of labor and inconvenience in the work of rating
and sorting in the Post-Office, and how perplexing
to the citizen!”<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> By the existing system there is a
double perplexity,&mdash;first, for the citizen, and, secondly,
for the postal service. Each rate is like an additional
language to be learned, while the unknown rates on foreign
letters are like the confusion of Babel.</p>


<h3>UNIFORM RATE AT ONE CENT.</h3>

<p>In the process of simplification the uniform rate
should be the lowest unit of coin. Beyond the sufficiency
of this rate as a protection of the Post-Office
against abuse, and also its obvious convenience, is its
cheapness, reducing the tax on correspondence to its
practical minimum. In England the penny was the
lowest unit of coin, being in the English currency what
the cent is in ours. The success of the English experiment
is our best encouragement. There is better reason
for the cent as a proper rate in our country than there
was for the penny as a proper rate in England.</p>

<p>Such a rate will be so near to <em>free postage</em> for all, that
it may be considered such practically. Let it be adopted,
and free postage will become the companion of free
school, free lecture, and free library, constituting the
mighty group of republican civilization. The existing
franking system will naturally disappear in this new
franking system for all.</p>

<p>Here we encounter the financial question, What will
be the effect on the Treasury? Will it pay? These
are the potential words. This is the touchstone. That
it will pay in beneficent influence tenfold, ay, Sir, a
hundred-fold,&mdash;that it will make the Post-Office more
than ever the powerful agent of human improvement,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span>
I cannot doubt. What is a little revenue, compared
with such a result? What, even, is a deficit, with
such a compensation? But looking at the financial
question, and forgetting for a moment the incalculable
good, it will be found that there are general laws of
profit on small prices applicable to this proposed reduction,
reinforced also by the example of England, and
even of our own country.</p>


<h3>REDUCTION OF PRICE INCREASES CONSUMPTION.</h3>

<p>Nothing is plainer, as a general rule, than that the
reduction of price tends to increase of consumption.
This is illustrated by a thousand instances. Thus, at
one time in England the fall in the price of soap one
eighth increased the consumption one third; the fall of
tea one sixth increased consumption one half; the fall
of silks one fifth doubled the consumption; the fall of
coffee one fourth trebled it; and the fall of cotton goods
one half quadrupled it.<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> The circulation of newspapers
and the number of advertisements are governed by the
same law. There is another English instance, not within
the range of ordinary business, which is not without
historic interest. Formerly the admission fee to the famous
sights of the Tower of London was two shillings,
at which rate there were, during the year ending April
30, 1838, 11,104 visitors, paying £1110 8<i>s.</i> The fee
was then reduced to one shilling, and during the twelve
months following (1838-9) there were 42,212 visitors,
paying £2110 12<i>s.</i> On the first of May, 1839, the fee
was again reduced to sixpence, and during the ensuing
year (1839-40) there were 84,872 visitors, paying<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span>
£2121 16<i>s.</i>,&mdash;and the next year (1840-41) 94,973
visitors, paying £2374 6<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i><a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> Thus at the Tower
more people were gratified by the sights and more
money was taken,&mdash;so that there was at the same
time a larger accommodation and a larger revenue. A
reduction of the fee in the ratio of four to one was followed
by an increase of visitors in the ratio of more
than eight to one. According to a familiar story in
our own country, the exhibitor of a panorama reported
to the proprietor that the proceeds at twenty-five cents
a ticket did not pay expenses. “Put it down to ten
cents,” was the reply. This was done, and immediately
the receipts rose so as to give a profit of one hundred
dollars a week.</p>

<p>Such instances as these occurring in business and in
life led Rowland Hill to assert that “the increase in
consumption is inversely as the squares of the prices”;
and this rule justified the expectation, that, with the
proposed reduction of letter postage from the average
of sixpence to a penny, the number of letters would increase
thirty-six fold.<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> If the number did not increase
in this remarkable ratio, yet it was such as to disappoint
the enemies of reform. It appears that the estimated
number of chargeable letters delivered in the
United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Ireland in
1839, the year immediately preceding the first general
reduction of postage, was 75,907,572, and in 1840, the
first year of penny postage, 168,768,344, showing an
increase in one year of more than 122 per cent. Since<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span>
then this large number has dilated year by year, until
in 1867 it amounted to 774,831,000.<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a></p>

<p>Postal facilities have from the beginning promoted
correspondence, and this was recognized even before
the appearance of Rowland Hill. An old account of
the English Post-Office, after describing certain improvements,
exults “that there is no considerable market-town
but hath an easy and certain conveyance for
the letters thereof to and from the Grand Office in the
City of London, in the due course of the mails every
post”; and then adds, that, “though the number of
letters missive in England were not at all considerable
in our ancestors’ days, yet it is now prodigiously
great, since the meanest people have generally learnt to
write.”<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> This is the language of another age; but it attests
the stimulation which letters receive from opportunity,
and illustrates the value of cheap postage.</p>


<h3>CHEAP POSTAGE MULTIPLIES LETTERS.</h3>

<p>The experience of England is reproduced in the United
States, so far as we have ventured upon postage reform.
Every reduction of rate has been followed by a
corresponding increase in the number of letters. There
was the law of 1845, by which postage was reduced to
two principal rates of five and ten cents. At this proposition,
which erred only in its feebleness, there was
the gloomiest foreboding of utter loss to the Post-Office.
The raven did not croak more hoarsely at the entrance
of Duncan under the battlements of Macbeth. Mr.
McDuffie, the excitable Senator from South Carolina,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span>
always sensitive for Slavery, after expressing regret
that bodily infirmity disabled him from declaring the
strength of his convictions in regard to the evils which
would flow from this measure, protested against its
adoption as “more radical and revolutionary than anything
ever done in Congress.” The Senator denounced
it as most unjust, and predicted that in ten years the
Post-Office would cost the Treasury $10,000,000.<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> The
newspaper press, though not so fervid, was as skeptical
as the South Carolina Senator; and the Postmaster-General
showed the very disposition which had given
to his brother officials in England the designation of
“unwilling horses.” In his first Report after the passage
of the law, he announced a prospective deficiency
for the current year exceeding $1,250,000, and, unless
there should be some amendment of the law, another
deficiency the next year of little short of $1,000,000.<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a>
Now mark the result of even this too slight reduction.
The actual deficiency for 1845-6 was only $597,097,<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a>
and for 1846-7 it was but $33,677,<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> while in 1848-9
there was a surplus revenue of $226,127.<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> The letters
in 1845 were estimated at 39,958,978; and in 1849 at
60,159,862,<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> showing an increase in four years of more
than fifty per cent.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span></p>

<p>Every reduction of postage in our country exhibits
similar results. According to the ratio of reduction has
been the ratio of increase in the number of letters. It
may surprise Senators to know, that, while the estimated
number in 1852 was 95,790,524,<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> it reached in 1868
to 488,000,000, in the estimate of the Post-Office.<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> But
this is only according to the prevailing impulsion from
a reduction in price. In England, where the rate was
smaller, the number of letters was much larger, being
in 1867, as estimated, no less than 774,831,000.<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> This
becomes more remarkable, when it is considered that
the estimated population of the United States at the
time was more than forty millions, while that of the
United Kingdom was thirty millions,&mdash;making twelve
letters annually for each person in the United States,
and twenty-six letters annually for each person in the
United Kingdom.</p>


<h3>ILLEGITIMATE BURDENS ON CORRESPONDENCE.</h3>

<p>To understand the justice of the proposed reduction
in our country, we must analyze and consider existing
obligations of the postal service. I mention two,
through which we may see the unjust operation of the
present tax on correspondence: first, the well-known
franking system, and, secondly, the millions of newspapers,
by which an inconceivable amount of mail matter
is made a burden on the Post-Office, tasking its
transportation and its means of delivery. Although
printed matter, unfranked, is charged with postage, it
is not in proportion to its burden on the postal service;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span>
so that the letter not only pays for itself, but contributes
to the other. The letter, so small in dimension and
weight, but with its own unseen freight of business or
friendship, is made to carry an additional load. Every
letter is a dwarf shouldering a giant; or stating the case
with absolute literalness, it is a sheet of paper compelled
to bear free matter and printed matter measured
by the ton. This little messenger, whose single function
necessarily requires dispatch, is charged with this
intolerable mass. No wonder that it staggers under
the load heaped upon it. No wonder that the people
are obliged to pay high postage; for, on receiving a letter,
they not only pay the price of its transportation
and delivery, but they contribute to the transportation
and delivery of everything else carried by the mails.</p>

<p>But even this burden could be borne, if the whole
service were not charged with the cost of transportation
and postal facilities in distant parts of the country,
where there is necessarily a disproportionate expense,&mdash;so
that a letter in certain States, after paying
for its own transportation and delivery, and contributing
to the transportation and delivery of free matter
and printed matter, contributes still further to those
long lines of service by which the most remote places
are supplied and the post-office follows close in the
footsteps of the pioneer. This is beautiful, but it is
not just; in other words, it is beautiful that these opportunities
should be afforded, but it is not just that
the correspondence of others should pay for them. Nor
should these extraordinary expenses be charged on these
remote places, or on the pioneer. They belong properly
to the necessary outlay in opening the country, by
which the nation, the great untaxed proprietor, finds a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span>
market for its land and new scope for its growing empire.
Obviously this outlay should be charged to the
Treasury, rather than saddled upon the postal service,
as it is now.</p>


<h3>EXPENSE OF OUTLYING ROUTES.</h3>

<p>The last Report of the Postmaster-General shows the
operation of the existing system in this respect. By the
Statement of Receipts and Expenditures for 1868-9, it
appears that in no less than sixteen States and Territories,
including the District of Columbia, the Post-Office
was more than self-supporting, there being an excess of
receipts over expenditures of $3,571,315; while in the
other States and Territories there was an excess of expenditures
over receipts amounting to $4,727,175.<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> The
self-supporting list, with each surplus, is as follows:&mdash;</p>

<table summary="Statement of Receipts and Expenditures" style="margin: auto; max-width: 40em;">
  <tr>
    <th class="center" style="width: 34%;">States and Territories.</th><th class="center" style="width: 22%;">Receipts.</th><th class="center" style="width: 22%;">Expenses.</th><th class="center" style="width: 22%;">Excess of receipts over expenditures.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Maine</td><td class="tdr">$309,244.35</td><td class="tdr">$293,667.27</td><td class="tdr">$15,577.08</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>New Hampshire</td><td class="tdr">198,238.89</td><td class="tdr">165,370.21</td><td class="tdr">32,868.68</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Massachusetts</td><td class="tdr">1,389,731.76</td><td class="tdr">740,121.42</td><td class="tdr">649,610.34</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Rhode Island</td><td class="tdr">149,800.95</td><td class="tdr">76,046.78</td><td class="tdr">73,754.17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Connecticut</td><td class="tdr">418,048.99</td><td class="tdr">312,415.28</td><td class="tdr">105,633.71</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>New York</td><td class="tdr">3,818,667.45</td><td class="tdr">2,186,196.21</td><td class="tdr">1,632,471.24</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>New Jersey</td><td class="tdr">343,192.64</td><td class="tdr">297,402.18</td><td class="tdr">45,790.46</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pennsylvania</td><td class="tdr">1,734,987.75</td><td class="tdr">1,135,969.06</td><td class="tdr">599,018.69</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Delaware</td><td class="tdr">49,291.11</td><td class="tdr">45,496.69</td><td class="tdr">3,794.42</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ohio</td><td class="tdr">1,185,718.44</td><td class="tdr">1,166,145.19</td><td class="tdr">19,573.25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Michigan</td><td class="tdr">550,107.68</td><td class="tdr">537,012.97</td><td class="tdr">13,094.71</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Illinois</td><td class="tdr">1,442,300.26</td><td class="tdr">1,125,034.22</td><td class="tdr">317,266.04</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Iowa</td><td class="tdr">438,636.79</td><td class="tdr">398,381.21</td><td class="tdr">40,255.58</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>District of Columbia</td><td class="tdr">123,422.70</td><td class="tdr">111,746.40</td><td class="tdr">11,676.30</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Alaska</td><td class="tdr">316.72</td><td class="tdr">150.00</td><td class="tdr">166.72</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Wyoming</td><td class="tdr">18,086.09</td><td class="tdr">7,322.37</td><td class="tdr">10,763.72</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdpdl">Total</td><td class="tdr">$12,169,792.57</td><td class="tdr">$8,598,477.46</td><td class="tdr">$3,571,315.11</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span></p>
<p>Here I ask confidently, considering the nature of the
Post-Office and the unquestionable importance of encouraging
correspondence, if it is just that the letter-writers
in one part of the country should be constrained
to make the large contribution attested by this table,
for the benefit especially of those at a distance, and
also of the country at large. Rejecting again all idea of
casting this expenditure upon the distant places and the
pioneer, I insist that it should be borne by the Treasury
rather than by remote letter-writers.</p>

<p>It is easy to exhibit the extent of this charge, and its
palpable injustice. Begin with an illustration. Suppose
a common carrier, with an interest beyond his business
in an undeveloped part of the country at some
distance from his daily line, makes a deviation to this
outlying settlement at a daily loss, but looking to the
growth of his interest there for ultimate remuneration.
It would not be just for him to levy on all his customers
along the main line for the expense of this deviation,&mdash;making
them not only pay for their parcels, but
contribute to the development of the outlying settlement.
Nor would this enforced contribution commend
itself, if urged in the name of charity or as a patriotic
service to an infant community. The customers would
insist that their parcels should pay only the legitimate
cost of transportation and delivery; or they would soon
find another carrier, who would charge them simply for
their parcels, without adding the cost of opening new
settlements. But the National Government is our common
carrier, turning aside at great expense to develop
and supply new places, to its great ultimate advantage
in the sale of public lands, the growth of population,
and increase of the revenue; but it is not justified in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span>
casting this large expense on the correspondence of the
people.</p>

<p>Already the Nation assumes the expenses of the
Territories before their admission as States, paying the
salaries of their various officers and the cost of administration.
For equal reason the Nation should assume
the expenses of these outlying post-routes.</p>

<p>By the kindness of the Postmaster-General I am enabled
to present from the records of the Department
two authentic testimonies. There is the post-route from
San Antonio to El Paso, a distance of seven hundred and
four miles, with the annual cost of service, $126,601,
and the annual receipts from offices on the route, $3,137.
There is also the post-route from Kelton, Utah, to the
Dalles, Oregon, seven hundred and sixty-five miles, with
the annual cost of service, $130,278, and the annual receipts
from offices on the route, $3,822. Other instances
might be adduced, but these are enough to show
how seriously the postal service is burdened by obligations
which plainly belong to the Treasury.</p>

<p>In former debates of the Senate, an incident was
mentioned by Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky,<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> which
illustrates the character of these unproductive lines.
During a journey in Tennessee in the summer of 1844,
the Senator had occasion to go to an outlying post-office
in the interior of the State, on reaching which, late at
night, he found the postmaster had gone to bed, leaving
the mail-bags in the wagons. To his inquiries concerning
this singular circumstance, “Why, Sir,” responded
the official,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> “we don’t take the bags out at all; we don’t
even look into them; it is so seldom we receive anything,
we don’t think it worth while.” And upon investigation
it in fact appeared that there was not a
letter in any one of these bags, and had not been for a
month. But this costly mail-service was at the expense
of the correspondence elsewhere. The letter of the distant
seaboard was a contributor.</p>


<h3>DISTANCE ALONE DOES NOT CAUSE EXPENSE.</h3>

<p>Sometimes it is supposed that the great distances of
our country cause the large expense; but this is a mistake,
founded on superficial observation. The large expense
proceeds from something besides distance. Here
I quote the words of Rowland Hill:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“It is not matter of inference, but a matter of fact, that
the expense to the Post-Office is practically the same, whether
a letter is going from London to Barnet [eleven miles] or
whether it is going from London to Edinburgh [four hundred
miles]; the difference is not expressible in the smallest
coin we have.”<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a></p>

</div>

<p>I have already mentioned that the actual cost of transportation
from London to Edinburgh was only one thirty-sixth
of a penny, and this was the average for all letters
throughout the United Kingdom. With so small
a fraction of a penny representing the cost of the longest
line, it was apparent that the element of distance
must be eliminated from the question. A recent writer
thus strongly testifies to this rule:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“If Mr. Hill demonstrated one thing more plainly than
another, it was that the absolute cost of the transmission of
each letter was so infinitesimally small, that, if charged according
to that cost, the postage could not be collected. Besides,
it is not certain that the one letter would cost the
Post-Office more than the other.”<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a></p>

</div>

<p>But this rule is as applicable in our country as in the
United Kingdom, always provided the lines are productive.</p>

<p>This rule, first enunciated by Rowland Hill, was
substantially adopted by the Parliamentary Committee,
when they say,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That it is the opinion of this Committee, that that part of
the inland postage on letters <em>which consists of tax</em> ought to be
the same on all; that, as the cost of conveyance per letter
depends more on the number of letters carried than on the
distance which they are conveyed, the cost being frequently
greater for distances of a few miles than for distances of hundreds
of miles, the charge, if varied in proportion to the cost,
ought to increase in the inverse ratio of the number of letters
conveyed; but as it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
carry such a regulation into practice, and as the actual cost of
conveyance (assuming the charged letters to bear the whole
expense of the franked letters and of the newspapers) forms
less than the half of the whole charge exclusive of tax, the
remaining portion consisting chiefly in the charges attendant
on their receipt at and delivery from the Post-Office, your
Committee are of opinion that the nearest practicable approach
to a fair system would be to charge a uniform rate of
postage between one post-town and another, whatever might
be their distance; and your Committee are further of opinion
that such an arrangement is highly desirable, not only on
account of its abstract fairness, but because it would tend in
a great degree to simplify and economize the business of the
Post-Office.”<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a></p>

</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span></p>

<p>All this is plainly reasonable, whether in the United
Kingdom or the United States.</p>

<p>The actual cost of each letter is inversely as the number
of letters, irrespective of distance. The weight enters
very little into the question. Take, for instance, a
route of ten miles, at ten cents a mile, and another of
one hundred miles at the same rate. If on the route
of ten miles there is an average of only one letter, as is
the case on some routes, this one letter would cost one
dollar, while ten thousand letters on the route of one
hundred miles would cost only one mill a letter. The
Post-Office pays a fixed compensation for the daily
transportation of its mails between certain places, and
this compensation is not varied by any addition to the
number of letters. Therefore on all productive or paying
lines, as between Washington and New York, and
then between New York and Buffalo, additional letters
may be received for distant places, without adding to
the cost, until the letters reach St. Louis or New Orleans,
or any other place accessible by a self-supporting
line, and the actual cost of a letter for the longest distance
will be no more than for the shortest. It will be
the same alike to New Orleans and to New York. Thus
on the assumption of a continuous self-supporting line
the question of distance does not enter into the cost,
and thus again we see the injustice of compelling the
correspondence on such a line to the contributions it is
now obliged to make.</p>


<h3>EXISTING RATE NOT OPPRESSIVE A FALLACY.</h3>

<p>Here I encounter an old-fashioned objection common
in England as well as in the United States, and which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>
has shown itself at every proposed change in the postal
service. It is said that the existing rate is not oppressive,
and that there is no need of its reduction. Obviously
it is not oppressive to Senators and Representatives,
who send and receive unnumbered letters free;
nor is it oppressive to their correspondents; nor again
is it oppressive to the rich and thriving, for they contribute
out of their abundance; but plainly and indubitably
it is oppressive to the poor, and it is absurd to
say that it is not. Plainly and indubitably it is oppressive
to the widowed mother, whose best comfort is correspondence
with her absent child; it is oppressive to the
child corresponding with mother, sister, or brother; it is
oppressive to all whose scanty means supply only the
necessaries of life. All these are restrained in the gratification
of those affections which contribute so much to
human solace and strength.</p>

<p>Do not say that practically there is little difference
between three cents and one cent,&mdash;that the difference
is hardly appreciable. A great mistake. Is it not appreciable
in the cost of tea, coffee, and sugar? The reduction
of one cent a pound in the tariff on sugar, of
two cents on coffee, or of a few cents on tea, is not treated
as trivial.</p>

<p>There is the poor pensioner with eight dollars a month.
She, too, has family and friends; but the postal tax interferes
to arrest the congenial intercourse. Every letter
adds to the burden she is obliged to bear. Her fingers
forget the pen, and she finds herself alone. Nor is
this hardship peculiar to the poor pensioner. An eminent
citizen and valued friend, who has given much attention
to this subject, states the case thus:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> “When
one of my children is absent, I write a line every day.
Suppose I were a poor widow, earning barely enough to
make the two ends meet, and had children in the West,
to each of whom I should want to write at least once a
week, making in all several dollars a year; then the cost
would be oppressive.” This simple illustration brings
home the operation of the postal tax now imposed by
law, and shows how it troubles those who most need the
care and tenderness of the world. The tax on letters is
like the tax on salt. If it must exist, it must be small,
very small.</p>

<p>There are some who think that no existing institution
is oppressive. According to them, Slavery was not oppressive.
In the same mood, the law of 1845, with its
two rates of five cents and ten cents, and then again the
law of 1855, by which the rate of five cents was reduced
to three cents, were pronounced unnecessary. The multifarious
rates anterior to 1845 were not oppressive, and
in 1855 there was no call for the reduction of the rate
from five cents to three cents. Such was the argument
then, precisely as now. So in the days of Slavery it
was argued that the slaves did not desire freedom, and
that their condition was not oppressive. The great reform
of Rowland Hill encountered the same objection.
Even Lord Ashburton, while favoring a change, was
content with twopence or threepence, and, in his testimony,
settled down upon threepence as satisfactory.
He shrank from the penny rate.<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> This question was
treated with excellent sense by Mr. Jones Loyd, whom
I have already quoted, whose testimony bears strongly
on this very objection. After saying<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> “that the present
rate of postage does in point of fact produce a prohibition
of the use of the Post-Office to all classes that
may be considered as below the higher classes,”<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> the
attention of the witness was called by the Committee
to the allegation “that the laboring classes do not
feel the oppressive rate of postage.” He replied in
words of wisdom worthy of memory now, and completely
applicable to the very question now before the
Senate:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The habits of a people are in a great degree the result of
the laws under which they live; the high charges of our
Post-Office have induced, amongst all but the richer classes,
a habit of abstaining from epistolary communication, and it
might take some time to correct that habit. But it appears
to me very desirable that the impediment should be removed;
and I have no doubt, that, in the course of a short time, as
the poorer classes have the common affections of the human
breast, they would form a taste for the pleasures to be derived
from intercourse with absent friends and relations. It
would be very desirable, for the moral interests of the community,
that every facility should be afforded for that purpose.”<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></p>

</div>

<p>On the “oppression of a tax,” where persons do not
use the article taxed, the intelligent witness testified
as follows:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“They may not know the loss they sustain; but that does
not alter the fact that they do sustain a very great loss; and
it would be highly criminal and cruel voluntarily to inflict
such a loss upon a person merely upon the ground that he
does not know it. A child that is born blind does not know
the advantages of sight; but still it would be a very extraordinary
thing to inflict blindness upon a child, merely upon
the ground, that, if you do it, in time he will not know the
loss he has sustained.”<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p>

</div>

<p>All this is plain and unanswerable. The oppressiveness
of a tax is not to be measured by the insensibility
of the people on whose shoulders it is laid. It is a curiosity
of despotism that the people are too often unconscious
of their slavery, as they are unconscious also of
bad laws. A wise and just Government measures its
duties not by what the people bear without a murmur,
but by what is most for their welfare; and it is to this
criterion that I bring the question of cheap postage.
Say not that the people are indifferent and do not ask
for this reduction. Is it not for their good? Is not the
advantage so eminent and unequivocal that the Government
can no longer hesitate, especially at this transitional
moment, when our country is passing from the
Old to the New, and the people more than ever are assured
in their rights?</p>


<h3>JUSTICE AND PRACTICABILITY OF ONE CENT POSTAGE.</h3>

<p>After this exhibition of existing burdens, so prejudicial
to the correspondence of the country, I return again
to the main postulate of this argument, that a uniform
rate of one cent for a letter of half an ounce is entirely
reasonable, and in a short time, with proper relief in
other directions, would render the Post-Office self-supporting.
Here I introduce the testimony of a gentleman
practically conversant with the operations of our
Post-Office, who writes to me as follows:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Taking the weight of the letter mail-matter and the printed
mail-matter, and charging the expense of transportation
upon each proportioned to the weight, and one cent is all
that would be relatively chargeable upon each half-ounce of
letter mail. I speak from close daily observation in a large
office, in a region that is a large revenue-paying one to the
Department on all mail-matter.”</p>

</div>

<p>This testimony of an expert is only in harmony with
my own conclusion.</p>

<p>This injustice becomes more apparent, when we consider
the disproportion between the cost of other transportation
and letter postage. Take, for instance, the
fare of a passenger on a railway in comparison with
that of a letter. The average weight of passengers with
their baggage is supposed to be 230 pounds, which is
the weight of 7,360 half-ounce letters, paying, at the
present rate of three cents, $220.80, irrespective of distance.
The following table, prepared some time ago,
shows the cost of other transportation:&mdash;</p>

<table summary="Cost of transportation" style="margin: auto; max-width: 40em;">
  <tr>
    <th class="tdc" style="width: 50%;">From Boston&mdash;</th><th class="tdc">Passenger fare.</th><th class="tdc">Mills per half oz.</th><th class="tdc">Express freight. 230lbs.</th><th class="tdc">Mills per half oz.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>To New York</td><td class="tdr">$4</td><td class="tdr">.5</td><td class="tdr">$1.50</td><td class="tdr">.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>” Philadelphia</td><td class="tdr">7</td><td class="tdr">.9</td><td class="tdr">3.50</td><td class="tdr">.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>” Baltimore</td><td class="tdr">10</td><td class="tdr">1.3</td><td class="tdr">5.50</td><td class="tdr">.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>” Cincinnati</td><td class="tdr">25</td><td class="tdr">3.4</td><td class="tdr">10.50</td><td class="tdr">1.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>” St. Louis</td><td class="tdr">35</td><td class="tdr">4.7</td><td class="tdr">12.00</td><td class="tdr">1.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>” New Orleans</td><td class="tdr">45</td><td class="tdr">6.1</td><td class="tdr">14.00</td><td class="tdr">1.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>” Liverpool per Cunard steamers</td><td class="tdr">120</td><td class="tdr">16.3</td><td class="tdr">7.20</td><td class="tdr">.9</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>In other transportation there is a slight increase in
proportion to the distance; but it is difficult to see
on what principle a mail-bag between Washington and
New York should pay more than a passenger; and the
same difficulty occurs when we consider ocean postage,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span>
where the disproportion between postage and other
transportation is, perhaps, more conspicuous. Elihu
Burritt, who has enforced the importance of cheap rates
on the ocean with admirable comprehension of their importance,
has reminded us that the freight of a barrel of
flour, weighing two hundred pounds, is about fifty cents,
while the charge for the same weight in half-ounce letters,
being sixty-four hundred in number, at the rate of
twenty-four cents a letter, would be no less than $1,536,
and at the rate of one cent would be sixty-four dollars.
These instances show that letters have been always
overcharged, or charged out of proportion to their
weight.</p>

<p>To my mind it is unjust that the letter everywhere
should contribute so largely to the transportation and
delivery of other mail matter, while in some parts of
the country it contributes besides to postal facilities
elsewhere. I think I do not err, when I aver, that,
even with the latter burden, the Post-Office, if it carried
nothing but letters, <em>and every letter paid one cent</em>,
would be self-supporting. I put the case in this way
so as to exhibit the essential equity of the proposed reduction,
and, I would add, its entire practicability. Although
the Post-Office cannot be relieved of the other
mail-matter, yet the letters can be relieved of the burdensome
contribution to which they are now subjected.
One cent postage would give new operation to the law
according to which reduction of price tends to produce
consumption, and there would be a new impulsion to
correspondence, by which in a short time it would be
doubled, tripled, quadrupled, quintupled, and sextupled,&mdash;nay,
in our growing country it would be multiplied
beyond calculation.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span></p>

<p>As to this increase, I have already shown something
of its progress in Great Britain, beginning with one
hundred and twenty-two per cent. the first year of penny
postage.<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> Why may not the same take place with
us? According to the official table now on our desks,
the smaller population of the United Kingdom sends
more letters than ours. It would be difficult to credit
this result, if the figures did not tell the tale beyond
correction. Here is the table:<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a>&mdash;</p>

<table summary="Comparison of UK and US mail volumes" style="margin: auto; max-width: 50em;">
  <tr>
  <th class="tdc" style="width: 50%;">Proportion of Letters and Revenue to Population</th><th class="tdc" style="width: 25%;">United States, year ending June 30, 1868.</th><th class="tdc" style="width: 25%;">United Kingdom, year ending Dec. 31, 1867.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging">Population (estimated)</td><td class="tdr">40,092,356</td><td class="tdr">30,305,284</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging">Number of letters delivered (estimated)</td><td class="tdr">488,000,000</td><td class="tdr">774,831,000</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging">Number of letters to each person</td><td class="tdr">12</td><td class="tdr">26</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging">Gross revenue</td><td class="tdr">$16,232,148.16</td><td class="tdr">$23,341,070</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="hanging">Amount of revenue to each person of aggregate population</td><td class="tdr">40 cents</td><td class="tdr">77 cents</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Testimony could not be stronger. The smaller population
sends a larger sum-total of letters, making of
course a larger number for each person, and yielding a
larger gross revenue. It is humiliating to think that
the people of this Monarchy send at the rate of twenty-six
letters for each person, while the citizens of our Republic
send only at the rate of twelve for each person.
The inverse disproportion of letters becomes the more
remarkable, when it is understood that the proportion
of people who can read and write is greater among us
than in the United Kingdom, so that, all other things
being equal, the number of letters by each person should
be greater among us; but we are obliged to confront the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span>
unquestionable fact that the number is less. How is
this? Why is this? I know no way of accounting for
it except in the discouraging cost of correspondence.
Here I find unquestionable reason to conclude that we
have not a proper rate of postage. Clearly something is
wanting. It is not education; for the people among us
excel the British people in this respect. It is not business,
or family, or friendship; for are not all these active
with us? I submit that we want nothing but cheap
postage, so that the people, finding their means in harmony
with the rates, shall be tempted to write letters.
So it was in England; and so it may be among us.</p>

<p>Against the entire reasonableness of the proposed
rate, it will not do to say that in the wages of English
labor a penny is the equivalent of three cents among
us. Even if it be so, there is a twofold answer to the
allegation: first, that convenience and reason concur in
favor of the lowest unit of coin, which with us is the
cent, as in England it is the penny; and, secondly, that
with us the general scale of salary and expenditure is
less than in England, beginning with the President as
compared with the Queen, and embracing the functionaries
of Government in the two countries. The penny,
which is a larger unit than the cent, typifies the larger
scale of price; so that our postage will be brought to
practical equality with that of England only by the
adoption of the corresponding unit of our country. If
this seems refined or technical, let me add that I adduce
it only in answer to an objection, which forgets not only
the beauty of that simplicity found in the lowest unit of
coin, but also that fundamental difference between England
and the United States found in their respective institutions.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span></p>


<h3>POSSIBLE LOSS OF REVENUE.</h3>

<p>Here I am reminded of the possible loss of revenue,
and this is set up as an insuperable barrier; but I confess,
that, when I regard the infinite good from this reform,
I am little concerned by any such prospect. Better
any possible loss of revenue than the postponement
of such a good. Nobody can say positively what the
loss will be. It is only an estimate, or, if you please,
a guess. Some may make it high, others low. According
to the last Reports of the Postmaster-General,
the actual deficiency, with the rate of three cents, was
$5,353,620, and the estimated deficiency for 1870 is
$7,440,413; but in both cases the expenditures are
swollen by illegitimate and extrinsic charges on the
Post-Office properly belonging to the Treasury. For
1871, with the rate at three cents, the estimated expenditures,
swollen by the illegitimate and extrinsic
charges, are $25,581,093, with receipts, $20,178,961,
leaving a deficiency of $5,402,132.<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a></p>

<p>Making the estimate for 1871 with the rate of one
cent, and assuming an increase in correspondence at
only one hundred per cent., there would be a deficiency
of $12,128,452, from which should be deducted the illegitimate
and extrinsic charges properly belonging to the
Treasury. Considering these for one moment, you will
see how small the deficiency will be; and here I follow
the last Report of the Postmaster-General, who does not
hesitate to estimate the proportion of free matter in the
mails at twenty-five per cent. of the whole, so that, according<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span>
to him, “it will appear that the Government is
bound in honor and justice to appropriate $5,000,000,
instead of $700,000 [the present appropriation], for this
service.”<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> But with the abolition of the franking system
all this postal matter will pay the ordinary rate,
and thus contribute to the postal service. Deduct also
another sum for the expenditures of outlying routes,
justly chargeable upon the Treasury, like the existing
franking system.</p>

<p>Such is the whole case as to any possible loss of revenue,
which I state with entire frankness; but I cannot
doubt that a short period would witness a change, while
the people entered into the enjoyment of their great
possession. Letters would daily multiply, and the revenue
would bear witness to the increase.</p>


<h3>THE POST-OFFICE NOT A TAXING MACHINE, BUT A
BENEFICENT AGENCY.</h3>

<p>Only in obedience to traditional usage have I dwelt
thus long on the financial aspect of this question, which
to my mind is the least important of all. Not to make
money, but to promote the welfare of the people, and to
increase the happiness of all,&mdash;such is the precious object
I would propose; and here I ask no such question
as, “Will it pay?” It may not pay in revenue at once,
but it will pay in what is above price. Unhappily, the
Post-Office, whether at home or abroad, has been from
the beginning little more than <em>a taxing machine</em>, a contrivance
to raise money, or a “milch cow” with fruitful
dugs. In England it was at times farmed out to a
speculator, and then again it was charged with the support<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span>
of a royal mistress or favorite. For its profits only
was it regarded, and not for its agency in the concerns
of life. In this respect it was not unlike the Government,
which was simply a usurpation for the benefit of
the few. All this is now changed, at least among us,
and Government is the creation of the people for their
good. The Post-Office should share this transformation.
Instead of a mere taxing machine, or contrivance
to raise money, or “milch cow” with fruitful dugs, it
should be an omnipresent beneficent minister, reaching
its multitudinous hands with help and comfort into all
the homes of our wide-spread land. Such it is already
in England, to the infinite joy of all. But the omnipresent
beneficent minister belongs to a republic more
than to a monarchy. Cheap postage is a republican institution.
If England has anticipated us, we may at
least profit by her example.</p>

<p>It is because Senators see the Post-Office only in its
least elevated, not to say its most vulgar character, that
there is any hesitation. Contemplate for one moment,
if you please, its great and beautiful office. It is the
universal messenger of a people, bearing tidings of all
kinds, whether of business, hope, affection, charity, joy,
or sorrow, and articulating them throughout the land.
There is nothing that man can do, desire, or feel, which
is not contained in the various and abounding errand.
The letters of a single day are the epitome of life, and
this service is unceasing. Every day this messenger
flies over the land, from city to city, from town to town,
from village to village, from house to house, leaving
everywhere the welcome token. Such a messenger is
more than a winged Mercury, with sandalled feet and
purse in hand, whose special care was commerce; it is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span>
an angel in reality, as in name. In the ancient Greek,
from which the word is derived, an angel was a messenger;
and is not the office of our messenger angelic?
But by what rule or reason can you tax such a messenger
in his great and beautiful office?</p>

<p>A letter is simply conversation in writing, and therefore,
by strictness of logic, the tax you impose is a tax
on conversation. Reflect a moment on the part performed
by conversation in the education of men and in
the economies of life; and here I give you testimony.
Once at Mr. Webster’s table I heard the question
discussed, “From what do men derive most of what
they know?” The scholars about him answered,&mdash;one
naming “Our Mothers,” another “Schools,” another
“Books,” another “Newspapers,” when the host, who
had listened to each, remarked, very gravely, “You forget
Conversation, from which, in my judgment, we derive
the larger part of what we know.” Who shall say
that Mr. Webster was not right? It is clear that conversation
is a wonderful educator and a constant servant.
But conversation in writing, no matter on what
subject, whether of business or of the heart, is now subject
to an unrelenting tax, so that persons conversing
by letter must not only pay the cost of the intermediary
in their own case, but must contribute to the expense of
other conversations elsewhere.</p>


<h3>THAT THE POST-OFFICE MUST SUPPORT ITSELF
A FALLACY.</h3>

<p>Custom makes us insensible to folly, and even to injustice.
Thus the tax on letters has gained an undeserved
immunity, which is augmented by a prevailing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span>
notion, sometimes supposed to find authority even in
the Constitution, that the Post-Office must support itself.
Whether regarded as rule or maxim or provision
of the Constitution, it is without foundation, and sooner
or later will be classed with those “vulgar errors” which
are as disturbing in government as in science. There
is nothing in the Constitution or in reason to distinguish
the Post-Office in this respect from the Army, the
Navy, or the Judiciary. The Constitution confers upon
Congress the power “to establish post-offices and post-roads,”
precisely as it confers upon Congress the power
“to raise and support armies,” the power “to provide
and maintain a navy,” and the power “to constitute tribunals
inferior to the Supreme Court”; and in each of
these cases it is empowered “to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the foregoing powers.” Nobody suggests that
now in peace our armies shall amplify their commissariat
by enforced contributions, that our navy shall redouble
its economies by supplementary piracy, or that
our tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court shall eke
out a salary by requisitions on the suitors, to the end
that each of these departments may be in some measure
“self-supporting.” Why, then, should the Post-Office
be subjected to a different rule? Not, surely, because
it is less beneficent; not because it is the youngest
child of Government, a very Benjamin, coming into
being long after the others. But such is the case.
The rule for the others is discarded when we come
to the Post-Office, and here for the first time we hear
that a Department of Government must be “self-supporting.”</p>

<p>As there is no ground in the Constitution for this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span>
pretension, so is there none in reason. Of all existing
departments, the Post-Office is most entitled to consideration,
for it is most universal in its beneficence. That
public welfare which is the declared object of all the
departments appears here in its most attractive form.
There is nothing which is not helped by the Post-Office.
Is business in question? The Post-Office is at hand
with invaluable aid, quickening and multiplying all its
activities. Is it charity? The Post-Office is the good
Samaritan, omnipresent on all the highways of the land.
Is it the precious intercourse of family or friends? The
Post-Office is carrier, interpreter, and handmaid. Is it
education? The Post-Office is schoolmaster, with school
for all and with scholars counted by the million. Is it
the service of Government? The Post-Office lends itself
so completely to this essential work, that the national
will is conveyed without noise or effort to the
most remote corners, and the Republic becomes one and
indivisible. Without the Post-Office where would be
that national unity, with irresistible guaranty of Equal
Rights to All, which is now the glory of the Republic?
Impossible! absolutely impossible! Therefore, in the
name of all these, do I insist that now, in these days of
equality, the Post-Office shall be admitted to equality
with all other departments of Government, so that it
may discharge its own peculiar and many-sided duties,
without being compelled to find in itself the means of
support. It has enough to do without taking thought
of the morrow. On every side and in every direction
it is the beneficent helper. To the Army it is a staff;
to the Navy it is a tender; to the Treasury it is a support;
to the Judiciary it is a police; to President and
Congress it is an adjunct; and to all else, public or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span>
private, whatever the interest, aspiration, or sentiment,
it is an incomparable ally. Better than two blades of
grass are two letters where was only one before; and
when the precious product is measured by millions, you
see the vastness of the beneficence.</p>


<h3>OUR POST-OFFICE MUST BE THE BEST IN THE WORLD:
PRESENT DUTY.</h3>

<p>Such is the Post-Office; and nothing is clearer than
that here in the United States it should be of the highest
type. Ours should be the best in the world,&mdash;not
second to any. So long as Slave-Masters bore sway,
this could not be; for they set their faces against this
minister of Civilization. One of the first legislative acts
of the Rebel Government at Montgomery was to raise
the rates.<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> But this hostile obstruction is now overcome,
and we are at last free to act for the good of all.
It is for the welfare of the people that our Republic is
founded, and therefore it should omit nothing by which
their condition is improved and elevated. Other Governments
may seek to augment the revenue. Our aim
should be to augment the sum of human happiness,
making it the crown of our whole people; and just
in proportion as we fail in this duty is the Republic a
failure. But the best Post-Office is where letters at
the smallest charge are faithfully carried to every door,
thus combining cheapness and efficiency. That ours
may fulfil this condition there must be a change.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span></p>
<p>Our duty is simple. It is to relieve the Post-Office
of present burdens, including especially the franking
system and the expense of unproductive routes, while
at the same time we establish a uniform rate of one
cent. To these cardinal objects may be added others
named in the bill introduced by me, especially the
requirement of payment always by stamps, so as to
simplify the accounts and to make peculation impossible;
but the fundamental change is in the rate of
postage.</p>

<p>Could my desires prevail, the Post-Office should be
like the Common School, open to all, with this only
condition, that the rate should be sufficient to guard
against abuse. But this is accomplished by that now
proposed.</p>

<p>Let the uniform rate be one cent and you will witness
a transformation. The power to frank, which is
now confined to a few, will practically belong to all,
and letters will be multiplied in proportion,&mdash;opening
to the people an inexhaustible source of all good influences,
whether of education, wealth, virtue, or happiness,
while the Republic rises in the scale of civilization.
Such a rate will be better than a mine of gold in
every State,&mdash;better than a band of iron for the Union,&mdash;better
than a fortress scowling on uncounted hilltops;
for it will be an angelic power.</p>

<p>And could this rate be extended to international postage,
its least service would be to our commercial relations.
Beyond this would be an inconceivable influence
on that immigration to our country which is a constant
fountain of life, while it carried into the homes of the
Old World the most seductive invitations to take part
with us in our great destinies. Republican ideas would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span>
be diffused, and the Rights of Man gain new authority.
Every letter from glowing firesides among us, when read
at colder firesides abroad, would be a perpetual proclamation
of the Republic.</p>

<p>More than ever this change is needed now. It is
essential in the work of Reconstruction, which can be
maintained only through the national unity. The very
extent of our country, which is superficially urged as
the apology for a high rate, is to my mind an all-sufficient
reason for the proposed reform. Because our
country is broad and spacious, therefore must distant
parts be brought into communication and woven together
by daily recurring ties. Because our people are various
in origin and language, therefore must they be enabled
to commingle and become homogeneous. And,
lastly, because fellow-citizens have suffered and been
separated by terrible war, therefore must the Post-Office
become a good angel to quicken industry, to remove ignorance,
to soothe prejudice, and to promote harmony.
Blessed are the peace-makers; and in this company the
Post-Office, properly reformed, will take an illustrious
place.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHINESE_INDEMNITY_FUND" id="CHINESE_INDEMNITY_FUND"></a>CHINESE INDEMNITY FUND.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Report in the Senate, of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, June 24, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="blockquote">

<p class="hanging">The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred
the message of the President of March 10, 1870, covering
a report of the Secretary of State and correspondence concerning
the Chinese Indemnity Fund, also certain petitions
on the same subject, have had the same under consideration,
and beg leave to report.</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">The origin and history of the Chinese Indemnity
Fund are found in authentic documents, so that
little need be done except to state the case from these
authorities.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>The British and French expeditions of 1858, which,
after capturing Canton, turned their combined forces
toward Peking, and ascended the Pei-ho as far as Tien-tsin,
opened the way to the presentation of claims of
our citizens, which were promptly recognized by the
Chinese Government. Though taking no part in the
war, our people profited by the result. The convention
that ensued was born of the war.</p>


<h3>THE CONVENTION AND PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.</h3>

<p>Claims were brought forward amounting to more than
one and a quarter million of dollars; but Mr. Reed, our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span>
Minister in China, concluded, after examination, that
600,000 taels, or about $840,000, was a proper estimate
for all rightfully due. Accordingly he entered into an
arrangement with the Chinese plenipotentiaries for their
prospective liquidation. At first there was nothing but
an agreement in correspondence, being a sort of executory
contract, which was unsatisfactory in form, incomplete
in stipulations, and embarrassed by the condition
that in the adjudication of the claims a Chinese officer
should take part. All this involved delay, at least, if
not more. At last this agreement was embodied in the
terms of a convention between the two governments,
dispensing with Chinese coöperation, and the amount of
damages was reduced to 500,000 taels, to be paid from
the maritime revenues of Shanghai, Foo-chow, and Canton,
in complete discharge of all demands.<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a></p>

<p>The original agreement was at Tien-tsin, where the
Chinese met the British, French, and Russian negotiators;
but the convention was finally executed at Shanghai,
November 8, 1858. The statement already made
appears in the terms of the convention. After setting
forth that certain maritime revenues were pledged for
the payment of American claims, “to an amount not exceeding
600,000 taels,” the convention proceeds to declare,
“And the plenipotentiary of the United States, actuated
by a friendly feeling towards China, is willing, on
behalf of the United States, to reduce the amount needed
for such claims to an aggregate of 500,000 taels”;
and then it is agreed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> “that this amount shall be in full
liquidation of all claims of American citizens at the various
ports to this date.”<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a></p>

<p>Mr. Reed, in communicating this treaty to the Department
of State, says, under date of November 10,
1858:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Nor has there been any great difficulty in effecting it, the
Chinese plenipotentiaries showing no disposition to evade the
agreement they had entered into at Tien-tsin, and being quite
willing to arrange the details on reasonable grounds.”<a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a></p>

</div>

<p>The Minister then proceeds to say, that his first duty&mdash;“not
the less binding because to the Chinese”&mdash;was
to revise the claims themselves, and ascertain whether,
after giving credit for such as had in the mean time
been settled and paid, and applying some clear principle
of law, the aggregate could not be reduced; and he
adds, that “the amount assumed at Tien-tsin was an
arbitrary one.” In order to arrive at a more precise result,
he called upon the claimants for a revised statement
of their demands. In many instances the requisition
was complied with; in others it was made the
occasion for “all sorts of speculative and contingent
claims,&mdash;such, for example, as a vice-consul asking to
be remunerated for fees that he might have made, and
the captain of a steamer claiming the profits of a year
to come.” Notwithstanding these instances the claims
were revised in a proper spirit, and were sensibly reduced
by the claimants themselves. Still there were
many of a contingent character. On a careful review
of all the evidence before him, the Minister was satisfied
that he could materially reduce the amount to be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span>
demanded, which was accordingly done. In the draught
of the convention first submitted to the Commissioners
at Shanghai, the amount stated was 525,000 taels, with
a provision, that, in case of excess beyond the claims
and interest, it should be refunded to the Chinese Government;
on which the Minister remarks: “They preferred,
however, the small sum without such provision,
evidently thinking it was their best policy to get rid of
the matter forever.”<a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> The language of the Commissioners
was:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“We acknowledge the consideration and kindness of your
Excellency in this matter, in that you have, of your own accord,
reduced the first amount of claims, and now place the
total at 525,000 taels. We have taken the matter into full
consultation, and propose, that, if a further reduction of
25,000 taels be made, fixing the total amount at 500,000
taels, then custom-house certificates can be issued at Canton,
Shanghai, and Foo-chow, dating from the first day of our
next year, (February 3, 1859,) which can be successively
applied to the gradual payment of the entire sum.”<a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a></p>

</div>

<p>These terms were embodied in the final convention
between the parties.</p>

<p>After this exposition, the Minister declares that the
convention, if ratified by our Government, and carried
into execution by the Chinese, as he did not doubt it
would be, would liquidate every claim on China by citizens
of the United States, principal and Chinese interest
at twelve per cent. per annum, on most of the claims
for three years, and for a longer period on others, among
which was one as ancient as 1847, which had occupied
the attention and excited the sympathies of many of his
predecessors.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span></p>

<p>The Minister appends a tabular statement of claims,
with a list of what he calls “Claims Suspended,” among
which is one known as “The Caldera,” to which reference
will be made hereafter. He then says:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“A sufficient sum can be reserved to cover these claims,
<em>all of which are more or less doubtful</em>.”</p>

</div>

<p class="noindent">And adds:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“If they be recognized, and the principle of paying interest
be adopted throughout, the fund will be exhausted. If
they be disallowed, though interest be paid to all the other
claimants, there will be a surplus at the disposition of the
Government.”<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Thus early was there anticipation of a surplus.</p>

<p>At the same time the Minister suggested that Congress
should provide for the adjudication of the claims
and a dividend among claimants. This was done by
the Act of March 3, 1859, entitled “An Act to carry
into effect the Convention between the United States
and China, concluded on the 8th of November, 1858,
at Shanghai,”<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> authorizing the appointment of commissioners
“to receive and examine all claims which may
be presented to them under the said convention, according
to the provisions of the same, the principles of justice
and International Law,”&mdash;and further providing
“that the said commissioners shall report to the chief
diplomatic officer in China the several awards made by
them, to be approved by him,” which are to be paid out
of the revenues set apart for this purpose, in ratable
proportion, “according to the direction of the said diplomatic
officer.”</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span></p>

<p>The examination of the claims was completed in January,
1860, and the payments directed by the Commissioners
were duly made. Then occurred a condition of
things almost without precedent in the relations of nations.
After all the payments directed by the Commissioners,
a large surplus was found in the custody of the
legation at Peking, which was subsequently transferred
to the United States. This surplus, with accumulations
of interest and gain by exchange, less an amount paid
under authority of an Act of Congress approved February
22, 1869,<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> has been invested in Ten-Forty bonds,
which are now held by the State Department, amounting
at par to $386,000. Another amount of $206.87 in
cash is also in the possession of the Department; and
about $2,000 remain in the custody of the Minister to
China, who has been directed to make remittance of the
same.<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></p>

<p>The Secretary of State, in his Report on this subject,
as late as March 10, 1870, says that he “is not aware of
any claims against this fund which have not been considered
by the Commissioners and determined by them.”<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a></p>


<h3>PROPOSITIONS WITH REGARD TO SURPLUS.</h3>

<p>This surplus has been the subject of discussion for
more than a decade of years. During all this time it
has been before Congress without any definitive action.
As long ago as December, 1860, it was thus noticed by
President Buchanan in his Annual Message:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“After the awards shall have been satisfied, there will remain
a surplus of more than $200,000 at the disposition of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span>
Congress. <em>As this will in equity belong to the Chinese Government</em>,
would not justice require its appropriation to some benevolent
object in which the Chinese may be specially interested?”<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Nothing was done by Congress, and President Lincoln,
in his Annual Message of December, 1861, thus
followed in the footsteps of his predecessor:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I repeat the recommendation of my predecessor, in his
Annual Message to Congress in December last, in regard to
the disposition of the surplus which will probably remain
after satisfying the claims of American citizens against China,
pursuant to the awards of the Commissioners under the Act
of the 3d of March, 1859. If, however, it should not be
deemed advisable to carry that recommendation into effect, I
would suggest that authority be given for investing the principal,
over the proceeds of the surplus referred to, in good securities,
with a view to the satisfaction of such other just
claims of our citizens against China as are not unlikely to
arise hereafter in the course of our extensive trade with that
empire.”<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a></p>

</div>

<p>The subject was at this time considered by the Committee
on Foreign Relations, aided by the Secretary of
State, who laid before the Committee all the original
papers relating to the proceedings of the Commissioners.
In a communication to the Committee,<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> Mr. Seward
stated the case as he understood it, recognizing “the
refunding of the whole amount to the Chinese” as one
of the methods which “suggest themselves.” This was
in the summer of 1862, at the most critical period of
the war for the suppression of the Rebellion, and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span>
Committee did not feel disposed at that time to make
any recommendation with regard to the fund.</p>

<p>Meanwhile the disposition of this fund was discussed
elsewhere. Our distinguished representative in China,
Mr. Burlingame, entered upon it with characteristic ardor.
Regarding the fund as essentially Chinese in character,
if not belonging in equity to China, he urged that
it should be devoted to the foundation of an institution
of learning at Peking, which he proposed to call The
American College, or <i>Ta-Mei Kwoh Hioh-kung</i>: first, to
teach Americans the language and literature of China,
so as to fit them to be interpreters and consuls; and,
secondly, to educate Chinese in English studies and in
their own literature, with a view to employment by
their own rulers or by the United States. The usefulness
and practicability of such a college were developed
in two elaborate dispatches,&mdash;one bearing date Shanghai,
May 19, 1862,<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> and the other, Peking, November
18, 1863,<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> in the course of which Mr. Burlingame said
that he was “disposed to urge the adoption of this proposal
more with a reference to the benefit such a college
would be to the Chinese than to ourselves.”<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> Not content
with thus declaring his desire to make this fund of
benefit to them, he says,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> “In equity the balance appears
to belong to the Chinese, but they have no voice in its
disposal.”<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> His eloquent appeal has thus far been without
effect. Nothing has been done to carry out his recommendation,
and the question still remains, What to
do with the fund?</p>

<p>It is sometimes proposed that this fund should be reserved
for the satisfaction of possible claims hereafter.
But this would be contrary to the terms of the convention,
which expressly provides for the “claims of American
citizens at the various ports <em>to this date</em>,”&mdash;thus
positively limiting the disposition of the fund. Mr.
Burlingame, without referring to the terms of the convention,
objected to any such reservation as calculated
to produce embarrassment in our relations with China.
According to him, “<em>it would be preferable to return the
whole to them</em>, or distribute the money, as it accrues, to
the disappointed claimants, and those Chinese in the
employ of our citizens who suffered severe losses in
consequence of their connection with them, than to lay
it aside for future contingencies to settle with a government
like the Chinese.”<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> His authority on this proposition
may be considered decisive.</p>

<p>But there is another consideration which leads to the
same conclusion. Any retention of the fund to meet
possible future claims is a plain recognition of the interest,
if not the proprietorship of China; and since there
is no authority under the convention for its application
to possible future claims, it will be at least questionable
whether the Chinese Government should not have a
voice in the adjudication of such claims. At all events,
we shall assume a peculiar responsibility, if we undertake
to apply this fund to claims not contemplated by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span>
the convention. Nor is there any reason of expediency
which can justify such an assumption on our part.
China has evinced no disposition to be otherwise than
just to American citizens. Although twelve years have
elapsed since the date of the convention, there are no
outstanding claims against China which have received
the sympathy of our Government. Should any such
claims arise, it were far better that they should be presented
directly, and be satisfied by an award in their
favor. Meanwhile the old account should be closed.</p>

<p>A remark of Mr. Burlingame, already quoted, requires
one word of comment. He mentions, as a possible
course, the distribution of the fund among “disappointed
claimants, and those Chinese in the employ
of our citizens who suffered severe losses in consequence
of their connection with them.” Of the Chinese mentioned
the Committee know nothing. No claims in
their behalf have been presented. But since the award
of the Commissioners three different cases have occurred,
coming under the head of “Disappointed Claimants.”
The disposition of these is mentioned at the end of
this Report.<a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> It does not seem advisable that the
fund should be kept to meet such applications. The
awards of the Commissioners have been approved by
our Minister in China, and the proceedings closed. If
they were opened in the case of the Neva, it was because
the claimants there had not been heard in China.
It is not supposed that any other occasion can arise to
open these proceedings. The fund in question cannot
be regarded as a charity or largess for the gratification
of “disappointed claimants,” nor would it be proper for
the United States to play such a generous part at the
expense of China.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span></p>
<p>Our country has no house for its legation at Peking
or for its consulates in other places, nor does it possess
any buildings in China which it might use as courthouse
or jail; and latterly there has been a strong disposition
to apply this fund in this direction. Mr. Seward
seems to have inclined this way, as appears from
his Report to Congress,<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> and Mr. Fish also, as appears
from his Report to Congress.<a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> But this disposition proceeds
on the admission that the fund differs materially
from other moneys of the United States,&mdash;that, if it
does not belong to China, it bears the Chinese earmark
so strongly that it cannot be treated as belonging to our
national assets. In point of fact, all attempts to cover
it into the Treasury have proved unsuccessful.</p>

<p>Petitions from opposite quarters with regard to the
disposition of the fund attest a prevailing interest.</p>

<p>At a meeting of citizens in New York, March 11,
1870, a distinguished committee was appointed, with
Isaac Ferris, Chancellor of the University, as chairman,
with whom as associates were William E. Dodge, President
of the Chamber of Commerce, Frederick S. Winston,
E. D. Morgan, E. C. Benedict, A. A. Low, John C.
Green, James H. Taft, Stewart Brown, and William P.
Jones, many of them having large interests in China,
who adopted resolutions on this subject to be forwarded
to Congress. The first resolution declares,&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That this Committee is of opinion that the surplus of
the Indemnity Fund received from the Chinese under the
Convention of 1858, referred to in the Annual Message of
President Buchanan to the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth
Congress, and of President Lincoln to the Second Session
of the Thirty-Seventh Congress, with the accumulation
thereon, <em>certainly does belong in equity to the Chinese Government</em>,
as the Presidents therein declare, and <em>should be returned
to it</em>.”</p>

</div>

<p>The Committee then proceed to say, that, if such surplus
shall be declined by China, it should be expended,
according to the recommendation of Mr. Burlingame, in
founding a literary institution for the equal benefit of
Chinese and Americans.</p>

<p>Chicago responded to New York. At a meeting of
citizens March 31st, another committee was organized,
with R. B. Mason, the Mayor, as chairman,&mdash;and
among the members were William Bross, Lieutenant-Governor
of Illinois, Thomas Drummond, Judge of the
United States Circuit Court, James E. McLean, Collector
of Customs, N. S. Davis, Professor of Surgery in
the Medical College, Samuel M. Wiseman, President
of the First National Bank, J. C. Burroughs, President
of the University of Chicago, and E. D. Haven, President
of the Northwestern University, with others,&mdash;and
adopted resolutions, where, after approving those
of New York, they declare,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That it seems to us eminently fitting and fortunate that
this money, <em>which distinguished representatives of the United
States have asserted belongs in equity to the Chinese Government</em>,
though that government is disposed to waive its right
to it, should be employed in some way to the common advantage
and honor of both nations.”</p>

</div>

<p>The committee then proceed to resolve further,&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That in view of the impression conveyed by Secretary
Seward’s Report to the Third Session of the Fortieth Congress,
that the Chinese authorities are unwilling to receive
this money, this Committee respectfully memorializes Congress
to cover it into the United States Treasury as <em>a special
fund, to be returned to the Chinese Treasury</em>, or hereafter appropriated
to the establishment of the proposed institution of
learning at Peking, <em>as the Chinese Government may elect</em>.”</p>

</div>

<p>These two weighty committees concur in recognizing
the equity of China, if not her proprietorship, in this
fund. If it be true that the surplus belongs to China,
or that it is hers in equity, it will be difficult to defend
any proposition to return the amount indirectly, as in a
college or buildings for the accommodation of the United
States on Chinese soil. If returned at all, it must be
directly, and in the form of money. What right have
we to determine how to expend in China or for China
that which is hers? To do so would not be generous,
even if it were just. It would be ostentatious, and
might be offensive. It would assume that we can employ
the money of China, even in China, for her own
benefit, better than she can herself. At all events, it
would recognize an undefined title in China, to which
we deferred.</p>


<h3>THE CHINESE HAVE NOT REFUSED TO RECEIVE IT.</h3>

<p>But it cannot be disguised, that, when the two Secretaries
of State concurred in the idea of appropriating
this fund to the erection of buildings, also when Mr.
Burlingame made his earnest effort for its appropriation
to a college at Peking, and when two successive Presidents
invited Congress to consider what should be done
with it, there was an impression not only that the Chinese
would not allow the surplus to be returned, but
that they had peremptorily declined to entertain the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span>
proposition. Such was the impression when the attention
of the Committee was first called to this fund,
now many years ago. And it cannot be doubted that
this impression has exercised an influence in preventing
frank and explicit action on the question, according
to the obvious requirement of justice.</p>

<p>The Committee have endeavored to ascertain the
ground for the statement that the Chinese had refused
to receive the surplus. It seems, on inquiry, to be a
report or rumor started nobody knows precisely how or
when. Thus we find Mr. Seward saying, in his Report
of February 18, 1868:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“It appears, that, when it was ascertained that this surplus
would remain, the return of it to the Chinese Government
was proposed, but that they declined to accept it.”<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a></p>

</div>

<p>And Mr. Fish, in a similar Report, under date of
March 10, 1870, says likewise:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The Secretary of State is informed, that, after the awards
were completed, and it was definitely known that there would
be a surplus, Mr. Burlingame informally proposed to return
whatever should be left. The Chinese, however, did not
seem disposed to accept it.”<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></p>

</div>

<p>But these distinguished Secretaries do not adduce any
authority for their assertion; nor does careful search at
the State Department disclose any dispatch or record
sustaining or justifying it. On this point the Committee
are confident. No instruction was ever given to
any Minister authorizing him to tender a return of the
surplus, or even to sound the Chinese Government on
the question of receiving it, if tendered. In fact, no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span>
power exists in the State Department to authorize such
a tender. Such an act could proceed only from Congress,
which has never acted on the subject.</p>

<p>The Committee, therefore, dismiss the assumption
that there has been any tender to the Chinese, or any
refusal on their part, whether formal or informal, and
they approach the question simply on its merits.</p>


<h3>DUTY TO CHINA.</h3>

<p>Had this question arisen in our relations with a European
power, it would be only according to an important
precedent, if we forbore to open the transaction.
By two separate conventions, one in 1815 and the other
in 1818, France paid to England a large sum, amounting
to one hundred and thirty million francs, on account of
English claimants, and the English Government undertook
to dispose of all their claims, as the United States
undertook to dispose of all the claims of American citizens
in China. In 1852 Lord Lyndhurst brought the subject
before the House of Lords, when he stated that there
was “an unapplied balance of upwards of £200,000”;<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a>
and in 1861 Mr. Denman did the same in the House of
Commons, when he said, that, “after all claims had been
satisfied, there still remained a sum of £200,000 not in
any way to be considered due under the convention.”<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a>
Nothing was said of returning this surplus to France.
The Baron de Bode, a renowned litigant, made an ineffectual
attempt to obtain something out of it on account
of losses in France, although his case was argued<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span>
with consummate ability in the English courts,
and awakened the eloquence of Lord Lyndhurst in the
House of Lords. In an appeal for justice, the Baron
declares that out of the amount received by England,
only 67,071,301 francs had been paid to claimants, and
he insists that the Crown should account to the claimants,
<em>or to France</em>, for the unexpended surplus,&mdash;thus
recognizing an eventual proprietorship in France, after
the satisfaction of the claims.<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> What has been done
with this surplus since is not known.</p>

<p>But while the importance of doing equity always is a
paramount duty, the Committee feel that there is something
in the negotiation under which this surplus accrued
which should make us particularly careful lest we
fail to do equity. It will be observed that the sum received
from China was on account of certain claims of
our citizens, and that it was in no sense a national indemnity;
in other words, the consideration was specific,
and not general in character. The preamble of the convention
recites that it was entered into “for the satisfaction
of claims of American citizens,”&mdash;thus expressly
excluding any other consideration. With regard to
these claims the Chinese had little or no information,
while our Minister saw clearly, that, with the disallowance
of those doubtful, which he regarded as probable,
there would be a surplus. His words were: “If they be
recognized, the fund will be exhausted. If they be disallowed,
there will be a surplus at the disposition of the
Government.”<a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> The actual surplus was about thirty-three<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span>
and a third per cent. of the amount stipulated, and
about fifty per cent. of the amount awarded to claimants.
The considerableness of this sum is another reason why
we should hesitate to take advantage of a transaction
where we were so situated as to be the best informed
on the matter in issue. If we did not know everything
bearing on it, we knew much more than the Chinese.</p>

<p>In fact, the Chinese acted in the dark; and here we
have the testimony of Mr. Williams, the interpreter of
our Minister in the negotiation, and still an honored
servant of the Government, who has said in a dispatch:
“No list was presented to the Chinese by Mr. Reed”;
and again, “The United States Government was made
the sole judge of the justice of the claims”; and then
again, “In reality, they [the Chinese] paid the demands
made upon them by the English and French Ministers,
as well as the American, <em>under pressure</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> If this were
so,&mdash;and one of our own officers is the witness,&mdash;the
equity of the Chinese becomes more apparent. Obviously,
they were unable to examine the claims, and did
not pretend to examine them. Everything was left to
the United States. And this was done while the ancient
empire was torn by civil war, aggravated by the
menacing attitudes of England and France. It is not
too much to say that it was done “under pressure.”
According to well-known authorities, a deed made under
<em>duress</em> may be set aside; and this rule of jurisprudence
shows a just sensitiveness with regard to that
absolute freedom which is essential to the life of a contract.
Such a rule, if applied in the intercourse of nations,
would invalidate most of those conventions after<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span>
war or menace by which one power has assumed obligations
to another, and, indeed, would strike at war and
menace as modes of pursuing a claim. In the present
case the validity of the convention is not called in
question; but, since we assert no right of conquest,
it is properly suggested that the original pressure upon
China, attested by one of our own functionaries, peculiarly
intimate with the transaction, is an additional
reason why we should decline to take advantage of the
convention beyond the just satisfaction of our citizens.</p>

<p>And this brings the Committee to the conclusion,
that, in equity, this fund does not belong to us. Whatever
may be our technical title, in conscience the money
is not ours.</p>

<p>In returning to China the fund in question and its
accretions, the United States will relieve themselves of
an embarrassing trust, while they render unto the distant
Cæsar what is his own, and set an example by
which republican institutions will be elevated. The
question of its application, which has occupied the attention
of successive Presidents, which has been presented
to successive Congresses, and is still undecided,
will be at rest. Schemes for the bestowal of the fund
in such a way as to harmonize our sense of justice with
our obligations to China, if not with Chinese proprietorship,
will cease. There will be nothing for “disappointed
claimants” to pursue. China will receive her own,&mdash;if
with astonishment, it will be only because nations
have so rarely lived according to the Golden Rule.
Such an act cannot be otherwise than honorable to
the United States. It will be a victory in a new field,
making us first in a new order of conquerors. China,
with infinite resources, will be more than ever open to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span>
American enterprise. Thus, while doing right, shall we
benefit ourselves. So is justice to others the way to national
advantage. But whatever this advantage, it must
not be forgotten that the first inducement is the essential
equity of the case.</p>

<p>The measure now proposed will be valuable in proportion
as it is spontaneous. Thus far China has made
no demand, or suggestion even. A year hence the venerable
Empire may appear before the youthful Republic
with a formal claim. The very fact that we deliberate
about this fund will spread the tidings of its existence.
Better anticipate a demand than wait and at last yield
an ungracious compliance, urged by a foreign plenipotentiary
in the service of the ancient government whose
money is now in our hands.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The Report was accompanied by the following Joint Resolution,
which was read and passed to a second reading:&mdash;</p>

</div>


<h3>JOINT RESOLUTION, DIRECTING THE RETURN OF CERTAIN
MONEYS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CHINA.</h3>

<p>Whereas on the 8th day of November, 1858, a convention
was entered into between the United States and China
for the settlement of claims against the latter by citizens of
the United States, and in pursuance thereof an amount of
five hundred thousand taels, making seven hundred thousand
dollars in gold, or thereabouts, was paid by China, out of
which sum, after the satisfaction of all claims exhibited by
citizens of the United States, there remains in the hands of
the United States an unappropriated surplus, amounting,
with interest and exchange, to four hundred thousand dollars
in currency, or thereabouts, which sum is now in custody
of the Department of State: Now, therefore,</p>

<p><i>Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled</i>, That the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span>
unappropriated surplus now in the hands of the United
States, under the convention with China, of November 8,
1858, be refunded to the Government of China; and it
shall be the duty of the President of the United States to
see that this is carried into effect.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<h3>APPENDIX.</h3>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<h4>(A). Page 121.<br />
LETTER OF MR. SEWARD TO MR. SUMNER.</h4>

<div class="blockquote">

<p class="right medium"><span class="smcap">Department of State, Washington</span>, June 21, 1862.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;I duly received your letter of the 3d instant, accompanied
by a copy of the resolution of the Senate of the 2d
instant, referring to the consideration of the Committee on
Foreign Relations of that part of the President’s Annual
Message to Congress, of December last, which adverts to
the difference between the amount stipulated to be paid
by China in satisfaction of claims of United States citizens
and the gross amount of the awards of the Commissioners appointed
pursuant to the Act of Congress of the 3d of March,
1859.</p>

<p>In compliance with your request for information and suggestion
upon the subject, I have the honor to communicate a
copy of the Convention, a copy of the Act to carry it into
effect, a copy of all the correspondence on record or on file
in the Department touching the matter, and all the original
papers relating to the proceedings of the Commissioners. It
is desirable that great care should be taken of these last, and
that they should be returned to the Department as soon as
the subject shall have been disposed of.</p>

<p>The circumstance of the complaints against the Chinese,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span>
which it was the purpose of the convention to adjust, having
arisen in a peculiar region and among a singular people, probably
suggested the appointment of Commissioners resident on
the spot, who were familiar with the scene of their duties.
It is understood, therefore, that, upon the recommendation of
Mr. Reed, the Minister who concluded the convention, Mr.
Charles W. Bradley, who was United States Consul at Ning-po,
and Mr. Oliver E. Roberts, who had acted in a similar
capacity elsewhere in China, and both of whom had long resided
in that country, were appointed Commissioners. The
business-like manner in which they discharged their trust is
manifest from the records of the Commission.</p>

<p>With regard to the disposition of the surplus in question,
three methods suggest themselves.</p>

<p>1. The refunding of the whole amount to the Chinese.</p>

<p>2. Appropriating the whole or a part of it in payment of
claims supposed to have been unjustly rejected by the Commissioners,
and of others in which the amounts allowed may
not have been satisfactory to the claimants.</p>

<p>3. Retaining the whole surplus in the Treasury of the
United States, or causing it to be invested toward indemnifying
citizens who may hereafter be injured by the Chinese
authorities.</p>

<p>I will abstain from any remarks on the first head.</p>

<p>There is but one claim, that of Messrs. Nott &amp; Co., disallowed
by the Commissioners,&mdash;in which case application
has been made for a part of the surplus referred to. The
claimants allege that their agents in China were too far from
Macao, the place where the Commissioners met, to allow
them to appeal to the Minister in season. The Committee
will be enabled to judge of the sufficiency of this reason for
considering the claim in that case an open one.</p>

<p>The award in the Caldera case is the only one complained of
as having been inadequate. As all the facts and arguments
in the case are embraced in the accompanying papers, <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span>the
Committee can form their own opinion upon this point.</p>

<p>The Minister who concluded the convention pursued a judicious
course in requiring from the Chinese a sum in gross
adequate to meet the sums claimed in the several cases.
This, however, can hardly be allowed to imply, that, even
in his opinion, the claimants in those cases ought to receive
the amounts which severally they might expect.</p>

<p>Congress made it the duty of the Commissioners, by an investigation
judicial in its character, to ascertain the amounts
justly due; and if the claimants should be dissatisfied with
the decisions of the Commissioners, an appeal to the Minister
was allowed, whose decision was expected to be final.</p>

<p>The expediency of sanctioning a review of decisions of
the Commissioners or arbiter may be deemed questionable.
They were all of high character, peculiarly qualified for the
trust conferred upon them. It is for Congress to consider the
conveniences and inconveniences of such a precedent, when
the Government, in all its branches, may be considered to
have already fulfilled its duty to the claimants, collectively
and individually.</p>

<p>The whole subject is one of a purely legislative character,
affecting a fund which, although it came into the Treasury
in a peculiar manner, seems to me to belong to the United
States. This Department has no authority to inquire whether
there are equities existing on the part of any of our citizens
which Congress ought to consult in directing the disposition
of the fund. If Congress should impose any inquiry
of that nature upon the Department, it would undertake the
performance of it cheerfully and with a purpose only to consult
justice and the public advantage. But the Department
sees no ground for recommending such a measure in the present
case.</p>

<p>I have the honor to be, Sir, your very obedient servant,</p>

<p class="sig"><span class="smcap">William H. Seward</span>.</p>

<p class="noindent medium"><span class="smcap">Hon. Charles Sumner</span>,<br />
<i>Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations,<br />
United States Senate</i>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span></p>

</div>

<hr class="tb" />

<h4>(B). Page 454.<br />
CLAIMS SINCE THE AWARD.</h4>

<p>It remains to speak of claims which have been brought
forward or renewed since the awards were made.</p>

<p>One of these is that of Matthew Rooney, master of the
bark Caldera, which had been presented to the Commissioners,
but was not considered by them, in the absence of proof
of citizenship. In 1864 his representatives produced to Mr.
Burlingame evidence on this head, and the latter directed
that he should be paid in the same manner and proportion as
other persons interested in the same class of claims had been
paid by order of Mr. Ward, our Minister at Peking.<a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></p>

<p>Mr. Burlingame says, in his dispatch reporting the action
which he had taken in this matter: “There is no other demand
that can ever come up for payment out of this Indemnity
Fund, which has not been examined and decided.”<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a></p>

<p>Other claims have, however, been brought to notice. Some
of these are known as the Caldera claims; another is the Neva
or Nott &amp; Co.’s claim.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>The Caldera was a Chilian bark. On the 5th October,
1854, she sailed from Hong-Kong for San Francisco. During
the ensuing night she encountered a storm, by which she
was so injured as to be obliged to seek an anchorage. This
she found, on the 7th October, between islands lying off the
Chinese coast. Here she was attacked and plundered by successive
piratical bands. The captain escaped and made his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span>
way to Hong-Kong, when, upon his information, steps were
taken to recover the property and punish the pirates. A
small portion of the cargo was found, and summary justice
was inflicted upon such of the pirates as were captured.</p>

<p>The master of the Caldera was an American. An American
firm were shippers by her, and various American insurance
offices had taken risks upon the hull of the vessel and
the larger portion of her cargo. These all appealed to Mr.
McLane, then the chief diplomatic officer of the United
States in China, with a view to secure indemnity. Mr.
McLane declined to take action, declaring that our treaty
offered “no basis whatever on which to make a claim against
the Chinese Government,”<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> and referred the subject to Mr.
Marcy, then Secretary of State. The latter responded, under
date of October 5, 1855, “that the parties injured were entitled
to indemnification from the Government of China, if not
specially by treaty, at least by general principles of international
right and obligation.”<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> The same matter forms the
subject of a dispatch from Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, to
Mr. Ward, dated May 5, 1859, in which, after declaring that
“the decision of the case will rest with the Commissioners
and yourself,” and detailing certain allegations made to him
by the claimants, who appear to have been very active, he
says: “If facts of such a nature be proved, the responsibility
of the Chinese Government and its duty to make indemnity
would seem to be fixed, according to the treaty, as well as according
to the Law of Nations.”<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a></p>

<p>The matter was brought before the Commissioners in 1859,
and a patient hearing seems to have been given by them, the
result of which was a disagreement between them. Both
rendered elaborate opinions: one adjudging that no portion
of the claims should be allowed; the other, an opposite<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span>
view, and he proceeded to assess the damages sustained by
the claimants. These he estimated at forty per cent. of their
claim, holding that the vessel and her cargo had been injured
by the storm to the extent of sixty per cent. of their value.
The case then went before Mr. Ward, whose conclusion was
expressed in the following words:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Under the instructions of Mr. Marcy, thus reaffirmed by Mr.
Cass, my duty may be discharged by ascertaining, as far as possible,
what have been ‘the actual losses of our citizens.’ Satisfied
with the award of Mr. Roberts on this point, I have approved the
same, and ordered the amounts awarded by him to be paid to the
respective claimants.”<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a></p>

</div>

<p>The amounts so paid exceeded $54,000 in coin. This
was received by the several claimants, and it does not appear
that they protested against the awards. Some of them were,
however, dissatisfied, and in 1863 addressed Mr. Burlingame,
setting forth their views, and asking him to favor their purpose
for a rehearing. Mr. Burlingame, as will be seen on
reference to his dispatch of October 5, 1863,<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> entered on a
thorough examination of their statements, and arrived at the
conclusion that the awards ought not to be disturbed, using
strong language in this sense.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>The Neva was a British schooner. Messrs. Nott &amp; Co.
were American merchants, residing at Hong-Kong. On the
16th October, 1857, they shipped by the Neva, then bound
for the port of Foo-chow, five packages containing twenty
thousand Mexican dollars. The vessel sailed at 3 o’clock
P.M. of the 17th, and the same evening, while at anchor a
short distance beyond the limits of the port of Hong-Kong,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span>
five Chinese came alongside and requested passage to Foo-chow,
which was granted. At 11 o’clock that night these
Chinese and the Chinese members of the crew took possession
of the vessel; and having murdered the master and
some of the crew and secured the rest, they broke into the
hold, seized four of the packages of silver and removed them
to the shore. The efforts of Messrs. Nott &amp; Co. to recover
the treasure were unsuccessful; and finally, the firm having
ceased to exist, the agent representing their interests placed
the claim before the Commissioners, who rejected it. Correspondence
with the State Department ensued, and in 1869
the representatives of the firm appeared before Congress, declaring
that their agent was absent from the South of China,
where the Commissioners held their sittings, at the time when
the awards were made, and that they had then, innocently,
been deprived of their right to appeal from them to the Minister.
The Attorney-General was directed by Congress to examine
their claim, and, if in his judgment it was valid, he
was empowered to award its payment out of the Indemnity
Fund. The Attorney-General decided in favor of the claimants,
and directed payment of a certain sum in gold. Mr.
Washburne, then Secretary of State, held that he was not
authorized to make the payment in any other than current
funds of the United States. From this ruling the claimants
have lately appealed to the Court of Claims, which has
decided that the award of the Attorney-General should be
compl<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span>ied with. This will make a small deduction from the
fund.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<h2><a name="TAX_ON_BOOKS" id="TAX_ON_BOOKS"></a>TAX ON BOOKS.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, June 30, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>A bill “to reduce internal taxes and for other purposes” being
under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved to add to the free list of imports
“books in foreign or dead languages, of which no editions are
printed in the United States.” In conclusion of a running debate
relative to the application of this amendment, Mr. Sumner said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">Senators seem to argue that this is applicable exclusively,
or almost exclusively, to school-books;
but we are all aware that outside of school-books there
are works of literature, of instruction generally, of travels,
of romance if you please, interesting in families, and
which thousands who are familiar, for instance, with the
German language, would be glad to have. For example,
here is the large German population of our country,&mdash;is
it not right that they should have the means of adding
to those innocent recreations that are found in reading?
We shall be doing a real service to them, if we
enable them to import books that they lack, cheap,&mdash;not
merely school-books, but I mean the large class of
books outside of school-books. I see no possible objection
to this provision, while I see much in its favor.</p>

<p>I have alluded to the large German population. There
is also a very considerable Italian population. Some one
told me the other day, who professed to know, that there
are three hundred thousand Italians in our country.
That seemed to me very large; but it was an estimate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>
made by an Italian. Now should not those Italians be
enabled under our tariff law to import books from their
own country, of literature or of science, without paying
a tax? It seems to me that we owe that gratification
to them, when they come here to join their fortunes to
ours. And so you may go through the whole list of
European nations. Take Spaniards; take Swedes; take
Danes: I know not why their books should be taxed,
when they come to them from across the sea. It seems
to me that the tax is inhospitable; it is churlish; and
of course it is a tax on knowledge.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The amendment was rejected.</p>

<p>Mr. Sumner then moved to add,&mdash;“Also books with illustrations
relating to the sciences and the arts,”&mdash;saying:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p>On that I wish to read a remark of an intelligent person
not belonging to the class that the Senator from
Ohio characterized as rich men who import books, but
one who imports books because he needs them. Remarking
on the works of science and the arts, including
books on architecture and the fine arts, which now pay
very heavily at the custom-house, he says:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Books of this kind are too costly, and the sale of them is
too limited, for them to be reprinted. To add to their cost
by a heavy duty is an outrage, for it is depriving men of
small means of the tools whereby they live. It is a queer
kind of protection of home industry which seeks to keep out
of the country by taxation the knowledge which makes industry
valuable.”</p>

</div>

<p>Now I put it to Senators whether any injurious consequence
can result from allowing these books to come
in free. The duty that you receive from them is small;
it is very little for you to give up; but in givin<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span>g facilities
to the importation of such books you contribute to
knowledge. I am sure of it. I have no motive in making
this motion, or this succession of motions, except
my anxiety for the extension of knowledge in this Republic.
I am for free schools; I am for free knowledge
everywhere; and I wish to beat down all the obstructions
possible, and one of these is the tax which we impose
in our tariff. I hope there can be no question on
that amendment.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The vote being taken by yeas and nays resulted, Yeas 14, Nays 26;
so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> this amendment was likewise rejected.</p>

</div>



<hr class="chap" />
<h2><a name="NATURALIZATION_LAWS_NO_DISCRIMINATION" id="NATURALIZATION_LAWS_NO_DISCRIMINATION"></a>NATURALIZATION LAWS: NO DISCRIMINATION
ON ACCOUNT OF COLOR.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, July 2 and 4, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>July 2, 1870, the Senate having under consideration a bill “to amend
the Naturalization Laws and to punish crimes against the same,” which
had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary as a substitute
for one from the House,&mdash;the particular object of both bills being the
prevention of the election frauds perpetrated through the instrumentality
of unnaturalized or illegally naturalized aliens,&mdash;Mr. Sumner
moved to add, as a new section, a bill previously introduced by himself,
and reported favorably from the same Committee, providing&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That all Acts of Congress relating to naturalization be, and the same
are hereby, amended by striking out the word ‘white’ wherever it occurs,
so that in naturalization there shall be no distinction of race or color.”</p>

</div>

<p>The motion was strenuously resisted, as ill-timed and out of place,&mdash;Mr.
Edmunds, of the Judiciary Committee, remarking, that, although
he reported the bill in question, and believed in it so far as
he now understood, yet, under existing circumstances, he should vote
against it as an amendment to the pending bill.</p>

<p>Mr. Sumner briefly responded:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;The remark of the Senator
from Vermont [Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>] renders it necessary
for me to make a brief statement. Some time
during the last Congress I had the honor of introducing
a bill to strike the word “white” from our Naturalization
Laws. I tried to have it put on its passage. I
was resisted then by the Senator from Vermont, who
moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span>
There it remained until near the expiration of that Congress,
and was then reported adversely, too late for further
action. During the third week of the present Congress,
now more than a year ago, I introduced the same
bill again. It remained in the room of the Judiciary
Committee from March, 1869, until very recently, when
it was reported favorably.</p>

<p>Such, Sir, have been my efforts to bring the Senate
to a vote on this question. Never till this moment
has it been in my power to have a vote on a question
which I deem of vital importance. I have here on
my table letters from different States,&mdash;from California,
from Florida, from Virginia,&mdash;all showing a considerable
number of colored persons&mdash;shall I say of African
blood?&mdash;aliens under our laws, who cannot be naturalized
on account of that word “white.”</p>

<p>Now, Sir, here is a practical grievance which needs a
remedy. This is the first time that I have been able to
obtain a vote upon it; and I should be unworthy of my
seat here, if, because Senators rise and say they will
vote it down on the ground that it is out of place, I
should hesitate to persevere. Senators will vote as they
please; I shall vote for it. The Senator from Illinois
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>] properly says it is in place. Never
was there a bill to which it was more germane. You
are now revising the naturalization system, and I propose
to strike out from that system a requirement disgraceful
to this country and to this age. I propose to
bring our system into harmony with the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
The word “white” cannot be found in either of these
two great title-deeds of this Republic. How can you
place it in your statutes?</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The motion was lost,&mdash;Yeas 22, Nays 23.</p>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span>
<p>Subsequently, on the same day, the pending bill was itself defeated,
the original bill being preferred,&mdash;and the latter now coming up, Mr.
Sumner renewed his amendment, remarking,&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p>Now I have to say that that is worth all the rest of
the bill put together. That is a section that is pure
gold. It will do more for the character and honor and
good name of this Republic than all the rest of the bill.
I am for the rest of the bill, but this is better than all
the rest. Now I ask for the yeas and nays.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>After further debate the amendment prevailed,&mdash;Yeas 27, Nays 22;
whereupon Mr. Williams, of Oregon, moved the following addition:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“<i>Provided</i>, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the
naturalization of persons born in the Chinese Empire.”</p>

</div>

<p>July 4th, the debate on the House bill being resumed, Mr. Conkling,
of New York, criticized sharply the course of Mr. Sumner in pressing
his amendment, to the peril of the bill,&mdash;denominating it “an act of
self-will in defeating the purpose of a great majority of this body to
consummate a simple, practical, and urgent measure.” Mr. Sumner
replied as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,&mdash;The Senator from New York has
chosen to make an assault on me to-day, because, in the
discharge of my duties, I do not see my duty as he sees
his duty,&mdash;because on this Fourth day of July I choose
to stand by the Declaration of our fathers. For that I
am impeached by the Senator from New York.</p>

<p>He presses me to postpone this proposition until to-morrow.
When, Sir, will that to-morrow come? Can
the Senator tell? Is he adept enough to indicate the
day, or even the week, when a vote can be had on it?
The Senator knows, he must know, that, if not voted on
now, it will fail during the present session. The Senator
shakes his head; but he knows too much of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span>
business now before the Senate not to see that I am
right. What chance is there of getting before the Senate
the original bill containing this proposition? Why,
Sir, the bill was introduced first on the 19th of July,
1867, now three years ago. I tried then to put it on its
passage, deeming it so simple that there was no need of
a reference to any committee. The Senator from Vermont
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>] prevailed against me by insisting
that it should be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
It was referred, and there it slumbered until
that Congress was about to close, thus sleeping the long
sleep.</p>

<p>On the 22d of March, 1869, which was in the next
Congress, I introduced the same bill again,&mdash;I have it
before me,&mdash;and again it slumbered in the hands of the
Judiciary Committee until a few weeks ago, when at
last it was reported to the Senate. Then it took its
place on the Calendar, with the numerous other bills
there, important and unimportant, some very important,
all in competition with it.</p>

<p>What chance have I had for a vote upon it? From
the 19th of July, 1867, down to this hour, Saturday
was the first day I was able to have a vote upon it;
and now to-day Senators insist that I shall withdraw it,
and postpone the whole question to some “to-morrow,”
some indefinite, unknown to-morrow.</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow</div>
<div class="verse">Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,</div>
<div class="verse">To the last syllable of recorded time;</div>
<div class="verse">And all our yesterdays have lighted fools</div>
<div class="verse">The way to dusty death.”</div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Sir, I am not one of those “fools.” I will not postpone
this question to any “to-morrow.” The Senate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span>
will do as they please; but, God willing, they shall
have an opportunity to vote on it. Vote as you please,
Sir, but the time has come for a vote.</p>

<p>Mr. President, this is not the only bill on the Calendar
which concerns the rights of colored persons. There
are two on the Calendar, and one now before the Judiciary
Committee. The first on the Calendar was reported
by me from the Committee on the District of
Columbia as long ago as February 8, 1870, and is entitled
“A bill to repeal the charter of the Medical Society
of the District of Columbia.” That society has
been guilty of an act which I have no hesitation, on all
the testimony before us, in declaring to be one of infamy,
for which they deserve the promptest judgment
of Congress, which shall take from them the power to
inflict indignity on their fellow-man. Enjoying a charter
from Congress which dedicates them and sets them
apart to the cultivation of medical science, they have
undertaken to exclude persons otherwise competent simply
on account of color. They have set up a test of
membership founded on color. The evidence is irrefutable;
and yet I have been unable to bring the Senate to
a vote on that bill; and meanwhile colored physicians
in this District are subjected to the indignity of exclusion
from the Society, and thus are shut out from opportunities
of medical instruction.</p>

<p>There is another bill, which I reported from the Committee
on the District of Columbia May 6, 1870, entitled
“A bill to secure equal rights in the public schools
of Washington and Georgetown.” That, also, I have
tried in vain to press upon the Senate. There is, then,
another bill, whic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span>h I had the honor of introducing May
13, 1870, entitled “A bill supplementary to an Act entitled
‘An Act to protect all citizens of the United
States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means
for their vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866.” This important
bill was duly referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, but I have heard nothing from it since. It
slumbers on the table of the Committee.</p>

<p>Of all these measures which concern equal rights,
the only one which I have been able to bring before
the Senate is that under consideration; and I am now
pressed to withdraw it so as to avoid a vote. Why, Sir,
again and again in other years have I been pressed in
the same way; again and again in other years have Senators
spoken to me and of me as the Senator from New
York was advised to speak to-day: but it has not been
my habit to yield; nor have I been alone, Sir, in such
determination. One of the most beautiful instances in
parliamentary history, familiar, doubtless, to the Chamber,
is that motion of Mr. Buxton in the House of Commons,
in 1832, which determined Emancipation. The
Ministry professed to be against Slavery; a large number
of the House of Commons made the same profession;
but they were against declaring it; and when Mr.
Buxton gave notice of a motion in favor of immediate
emancipation, Ministry, members of the House, and personal
friends came to him entreating that he would not
press his motion, especially that he would not divide
the House. One of his family records in his Memoirs,
which I have in my hands, says:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“He was cruelly beset, and acutely alive to the pain of refusing
them, and, as they said, of embarrassing all their
measures, and giving their enemies a handle at this tottering
moment.”<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a></p>

</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span></p>

<p>Then it is recorded of his friends in the House:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“‘They hated,’ they said, ‘dividing against him when
their hearts were all for him; it was merely a nominal difference;
why should he split hairs? He was sure to be
beaten; where was the use of bringing them all into difficulty,
and making them vote against him?’ He told us that
he thought he had a hundred applications of this kind in the
course of the evening; in short, nearly every friend he had
in the House came to him, and by all considerations of reason
and friendship besought him to give way.”<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></p>

</div>

<p>On that occasion he wrote to the leader of the House
of Commons, Lord Althorp, under date of May 22, 1832,
as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Allow me, moreover, to remind you, that, however insignificant
in myself, I am the representative, on this question,
of no mean body in this country, who would be, to an extent
of which I believe you have no idea, disappointed and chagrined
at the suspension of the question.”<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Sir, in a humble way I may adopt this language. I,
too, am the representative, on this question, of no mean
body in this country, who I know would be disappointed
and chagrined at the suspension of the question.
The English Emancipationist refused to yield; he insisted,
according to the language of Parliament, on dividing
the House. He was left in a minority, but that
vote determined Emancipation; and the Ministry and
those personal friends who had advised against his
course complimented him upon that firmness which
had at last assured the victory.</p>

<p>I doubt if Senators are aware of the practical bearing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span>
of this proposition on the Atlantic seaboard, and even
in California. I said on Saturday that I had letters
from various parts of the country attesting that there
are colored aliens shut out from equal rights by that
word “white” in our Naturalization Laws. I did not
then read the letters; but as this debate now promises
to extend, I deem it my duty to lay some of them before
the Senate.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>Mr. Sumner here read four letters,&mdash;two from Florida, one from
California, and another from Virginia.<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Such, Sir, is the personal testimony with regard to
the importance, I would say the necessity, of this measure.
Here are Africans in our country shut out from
rights which justly belong to them, simply because Congress
continues the word “white” in the Naturalization
Laws. These men are humble, but they are none the
less worthy of protection. Ay, Sir, it is your duty to
protect them. Even if few, you cannot afford to let
them suffer wrong; but they are numerous,&mdash;in Florida
counted by the hundred, and even the thousand.</p>

<p>Strong as this measure is, as an act of justice, whether
to many or few, it has another title. Its highest importance
is found in its conformity to the requirement of
the Declaration of Independence. Sir, this is the Fourth
of July, when our fathers together solemnly declared as
follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed.”</p>

</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span></p>

<p>The great, the mighty words of this clause are, that
these self-evident, unalienable rights belong to “all
men.” It is “all men,” and not a race or color, that
are placed under protection of the Declaration; and
such was the voice of our fathers on the fourth day
of July, 1776. Sir, such was the baptismal vow of
this nation. According to this vow, <em>all men</em> are created
equal and endowed with unalienable rights. But the
statutes of the land assert the contrary,&mdash;they declaring
that only all <em>white</em> men are created equal.</p>

<p>Now, Sir, what better thing can you do on this anniversary
than to expunge from the statutes that unworthy
limitation which dishonors and defiles the original
Declaration? It is in your power to make the day
more than ever sacred.</p>

<p>How can you hesitate? There are the words. Does
any one question the text? Will any one move to
amend the text? Will any one insist that hereafter,
as these great words are read on our great anniversary,
the word “white” shall be inserted to qualify
this sublime Declaration? No one will venture such a
suggestion. There they are; there they will remain as
long as this Republic endures. But if you are not ready
to change the original text, you must then change your
statutes and bring them into harmony with the text.
The word “white,” wherever it occurs as a limitation
of rights, must disappear. Only in this way can you
be consistent with the Declaration.</p>

<p>Senators undertake to disturb us in this judgment
by reminding us of the possibility of large numbers
swarming from China; but the answer to all this is
very obvious and very simple. If the Chinese come<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span>
here, they will come for citizenship or merely for labor.
If they come for citizenship, then in this desire do they
give a pledge of loyalty to our institutions; and where
is the peril in such vows? They are peaceful and industrious;
how can their citizenship be the occasion of
solicitude?</p>

<p>We are told that they are Imperialists; but before
they can be citizens they must renounce Imperialism.
We are told that they are foreigners in heart; but before
they can take part with us they must renounce
their foreign character. Therefore do I say, if they
come for citizenship, there is no peril,&mdash;while, if they
come merely for labor, then is all this discussion and all
this anxiety superfluous.</p>

<p>Why introduce the topic into debate? Is there a Senator
on this floor who will say that from anything done
or said by Chinese at this moment there is any reason
to fear peril to this Republic? Sir, the greatest peril to
this Republic is from disloyalty to its great ideas. Only
in this way can peril come. Let us surrender ourselves
freely and fearlessly to the principles originally declared.
Such is the way of safety. How grand, how beautiful,
how sublime is that road to travel! How mean, how
dark, how muddy is that other road which has found
counsellors to-day! Listening to the speech of the Senator
from Nevada [Mr. <span class="smcap">Stewart</span>], more than once, nay,
thrice over, denying the Declaration of Independence, I
was reminded of an incident in the Gospels. I have the
book from the desk of the Secretary, and now read the
pertinent passage: it is in Matthew, chapter twenty-six:&mdash;</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span></p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came
unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.</p>

<p>“But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what
thou sayest.</p>

<p>“And when he was gone out into the porch another maid
saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was
also with Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>“And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the
man.</p>

<p>“And after a while came unto him they that stood by,
and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for
thy speech bewrayeth thee.</p>

<p>“Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not
the man. And immediately the cock crew.</p>

<p>“And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said
unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice.
And he went out, and wept bitterly.”</p>

</div>

<p>Sir, thrice has a Senator on this floor denied these
great principles of the Declaration of Independence.
The time may come when he will weep bitterly.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>On a subsequent motion by Mr. Conkling for the reconsideration of
the vote on Mr. Sumner’s amendment, in consequence of the debate
ensuing upon Mr. Williams’s proviso, Mr. Sumner said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p>The Senator from Oregon [Mr. <span class="smcap">Williams</span>], who spoke
with earnestness and with argumentative force this morning,
before the motion to reconsider was made, has given
us reasons why we should not admit the Chinese into
the promised fellowship of the Declaration of Independence.
I took down some of his precious words,&mdash;not
many.</p>

<p>He says that my proposition gives to millions of
heathens and pagans power to control our institutions.
How and when have I made any such proposition? I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span>
wish the Senator were here, that I might ask him to explain
this unjustifiable exaggeration. How and when?
I make no proposition that I do not find in the institutions
of my country. I simply ask you to stand by the
Declaration of your fathers. I say nothing about millions
of heathens and pagans. I do not ask to give
them power or control. Full well do I know that there
are no millions of heathens or pagans, and no other millions
on this earth, that can control the institutions of
this Republic. I know that we stand too firm to suffer
from any such contact. Fearlessly we may go forward
and welcome all comers, for there can be no harm here;
the heathens and pagans do not exist whose coming
can disturb our Republic. Worse than any heathen
or pagan abroad are those in our midst who are false
to our institutions. Millions of heathens and pagans!
Whence are they to come? From China? But if they
come for citizenship, then, as I said this morning, do
they give the pledge of loyalty to the Republic; and
how can you fear them, if they enter your courts and
with oaths and witnesses ask to be incorporated with
our citizenship?</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Stewart.</span> Allow me to ask the Senator if he knows
any way in which they can give a pledge that they would
understand as binding on them?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Precisely as an Englishman, a Scotchman,
an Irishman, a Frenchman, a German, a Swede, a
Dane, a Russian, or an African may give a pledge; precisely
as the Senator may give a pledge. I have seen
the Senator go up to that table and take the oath. The
Senator is able. He knows that I know that; but does<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span>
the Senator suppose that he surpasses in ability many
of the Chinese who might come here? Does the Senator
suppose that he feels more keenly the oath which he
took at that desk than a Chinese might feel it? I am
not speaking of those who may come over here in enforced
labor: I join with the Senator in effort to stop
that. But I am speaking of the intelligent Chinese, so
well and satisfactorily described by the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. <span class="smcap">Schurz</span>] this morning, who come voluntarily
to join their fortunes with ours. Suppose they
come, where is the peril? Sir, it is against common
sense to imagine peril from such a source.</p>

<p>The Senator from Missouri has shown you how slowly
they must come, according to the natural order of
things,&mdash;how many decades of years it must take before
there will be a million of them, while meantime
our population is swelling by unknown millions, so that
when we have a solitary million of Chinese we shall
have one hundred millions of intelligent Americans
treading this continent. And yet the Senator from Nevada
is afraid. “What! a soldier, and afraid!” What!
a Senator of the United States anxious about a million
of Chinese twenty-five or thirty years from now absorbed
in that mighty one hundred millions which will
then compose our population! The Senator is not in
earnest; he cannot be. He was certainly excited in
speech, if I may judge from manner; but I really believe,
that, in quiet thought reviewing this whole question,
he will see that he has hastily taken counsel of
fear rather than of reason. Let the Senator put trust in
the Republic, and those ideas which are its strength and
glory.</p>

<p>The Senator from Oregon wound up another passage<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span>
by charging me and those who voted with me, particularly
myself, with an intention, or with conduct calculated,&mdash;I
quote now his own words,&mdash;“to put the destinies
of this nation into the hands of Joss-worshippers.”
Sir, that is a strong, pungent phrase; but is it true?
Who here proposes any such thing? How can Joss-worshippers
obtain control of the destinies of this nation?
Will any Senator be good enough to tell me?
By what hocus-pocus, by what necromancy, by what
heathen magic will these Joss-worshippers obtain the
great ascendency? Why, Sir, it is to disparage this Republic
of ours, it is to belittle it, when you imagine any
such thing. The peril exists only in imagination; it is
an illusion, not a reality.</p>

<p>Then the Senator proceeded to denounce the Chinese
as Imperialists and Pagans. Pagans perhaps,&mdash;though
Senators who have ever looked into those books which
have done so much for the Chinese mind will hesitate
before they use harsh language in speaking of their belief.
Has any Senator read the system of Confucius,
uttered before that of the Saviour, and yet containing
truths marvellously in harmony with those which fell
from his lips? Throughout this great, populous empire
the truths of Confucius have been ever regarded as we
regard our Scriptures. They are the lesson for the
young and the old, and the rule for government and for
rulers; they are full of teachings of virtue. And yet
the Chinese are called Pagans! Imperialists they may
be while they remain in China, for their ruler is an Emperor.
But what are Frenchmen? Are they not Imperialists?
What are Russians? Are they not Imperialists?
And yet will any Senator rise here and say
that a Frenchman, that a Russian, shall not be admitted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span>
to naturalization? I take it not. Of course the Frenchman,
the Russian, and the Chinese will begin by renouncing
Imperialism. Therefore it is perfectly idle to
say that he is an Imperialist.</p>

<p>The Senator then blazed forth with a fulmination:
“Let the people of Massachusetts know that her Senator
is willing that Chinese should come to Massachusetts.”
Those were his words. Well, Sir, I think the
people of Massachusetts know their Senator well enough
to be assured that he is willing to have justice on this
earth. Let the gates of Massachusetts be open always.
God forbid that any system of exclusion should find
place there, such as I have heard vindicated by the
Senator from Oregon to-day! Be just to all men, and
all will be safe. The people of Massachusetts are intelligent,
generous, truthful; and they long to see the great
ideas of the Republic established beyond change. They
desire to see the Declaration of Independence no longer
a promise, but a living letter. Therefore it is perfectly
vain for the Senator to flash to Massachusetts that her
Senator here is in favor of justice to the Chinese.</p>

<p>The Senator says again that I am inviting their
competition. I make no invitation. That is not my
office. What am I, Sir? I have no power, as I have
no disposition, to speak any such invitation. My office
is entirely different. I stand here on the ancient
ways,&mdash;those ways that were laid down by the Fathers
of the Republic, and where I wish forevermore to keep
the Republic sure. I stand by the Declaration of Independence.
Sir, these are no ideas of mine; I am
speaking nothing from myself; I am only speaking
from the history of my country, and from the great
Declaration of the Fathers. That is all. I insist that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span>
at this day, at this stage of our history, the statutes of
the land shall be brought into harmony with the Constitution
of the United States and the Declaration of
Independence.</p>

<p>Now, Sir, I say that in those two great title-deeds of
the Republic,&mdash;and that is the term by which I shall
always designate them,&mdash;one interpreting the other,
there is no single word which can sanction any exclusion
on account of race or color.</p>

<p>Here allow me to mention an incident. You may
remember, some of you, that during the Rebellion the
question occurred, whether a colored officer of the Army
was entitled to pay. The question came before President
Lincoln, and, at my suggestion, was by him referred
to the Attorney-General, at that time Mr. Bates,
of Missouri. At the request of President Lincoln, I
called on Mr. Bates, to confer with him on his opinion.
I did not know then how strongly he inclined to what I
will call the side of justice. So I began my conversation
interrogatively, when he turned upon me, saying, “Will
you allow me to ask you a question?” “Certainly,”
said I. Said he, “Mr. Senator, is there anything in
the Constitution of the United States to prevent a negro
from being President?” The question took me by
surprise, coming from the Attorney-General. I replied,
promptly, “Of course, Mr. Attorney, there is nothing.”
“Well, you are right; of course there is nothing in the
Constitution to prevent a negro from being President;
how, then, can there be anything to prevent a negro
from being an officer, and receiving his pay as such?”
I replied at once to the Attorney-General, that I thought
he needed no suggestion from me on that question. I
left him; and you may remember the opinion which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span>
followed shortly after, in which he affirmed that colored
officers were entitled to pay in the Army of the United
States.<a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a></p>

<p>Sir, there is nothing in the Constitution of the United
States to prevent a negro from being President. On the
contrary, that Constitution, interpreted as it must be by
the Declaration of Independence, opens the way to all
men without distinction of race or color. No, Sir, I
am not the author of that doctrine. I had nothing to
do with it. I find it, and now simply present it to
the Senate. But, presenting it to the Senate, I insist
that you shall see to it that the existing statutes are
brought into conformity with the text of the Constitution,
and with the Declaration of Independence: that
is all. Strike out the word “white,” which nowhere
appears in the Constitution, and which is positively
prohibited by the Declaration of Independence. That
is what you are to do. So doing, you will complete the
work of harmony.</p>

<p>The Senator from Kansas [Mr. <span class="smcap">Pomeroy</span>], in that
speech, this evening, which to my mind was in many
respects exquisite with most beautiful thought and with
unanswerable argument, has taught the Senate, what I
have said again and again in debates in this Chamber
and in other places, that nothing can be settled which
is not right. And so this question will never be settled
until it is settled according to the great principles of
justice. Vainly you try, you cannot succeed. And
now, Sir, I do entreat Senators,&mdash;I hope they will
pardon me; I mean to say only what it belongs to a
Senator to say,&mdash;I do entreat Senators not to lose th<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span>is
precious opportunity of completing the harmony of the
statutes of the land with the Constitution of the United
States and the Declaration of Independence. Only in
this way can you have peace. Let us have peace. Sir,
I tell you how you may have it. Adopt the amendment
which I have proposed, strike out the word “white,” and
the harmony will begin. The country will straightway
accept the result. But reject that amendment, and you
open at once the floodgates of controversy. From this
time the debate will proceed, and what is said here will
find its echoes and reverberations throughout the whole
land and be returned to us from the Pacific coast, never
to die out until the good cause prevails and all the
promises of the Fathers are fulfilled.</p>

<p>Why, Sir, the words of the Declaration of Independence
were not uttered in vain. Do you suppose them
idle? Do you suppose them mere phrase or generality?
No such thing. They are living words, by which this
country is solemnly bound, and from which it can never
escape until they are all fulfilled. Your statutes cannot
contain any limitation which inflicts an indignity upon
any portion of the human family.</p>

<p>Therefore do I entreat you, Senators, do not lose this
precious opportunity. It comes to you now unexpectedly,
perhaps; but what is there in life more golden
than opportunity, whether to country, to community, or
to individuals? It is what each of us covets, as he
treads along the highway of the world. It is what we
covet for our country. Here, Sir, you have golden opportunity.
Use it. Use it wisely; use it bravely; use
it so that you will secure peace, harmony, and reconciliation.
Beautiful words! All these are within your
power, if you now let it be known that you will s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span>tand
by the Declaration to the end. You cannot suffer,
there can be no peril, no harm from any such dedication,&mdash;nothing
but gain. All our institutions will be
assured in proportion as you respect these great principles.
Reconstruction will have new strength, when you
show this homage to human nature.</p>

<p>And yet in the face of all this we are now asked to
retreat,&mdash;to retrace the steps already taken,&mdash;to reconsider
the vote that has been adopted,&mdash;and to confirm
in the statutes those words which are there without any
sanction in the Constitution, and in defiance of the Declaration
of Independence. Sir, I will not believe that
the Senate will do any such thing until the vote is recorded.
But whatever may be the result, I give notice
that I shall not cease my effort,&mdash;I shall continue it
to the end. I am a soldier for the war; and until I
see this great Declaration a living letter, I shall never
intermit my endeavors. I shall go forward, and on
every possible occasion I shall press the Senate to
another vote. But I trust the Senate will not reconsider
what they have done, but that they will settle this
great question so that it shall never again disturb our
debates.</p>

<p>Something I might say here on the “practical.” Some
Senator to-day has said something about being practical,
taking to himself great credit on this account. Of
course I who make this effort am not practical! I simply
strive to bring the statutes into harmony with the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; but
that is not practical! Our fathers were not practical,
when they put forth the great Declaration! Our fathers
were not practical, when they established the Constitution
without the word “white”! Of course I am<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span>
not practical, because I humbly strive to imitate the
Fathers! Now, Sir, which is the more practical,&mdash;to
allow this word to remain, breeding debate, controversy,
strife, or at once to strike it out and complete our great
work of Reconstruction? This is something to do. Tell
me not that it is not practical. Is there anything in the
bill that is equally practical? There are provisions, as
I said this morning, for the safeguard of naturalization,
which I value much; but how small in value, compared
with the establishment of that great principle which
fixes forevermore the fundamental idea of the Republic!
Is not that practical? Why, Sir, the two cannot be
compared. Both are important; but the first belongs to
the class of policies or expedients, and not of principles.
Adopt it, and you will help the machinery of naturalization,
which I desire to do. But strike out the word
“white” from your statutes, and you will do an act of
justice whose influence will be immeasurable. The Republic
will be exalted, and all our institutions will have
new strength and security.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The motion for reconsideration prevailed,&mdash;Yeas 27, Nays 13.</p>

<p>The question now recurring on the adoption of the amendment, Mr.
Sumner rose to speak again,&mdash;whereupon a debate sprang up as to his
right to do so under the rules, finally terminated by the withdrawal of
an appeal which had been taken from a decision of the President <i>pro
tempore</i> affirming such right, when he was allowed to proceed. Beginning
with some remarks upon this episode, Mr. Sumner said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p>The appeal is withdrawn; but I believe I have the
floor on the question. We have pending before us the
Tax Bill, and during a day perhaps a dozen or twenty
propositions are moved on that bill. According to the
suggestion of the Senator from New York [Mr. <span class="smcap">Conkling</span>],
one who had spoken on two of those propositions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span>
would be debarred from speaking on any of the others
during that day. As a Senator suggests to me, if a Senator
had spoken about salt or tea, then he could not
speak on sugar, or the income question, or anything
else. I believe the rule of the Senate will not compel
us to any such absurdity.</p>

<p>I do not like to take up the time of the Senate; and
I should not speak now, except for my desire to bring
home to the Senate once more the gravity of the question,
and to introduce a new authority, which I had on
my table, but which I forgot to use, when I was up before,&mdash;I
mean the late Abraham Lincoln. He, too, had
a great controversy in Illinois with a distinguished representative
of the Democratic party (Mr. <span class="smcap">Douglas</span>) on
the Declaration of Independence. Let Mr. Douglas
state his position in his own words. He said:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I believe that this Government of ours was founded on
the white basis. I believe that it was established by white
men, by men of European birth, or descended of European
races, for the benefit of white men and their posterity in all
time to come. I do not believe that it was the design or intention
of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or
the framers of the Constitution to include negroes, Indians,
or other inferior races, with white men, as citizens.”<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Then, again, in another place, Mr. Douglas said:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The Declaration of Independence only included the white
people of the United States.”<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a></p>

</div>

<p>How like what we have heard in this Chamber <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span>on Saturday
and to-day! Senators have been unconsciously
repeating these exploded arguments of the late Mr.
Douglas.</p>

<p>How did Abraham Lincoln answer? In a speech at
Springfield, while admitting that negroes are “not our
equals in color,” this eminent citizen, afterward President,
thus spoke for the comprehensive humanity of
the Declaration:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge
Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let
them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that
all men are created equal except negroes. Let us have it decided
whether the Declaration of Independence in this blessed
year of 1858 shall be thus amended. In his construction
of the Declaration last year, he said it only meant that
Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in England.
Then, when I pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes
the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the
other people who have come amongst us since the Revolution,
he reconstructs his construction. In his last speech he
tells us it meant Europeans. I press him a little further, and
ask if it meant to include the Russians in Asia; or does he
mean to exclude that vast population from the principles of
our Declaration of Independence? I expect ere long he will
introduce another amendment to his definition. He is not at
all particular. He is satisfied with anything which does not
endanger the nationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw
white men down, but it must not lift negroes up.”<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Then, again, in another speech, made at Alton, the future
President renewed his testimony as follows:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I assert that Judge Douglas and all his friends may
search the whole records of the country, and it will be a matter
of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find
that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the
astounding sentiment that the term ‘all men’ in the Declaration
did not include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood.
I know that more than three years ago there were
men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way of their
schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of
Slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun,
and all the politicians of his school, denied the truth of the
Declaration. I know that it ran along in the mouth of some
Southern men for a period of years, ending at last in that
shameful, though rather forcible, declaration of Pettit, of Indiana,
upon the floor of the United States Senate, that the
Declaration of Independence was in that respect ‘a self-evident
lie,’ rather than a self-evident truth. But I say, with
a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration
without directly attacking it, that three years ago there never
had lived a man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking
way”&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="noindent">That is not my language; it is the language of Abraham
Lincoln&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p class="noindent">“of pretending to believe it and then asserting it did not include
the negro.”<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Lifted by the great cause in which he was engaged,
he appealed to his fellow-countrymen in tones of pathetic
eloquence:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Think nothing of me,”&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="noindent">said he, afterward martyr,&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p class="noindent">“take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever,
but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration
of Independence. You may do anything with me you
choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You
may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take
me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference
to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest
by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge
you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any
man’s success. It is nothing, I am nothing, Judge Douglas
is nothing; but do not destroy that immortal emblem of humanity,
the Declaration of American Independence.”<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p>

</div>

<p>How apt are these words now! “Do not destroy
that immortal emblem of humanity, the Declaration of
American Independence.”</p>

<p>Then, again, as he was on his way to Washington,
stopping at Philadelphia to raise the flag of his country
over the Hall of Independence, he uttered these pathetic,
though unpremeditated words:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“All the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn,
so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments
which originated in, and were given to the world from, this
Hall. I have never had a feeling, politically, that did not
spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of
Independence.</p>

<p class="center">…</p>

<p>“Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that
basis? If it can, I shall consider myself one of the happiest
men in the world, if I can help to save it.… But if this
country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I
was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot
than surrender it.”<a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a></p>

</div>

<p>And yet that is the principle which the Senate is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span>
now about to give up,&mdash;that principle which Abraham
Lincoln said, rather than give up he would be assassinated
on the spot.</p>

<p>Then, after adding that he had not expected to say a
word, he repeated the consecration of his life, exclaiming,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by,
and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, to die by.”<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Sir, that is enough.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>Mr. Sumner’s amendment was rejected,&mdash;Yeas 14, Nays 30. At a
later stage of the proceedings he renewed it, when it was again rejected,&mdash;Yeas
12, Nays 26.</p>

<p>At the same stages, an amendment in the following words, offered
by Mr. Warner, of Alabama,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“<i>And be it further enacted</i>, That the Naturalization Laws are hereby
extended to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent,”&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="noindent">prevailed, first by Yeas 21, Nays 20, and then by Yeas 20, Nays 17,
and was adopted. A subsequent amendment, by Mr. Trumbull, of
Illinois, further extending these laws “to persons born in the Chinese
Empire,” was defeated, by Yeas 9, Nays 31. The bill as amended was
thereupon passed,&mdash;Yeas 33, Nays 8,&mdash;Mr. Sumner voting in the affirmative.</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="THE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_ITS_PAST_AND" id="THE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_ITS_PAST_AND"></a>THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: ITS PAST AND
FUTURE WORK.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech at a Ratification Meeting in Faneuil Hall,
October 15, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>October 15, 1870, the Republicans of Boston met in Faneuil Hall,
to ratify the nomination of candidates for State offices. The Hall was
filled to its utmost capacity, and Mr. Sumner was announced as
President of the meeting. In its report of the proceedings, the
“Journal” newspaper of the next day stated that Mr. Sumner, on taking
the chair, “was greeted with almost indescribable enthusiasm, and
it was some minutes before the audience permitted him to speak.” He
spoke as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">FELLOW-CITIZENS,&mdash;In opening this meeting
to-night I am impressed by one thought, which
I would, if I could, have uppermost in the minds of
the people, so that they could not forget it at the coming
election. It is the necessity of constant, incessant,
persevering activity in support of Republican principles,
and of the party which maintains them. [<i>Applause.</i>]</p>

<p>And here let me say that I know no way in which
Republican principles can be adequately supported,
without supporting the Republican party. [<i>Applause.</i>]
There is no local issue justifying opposition to the
Republican party, which, if it fails to do all that good
men desire, yet does more than can be accomplished<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span>
through any other political organization. Therefore do
I say, Stand by the Republican party. Make it united
and vigorous. There must be no hesitation, or listlessness,
or desertion. [<i>Applause.</i>]</p>

<p>Our majorities in Massachusetts are large, but so are
our responsibilities. From the historic character of
the Commonwealth, from the position it has occupied
in the warfare with Slavery, and from its fame as the
home of ideas, we cannot afford to be sluggish or indifferent;
nor can we break up into disjointed squads. It
is not enough, if we give a majority sufficient to elect
our candidates; we must make the majority commanding,
controlling, so as to be an example and a power in
the land. Massachusetts ideas and interests are to be
maintained and advanced, not merely here at home, but
in the nation. Besides State officers, we choose at this
election members of Congress, and a Legislature which
will elect a Senator of the United States. Therefore
must we regard our duties to the nation, the first of
which is to make Massachusetts the bulwark of the
national cause.</p>

<p>I know no good reason why Governor Claflin [<i>cheers</i>]
should not be reëlected unanimously, or at least without
opposition outside the Democratic party, which is
against him more from force of habit, I take it, than
anything else. As for others, who do not assume the
name of Democrats, they can find no excuse of habit in
voting against him. Then come the Republican candidates
for Congress, who, like the Governor, are entitled
to your best support. Faneuil Hall is now thronged
with the constituents of Mr. Hooper and Mr. Twichell,
[<i>renewed cheers</i>,] who know their services, so that my
testimony is not needed. I will only say, Fortunate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span>
the districts with Representatives having the character,
ability, and business capacity of these gentlemen. In
choosing a Legislature you will not forget my colleague,
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span>,] with his lifelong devotion to the slave,
his hard work against the Rebellion, and his practical
labors everywhere. [<i>Loud and prolonged applause.</i>]</p>

<p>I would add one further word in reply to those who
insist that the Republican party has done its work, and
therefore may die. Nothing more absurd. It has done
a great and ever-memorable work; but much remains to
be done. It has put down a terrible Rebellion waged by
Slavery; it has secured equal rights at the ballot-box
and in courts without distinction of color; and it has
reconstructed the Rebel States on the solid foundation
of the Declaration of Independence. [<i>Applause.</i>] Besides
these heroic achievements, which cannot be forgotten
so long as men throb in sympathy with human
rights, the Republican party has provided homesteads
for the needy; it has built a Pacific Railroad, binding
two oceans together; it has by honest payment reduced
the enormous national debt entailed by the Rebellion, and
at the same time it has reduced taxation. [<i>Applause.</i>]
If a political party is to be judged by what it has done,
then may the Republican party fearlessly ask your
votes.</p>

<p>But there is another reason for your continued support.
The whole work of Reconstruction and the establishment
of Equal Rights is still disputed and assailed
by the Democratic party. I might quote resolutions
and words of orators showing how they still hold out.
Repudiators of the National Debt, they would repudiate
all that has been done for the National Union, and for
that Equality before the Law which is one of our greatest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span>
triumphs and safeguards. [<i>Cheers.</i>] This is enough.
Until this new form of Repudiation is extinguished,
there is need of the Republican party. So long as anybody
assails the Declaration of Independence, the Republican
party cannot cease its patriotic labors.</p>

<p>It is foolish to imagine that this great party, consecrated
to Human Rights, can die. It will live as long
as people cherish those sublime truths declared by our
fathers, of which it is the representative and guardian.
Its special work will be always to stand by the nation
in its unity, and by the people in their rights. [<i>Applause.</i>]
For such a party there can be no decay. Men
whom I now address may grow old, but the Republican
party will be ever young. [<i>Applause.</i>]</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>In conclusion, Mr. Sumner introduced <span class="smcap">General Hawley</span> in the
following terms:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p>Let me introduce to your notice at this time General
Hawley, (or Governor Hawley, if you would rather,
for both titles belong to him,) of Connecticut, who
has stood by his principles both at home and on the
battle-field. [<i>Applause.</i>] And now, in introducing him,
I am going to ask him to pardon me for a revelation
which I believe will not be painful to the audience. I
want to give you a passage from a letter addressed to
myself by Mr. Hawley, at a time when he was much
younger than he is now, bearing date Hartford, May,
1854. It was written on receipt of intelligence by
telegraph that the life of a Senator was threatened at
Washington by mobs. Mr. Hawley addressed a letter to
that Sen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span>ator, in which, after setting forth the telegram,
he said: “Please write to me at once, and say if you
need any defenders; if you do, I will be on the spot
early.”<a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> [<i>Tremendous applause.</i>] This was written,
Fellow-Citizens, so long ago as 1854; it was seven years
before the war; yet General Hawley was then ready to
meet the foe. [<i>Applause.</i>] Gentlemen, I have the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span>honor of introducing him to you.</p>
<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span></p>



<h2><a name="THE" id="THE"></a>THE
DUEL BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY,<br />
<small>WITH ITS LESSON TO CIVILIZATION.</small></h2>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Lecture in the Music Hall, Boston, October 26, 1870.</span></p>

<hr class="r15" />

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse indent6">“When kings make war,</div>
<div class="verse">No law betwixt two sovereigns can decide,</div>
<div class="verse">But that of arms, where Fortune is the judge,</div>
<div class="verse">Soldiers the lawyers, and the Bar the field.”</div>

<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Dryden</span>, <i>Love Triumphant</i>, Act I. Sc. 1.</p>
</div>
</div>

<hr class="r15" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a><br /><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span></p>

<h3>LECTURE.</h3>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;I am to speak of the Duel
between France and Germany, with its Lesson to
Civilization. In calling the terrible war now waging
a Duel, I might content myself with classical authority,
<i>Duellum</i> being a well-known Latin word for War.
The historian Livy makes a Roman declare that affairs
are to be settled “by a pure and pious duel”;<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> the
dramatist Plautus has a character in one of his plays
who obtains great riches “by the duelling art,”<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> meaning
the art of war; and Horace, the exquisite master
of language, hails the age of Augustus with the Temple
of Janus closed and “free from duels,”<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> meaning at
peace,&mdash;for then only was that famous temple shut.</p>


<h4>WAR UNDER THE LAW OF NATIONS A DUEL.</h4>

<p>But no classical authority is needed for this designation.
War, as conducted under International Law,
between two organized nations, is in all respects a
duel, according to the just signification of this word,&mdash;differing
from that between two individuals only in the
number of combatants. The variance is of proportion
merely, each nation being an individual who appeals <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span>to
the sword as Arbiter; and in each case the combat is
subject to rules constituting a code by which the two
parties are bound. For long years before civilization
prevailed, the code governing the duel between individuals
was as fixed and minute as that which governs the
larger duel between nations, and the duel itself was
simply a mode of deciding questions between individuals.
In presenting this comparison I expose myself to
criticism only from those who have not considered this
interesting subject in the light of history and of reason.
The parallel is complete. Modern war is the duel of
the Dark Ages, magnified, amplified, extended so as to
embrace nations; nor is it any less a duel because the
combat is quickened and sustained by the energies of
self-defence, or because, when a champion falls and lies
on the ground, he is brutally treated. An authentic
instance illustrates such a duel; and I bring before you
the very pink of chivalry, the Chevalier Bayard, “the
knight without fear and without reproach,” who, after
combat in a chosen field, succeeded by a feint in driving
his weapon four fingers deep into the throat of his adversary,
and then, rolling with him, gasping and struggling,
on the ground, thrust his dagger into the nostrils
of the fallen victim, exclaiming, “Surrender, or you are
a dead man!”&mdash;a speech which seemed superfluous;
for the second cried out, “He is dead already; you have
conquered.” Then did Bayard, brightest among the
Sons of War, drag his dead enemy from the field, crying,
“Have I done enough?”<a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> Now, because the brave
knight saw fit to do these things, the combat was n<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span>ot
changed in original character. It was a duel at the
beginning and at the end. Indeed, the brutality with
which it closed was the natural incident of a duel. A
combat once begun opens the way to violence, and the
conqueror too often surrenders to the Evil Spirit, as
Bayard in his unworthy barbarism.</p>

<p>In likening war between nations to the duel, I follow
not only reason, but authority also. No better
lawyer can be named in the long history of the English
bar than John Selden, whose learning was equalled only
by his large intelligence. In those conversations which
under the name of “Table-Talk” continue still to instruct,
the wise counsellor, after saying that the Church
allowed the duel anciently, and that in the public liturgies
there were prayers appointed for duellists to say,
keenly inquires, “But whether is this lawful?” And
then he answers, “If you grant any war lawful, I make
no doubt but to convince it.”<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> Selden regarded the
simple duel and the larger war as governed by the same
rule. Of course the exercise of force in the suppression
of rebellion, or in the maintenance of laws, stands
on a different principle, being in its nature a constabulary
proceeding, which cannot be confounded with the
duel. But my object is not to question the lawfulness
of war; I would simply present an image, enabling you
to see the existing war in its true character.</p>

<p>The duel in its simplest form is between two individuals.
In early ages it was known sometimes as the
Judicial Combat, and sometimes as Trial by Battle.
Not only points of honor, but titles to land, grave questions
of law, and even the subtilties of theology, were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span>
referred to this arbitrament,<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a>&mdash;just as now kindred
issues between nations are referred to Trial by Battle;
and the early rules governing the duel are reproduced
in the Laws of War established by nations to govern
the great Trial by Battle. Ascending from the individual
to corporations, guilds, villages, towns, counties,
provinces, we find that for a long period each of these
bodies exercised what was called “the Right of War.”
The history of France and Germany shows how reluctantly
this mode of trial yielded to the forms of reason
and order. France, earlier than Germany, ordained
“Trial by Proofs,” and eliminated the duel from judicial
proceedings, this important step being followed by
the gradual amalgamation of discordant provinces in
the powerful unity of the Nation,&mdash;so that Brittany
and Normandy, Franche-Comté and Burgundy, Provence
and Dauphiny, Gascony and Languedoc, with the
rest, became the United States of France, or, if you
please, France. In Germany the change was slower;
and here the duel exhibits its most curious instances.
Not only feudal chiefs, but associations of tradesmen
and of domestics sent defiance to each other, and sometimes
to whole cities, on pretences trivial as those
which have been the occasion of defiance from nation
to nation. There still remain to us Declarations of War
by a Lord of Frauenstein against the free city of Frankfort,
because a young lady of the city refused to dance
with his uncle,&mdash;by the baker and domestics of the
Margrave of Baden against Esslingen, Reutlingen, and
other imperial cities,&mdash;by the baker of the Count Palatine
Louis against the cities of Augsburg, Ulm, and
Rottweil,&mdash;by the shoe-blacks of the University of
Leipsic against the provost and other members,&mdash;and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span>
by the cook of Eppstein, with his scullions, dairy-maids,
and dish-washers, against Otho, Count of Solms.<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> This
prevalence of the duel aroused the Emperor Maximilian,
who at the Diet of Worms put forth an ordinance
abolishing the right or liberty of Private War, and instituting
a Supreme Tribunal for the determination of
controversies without appeal to the duel, and the whole
long list of duellists, whether corporate or individual,
including nobles, bakers, shoe-blacks, and cooks, was
brought under its pacific rule. Unhappily the beneficent
reform stopped half-way, and here Germany was
less fortunate than France. The great provinces were
left in the enjoyment of a barbarous independence, with
the “right” to fight each other. The duel continued
their established arbiter, until at last, in 1815, by the
Act of Union constituting the Confederation or United
States of Germany, each sovereignty gave up the right
of war with its confederates, setting an example to the
larger nations. The terms of this important stipulation,
marking a stage in German unity, were as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The members of the Confederation further bind themselves
under no pretext to make war upon one another, or to
pursue their differences by force of arms, but to submit them
to the Diet.”<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Better words could not be found for the United
States of Europe, in the establishment of that Great
Era when the Duel shall cease to be the recognized
Arbiter of Nations.</p>

<p>With this exposition, which I hope is not too long<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span>,
it is easy to see how completely a war between two
nations is a duel,&mdash;and, yet further, how essential it is
to that assured peace which civilization requires, that
the duel, which is no longer tolerated as arbiter between
individuals, between towns, between counties,
between provinces, should cease to be tolerated as such
between nations. Take our own country, for instance.
In a controversy between towns, the local law provides
a judicial tribunal; so also in a controversy between
counties. Ascending still higher, suppose a controversy
between two States of our Union; the National Constitution
establishes a judicial tribunal, being the Supreme
Court of the United States. But at the next stage
there is a change. Let the controversy arise between
two nations, and the Supreme Law, which is the Law
of Nations, establishes, not a judicial tribunal, but the
duel, as arbiter. What is true of our country is true of
other countries where civilization has a foothold, and
especially of France and Germany. The duel, though
abolished as arbiter at home, is continued as arbiter
abroad. And since it is recognized by International
Law and subjected to a code, it is in all respects an
Institution. War is an institution sanctioned by International
Law, as Slavery, wherever it exists, is an
institution sanctioned by Municipal Law. But this
institution is nothing but the duel of the Dark Ages,
prolonged into this generation, and showing itself in
portentous barbarism.</p>


<h4>WHY THIS PARALLEL NOW?</h4>

<p>Therefore am I right, when I call the existing combat
between France and Germany a Duel. I beg you<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span>
to believe that I do this with no idle purpose of illustration
or criticism, but because I would prepare the
way for a proper comprehension of the remedy to be
applied. How can this terrible controversy be adjusted?
I see no practical method, which shall reconcile the
sensibilities of France with the guaranties due to Germany,
short of a radical change in the War System itself.
That Security for the Future which Germany
may justly exact can be obtained in no way so well as
by the disarmament of France, to be followed naturally
by the disarmament of other nations, and the substitution
of some peaceful tribunal for the existing Trial by
Battle. Any dismemberment, or curtailment of territory,
will be poor and inadequate; for it will leave
behind a perpetual sting. Something better must be
done.</p>


<h4>SUDDENNESS OF THIS WAR.</h4>

<p>Never in history has so great a calamity descended
so suddenly upon the Human Family, unless we except
the earthquake toppling down cities and submerging a
whole coast in a single night. But how small all that
has ensued from any such convulsion, compared with
the desolation and destruction already produced by this
war! From the first murmur to the outbreak was a
brief moment of time, as between the flash of lightning
and the bursting of the thunder.</p>

<p>At the beginning of July there was peace without
suspicion of interruption. The Legislative Body had
just discussed a proposition for the reduction of the annual
Army Contingent. At Berlin the Parliament was
not in session. Count Bismarck was at his country
home in Pomerania, the King enjoying himself at <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span>Ems.
How sudden and unexpected the change will appear
from an illustrative circumstance. M. Prévost-Paradol,
of rare talent and unhappy destiny, newly appointed
Minister to the United States, embarked at Havre on
the 1st of July, and reached Washington on the morning
of the 14th of July. He assured me that when he
left France there was no talk or thought of war. During
his brief summer voyage the whole startling event
had begun and culminated. Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
being invited to become candidate
for the throne of Spain, France promptly sent her defiance
to Prussia, followed a few days later by formal
Declaration of War. The Minister was oppressed by
the grave tidings coming upon him so unprepared, and
sought relief in self-slaughter, being the first victim of
the war. Everything moved with a rapidity borrowed
from the new forces supplied by human invention, and
the Gates of War swung wide open.</p>


<h4>CHALLENGE TO PRUSSIA.</h4>

<p>A few incidents exhibit this movement. It was on
the 30th of June, while discussing the proposed reduction
of the Army, that Émile Ollivier, the Prime-Minister,
said openly: “The Government has no kind of disquietude;
at no epoch has the maintenance of peace
been more assured; on whatever side you look, you see
no irritating question under discussion.”<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> In the same
debate, Garnier-Pagès, the consistent Republican, and
now a member of the Provisional Governmen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span>t, after
asking, “Why these armaments?” cried out: “Disarm,
without waiting for others: this is practical. Let the
people be relieved from the taxes which crush them,
and from the heaviest of all, the tax of blood.”<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> The
candidature of Prince Leopold seems to have become
known at Paris on the 5th of July. On the next day
the Duc de Gramont, of a family famous in scandalous
history, Minister of Foreign Affairs, hurries to the tribune
with defiance on his lips. After declaring for the
Cabinet that no foreign power could be suffered, by
placing one of its princes on the throne of Charles the
Fifth, to derange the balance of power in Europe, and
put in peril the interests and the honor of France, he
concludes by saying, in ominous words: “Strong in
your support, Gentlemen, and in that of the nation, we
shall know how to do our duty without hesitation and
without weakness.”<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> This defiance was followed by
what is called in the report, “general and prolonged
movement,&mdash;repeated applause”; and here was the
first stage in the duel. Its character was recognized at
once in the Chamber. Garnier-Pagès exclaimed, in
words worthy of memory: “It is dynastic questions
which trouble the peace of Europe. The people have
only reason to love and aid each other.”<a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> Though
short, better than many long speeches. Crémieux, an
associate in the Provisional Government of 1848, insisted
that the utterance of the Minister was “a menace
of war”; and Emmanuel Arago, son of the great
Republican astronomer and mathematician, said that
the Minister “had declared war.”<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> These patriotic
representatives were not mistaken. The speech made
peace difficult, if not impossible. It was a challenge
to Prussia.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span></p>

<h4>COMEDY.</h4>

<p>Europe watched with dismay as the gauntlet was
thus rudely flung down, while on this side of the Atlantic,
where France and Germany commingle in the
enjoyment of our equal citizenship, the interest was
intense. Morning and evening the telegraph made us
all partakers of the hopes and fears agitating the world.
Too soon it was apparent that the exigence of France
would not be satisfied, while already her preparations
for war were undisguised. At all the naval stations,
from Toulon to Cherbourg, the greatest activity prevailed.
Marshal MacMahon was recalled from Algeria,
and transports were made ready to bring back the
troops from that colony.</p>

<p>Meanwhile the candidature of Prince Leopold was
renounced by him. But this was not enough. The
King of Prussia was asked to promise that it should
in no event ever be renewed,&mdash;which he declined to
do, reserving to himself the liberty of consulting circumstances.
This requirement was the more offensive,
inasmuch as it was addressed exclusively to Prussia,
while nothing was said to Spain, the principal in the
business. Then ensued an incident proper for comedy,
if it had not become the declared cause of tragedy.
The French Ambassador, Count Benedetti, who, on intelligence
of the candidature, had followed the King
to Ems, his favorite watering-place, and there in successive
interviews pressed him to order its withdrawal,
now, on its voluntary renunciation, proceeding to urge
the new demand, and after an extended conversation,
and notwithstanding its decided refusal, seeki<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span>ng, nevertheless,
another audience the same day on this subject,
his Majesty, with perfect politeness, sent him word by
an adjutant in attendance, that he had no other answer
to make than the one already given: and this refusal
to receive the Ambassador was promptly communicated
by telegraph, for the information especially of the different
German governments.<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></p>


<h4>PRETEXT OF THE TELEGRAM.</h4>

<p>These simple facts, insufficient for the slightest quarrel,
intolerable in the pettiness of the issue disclosed,
and monstrous as reason for war between two civilized
nations, became the welcome pretext. Swiftly, and
with ill-disguised alacrity, the French Cabinet took the
next step in the duel. On the 15th of July the Prime-Minister
read from the tribune a manifesto setting forth
the griefs of France,&mdash;being, first, the refusal of the
Prussian King to promise for the future, and, secondly,
his refusal to receive the French Ambassador, with the
communication of this refusal, as was alleged, “officially
to the Cabinets of Europe,” which was a mistaken
allegation:<a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> and the paper concludes by announcing
that since the preceding day the Government had called
in the reserves, and that they would immediately take
the measures necessary to secure the interests, the safety,
and the honor of France.<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> This was war.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span></p>
<p>Some there were who saw the fearful calamity, the
ghastly crime, then and there initiated. The scene that
ensued belongs to this painful record. The paper announcing
war was followed by prolonged applause.
The Prime-Minister added soon after in debate, that he
accepted the responsibility with “a light heart.”<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> Not
all were in this mood. Esquiros, the Republican, cried
from his seat, in momentous words, “You have a light
heart, and the blood of nations is about to flow!” To
the apology of the Prime-Minister, “that in the discharge
of a duty the heart is not troubled,” Jules Favre,
the Republican leader, of acknowledged moderation and
ability, flashed forth, “When the discharge of this duty
involves the slaughter of two nations, one may well
have the heart troubled!” Beyond these declarations,
giving utterance to the natural sentiments of humanity,
was the positive objection, most forcibly presented by
Thiers, so famous in the Chamber and in literature,
“that the satisfaction due to France had been accorded
her,&mdash;that Prussia had expiated by a check the grave
fault she had committed,”&mdash;that France had prevailed
in substance, and all that remained was “a question of
form,” “a question of susceptibility,” “questions of etiquette.”
The experienced statesman asked for the dispatches.
Then came a confession. The Prime-Minister
replied, that he had “nothing to communicate,&mdash;that, in
the true sense of the term, there had been no dispatches,&mdash;that
there were only verbal communications gathered
up in reports, which, according to diplomatic usage, are
not communicated.” Here Emmanuel Arago interrup<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span>ted:
“It is on these reports that you make war!” The
Prime-Minister proceeded to read two brief telegrams
from Count Benedetti at Ems, when De Choiseul very
justly exclaimed: “We cannot make war on that ground;
it is impossible!” Others cried out from their seats,&mdash;Garnier-Pagès
saying, “These are phrases”; Emmanuel
Arago protesting, “On this the civilized world will
pronounce you wrong”; to which Jules Favre added,
“Unhappily, true!” Thiers and Jules Favre, with
vigorous eloquence, charged the war upon the Cabinet:
Thiers declaring, “I regret to be obliged to say that we
have war by the fault of the Cabinet”; Jules Favre
alleging, “If we have war, it is thanks to the politics of
the Cabinet; … from the exposition that has been
made, so far as the general interests of the two countries
are concerned, there is no avowable motive for war.”
Girault exclaimed, in similar spirit: “We would be
among the first to come forward in a war for the country,
but we do not wish to come forward in a dynastic
and aggressive war.” The Duc de Gramont, who on the
6th of July flung down the gauntlet, spoke once more
for the Cabinet, stating solemnly, what was not the fact,
that the Prussian Government had communicated to all
the Cabinets of Europe the refusal to receive the French
Ambassador, and then on this misstatement ejaculating:
“It is an outrage on the Emperor and on France; and
if, by impossibility, there were found in my country a
Chamber to bear and tolerate it, I would not remain five
minutes Minister of Foreign Affairs.” In our country
we have seen how the Southern heart was fired; so also
was fired the heart of France. The Duke descended
from the tribune amidst prolonged applause, with cries
of “Bravo!”&mdash;and at his seat (so says the report<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span>) “received
numerous felicitations.” Such was the atmosphere
of the Chamber at this eventful moment. The orators
of the Opposition, pleading for delay in the interest of
peace, were stifled; and when Gambetta, the young and
fearless Republican, made himself heard in calling for
the text of the dispatch communicating the refusal to
receive the Ambassador, to the end that the Chamber,
France, and all Europe might judge of its character, he
was answered by the Prime-Minister with the taunt
that “for the first time in a French Assembly there
were such difficulties on a certain side in explaining <em>a
question of honor</em>.” Such was the case as presented by
the Prime-Minister, and on this question of honor he
accepted war “with a light heart.” Better say, with no
heart at all;&mdash;for whoso could find in this condition of
things sufficient reason for war was without heart.<a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a></p>

<p>During these brief days of solicitude, from the 6th to
the 15th of July, England made an unavailing effort
for peace. Lord Lyons was indefatigable; and he was
sustained at home by Lord Granville, who as a last resort
reminded the two parties of the stipulation at the
Congress of Paris, which they had accepted, in favor of
Arbitration as a substitute for War, and asked them to
accept the good offices of some friendly power.<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> This
most reasonable proposition was rejected by the French
Minister, who gave new point to the French case by
charging that Prussia “had chosen to declare that
France had been affronted in the person of her Ambassador,”
and then positively insisting that “it was this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span>
boast which was the <i>gravamen</i> of the offence.” Capping
the climax of barbarous absurdity, the French Minister
did not hesitate to announce that this “constituted an
insult which no nation of any spirit could brook, and
rendered it, much to the regret of the French Government,
impossible to take into consideration the mode
of settling the original matter in dispute which was
recommended by her Majesty’s Government.”<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> Thus
was peaceful Arbitration repelled. All honor to the
English Government for proposing it!</p>

<p>The famous telegram put forward by France as the
<i>gravamen</i>, or chief offence, was not communicated to the
Chamber. The Prime-Minister, though hard-pressed,
held it back. Was it from conviction of its too trivial
character? But it is not lost to the history of the duel.
This telegram, with something of the brevity peculiar to
telegraphic dispatches, merely reports the refusal to see
the French Ambassador, without one word of affront or
boast. It reports the fact, and nothing else; and it is
understood that the refusal was only when this functionary
presented himself a second time in one day on
the same business. Considering the interests involved,
it would have been better, had the King seen him as
many times as he chose to call; yet the refusal was not
unnatural. The perfect courtesy of his Majesty on this
occasion furnished no cause of complaint. All that remained
for pretext was the telegram.<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a></p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span></p>

<h4>FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR.</h4>

<p>The scene in the Legislative Body was followed by
the instant introduction of bills making additional appropriations
for the Army and Navy, calling out the
National Guard, and authorizing volunteers for the war.
This last proposition was commended by the observation
that in France there were a great many young people
liking powder, but not liking barracks, who would
in this way be suited; and this was received with applause.<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a>
On the 18th of July there was a further
appropriation to the extent of 500 million francs,&mdash;440
millions being for the Army, and 60 for the Navy;
and an increase from 150 to 500 millions Treasury
notes was authorized.<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> On the 20th of July the Duc
de Gramont appeared once more in the tribune, and
made the following speech:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Conformably to customary rules, and by order of the
Emperor, I have invited the <i>Chargé d’Affaires</i> of France to
notify the Berlin Cabinet of our resolution to seek by arms
the guaranties which we have not been able to obtain by
discussion. This step has been taken, and I have the honor
of making known to the Legislative Body that in consequence
a state of war exists between France and Prussia, beginning
the 19th of July. This declaration applies equally to the
allies of Prussia who lend her the coöperation of their arms
against us.”<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Here the French Minister played the part of trumpeter
in the duel, making proclamation before his champion
rode forward. According to the statement of Count<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span>
Bismarck, made to the Parliament at Berlin, this formal
Declaration of War was the solitary official communication
from France in this whole transaction, being the
first and only note since the candidature of Prince
Leopold.<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> How swift this madness will be seen in a
few dates. On the 6th of July was uttered the first
defiance from the French tribune; on the 15th of July
an exposition of the griefs of France, in the nature
of a Declaration of War, with a demand for men and
money; on the 19th of July a state of war was declared
to exist.</p>

<p>Firmly, but in becoming contrast with the “light
heart” of France, this was promptly accepted by Germany,
whose heart and strength found expression in the
speech of the King at the opening of Parliament, hastily
assembled on the 19th of July. With articulation disturbed
by emotion and with moistened eyes, his Majesty
said:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Supported by the unanimous will of the German governments
of the South as of the North, we turn the more confidently
to the love of Fatherland and the cheerful self-devotion
of the German people, with a call to the defence
of their honor and their independence.”<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Parliament responded sympathetically to the King,
and made the necessary appropriations. And thus the
two champions stood front to front.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span></p>

<h4>THE TWO HOSTILE PARTIES.</h4>

<p>Throughout France, throughout Germany, the trumpet
sounded, and everywhere the people sprang to arms,
as if the great horn of Orlando, after a sleep of ages,
had sent forth once more its commanding summons.
Not a town, not a village, that the voice did not penetrate.
Modern invention had supplied an ally beyond
anything in fable. From all parts of France, from all
parts of Germany, armed men leaped forward, leaving
behind the charms of peace and the business of life.
On each side the muster was mighty, armies counting
by the hundred thousand. And now, before we witness
the mutual slaughter, let us pause to consider the two
parties, and the issue between them.</p>

<p>France and Germany are most unlike, and yet the
peers of each other, while among the nations they are
unsurpassed in civilization, each prodigious in resources,
splendid in genius, and great in renown. No two nations
are so nearly matched. By Germany I now mean
not only the States constituting North Germany, but
also Würtemberg, Baden, and Bavaria of South Germany,
allies in the present war, all of which together
make about fifty-three millions of French hectares, being
very nearly the area of France. The population of
each is not far from thirty-eight millions, and it would
be difficult to say which is the larger. Looking at finances,
Germany has the smaller revenue, but also the
smaller debt, while her rulers, following the sentiment
of the people, cultivate a wise economy, so that here
again substantial equality is maintained with France.
The armies of the two, embracing regular troops and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span>
those subject to call, did not differ much in numbers,
unless we set aside the authority of the “Almanach de
Gotha,” which puts the military force of France somewhat
vaguely at 1,350,000, while that of North Germany
is only 977,262, to which must be added 49,949
for Bavaria, 34,953 for Würtemberg, and 43,703 for
Baden, making a sum-total of 1,105,867. This, however,
is chiefly on paper, where it is evident France
is stronger than in reality. Her available force at the
outbreak of the war probably did not amount to more
than 350,000 bayonets, while that of Germany, owing
to her superior system, was as much as double this
number. In Prussia every man is obliged to serve, and,
still further, every man is educated. Discipline and
education are two potent adjuncts. This is favorable
to Germany. In the Chassepot and needle-gun the
two are equal. But France excels in a well-appointed
Navy, having no less than 55 iron-clads, and 384 other
vessels of war, while Germany has but 2 iron-clads,
and 87 other vessels of war.<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> Then again for long
generations has existed another disparity, to the great
detriment of Germany. France has been a nation,
while Germany has been divided, and therefore weak.
Strong in union, the latter now claims something more
than that <em>dominion of the air</em> once declared to be hers,
while France had the land and England the sea.<a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> The
dominion of the land is at last contested, and we are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span>
saddened inexpressibly, that, from the elevation they
have reached, these two peers of civilization can descend
to practise the barbarism of war, and especially that the
land of Descartes, Pascal, Voltaire, and Laplace must
challenge to bloody duel the land of Luther, Leibnitz,
Kant, and Humboldt.</p>


<h4>FOLLY.</h4>

<p>Plainly between these two neighboring powers there
has been unhappy antagonism, constant, if not increasing,
partly from the memory of other days, and partly
because France could not bear to witness that German
unity which was a national right and duty. Often it
has been said that war was inevitable. But it has come
at last by surprise, and on “a question of form.” So it
was called by Thiers; so it was recognized by Ollivier,
when he complained of insensibility to a question of
honor; and so also by the Duc de Gramont, when he
referred it all to a telegram. This is not the first time
in history that wars have been waged on trifles; but
since the Lord of Frauenstein challenged the free city
of Frankfort because a young lady of the city refused
to dance with his uncle, nothing has passed more absurd
than this challenge sent by France to Germany
because the King of Prussia refused to see the French
Ambassador a second time on the same matter, and
then let the refusal be reported by telegraph. Here is
the folly exposed by Shakespeare, when Hamlet touches
a madness greater than his own in that spirit which
would “find quarrel in a straw when honor’s at the
stake,” and at the same time depicts an army</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Led by a delicate and tender prince,</div>
<div class="verse center">…</div>
<div class="verse">Exposing what is mortal and unsure</div>
<div class="verse">To all that Fortune, Death, and Danger dare,</div>
<div class="verse"><em>Even for an egg-shell</em>.”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span></div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="noindent">There can be no quarrel in a straw or for an egg-shell,
unless men have gone mad. Nor can honor in a civilized
age require any sacrifice of reason or humanity.</p>


<h4>UNJUST PRETENSION OF FRANCE TO INTERFERE WITH
THE CANDIDATURE OF HOHENZOLLERN.</h4>

<p>If the utter triviality of the pretext were left doubtful
in the debate, if its towering absurdity were not
plainly apparent, if its simple wickedness did not already
stand before us, we should find all these characteristics
glaringly manifest in that unjust pretension
which preceded the objection of form, on which France
finally acted. A few words will make this plain.</p>

<p>In a happy moment Spain rose against Queen Isabella,
and, amidst cries of “Down with the Bourbons!”
drove her from the throne which she dishonored. This
was in September, 1868. Instead of constituting a Republic
at once, in harmony with those popular rights
which had been proclaimed, the half-hearted leaders
proceeded to look about for a King; and from that
time till now they have been in this quest, as if it were
the Holy Grail, or happiness on earth. The royal
family of Spain was declared incompetent. Therefore
a king must be found outside,&mdash;and so the quest was
continued in other lands. One day the throne is offered
to a prince of Portugal, then to a prince of Italy, but
declined by each,&mdash;how wisely the future will show.
At last, after a protracted pursuit of nearly two years,
the venturesome soldier who is Captain-General and
Prime-Minister, Marshal Prim, conceives the idea of
offering it to a prince of Germany. His luckless<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> victim
is Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a
Catholic, thirty-five years of age, and colonel of the first
regiment of the Prussian foot-guards, whose father, a
mediatized German prince, resides at Düsseldorf. The
Prince had not the good sense to decline. How his
acceptance excited the French Cabinet, and became the
beginning of the French pretext, I have already exposed;
and now I come to the pretension itself.</p>

<p>By what title did France undertake to interfere with
the choice of Spain? If the latter was so foolish as to
seek a foreigner for king, making a German first among
Spaniards, by what title did any other power attempt to
control its will? To state the question is to answer it.
Beginning with an outrage on Spanish independence,
which the Spain of an earlier day would have resented,
the next outrage was on Germany, in assuming that an
insignificant prince of that country could not be permitted
to accept the invitation,&mdash;all of which, besides
being of insufferable insolence, was in that worst dynastic
spirit which looks to princes rather than the people.
Plainly France was unjustifiable. When I say it was
none of her business, I give it the mildest condemnation.
This was the first step in her monstrous <em>blunder-crime</em>.</p>

<p>Its character as a pretext becomes painfully manifest,
when we learn more of the famous Prince Leopold, thus
invited by Spain and opposed by France. It is true
that his family name is in part the same as that of the
Prussian king. Each is Hohenzollern; but he adds Sigmaringen
to the name. The two are different branches
of the same family; but you must ascend to the twelfth
century, counting more than twenty degrees, before y<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span>ou
come to a common ancestor.<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> And yet on this most
distant and infinitesimal relationship the French pretension
is founded. But audacity changes to the ridiculous,
when it is known that the Prince is nearer in relationship
to the French Emperor than to the Prussian King,
and this by three different intermarriages, which do not
go back to the twelfth century. Here is the case. His
grandfather had for wife a niece of Joachim Murat,<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a>
king of Naples, and brother-in-law of the first Napoleon;
and his father had for wife a daughter of Stéphanie
de Beauharnais, an adopted daughter of the first
Napoleon; so that Prince Leopold is by his father great-grand-nephew
of Murat, and by his mother he is grandson
of Stéphanie de Beauharnais, who was cousin and
by adoption sister of Hortense de Beauharnais, mother
of the present Emperor; and to this may be added still
another connection, by the marriage of his father’s sister
with Joachim Napoleon, Marquis of Pepoli, grandson of
Joachim Murat.<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> It was natural that a person thus
connected with the Imperial Family should be a welcome
visitor at the Tuileries; and it is easy to believe
that Marshal Prim, who offered him the throne, was
encouraged to believe that the Emperor’s kinsman and
guest would be favorably regarded by France. And
yet, in the face of these things, and the three several
family ties, fresh and modern, binding him to France
and the French Emperor, the pretension was set up that
his occupation of the Spanish throne would put in peril
the interests and the honor of France.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span></p>

<h4>BECAUSE FRANCE WAS READY.</h4>

<p>In sending defiance to Prussia on this question, the
French Cabinet selected their own ground. Evidently a
war had been meditated, and the candidature of Prince
Leopold from beginning to end supplied a pretext. In
this conclusion, which is too obvious, we are hardly left
to inference. The secret was disclosed by Rouher, President
of the Senate, lately the eloquent and unscrupulous
Minister, when, in an official address to the Emperor,
immediately after the War Manifesto read by the Prime-Minister,
he declared that France quivered with indignation
at the flights of an ambition over-excited by the
one day’s good-fortune at Sadowa, and then proceeded:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Animated by that calm perseverance which is true force,
your Majesty has known how to wait; but in the last four
years you have carried to its highest perfection the arming of
our soldiers, and raised to its full power the organization of
our military forces. <em>Thanks to your care, Sire, France is
ready.</em>”<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Thus, according to the President of the Senate, France,
after waiting, commenced war because she was ready,&mdash;while,
according to the Cabinet, it was on the point of
honor. Both were right. The war was declared because
the Emperor thought himself ready, and a pretext
was found in the affair of the telegram.</p>

<p>Considering the age, and the present demands of
civilization, such a war stands forth terrific in wrong,
making the soul rise indignant against it. One reason
avowed is brutal; the other is frivolous; both are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span>
criminal. If we look into the text of the Manifesto
and the speeches of the Cabinet, it is a war founded on
a trifle, on a straw, on an egg-shell. Obviously these
were pretexts only. Therefore it is a war of pretexts,
the real object being the humiliation and dismemberment
of Germany, in the vain hope of exalting the
French Empire and perpetuating a bawble crown on
the head of a boy. By military success and a peace
dictated at Berlin, the Emperor trusted to find himself
in such condition, that, on return to Paris, he could
overthrow parliamentary government so far as it existed
there, and reëstablish personal government, where
all depended upon himself,&mdash;thus making triumph over
Germany the means of another triumph over the French
people.</p>

<p>In other times there have been wars as criminal
in origin, where trifle, straw, or egg-shell played its
part; but they contrasted less with the surrounding
civilization. To this list belong the frequent Dynastic
Wars, prompted by the interest, the passion, or the
whim of some one in the Family of Kings. Others
have begun in recklessness kindred to that we now
witness,&mdash;as when England entered into war with Holland,
and for reason did not hesitate to allege “abusive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span>
pictures.”<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> The England of Charles the Second was
hardly less sensitive than the France of Louis Napoleon,
while in each was similar indifference to consequences.
But France has precedents of her own.
From the remarkable correspondence of the Princess
Palatine, Duchess of Orléans, we learn that the first
war with Holland under Louis the Fourteenth was
brought on by the Minister, De Lionne, to injure a petty
German prince who had made him jealous of his
wife.<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> The communicative and exuberant Saint-Simon
tells us twice over how Louvois, another Minister of
Louis the Fourteenth, being overruled by his master
with regard to the dimensions of a window at Versailles,
was filled with the idea that “on account of a
few inches in a window,” as he expressed it, all his
services would be forgotten, and therefore, to save his
place, excited a foreign war that would make him necessary
to the King. The flames in the Palatinate,
devouring the works of man, attested his continuing
power. The war became general, but, according to the
chronicler, it ruined France at home, and did not extend
her domain abroad.<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> The French Emperor confidently
expected to occupy the same historic region so often
burnt and ravaged by French armies, with that castle
of Heidelberg which repeats the tale of blood,&mdash;and,
let me say, expected it for no better reason than that
of his royal predecessor, stimulated by an unprincipled
Minister anxious for personal position. The parallel is
continued in the curse which the Imperial arms have
brought on France.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span></p>

<h4>PROGRESS OF THE WAR.</h4>

<p>How this war proceeded I need not recount. You
have all read the record day by day, sorrowing for Humanity,&mdash;how,
after briefest interval of preparation or
hesitation, the two combatants first crossed swords at
Saarbrücken, within the German frontier, and the
young Prince Imperial performed his part in picking
up a bullet from the field, which the Emperor promptly
reported by telegraph to the Empress,&mdash;how this little
military success is all that was vouchsafed to the man
who began the war,&mdash;how soon thereafter victory followed,
first on the hill-sides of Wissembourg and then
of Woerth, shattering the army of MacMahon, to which
the Empire was looking so confidently,&mdash;how another
large army under Bazaine was driven within the strong
fortress of Metz,&mdash;how all the fortresses, bristling with
guns and frowning upon Germany, were invested,&mdash;how
battle followed battle on various fields, where
Death was the great conqueror,&mdash;how, with help of
modern art, war showed itself to be murder by machinery,&mdash;how
MacMahon, gathering together his scattered
men and strengthening them with reinforcements,
attempted to relieve Bazaine,&mdash;how at last, after long
marches, his large army found itself shut up at Sedan
with a tempest of fire beating upon its huddled ranks,
so that its only safety was capitulation,&mdash;how with the
capitulation of the army was the submission of the
Emperor himself, who gave his sword to the King of
Prussia and became prisoner of war,&mdash;and how, on the
reception of this news at Paris, Louis Napoleon and his
dynasty were divested of their powers and the Empi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span>re
was lost in the Republic. These things you know. I
need not dwell on them. Not to battles and their fearful
vicissitudes, where all is incarnadined with blood,
must we look, but to the ideas which prevail,&mdash;as for
the measure of time we look, not to the pendulum in
its oscillations, but to the clock in the tower, whose
striking tells the hours. A great hour for Humanity
sounded when the Republic was proclaimed. And this
I say, even should it fail again; for every attempt contributes
to the final triumph.</p>


<h4>A WAR OF SURPRISES.</h4>

<p>The war, from the pretext at its beginning to the
capitulation at Sedan, has been a succession of surprises,
where the author of the pretext was a constant
sufferer. Nor is this strange. Falstaff says, with humorous
point, “See now how wit may be made a Jack-a-lent,
when ’tis upon ill employment!”<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a>&mdash;and another
character, in a play of Beaumont and Fletcher,
reveals the same evil destiny in stronger terms, when
he says,&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Hell gives us art to reach the depth of sin,</div>
<div class="verse">But leaves us wretched fools, when we are in.”<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="noindent">And this was precisely the condition of the French
Empire. Germany perhaps had one surprise, at the
sudden adoption of the pretext for war. But the Empire
has known nothing but surprise. A fatal surprise
was the promptitude with which all the German States,
outside of Austrian rule, accepted the leadership of
Prussia, and joined their forces to hers. Differe<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span>nces
were forgotten,&mdash;whether the hate of Hanover, the
dread of Würtemberg, the coolness of Bavaria, the opposition
of Saxony, or the impatience of the Hanse Towns
at lost importance. Hanover would not rise; the other
States and cities would not be detached. On the day
after the reading of the War Manifesto at the French
tribune, even before the King’s speech to the Northern
Parliament, the Southern States began to move. German
unity stood firm, and this was the supreme surprise
for France with which the war began. On one
day the Emperor in his Official Journal declares his object
to be the deliverance of Bavaria from Prussian oppression,
and on the very next day the Crown Prince of
Prussia, at the head of Bavarian troops, crushes an Imperial
army.</p>

<p>Then came the manifest inferiority of the Imperial
army, everywhere outnumbered, which was another surprise,&mdash;the
manifest inferiority of the Imperial artillery,
also a surprise,&mdash;the manifest inferiority of the
Imperial generals, still a surprise. Above these was a
prevailing inefficiency and improvidence, which very
soon became conspicuous, and this was a surprise. The
strength of Germany, as now exhibited, was a surprise.
And when the German armies entered France, every
step was a surprise. Wissembourg was a surprise; so
was Woerth; so was Beaumont; so was Sedan. Every
encounter was a surprise. Abel Douay, the French
general, who fell bravely fighting at Wissembourg, the
first sacrifice on the battle-field, was surprised; so was
MacMahon, not only at the beginning, but at the end.
He thought that the King and Crown Prince were
marching on Paris. So they were,&mdash;but they turned
aside for a few days to surprise a whole army of more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span>
than a hundred thousand men, terrible with cannon and
newly invented implements of war, under a Marshal
of France, and with an Emperor besides. As this succession
of surprises was crowned with what seemed the
greatest surprise of all, there remained a greater still in
the surprise of the French Empire. No Greek Nemesis
with unrelenting hand ever dealt more incessantly the
unavoidable blow, until the Empire fell as a dead body
falls, while the Emperor became a captive and the Empress
a fugitive, with their only child a fugitive also.
The poet says:&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Sometime let gorgeous Tragedy</div>
<div class="verse">In sceptred pall come sweeping by.”<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="noindent">It has swept before the eyes of all. Beneath that sceptred
pall is the dust of a great Empire, founded and
ruled by Louis Napoleon; if not the dust of the Emperor
also, it is because he was willing to sacrifice others
rather than himself.</p>


<h4>OTHER FRENCH SOVEREIGNS CAPTURED ON THE
BATTLE-FIELD.</h4>

<p>Twice before have French sovereigns yielded on the
battle-field, and become prisoners of war; but never
before was capitulation so vast. Do their fates furnish
any lesson? At the Battle of Poitiers, memorable
in English history, John, King of France, became the
prisoner of Edward the Black Prince. His nobles, one
after another, fell by his side, but he contended valiantly
to the last, until, spent with fatigue and overcome
by numbers, he surrendered. His son, of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span>
same age as the son of the French Emperor, was
wounded while battling for his father. The courtesy
of the English Prince conquered more than his arms.
I quote the language of Hume:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“More touched by Edward’s generosity than by his own
calamities, he confessed, that, notwithstanding his defeat and
captivity, his honor was still unimpaired, and that, if he
yielded the victory, it was at least gained by a prince of such
consummate valor and humanity.”<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a></p>

</div>

<p>The King was taken to England, where, after swelling
the triumphal pageant of his conqueror, he made a disgraceful
treaty for the dismemberment of France, which
the indignant nation would not ratify. A captivity of
more than four years was terminated by a ransom of
three million crowns in gold,&mdash;an enormous sum, more
than ten million dollars in our day. Evidently the King
was unfortunate, for he did not continue in France, but,
under the influence of motives differently stated, returned
to England, where he died. Surely here is a
lesson.</p>

<p>More famous than John was Francis, with salamander
crest, also King of France, and rich in gayety,
whose countenance, depicted by that art of which he
was the patron, stands forth conspicuous in the line of
kings. As the French Emperor attacked Germany, so
did the King enter Italy, and he was equally confident
of victory. On the field of Pavia he encountered an
army of Charles the Fifth, but commanded by his generals,
when, after fighting desperately and killing seven
men with his own hand, he was compelled to surrende<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span>r.
His mother was at the time Regent of France, and to
her he is said to have written the sententious letter,
“All is lost except honor.” No such letter was written
by Francis,<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> nor do we know of any such letter by Louis
Napoleon; but the situation of the two Regents was
identical. Here are the words in which Hume describes
the condition of the earlier:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The Princess was struck with the greatness of the calamity.
She saw the kingdom without a sovereign, without an
army, without generals, without money, surrounded on every
side by implacable and victorious enemies; and her chief resource,
in her present distresses, were the hopes which she
entertained of peace, and even of assistance from the King
of England.”<a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Francis became the prisoner of Charles the Fifth,
and was conveyed to Madrid, where, after a year of
captivity, he was at length released, crying out, as he
crossed the French frontier, “Behold me King again!”<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a>
Is not the fate of Louis Napoleon prefigured in the exile
and death of his royal predecessor John, rather than
in the return of Francis with his delighted cry?</p>


<h4>LOUIS NAPOLEON.</h4>

<p>The fall of Louis Napoleon is natural. It is hard to
see how it could be otherwise, so long as we continue to</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse indent2">“assert eternal Providence,</div>
<div class="verse">And justify the ways of God to men.”<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span></p>
<p class="noindent">Had he remained successful to the end, and died peacefully
on the throne, his name would have been a perpetual
encouragement to dishonesty and crime. By
treachery without parallel, breaking repeated promises
and his oath of office, he was able to trample on the
Republic. Taking his place in the National Assembly
after long exile, the adventurer made haste to declare
exultation in regaining his country and all his rights as
citizen, with the ejaculation, “The Republic has given
me this happiness: let the Republic receive my oath
of gratitude, my oath of devotion!”&mdash;and next he proclaimed
that there was nobody to surpass him in determined
consecration “to the defence of order and to the
establishment of the Republic.”<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> Good words these.
Then again, when candidate for the Presidency, in a
manifesto to the electors he gave another pledge, announcing
that he “would devote himself altogether,
without mental reservation, to the establishment of a
Republic, wise in its laws, honest in its intentions, great
and strong in its acts”; and he volunteered further
words, binding him in special loyalty, saying that he
“should make it <em>a point of honor</em> to leave to his successor,
at the end of four years, power strengthened, liberty
intact, real progress accomplished.”<a name="FNanchor_203_203" id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> How these plain
and unequivocal engagements were openly broken you
shall see.</p>

<p>Chosen by the popular voice, his inauguration took
place as President of the Republic, when he solemnly
renewed the engagements already assumed. Ascending
from his seat in the Assembly to the tribune, and <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span>holding
up his hand, he took the following oath of office:
“In presence of God, and before the French people,
represented by the National Assembly, I swear to remain
faithful to the Democratic Republic One and
Indivisible, and to fulfil all the duties which the Constitution
imposes upon me.” This was an oath. Then,
addressing the Assembly, he said: “The suffrages of the
nation and the oath which I have just taken prescribe
my future conduct. My duty is marked out. I will
fulfil it as <em>a man of honor</em>.” Again he attests his
honor. Then, after deserved tribute to his immediate
predecessor and rival, General Cavaignac, on his loyalty
of character, and that sentiment of duty which he declares
to be “the first quality in the chief of a State,”
he renews his vows to the Republic, saying, “We have,
Citizen Representatives, a great mission to fulfil; it is
to found a Republic in the interest of all”; and he
closed amidst cheers for the Republic.<a name="FNanchor_204_204" id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> And yet, in the
face of this oath of office and this succession of most
solemn pledges, where he twice attests his honor, he
has hardly become President before he commences plotting
to make himself Emperor, until, at last, by violence
and blood, with brutal butchery in the streets of Paris,
he succeeded in overthrowing the Republic, to which he
was bound by obligations of gratitude and duty, as well
as by engagements in such various form. The Empire
was declared. Then followed his marriage, and a dynastic
ambition to assure the crown for his son.</p>

<p>Early in life a “Charcoal” conspirator against kings,<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a>
he now became a crowned conspirator against republics.
The name of Republic was to him a reproof, while
its glory was a menace. Against the Roman Republ<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span>ic
he conspired early; and when the rebellion waged
by Slavery seemed to afford opportunity, he conspired
against our Republic, promoting as far as he dared the
independence of the Slave States, and at the same time
on the ruins of the Mexican Republic setting up a mock
Empire. In similar spirit has he conspired against German
Unity, whose just strength promised to be a wall
against his unprincipled self-seeking.</p>

<p>This is but an outline of that incomparable perfidy,
which, after a career of seeming success, is brought to a
close. Of a fallen man I would say nothing; but, for
the sake of Humanity, Louis Napoleon should be exposed.
He was of evil example, extending with his
influence. To measure the vastness of this detriment
is impossible. In sacrificing the Republic to his own
aggrandizement, in ruling for a dynasty rather than
the people, in subordinating the peace of the world to
his own wicked ambition for his boy, he set an example
of selfishness, and in proportion to his triumph was
mankind corrupted in its judgment of human conduct.
Teaching men to seek ascendency at the expense of
duty, he demoralized not only France, but the world.
Unquestionably part of this evil example was his falsehood
to the Republic. Promise, pledge, honor, oath,
were all violated in this monstrous treason. Never in
history was greater turpitude. Unquestionably he could
have saved the Republic, but he preferred his own exaltation.
As I am a Republican, and believe republican
institutions for the good of mankind, I cannot pardon
the traitor. The people of France are ignorant; he did
not care to have them educated, for their ignorance was
his strength. With education bestowed, the Republic
would have been assured. And even after the Empire,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span>
had he thought more of education and less of his dynasty,
there would have been a civilization throughout
France making war impossible. Unquestionably the
present war is his work, instituted for his imagined advantage.
Bacon, in one of his remarkable Essays, tells
us that “Extreme self-lovers will set an house on fire,
and it were but to roast their eggs.”<a name="FNanchor_206_206" id="FNanchor_206_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> Louis Napoleon
has set Europe on fire to roast his.</p>

<p>Beyond the continuing offence of his public life, I
charge upon him three special and unpardonable crimes:
first, that violation of public duty and public faith, contrary
to all solemnities of promise, by which the whole
order of society was weakened and human character was
degraded; secondly, disloyalty to republican institutions,
so that through him the Republic has been arrested in
Europe; and, thirdly, this cruel and causeless war, of
which he is the guilty author.</p>


<h4>RETRIBUTION.</h4>

<p>Of familiar texts in Scripture, there is one which,
since the murderous outbreak, has been of constant applicability
and force. You know it: “All they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword”:<a name="FNanchor_207_207" id="FNanchor_207_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> and these
words are addressed to nations as to individuals. France
took the sword against Germany, and now lies bleeding
at every pore. Louis Napoleon took the sword, and is
nought. Already in that <i>coup d’état</i> by which he overthrew
the Republic he took the sword, and now the
Empire, which was the work of his hands, expires. In
Mexico again he took the sword, and again paid the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span>
fearful penalty,&mdash;while the Austrian Archduke, who,
yielding to his pressure, made himself Emperor there,
was shot by order of the Mexican President, an Indian
of unmixed blood. And here there was retribution, not
only for the French Emperor, but far beyond. I know
not if there be invisible threads by which the Present
is attached to the distant Past, making the descendant
suffer even for a distant ancestor, but I cannot forget
that Maximilian was derived from that very family of
Charles the Fifth, whose conquering general, Cortés,
stretched the Indian Guatemozin upon a bed of fire,
and afterwards executed him on a tree. The death of
Maximilian was tardy retribution for the death of Guatemozin.
And thus in this world is wrong avenged,
sometimes after many generations. The fall of the
French Emperor is an illustration of that same retribution
which is so constant. While he yet lives, judgment
has begun.</p>

<p>If I accumulate instances, it is because the certainty
of retribution for wrong, and especially for the great
wrong of War, is a lesson of the present duel to be impressed.
Take notice, all who would appeal to war,
that the way of the transgressor is hard, and sooner or
later he is overtaken. The ban may fall tardily, but it
is sure to fall.</p>

<p>Retribution in another form has already visited France;
nor is its terrible vengeance yet spent. Not only are
populous cities, all throbbing with life and filled with
innocent households, subjected to siege, but to bombardment
also,&mdash;being that most ruthless trial of war, where
non-combatants, including women and children, sick
and aged, share with the soldier his peculiar perils, and
suffer alike with him. All are equal before the hideous<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span>
shell, crashing, bursting, destroying, killing, and changing
the fairest scene into blood-spattered wreck. Against
its vengeful, slaughterous descent there is no protection
for the people,&mdash;nothing but an uncertain shelter in
cellars, or, it may be, in the common sewers. Already
Strasbourg, Toul, and Metz have been called to endure
this indiscriminate massacre, where there is no distinction
of persons; and now the same fate is threatened
to Paris the Beautiful, with its thronging population
counted by the million. Thus is the ancient chalice
which France handed to others now commended to her
own lips. It was France that first in history adopted
this method of war. Long ago, under Louis the Fourteenth,
it became a favorite; but it has not escaped the
judgment of history. Voltaire, with elegant pen, records
that “this art, carried soon among other nations,
served only to multiply human calamities, and more
than once was dreadful to France, where it was invented.”<a name="FNanchor_208_208" id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a>
The bombardment of Luxembourg in 1683
drew from Sismondi, always humane and refined, words
applicable to recent events. “Louis the Fourteenth,”
he says, “had been the first to put in practice this
atrocious and newly invented method of bombarding
towns, … of attacking, not fortifications, but private
houses, not soldiers, but peaceable inhabitants, women
and children, and of confounding thousands of private
crimes, each one of which would cause horror, in one
great public crime, one great disaster, which he regarded
as nothing more than one of the catastrophes of war.”<a name="FNanchor_209_209" id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a>
Again is the saying fulfilled, “All they that take t<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span>he
sword shall perish with the sword.” No lapse of time
can avert the inexorable law. Macbeth saw it in his
terrible imaginings, when he said,&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse indent6">“But in these cases</div>
<div class="verse">We still have judgment here,&mdash;that we but teach</div>
<div class="verse">Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return</div>
<div class="verse">To plague the inventor.”</div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="noindent">And what instruction more bloody than the bombardment
of a city, which now returns to plague the French
people?</p>

<p>Thus is history something more even than philosophy
teaching by example; it is sermon with argument and
exhortation. The simple record of nations preaches;
and whether you regard reason or the affections, it is
the same. If nations were wise or humane, they would
not fight.</p>


<h4>PEACE AFTER CAPITULATION AT SEDAN.</h4>

<p>Vain are lessons of the past or texts of prudence
against that spirit of War which finds sanction and
regulation in International Law. So long as the war
system continues, men will fight. While I speak, the
two champions still stand front to front, Germany exulting
in victory, but France in no respect submissive.
The duel still rages, although one of the champions is
pressed to earth, as in that early combat where the
Chevalier Bayard, so eminent in chivalry, thrust his
dagger into the nostrils of his fallen foe, and then
dragged his dead body off the field. History now repeats
itself, and we witness in Germany the very conduct
condemned in the famous French knight.</p>

<p>The French Emperor was the aggressor. He began
this fatal duel. Let him fall,&mdash;but not the people<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span>
of France. Cruelly already have they expiated their
offence in accepting such a ruler. Not always should
they suffer. Enough of waste, enough of sacrifice,
enough of slaughter have they undergone. Enough
have they felt the accursed hoof of War.</p>

<p>It is easy to see now, that, after the capitulation at
Sedan, there was a double mistake: first, on the part
of Germany, which, as magnanimous conqueror, should
have proposed peace, thus conquering in character as in
arms; and, secondly, on the part of the Republic, which
should have declined to wage a war of Imperialism,
against which the Republican leaders had so earnestly
protested. With the capitulation of the Emperor the
dynastic question was closed. There was no longer
pretension or pretext, nor was there occasion for war.
The two parties should have come to an understanding.
Why continue this terrible homicidal, fratricidal, suicidal
combat, fraught with mutual death and sacrifice?
Why march on Paris? Why beleaguer Paris? Why
bombard Paris? To what end? If for the humiliation
of France, then must it be condemned.</p>


<h4>THREE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF PEACE.</h4>

<p>In arriving at terms of peace, there are at least three
conditions which cannot be overlooked in the interest of
civilization, and that the peace may be such in reality
as in name, and not an armistice only,&mdash;three postulates
which stand above all question, and dominate this
debate, so that any essential departure from them must
end in wretched failure.</p>

<p>The first is the natural requirement of Germany, that
there shall be completest guaranty against fut<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span>ure aggression,
constituting what is so well known among us as
“Security for the Future.” Count Bismarck, with an
exaggeration hardly pardonable, alleges more than
twenty invasions of Germany by France, and declares
that these must be stopped forever.<a name="FNanchor_210_210" id="FNanchor_210_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> Many or few,
they must be stopped forever. The second condition to
be regarded is the natural requirement of France, that
the guaranty, while sufficient, shall be such as not
to wound needlessly the sentiments of the French
people, or to offend any principle of public law. It is
difficult to question these two postulates, at least in the
abstract. Only when we come to the application is
there opportunity for difference. The third postulate,
demanded alike by justice and humanity, is the establishment
of some rule or precedent by which the recurrence
of such a barbarous duel shall be prevented. It
will not be enough to obtain a guaranty for Germany;
there must be a guaranty for Civilization itself.</p>

<p>On careful inquiry, it will be seen that all these can
be accomplished in one way only, which I will describe,
when I have first shown what is now put forward and
discussed as the claim of Germany, under two different
heads, Indemnity and Guaranty.</p>


<h4>INDEMNITY OF GERMANY.</h4>

<p>I have already spoken of Guaranty as an essential
condition. Indemnity is not essential. At the close
of our war with Slavery we said nothing of indemnity.
For the life of the citizen there could be no indemnity;
nor was it practicable even for the treasure sacrificed.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span>
Security for the Future was all that our nation required,
and this was found in provisions of Law and Constitution
establishing Equal Rights. From various intimations
it is evident that Germany will not be content
without indemnity in money on a large scale; and it
is also evident that France, the aggressor, cannot, when
conquered, deny liability to a certain extent. The question
will be on the amount. Already German calculators
begin to array their unrelenting figures. One of
these insists that the indemnity shall not only cover
outlay for the German Army,&mdash;pensions of widows
and invalids,&mdash;maintenance and support of French
wounded and prisoners,&mdash;compensation to Germans
expelled from France,&mdash;also damage suffered by the
territory to be annexed, especially Strasbourg; but it is
also to cover indirect damages, large in amount,&mdash;as,
loss to the nation from change of productive laborers
into soldiers,&mdash;loss from killing and disabling so many
laborers,&mdash;and, generally, loss from suspension of trade
and manufactures, depreciation of national property,
and diminution of the public revenues:&mdash;all of which,
according to a recent estimate, reach the fearful sum-total
of 4,935,000,000 francs, or nearly one thousand
million dollars. Of this sum, 1,255,000,000 francs are
on account of the Army, 1,230,000,000 for direct damage,
2,250,000,000 for indirect damage, and 200,000,000
for damage to the reconquered provinces. Still further,
the Berlin Chamber of Commerce insists on indemnity
not only for actual loss of ships and cargoes from the
blockade, but also for damages on account of detention.
Much of this many-headed account, which I introduce
in order to open the case in its extent, will be opposed
by France, as fabulous, consequential, and remote. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span>
practical question will be, Can one nation do wrong to
another without paying for the damage, whatever it
may be, direct or indirect,&mdash;always provided it be
susceptible of estimate? Here I content myself with
the remark, that, while in the settlement of international
differences there is no place for technicality,
there is always room for moderation.</p>


<h4>GUARANTY OF DISMEMBERMENT.</h4>

<p>Vast as may be the claim of indemnity, it opens
no question so calculated to touch the sensibilities of
France as the claim of guaranty already announced by
Germany. On this head we are not left to conjecture.
From her first victory we have been assured that Germany
would claim Alsace and German Lorraine, with
their famous strongholds; and now we have the statement
of Count Bismarck, in a diplomatic circular, that
he expects to remove the German frontier further
west,&mdash;meaning to the Vosges Mountains, if not to
the Moselle also,&mdash;and to convert the fortresses into
what he calls “defensive strongholds of Germany.”<a name="FNanchor_211_211" id="FNanchor_211_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a>
Then, with larger view, he declares, that, “in rendering
it more difficult for France, from whom all European
troubles have so long proceeded, to assume the offensive,
we likewise promote the common interest of Europe,
which demands the preservation of peace.” Here
is just recognition of peace as the common interest of
Europe, to be assured by disabling France. How shall
this be done? The German Minister sees nothing but
dismemberment, consecrated by a Treaty of Peace.
With diplomatic shears he would cut off a portion of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span>
French territory, and, taking from it the name of France,
stamp upon it the trade-mark of Germany. Two of its
richest and most precious provinces, for some two hundred
years constituent parts of the great nation, with
that ancient cathedral city, the pride of the Rhine, long
years ago fortified by Vauban as “the strongest barrier
of France,”<a name="FNanchor_212_212" id="FNanchor_212_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> are to be severed, and with them a large
and industrious population, which, while preserving the
German language, have so far blended with France as
to become Frenchmen. This is the German proposition,
which I call the Guaranty of Dismemberment.</p>

<p>One argument for this proposition is brushed aside
easily. Had the fortune of war been adverse to Germany,
it is said, peace would have been dictated at Berlin,
perhaps at Königsberg, and France would have
carried her frontier eastward to the Rhine, dismembering
Germany. Such, I doubt not, would have been the
attempt. The conception is entirely worthy of that
Imperial levity with which the war began. But the
madcap menace of the French Empire cannot be the
measure of German justice. It is for Germany to show,
that, notwithstanding this wildness, she knows how to
be just. Dismemberment on this account would be
only another form of retaliation; but retaliation is
barbarous.</p>

<p>To the argument, that these provinces, with their
strongholds, are needed for the defence of Germany,
there is the obvious reply, that, if cut off from France
contrary to the wishes of the local population, and
with the French people in chronic irritation on this
account, they will be places of weakness rather than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span>
strength, strongholds of disaffection rather than defence,
to be held always at the cannon’s mouth. Does Germany
seek lasting peace? Not in this way can it be
had. A painful exaction, enforced by triumphant arms,
must create a sentiment of hostility in France, suppressed
for a season, but ready at a propitious moment
to break forth in violence; so that between the two
conterminous nations there will be nothing better than
a peace where each sleeps on its arms,&mdash;which is but
an Armed Peace. Such for weary years has been the
condition of nations. Is Germany determined to prolong
the awful curse? Will her most enlightened
people, with poetry, music, literature, philosophy, science,
and religion as constant ministers, to whom has
been opened in rarest degree the whole book of knowledge,
persevere in a brutal policy belonging to another
age, and utterly alien to that superior civilization which
is so truly theirs?</p>

<p>There is another consideration, not only of justice,
but of public law, which cannot be overcome. The
people of these provinces are unwilling to be separated
from France. This is enough. France cannot sell or
transfer them against their consent. Consult the great
masters, and you will find their concurring authority.
Grotius, from whom on such a question there can be no
appeal, adjudges: “In the alienation of a part of the
sovereignty it is required <em>that the part which is to be
alienated consent to the act</em>.” According to him, it must
not be supposed “that the body should have the right
of cutting off parts from itself and giving them into the
authority <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span>of another.”<a name="FNanchor_213_213" id="FNanchor_213_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> Of the same opinion is Pufendorf,
declaring: “The sovereign who attempts to transfer
his kingdom to another by his sole authority does
an act in itself null and void, and not binding on his
subjects. To make such a conveyance valid, the consent
of the people is required, as well as of the prince.”<a name="FNanchor_214_214" id="FNanchor_214_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a>
Vattel crowns this testimony, when he adds, that a
province or city, “abandoned and dismembered from
the State, is not obliged to receive the new master
proposed to be given it.”<a name="FNanchor_215_215" id="FNanchor_215_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> Before such texts, stronger
than a fortress, the soldiers of Germany must halt.</p>

<p>Nor can it be forgotten how inconsistent is the guaranty
of Dismemberment with that heroic passion for national
unity which is the glory of Germany. National
unity is not less the right of France than of Germany;
and these provinces, though in former centuries German,
and still preserving the German speech, belong to the
existing unity of France,&mdash;unless, according to the popular
song, the German’s Fatherland extends</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Far as the German accent rings”;</div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="noindent">and then the conqueror must insist on Switzerland; and
why not cross the Atlantic, to dictate laws in Pennsylvania
and Chicago? But this same song has a better
verse, calling that the German’s Fatherland</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Where in the heart love warmly lies.”</div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="noindent">But in these coveted provinces it is the love for France,
and not for Germany, which prevails.</p>


<h4>GUARANTY OF DISARMAMENT.</h4>

<p>The Guaranty of Dismemberment, when brought to
the touchstone of the three essential conditions, i<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span>s found
wanting. Dismissing it as unsatisfactory, I come to
that other guaranty where these conditions are all fulfilled,
and we find security for Germany without offence
to the just sentiments of France, and also a new safeguard
to civilization. Against the Guaranty of Dismemberment
I oppose the Guaranty of Disarmament. By
Disarmament I mean the razing of the French fortifications
and the abolition of the standing army, except
that minimum of force required for purposes of police.
How completely this satisfies the conditions already
named is obvious. For Germany there would be on the
side of France absolute repose, so that Count Bismarck
need not fear another invasion,&mdash;while France, saved
from intolerable humiliation, would herself be free to
profit by the new civilization.</p>

<p>Nor is this guaranty otherwise than practical in every
respect, and the more it is examined the more will its
inestimable advantage be apparent.</p>

<p>1. There is, first, its most obvious <em>economy</em>, which is
so glaring, that, according to a familiar French expression,
“it leaps into the eyes.” Undertaking even briefly
to set it forth, I seem to follow the proverb and “show
the sun with a lantern.” According to the “Almanach
de Gotha,” the appropriations for the army of France,
during the year of peace before the war, were 588,852,970
francs,<a name="FNanchor_216_216" id="FNanchor_216_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a>&mdash;or about one hundred and seventeen
millions of dollars. Give up the Standing Army and
this considerable sum disappears from the annual budget.
But this retrenchment represents only partially
the prodigious economy. Beyond the annual outlay is
the loss to the nation by the change of producers into
non-producers. Admitting that in France the average<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span>
annual production of a soldier usefully employed would
be only fifty dollars, and multiplying this small allowance
by the numbers of the Standing Army, you have
another amount to be piled upon the military appropriations.
Is it too much to expect that this surpassing
waste shall be stopped? Must the extravagance born
of war, and nursed by long tradition, continue to drain
the resources of the land? Where is reason? Where
humanity? A decree abolishing the Standing Army
would be better for the French people, and more productive,
than the richest gold-mine discovered in every
department of France. Nor can imagination picture
the fruitful result. I speak now only in the light of
economy. Relieved from intolerable burden, industry
would lift itself to unimagined labors, and society be
quickened anew.</p>

<p>2. Beyond this economy, which need not be argued,
is the positive <em>advantage, if not necessity</em>, of such change
for France. I do not speak on general grounds applicable
to all nations, but on grounds peculiar to France at
the present moment. Emerging from a most destructive
war, she will be subjected to enormous and unprecedented
contributions of every kind. After satisfying
Germany, she will find other obligations at home,&mdash;some
pressing directly upon the nation, and others upon
individuals. Beyond the outstanding pay of soldiers,
requisitions for supplies, pensions for the wounded and
the families of the dead, and other extraordinary liabilities
accumulating as never before in the same time,
there will be the duty of renewing that internal prosperity
which has received such a shock; and here the
work of restoration will be costly, whether to the nation
or the individual. Revenue must be regained, roads<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span>
and bridges repaired, markets supplied; nor can we
omit the large and multitudinous losses from ravage of
fields, seizure of stock, suspension of business, stoppage
of manufactures, interference with agriculture, and the
whole terrible drain of war by which the people are
impoverished and disabled. If to the necessary appropriation
and expenditure for all these things is superadded
the annual tax of a Standing Army, and that
other draft from the change of producers into non-producers,
plainly here is a supplementary burden of
crushing weight. Talk of the last feather breaking
the back of the camel,&mdash;but never was camel loaded
down as France.</p>

<p>3. Beyond even these considerations of economy and
advantage I put the transcendent, priceless benefit of
Disarmament in the <em>assurance of peace</em>. Disarmament
substitutes the constable for the soldier, and reduces the
Standing Army to a police. The argument assumes,
first, the needlessness of a Standing Army, and, secondly,
its evil influence. Both of these points were
touched at an early day by the wise Chancellor of England,
Sir Thomas More, when, in his practical and personal
Introduction to “Utopia,” he alludes to what he
calls the “bad custom” of keeping many servants, and
then says: “In France there is yet a more pestiferous
sort of people; for the whole country is full of soldiers,
that are still kept up in time of peace,&mdash;if such a state
of a nation can be called a peace.” Then, proceeding
with his judgment, the Chancellor holds up what he
calls those “pretended statesmen” whose maxim is that
“it is necessary for the public safety to have a good
body of veteran soldiers ever in read<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span>iness.” And after
saying that these pretended statesmen “sometimes seek
occasion for making war, that they may train up their
soldiers in the art of cutting throats,” he adds, in words
soon to be tested, “But France has learned, to its cost,
how dangerous it is to feed such beasts.”<a name="FNanchor_217_217" id="FNanchor_217_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> It will be
well, if France has learned this important lesson. The
time has come to practise it.</p>

<p>All history is a vain word, and all experience is at
fault, if large War Preparations, of which the Standing
Army is the type, have not been constant provocatives
of war. Pretended protectors against war, they have
been real instigators to war. They have excited the
evil against which they were to guard. The habit of
wearing arms in private life exercised a kindred influence.
So long as this habit continued, society was
darkened by personal combat, street-fight, duel, and assassination.
The Standing Army is to the nation what
the sword was to the modern gentleman, the stiletto to
the Italian, the knife to the Spaniard, the pistol to our
slave-master,&mdash;furnishing, like these, the means of
death; and its possessor is not slow to use it. In stating
the operation of this system we are not left to inference.
As France, according to Sir Thomas More,
shows “how dangerous it is to feed such beasts,” so
does Prussia, in ever-memorable instance, which speaks
now with more than ordinary authority, show precisely
how the Standing Army may become the incentive to
war. Frederick, the warrior king, is our witness. With
honesty or impudence beyond parallel, he did not hesitate
to record in his Memoirs, among the reasons for his
war upon Maria Theresa, that, on coming to the throne,
he found himself with “troops always ready to act.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span>”
Voltaire, when called to revise the royal memoirs,
erased this confession, but preserved a copy;<a name="FNanchor_218_218" id="FNanchor_218_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> so that
by his literary activity we have this kingly authority
for the mischief from a Standing Army. How complete
a weapon was that army may be learned from
Lafayette, who, in a letter to Washington, in 1786, after
a visit to the King, described it thus:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Nothing can be compared to the beauty of the troops, to
the discipline which reigns in all their ranks, to the simplicity
of their movements, to the uniformity of their regiments.…
All the situations which can be supposed in
war, all the movements which these must necessitate, have
been by constant habit so inculcated in their heads, that all
these operations are done almost mechanically.”<a name="FNanchor_219_219" id="FNanchor_219_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Nothing better has been devised since the Macedonian
phalanx or the Roman legion. With such a weapon
ready to his hands, the King struck Maria Theresa.
And think you that the present duel between France
and Germany could have been waged, had not both nations
found themselves, like Frederick of Prussia, with
“troops always ready to act”? It was the possession of
these troops which made the two parties rush so swiftly
to the combat. Is not the lesson perfect? Already
individuals have disarmed. Civilization requires that
nations shall do likewise.</p>

<p>Thus is Disarmament enforced on three several
grounds: first, economy; secondly, positive advantage,
if not necessity, for France; and, thirdly, assurance of
peace. No other guaranty promises so much. Does<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span>
any other guaranty promise anything beyond the accident
of force? Nor would France be alone. Dismissing
to the arts of peace the large army victorious over
Slavery, our Republic has shown how disarmament can
be accomplished. The example of France, so entirely
reasonable, so profitable, so pacific, and so harmonious
with ours, would spread. Conquering Germany could
not resist its influence. Nations are taught by example
more than by precept, and either is better than force.
Other nations would follow; nor would Russia, elevated
by her great act of Enfranchisement, fail to seize her
sublime opportunity. Popular rights, which are strongest
always in assured peace, would have new triumphs.
Instead of Trial by Battle for the decision of differences
between nations, there would be peaceful substitutes, as
Arbitration, or, it may be, a Congress of Nations, and
the United States of Europe would appear above the
subsiding waters. The old juggle of Balance of Power,
which has rested like a nightmare on Europe, would
disappear, like that other less bloody fiction of Balance
of Trade, and nations, like individuals, would all be
equal before the law. Here our own country furnishes
an illustration. So long as slavery prevailed among us,
there was an attempt to preserve what was designated
balance of power between the North and South, pivoting
on Slavery,&mdash;just as in Europe there has been an
attempt to preserve balance of power among nations
pivoting on War. Too tardily is it seen that this famous
balance, which has played such a part at home
and abroad, is but an artificial contrivance instituted by
power, which must give place to a simple accord derived
from the natural condition of things. Why should not
the harmony which has begun at home be extended<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span>
abroad? Practicable and beneficent here, it must be
the same there. Then would nations exist without perpetual
and reciprocal watchfulness. But the first step
is to discard the wasteful, oppressive, and pernicious
provocative to war, which is yet maintained at such terrible
cost. To-day this glorious advance is presented to
France and Germany.</p>


<h4>KING WILLIAM AND COUNT BISMARCK.</h4>

<p>Two personages at this moment hold in their hands
the great question teeming with a new civilization.
Honest and determined, both are patriotic rather than
cosmopolitan or Christian, believing in Prussia rather
than Humanity. And the patriotism so strong in each
keeps still the early tinge of iron. I refer to King
William and his Prime-Minister, Count Bismarck.</p>

<p>More than any other European sovereign, William
of Prussia possesses the infatuation of “divine right.”
He believes that he was appointed by God to be King&mdash;differing
here from Louis Napoleon, who in a spirit
of compromise entitled himself Emperor “by the grace
of God and the national will.” This infatuation was
illustrated at his coronation in ancient Königsberg,&mdash;first
home of Prussian royalty, and better famous as
birthplace and lifelong home of Immanuel Kant,&mdash;when
the King enacted a scene of melodrama which
might be transferred from the church to the theatre.
No other person was allowed to place the crown on his
royal head. Lifting it from the altar, where it rested,
he placed it on his head himself, in sign that he held
it from Heaven and not from man, and next placed another
on the head of the Queen, in sign that her dignity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span>
was derived from him. Then, turning round, he grasped
the sword of state, in testimony of readiness to defend
the nation. Since the Battle of Sadowa, when the Austrian
Empire was so suddenly shattered, he has believed
himself providential sword-bearer of Germany, destined,
perhaps, to revive the old glories of Barbarossa. His
habits are soldierly, and, notwithstanding his seventy-three
winters, he continues to find pleasure in wearing
the spiked helmet of the Prussian camp. Republicans
smile when he speaks of “my army,” “my allies,” and
“my people”; but this egotism is the natural expression
of the monarchical character, especially where the
monarch believes that he holds by “divine right.” His
public conduct is in harmony with these conditions.
He is a Protestant, and rules the land of Luther, but
he is no friend to modern Reform. The venerable system
of war and prerogative is part of his inheritance
handed down from fighting despots, and he evidently
believes in it.</p>

<p>His Minister, Count Bismarck, is the partisan of “divine
right,” and, like the King, regards with satisfaction
that hierarchical feudalism from which they are both
derived. He is noble, and believes in nobility. He
believes also in force, as if he had the blood of the god
Thor. He believes in war, and does not hesitate to
throw its “iron dice,” insisting upon the rigors of the
game. As the German question began to lower, his
policy was most persistent. “Not by speeches and
votes of the majority,” he said in 1862, “are the great
questions of the time decided,&mdash;that was the error of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span>
1848 and 1849,&mdash;<em>but by iron and blood</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_220_220" id="FNanchor_220_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> Thus explicit
was he. Having a policy, he became its representative,
and very soon thereafter controlled the counsels of
his sovereign, coming swiftly before the world; and yet
his elevation was tardy. Born in 1815, he did not enter
upon diplomacy until 1851, when thirty-six years of
age, and only in 1862 became Prussian Minister at
Paris, whence he was soon transferred to the Cabinet
at Berlin as Prime-Minister. Down to that time he
was little known. His name is not found in any edition
of the bulky French Dictionary of Contemporaries,<a name="FNanchor_221_221" id="FNanchor_221_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a>
not even its “Additions and Rectifications,” until
the Supplement of 1863. But from this time he drew
so large a share of public attention that the contemporary
press of the world became the dictionary where his
name was always found. Nobody doubts his intellectual
resources, his courage, or strength of will; but it is
felt that he is naturally hard, and little affected by human
sympathy. Therefore is he an excellent war minister.
It remains to be seen if he will do as much for
peace. His one idea has been the unity of Germany
under the primacy of Prussia; and here he encountered
Austria, as he now encounters France. But in that
larger unity where nations will be conjoined in harmony
he can do less, so long at least as he continues
a fanatic for kings and a cynic towards popular institutions.</p>

<p>Such is the King, and such his Minister. I have described
them that you may see how little help the great
ideas already germinating from bloody fields will receive
from them. In this respect they are as one.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span></p>

<h4>TWO INFLUENCES <i>VERSUS</i> WAR SYSTEM.</h4>

<p>Beyond the most persuasive influence of civilization,
pleading, as never before, with voice of reason and affection,
that the universal tyrant and master-evil of
Christendom, the War System, may cease, and the
means now absorbed in its support be employed for the
benefit of the Human Family, there are two special influences
which cannot be without weight at this time.
The first is German authority in the writings of philosophers,
by whom Germany rules in thought; and the
second is the uprising of the working-men: both
against war as acknowledged arbiter between nations,
and insisting upon peaceful substitutes.</p>


<h4>AUTHORITY OF THE GERMAN MIND.</h4>

<p>More than any other nation Germany has suffered
from war. Without that fatal gift of beauty, “a dowry
fraught with never-ending pain,” which tempted the
foreigner to Italy, her lot has been hardly less wretched;
but Germany has differed from Italy in the successful
bravery with which she repelled the invader.
Tacitus says of her people, that, “surrounded by numerous
and very powerful nations, they are safe, not by
obsequiousness, but by battles and braving danger”;<a name="FNanchor_222_222" id="FNanchor_222_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a>
and this same character, thus epigrammatically presented,
has continued ever since. Yet this was not
without that painful experience which teaches what
Art has so often attempted to picture and Eloquence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span> to
describe, “The Miseries of War.” Again in that same
fearless spirit has Germany driven back the invader,
while War is seen anew in its atrocious works. But it
was not merely the Miseries of War which Germans
regarded. The German mind is philosophical and scientific,
and it early saw the irrational character of the
War System. It is well known that Henry the Fourth
of France conceived the idea of Harmony among Nations
without War; and his plan was taken up and elaborated
in numerous writings by the good Abbé de Saint-Pierre,
so that he made it his own. Rousseau, in his
treatise on the subject,<a name="FNanchor_223_223" id="FNanchor_223_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> popularized Saint-Pierre. But
it is to Germany that we must look for the most complete
and practical development of this beautiful idea.
If French in origin, it is German now in authority.</p>

<p>The greatest minds in Germany have dealt with this
problem, and given to its solution the exactness of science.
No greater have been applied to any question.
Foremost in this list, in time and in fame, is Leibnitz,
that marvel of human intelligence, second, perhaps, to
none in history, who, on reading the “Project of Perpetual
Peace” by the Abbé de Saint-Pierre, pronounced
this judgment: “I have read it with attention, and am
persuaded that such a project is on the whole feasible,
and that its execution would be one of the most useful
things in the world.”<a name="FNanchor_224_224" id="FNanchor_224_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> Thus did Leibnitz affirm its
feasibility and its immense usefulness. Other minds
followed, in no apparent concert, but in unison. I may
be pardoned, if, without being too bibliographical, I
name some of these witnesses.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span></p>
<p>At Göttingen, renowned for its University, the question
was opened, at the close of the Seven Years’ War
in 1763, in a work by Totze, whose character appears in
its title, “Permanent and Universal Peace in Europe,
according to the Plan of Henry IV.”<a name="FNanchor_225_225" id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> At Leipsic, also
the seat of a University, the subject was presented in
1767 by Lilienfeld, in a treatise of much completeness,
under the name of “New Constitution for States,”<a name="FNanchor_226_226" id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a>
where, after exposing the wretched chances of the battle-field
and the expense of armaments in time of peace,
the author urges submission to Arbitrators, unless a Supreme
Tribunal is established to administer International
Law and to judge between nations. In 1804 appeared
another work, of singular clearness and force, by
Karl Schwab, entitled “Of Unavoidable Injustice,”<a name="FNanchor_227_227" id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a>
where the author describes what he calls the Universal
State, in which nations will be to each other as citizens
in the Municipal State. He is not so visionary as to
imagine that justice will always be inviolate between
nations in the Universal State, for it is not always so
between citizens in the Municipal State; but he confidently
looks to the establishment between nations of
the rules which now subsist between citizens, whose differences
are settled peaceably by judicial tribunals.</p>

<p>These works, justly important for the light they shed,
and as expressions of a growing sentiment, are eclipsed
in the contributions of the great teacher, Immanuel
Kant, who, after his fame in philosophy was established,
so that his works were discussed and expounded not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span>
only throughout Germany, but in other lands, in 1795
gave to the world a treatise entitled “On Perpetual
Peace,”<a name="FNanchor_228_228" id="FNanchor_228_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> which was promptly translated into French,
Danish, and Dutch. Two other works by him attest
his interest in the subject, the first entitled “Idea for
a General History in a Cosmopolitan View,”<a name="FNanchor_229_229" id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> and the
other, “Metaphysical Elements of Jurisprudence.”<a name="FNanchor_230_230" id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a>
His grasp was complete. A treaty of peace which
tacitly acknowledges the right to wage war, as all treaties
now do, according to Kant is nothing more than a
truce. An individual war may be ended, but not the
<em>state of war</em>; so that, even after cessation of hostilities,
there will be constant fear of their renewal, while the
armaments known as Peace Establishments will tend to
provoke them. All this should be changed, and nations
should form one comprehensive Federation, which, receiving
other nations within its fold, will at last embrace
the civilized world; and such, in the judgment of
Kant, was the irresistible tendency of nations. To a
French poet we are indebted for the most suggestive
term, “United States of Europe”;<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> but this is nothing
but the Federation of the illustrious German philosopher.
Nor was Kant alone among his great contemporaries.
That other philosopher, Fichte, whose name
at the time was second only to that of Kant, in his
“Groundwork of the Law of Nature,”<a name="FNanchor_232_232" id="FNanchor_232_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> published in
1796, also urges a Federation of Nations, with an established
tribunal to which all should submit. Much<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span>
better for civilization, had the King at Königsberg, instead
of grasping the sword, hearkened to the voice of
Kant, renewed by Fichte.</p>

<p>With these German oracles in its support, the cause
cannot be put aside. Even in the midst of war, Philosophy
will be heard, especially when she speaks words
of concurring authority that touch a chord in every
heart. Leibnitz, Kant, and Fichte, a mighty triumvirate
of intelligence, unite in testimony. As Germany,
beyond any other nation, has given to the idea of Organized
Peace the warrant of philosophy, it only remains
now that she should insist upon its practical application.
There should be no delay. Long enough has
mankind waited while the river of blood flowed on.</p>


<h4>UPRISING OF WORKING-MEN.</h4>

<p>The working-men of Europe, not excepting Germany,
respond to the mandate of Philosophy, and insist that
the War System shall be abolished. At public meetings,
in formal resolutions and addresses, they have declared
war against War, and they will not be silenced.
This is not the first time that working-men have made
themselves heard for international justice. I cannot
forget, that, while Slavery was waging war against our
nation, the working-men of Belgium in public meeting
protested against that precocious Proclamation of Belligerent
Rights by which the British Government gave
such impulse to the Rebellion; and now, in the same
spirit, and for the sake of true peace, they declare themselves
against that War System by which the peace of
nations is placed in such constant jeopardy. They are
right; for nobody suffers in war as the working-ma<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span>n,
whether in property or in person. For him war is a
ravening monster, devouring his substance, and changing
him from citizen to military serf. As victim of the
War System he is entitled to be heard.</p>

<p>The working-men of different countries have been organizing
in societies, of which it is difficult at present
to tell the number and extent. It is known that these
societies exist in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and
England, as well as in our own country, and that they
have in some measure an international character. In
France, before the war, there were 433,785 men in the
organization, and in Germany 150,000.<a name="FNanchor_233_233" id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> Yet this is but
the beginning.</p>

<p>At the menace of the present war, all these societies
were roused. The society known as the International
Working-Men’s Association, by their General Council,
issued an address, dated at London, protesting against it
as a war of dynasties, denouncing Louis Napoleon as an
enemy of the laboring classes, and declaring “the war-plot
of July, 1870, but an amended edition of the <i>coup
d’état</i> of December, 1851.” The address then testifies
generally against war, saying,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“They feel deeply convinced, that, whatever turn the impending
horrid war may take, <em>the alliance of the working classes
of all countries will ultimately kill war</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a></p>

</div>

<p>At the same time the Paris branch of the International
Association put forth a manifesto addressed “To
the Working-Men of all Countries,” from which I take
these passages:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Once more, under the pretext of European equilibrium,
of national honor, political ambitions menace the peace of the
world.</p>

<p>“French, German, Spanish working-men! <em>let our voices
unite in a cry of reprobation against war!</em></p>

<p class="center">…</p>

<p>“War for a question of preponderance, or of dynasty, can,
in the eyes of working-men, be nothing but a criminal absurdity.</p>

<p>“In response to the warlike acclamations of those who exonerate
themselves from the impost of blood, or who find in
public misfortunes a source of new speculations, we protest,&mdash;we
who wish for peace, work, and liberty.</p>

<p class="center">…</p>

<p>“Brothers of Germany!… our divisions would only
bring about <em>the complete triumph of despotism on both sides of
the Rhine</em>.</p>

<p class="center">…</p>

<p>“Working-men of all countries! whatever may be the result
of our common efforts, we, members of the International
Association of Working-Men, who know no frontiers, we send
you, as a pledge of indissoluble solidarity, the good wishes
and the salutations of the working-men of France.”<a name="FNanchor_235_235" id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a></p>

</div>

<p>To this appeal, so full of truth, touching to the quick
the pretence of balance of power and questions of dynasty
as excuses for war, and then rising to “a cry of
reprobation against war,” the Berlin branch of the International
Association replied:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“We join with heart and hand in your protestation.…
Solemnly we promise you that neither the noise of drums nor
the thunder of cannon, neither victory nor defeat, shall turn
us aside from our work for the union of the proletaries of
all countries.”<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a></p>

</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span></p>
<p>Then came a meeting of delegates at Chemnitz, in
Saxony, representing fifty thousand Saxon working-men,
which put forth the following hardy words:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“We are happy to grasp the fraternal hand stretched out
to us by the working-men of France.… Mindful of the
watchword of the International Working-Men’s Association,
<em>Proletarians of all countries, unite!</em> we shall never forget
that the working-men of all countries are our friends, and
the despots of all countries our enemies.”<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Next followed, at Brunswick, in Germany, on the 16th
of July,&mdash;the very day after the reading of the war document
at the French tribune, and the “light heart” of
the Prime-Minister,&mdash;a mass meeting of the working-men
there, which declared its full concurrence with the
manifesto of the Paris branch, spurned the idea of national
antagonism to France, and wound up with these
solid words:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“We are enemies of all wars, but above all of dynastic
wars.”<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a></p>

</div>

<p>The whole subject is presented with admirable power
in an address from the Workmen’s Peace Committee to
the Working-Men of Great Britain and Ireland, duly
signed by their officers. Here are some of its sentences:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Without us war must cease; for without us standing
armies could not exist. It is out of our class chiefly that
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span>they are formed.”</p>

<p>“We would call upon and implore the peoples of France
and Germany, in order to enable their own rulers to realize
these their peace-loving professions, <em>to insist upon the abolition
of standing armies</em>, as both the source and means of
war, nurseries of vice, and locust-consumers of the fruits of
useful industry.”</p>

<p>“What we claim and demand&mdash;what we would implore
the peoples of Europe to do, without regard to Courts, Cabinets,
or Dynasties&mdash;is <em>to insist upon Arbitration as a substitute
for war</em>, with peace and its blessings for them, for us, for
the whole civilized world.”<a name="FNanchor_239_239" id="FNanchor_239_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a></p>

</div>

<p>The working-men of England responded to this appeal,
in a crowded meeting at St. James’s Hall, London,
where all the speakers were working-men and representatives
of the various handicrafts, except the Chairman,
whose strong words found echo in the intense convictions
of the large assemblage:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“One object of this meeting is to make the horror universally
inspired by the enormous and cruel carnage of this
terrible war the groundwork for appealing to the working
classes and the people of all other European countries to join
in protesting against war altogether, [<i>prolonged cheers</i>,] as the
shame of Christendom, and direst curse and scourge of the
human race. Let the will of the people sweep away war,
which cannot be waged without them. [‘<i>Hear!</i>’] Away
with enormous standing armies, [‘<i>Hear!</i>’] the nurseries and
instruments of war,&mdash;nurseries, too, of vice, and crushing
burdens upon national wealth and prosperity! Let there go
forth from the people of this and other lands one universal
and all-overpowering cry and demand for the blessings of
peace!”<a name="FNanchor_240_240" id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a></p>

</div>

<p>At this meeting the Honorary Secretary of the Workmen’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span>s
Peace Committee, after announcing that the working-men
of upwards of three hundred towns had given
their adhesion to the platform of the Committee, thus
showing a determination to abolish war altogether, moved
the following resolution, which was adopted:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That war, especially with the present many fearful contrivances
for wholesale carnage and destruction, is repugnant to
every principle of reason, humanity, and religion; and this
meeting earnestly invites all civilized and Christian peoples
to insist upon the abolition of standing armies, and the settlement
by arbitration of all international disputes.”<a name="FNanchor_241_241" id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Thus clearly is the case stated by the Working-Men,
now beginning to be heard; and the testimony is reverberated
from nation to nation. They cannot be silent
hereafter. I confidently look to them for important coöperation
in this great work of redemption. Could my
voice reach them now, wherever they may be, in that
honest toil which is the appointed lot of man, it would
be with words of cheer and encouragement. Let them
proceed until civilization is no longer darkened by war.
In this way will they become not only saviours to their
own households, but benefactors of the whole Human
Family.</p>


<h4>ABOLITION OF THE WAR SYSTEM.</h4>

<p>Such is the statement, with its many proofs, by which
war is exhibited as the Duel of Nations, being the Trial
by Battle of the Dark Ages. You have seen how nations,
under existing International Law, to which all are
parties, refer their differences to this insensate arbitrament,&mdash;and
then how, in our day and before our own<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span>
eyes, two nations eminent in civilization have furnished
an instance of this incredible folly, waging together a
world-convulsing, soul-harrowing, and most barbarous
contest. All ask how long the direful duel will be continued.
Better ask, How long will be continued that
War System by which such a duel is authorized and
regulated among nations? When will this legalized,
organized crime be abolished? When at last will it be
confessed that the Law of Right is the same for nations
as for individuals, so that, if Trial by Battle be impious
for individuals, it is so for nations likewise? Against it
are Reason and Humanity, pleading as never before,&mdash;Economy,
asking for mighty help,&mdash;Peace, with softest
voice praying for safeguard,&mdash;and then the authority of
Philosophy, speaking by some of its greatest masters,&mdash;all
reinforced by the irrepressible, irresistible protest of
working-men in different nations.</p>

<p>Precedents exist for the abolition of this duel, so completely
in point, that, according to the lawyer’s phrase,
they “go on all fours” with the new case. Two of
these have been already mentioned: first, when, at the
Diet of Worms, in 1495, the Emperor Maximilian proclaimed
a permanent peace throughout Germany, and
abolished the “liberty” of Private War; and, secondly,
when, in 1815, the German Principalities stipulated
“under no pretext to make war upon one another, or
to pursue their differences by force of arms.”<a name="FNanchor_242_242" id="FNanchor_242_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> But
first in time, and perhaps in importance, was the great
Ordinance of St. Louis, King of France, promulgated at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span>
a Parliament in 1260, where he says: “<em>We forbid battles</em>
[<i>i. e.</i> <span class="smcap">Trials by Battle</span>] <em>to all persons throughout our
dominions, … and in place of battles we put proofs
by witnesses.…</em> <span class="smcap">And these Battles we abolish in
our Dominions forever.</span>”<a name="FNanchor_243_243" id="FNanchor_243_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> These at the time were
great words, and they continue great as an example.
Their acceptance by any two nations would begin the
work of abolition, which would be completed on their
adoption by a Congress of Nations, taking from war its
existing sanction.</p>


<h4>THE WORLD A GLADIATORIAL AMPHITHEATRE.</h4>

<p>The growing tendencies of mankind have been quickened
by the character of the present war, and the unexampled
publicity with which it has been waged. Never
before were all nations, even those separated by great
spaces, whether of land or ocean, the daily and excited
spectators of the combat. The vast amphitheatre within
which the battle is fought, with the whole heavens for
its roof, is coextensive with civilization itself. The
scene in that great Flavian Amphitheatre, the famous
Colosseum, is a faint type of what we are witnessing;
but that is not without its lesson. Bloody games, where
human beings contended with lions and tigers, imported
for the purpose, or with each other, constituted an institution
of ancient Rome, only mildly rebuked by Cicero,<a name="FNanchor_244_244" id="FNanchor_244_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a>
and adopted even by Titus, in that short reign so much<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span>
praised as unspotted by the blood of the citizen.<a name="FNanchor_245_245" id="FNanchor_245_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> One
hundred thousand spectators looked on, while gladiators
from Germany and Gaul joined in ferocious combat; and
then, as blood began to flow, and victim after victim
sank upon the sand, the people caught the fierce contagion.
A common ferocity ruled the scene. As Christianity
prevailed, the incongruity of such an institution
was widely felt; but still it continued. At last an
Eastern monk, moved only by report, journeyed a long
way to protest against the impiety. With noble enthusiasm
he leaped into the arena, where the battle raged,
in order to separate the combatants. He was unsuccessful,
and paid with life the penalty of his humanity.<a name="FNanchor_246_246" id="FNanchor_246_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a>
But the martyr triumphed where the monk had failed.
Shortly afterwards, the Emperor Honorius, by solemn
decree, put an end to this horrid custom. “The first
Christian Emperor,” says Gibbon, “may claim the honor
of the first edict which condemned the art and amusement
of shedding human blood.”<a name="FNanchor_247_247" id="FNanchor_247_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a> Our amphitheatre is
larger than that of Rome; but it witnesses scenes not
less revolting; nor need any monk journey a long way
to protest against the impiety. That protest can be uttered
by every one here at home. We are all spectators;
and since by human craft the civilized world has
become one mighty Colosseum, with place for everybody,
may we not insist that the bloody games by which
it is yet polluted shall cease, and that, instead of mutual-murdering
gladiators filling the near-brought scene
with death, there shall be a harmonious people, of different
nations, but one fellowship, vying together only
in works of industry and art, inspired and exalted by a
divine beneficence?</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span></p>
<p>In presenting this picture I exaggerate nothing. How
feeble is language to depict the stupendous barbarism!
How small by its side the bloody games which degraded
ancient Rome! How pygmy the one, how colossal
the other! Would you know how the combat is conducted?
Here is the briefest picture of the arena by
a looker-on:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Let your readers fancy masses of colored rags glued together
with blood and brains, and pinned into strange shapes
by fragments of bones,&mdash;let them conceive men’s bodies
without heads, legs without bodies, heaps of human entrails
attached to red and blue cloth, and disembowelled corpses
in uniform, bodies lying about in all attitudes, with skulls
shattered, faces blown off, hips smashed, bones, flesh, and
gay clothing all pounded together as if brayed in a mortar
extending for miles, not very thick in any one place, but recurring
perpetually for weary hours,&mdash;and then they cannot,
with the most vivid imagination, come up to the sickening
reality of that butchery.”<a name="FNanchor_248_248" id="FNanchor_248_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Such a sight would have shocked the Heathen of
Rome. They could not have looked on while the brave
gladiator was thus changed into a bloody hash; least of
all could they have seen the work of slaughter done by
machinery. Nor could any German gladiator have
written the letter I proceed to quote from a German
soldier:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I do not know how it is, but one wholly forgets the danger
one is in, and thinks only of the effect of one’s own bullets,
rejoicing like a child at the sight of the enemy falling
like skittles, and having scarcely a compassionate glance to
spare for the comrade falling at one’s side. One ceases to be
a human being, and turns into a brute, a complete brute.”</p>

</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span></p>

<p>Plain confession! And yet the duel continues. Nor
is there death for the armed man only. Fire mingles
with slaughter, as at Bazeilles. Women and children
are roasted alive, filling the air with suffocating odor,
while the maddened combatants rage against each other.
All this is but part of the prolonged and various spectacle,
where the scene shifts only for some other horror.
Meanwhile the sovereigns of the world sit in their boxes,
and the people everywhere occupy the benches.</p>


<h4>PERIL FROM THE WAR SYSTEM.</h4>

<p>The duel now pending teaches the peril from continuance
of the present system. If France and Germany
can be brought so suddenly into collision on a mere
pretext, what two nations are entirely safe? Where is
the talisman for their protection? None, surely, except
Disarmament, which, therefore, for the interest
of all nations, should be commenced. Prussia is now
an acknowledged military power, armed “in complete
steel,”&mdash;but at what cost to her people, if not to mankind!
Military citizenship, according to Prussian rule,
is military serfdom, and on this is elevated a military
despotism of singular grasp and power, operating
throughout the whole nation, like martial law or a
state of siege. In Prussia the law tyrannically seizes
every youth of twenty, and, no matter what his calling
or profession, compels him to military service for seven
years. Three years he spends in active service in the
regular army, where his life is surrendered to the trade
of blood; then for four years he passes to the reserve,
where he is subject to periodic military drills; then for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span>
five years longer to the <i>Landwehr</i>, or militia, with liability
to service in the <i>Landsturm</i>, in case of war, until
sixty. Wherever he may be in foreign lands, his military
duty is paramount.</p>

<p>But if this system be good for Prussia, then must it
be equally good for other nations. If this economical
government, with education for all, subordinates the
business of life to the military drill, other nations will
find too much reason for doing the same. Unless the
War System is abandoned, all must follow the successful
example, while the civilized world becomes a busy
camp, with every citizen a soldier, and with all sounds
swallowed up in the tocsin of war. Where, then, are
the people? Where are popular rights? Montesquieu
has not hesitated to declare that the peril to free governments
proceeds from armies, and that this peril is
not corrected even by making them depend directly on
the legislative power. This is not enough. The armies
must be reduced in number and force.<a name="FNanchor_249_249" id="FNanchor_249_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> Among
his papers, found since his death, is the prediction,
“France will be ruined by the military.”<a name="FNanchor_250_250" id="FNanchor_250_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> It is the
privilege of genius like that of Montesquieu to lift
the curtain of the future; but even he did not see the
vastness of suffering in store for his country through
those armies against which he warned. For years the
engine of despotism at home, they became the sudden
instrument of war abroad. Without them Louis Napoleon
could not have made himself Emperor, nor could
he have hurried France into the present duel. If needed
in other days, they are not needed now. The War
System, always barbarous, is an anachronism, full of
peril both to peace and liberal institutions.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span></p>

<h4>PEACE.</h4>

<p>An army is a despotism; military service is a bondage;
nor can the passion for arms be reconciled with a
true civilization. The present failure to acknowledge
this incompatibility is only another illustration how the
clear light of truth is discolored and refracted by an
atmosphere where the cloud of war still lingers. Soon
must this cloud be dispersed. From war to peace is a
change indeed; but Nature herself testifies to change.
Sirius, brightest of all the fixed stars, was noted by
Ptolemy as of reddish hue,<a name="FNanchor_251_251" id="FNanchor_251_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> and by Seneca as redder
than Mars;<a name="FNanchor_252_252" id="FNanchor_252_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a> but since then it has changed to white.
To the morose remark, whether in the philosophy of
Hobbes or the apology of the soldier, that man is a
fighting animal and that war is natural, I reply,&mdash;Natural
for savages rejoicing in the tattoo, natural for barbarians
rejoicing in violence, but not natural for man in
a true civilization, which I insist is the natural state to
which he tends by a sure progression. The true state
of Nature is not war, but peace. Not only every war,
but every recognition of war as the mode of determining
international differences, is evidence that we are yet
barbarians,&mdash;and so also is every ambition for empire
founded on force, and not on the consent of the people.
A ghastly, bleeding, human head was discovered
by the early Romans, as they dug the foundations of
that Capitol which finally swayed the world.<a name="FNanchor_253_253" id="FNanchor_253_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> That
ghastly, bleeding, human head is the fit symbol of military
power.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span></p>
<p>Let the War System be abolished, and, in the glory
of this consummation, how vulgar all that comes from
battle! By the side of this serene, beneficent civilization,
how petty in its pretensions is military power!
how vain its triumphs! At this moment the great
general who has organized victory for Germany is
veiled, and his name does not appear even in the military
bulletins. Thus is the glory of arms passing from
sight, and battle losing its ancient renown. Peace does
not arrest the mind like war. It does not glare like
battle. Its operations, like those of Nature, are gentle,
yet sure. It is not the tumbling, sounding cataract, but
the tranquil, fruitful river. Even the majestic Niagara,
with thunder like war, cannot compare with the peaceful
plains of water which it divides. How easy to see
that the repose of nations, like the repose of Nature, is
the great parent of the most precious bounties vouchsafed
by Providence! Add Peace to Liberty,&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“And with that virtue, every virtue lives.”</div>
</div>
</div>

<p>As peace is assured, the traditional sensibilities of
nations will disappear. Their frontiers will no longer
frown with hostile cannon, nor will their people be
nursed to hate each other. By ties of constant fellowship
will they be interwoven together, no sudden trumpet
waking to arms, no sharp summons disturbing the
uniform repose. By steam, by telegraph, by the press,
have they already conquered time, subdued space,&mdash;thus
breaking down old walls of partition by which
they have been separated. Ancient example loses its
influence. The prejudices of another generation are
removed, and the old geography gives place to a new.
The heavens are divided into constellations, with names<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span>
from beasts, or from some form of brute force,&mdash;as Leo,
Taurus, Sagittarius, and Orion with his club; but this
is human device. By similar scheme is the earth divided.
But in the sight of God there is one Human
Family without division, where all are equal in rights;
and the attempt to set up distinctions, keeping men
asunder, or in barbarous groups, is a practical denial of
that great truth, religious and political, the Brotherhood
of Man. The Christian’s Fatherland is not merely the
nation in which he was born, but the whole earth appointed
by the Heavenly Father for his home. In this
Fatherland there can be no place for unfriendly boundaries
set up by any,&mdash;least of all, place for the War
System, making nations as hostile camps.</p>

<p>At Lassa, in Thibet, there is a venerable stone in
memory of the treaty between the courts of Thibet and
China, as long ago as 821, bearing an inscription worthy
of a true civilization. From Eastern story learn now
the beauty of peace. After the titles of the two august
sovereigns, the monument proceeds: “These two wise,
holy, spiritual, and accomplished princes, foreseeing the
changes hidden in the most distant futurity, touched
with sentiments of compassion towards their people,
and not knowing, in their beneficent protection, any
difference between their subjects and strangers, have,
after mature reflection and by mutual consent, resolved
to give peace to their people.… In perfect harmony
with each other, they will henceforth be good
neighbors, and will do their utmost to draw still closer
the bonds of union and friendship. Henceforward the
two empires of Han (China) and Pho (Thibet) shall
have fixed boundaries.… In preserving these limits,
the respective parties shall not endeavor to injure<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span>
each other; they shall not attack each other in arms,
or make any more incursions beyond the frontiers now
determined.” Then declaring that the two “must reciprocally
exalt their virtues and banish forever all mistrust
between them, that travellers may be without uneasiness,
that the inhabitants of the villages and fields
may live at peace, and that nothing may happen to
cause a misunderstanding,” the inscription announces,
in terms doubtless Oriental: “This benefit will be extended
to future generations, and the voice of love (towards
its authors) will be heard wherever the splendor of
the sun and the moon is seen. The Pho will be tranquil
in their kingdom, and the Han will be joyful in
their empire.”<a name="FNanchor_254_254" id="FNanchor_254_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a> Such is the benediction which from
early times has spoken from one of the monuments
erected by the god Terminus. Call it Oriental; would
it were universal! While recognizing a frontier, there
is equal recognition of peace as the rule of international
life.</p>


<h4>THE REPUBLIC.</h4>

<p>In the abolition of the War System the will of the
people must become all-powerful, exalting the Republic
to its just place as the natural expression of citizenship.
Napoleon has been credited with the utterance at St.
Helena of the prophecy, that “in fifty years Europe<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span>
would be Republican or Cossack.”<a name="FNanchor_255_255" id="FNanchor_255_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> Evidently Europe
will not be Cossack, unless the Cossack is already
changed to Republican,&mdash;as well may be, when it is
known, that, since the great act of Enfranchisement, in
February, 1861, by which twenty-three millions of serfs
were raised to citizenship, with the right to vote, fifteen
thousand three hundred and fifty public schools have
been opened in Russia. A better than Napoleon, who
saw mankind with truer insight, Lafayette, has recorded
a clearer prophecy. At the foundation of the monument
on Bunker Hill, on the semi-centennial anniversary
of the battle, 17th June, 1825, our much-honored
national guest gave this toast: “Bunker Hill, and the
holy resistance to oppression, which has already enfranchised
the American hemisphere. The next half-century
Jubilee’s toast shall be,&mdash;<em>To Enfranchised
Europe</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_256_256" id="FNanchor_256_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a> The close of that half-century, already so
prolific, is at hand. Shall it behold the great Jubilee
with all its vastness of promise accomplished? Enfranchised
Europe, foretold by Lafayette, means not
only the Republic for all, but Peace for all; it means
the United States of Europe, with the War System
abolished. Against that little faith through which so
much fails in life, I declare my unalterable conviction,
that “government of the people, by the people<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span>, and for
the people”&mdash;thus simply described by Abraham
Lincoln<a name="FNanchor_257_257" id="FNanchor_257_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a>&mdash;is a necessity of civilization, not only because
of that republican equality without distinction of birth
which it establishes, but for its assurance of permanent
peace. All privilege is usurpation, and, like Slavery, a
state of war, relieved only by truce, to be broken by
the people in their might. To the people alone can
mankind look for the repose of nations; but the Republic
is the embodied people. All hail to the Republic,
equal guardian of all, and angel of peace!</p>

<p>Our own part is simple. It is, first, to keep out of
war,&mdash;and, next, to stand firm in those ideas which are
the life of the Republic. Peace is our supreme vocation.
To this we are called. By this we succeed. Our
example is more than an army. But not on this account
can we be indifferent, when Human Rights are
assailed or republican institutions are in question. Garibaldi
asks for a “word,”<a name="FNanchor_258_258" id="FNanchor_258_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> that easiest expression of
power. Strange will it be, when that is not given. To
the Republic, and to all struggling for Human Rights, I
give word, with heart on the lips. Word and heart I
give. Nor would I have my country forget at any time,
in the discharge of its transcendent duties, that, since
the rule of conduct and of honor is the same for nations
as for individuals, the greatest nation is that which does
most for Humanity.</p>
<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span></p>



<h2><a name="THE_PATRIOT_DEAD_AT_ARLINGTON" id="THE_PATRIOT_DEAD_AT_ARLINGTON"></a>THE PATRIOT DEAD AT ARLINGTON.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution to
remove their Remains, December 13, 1870.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>Mr. McCreery, of Kentucky, asked leave to introduce a Joint Resolution,
providing for the return of the ground at Arlington to the family
of General Robert E. Lee, “and if graveyards have been established
on the land, then the Committee shall ascertain and report the number
of interments, on what terms a suitable spot for a cemetery can be purchased
in the neighborhood, and the probable cost of removing the
bodies to the new place of sepulture.”</p>

<p>On the question, “Will the Senate grant leave to introduce the
Joint Resolution?” Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, demanded the yeas and
nays, when a debate ensued, in which Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;Being called to vote on the
pending motion, I make haste to say that I
wish on this occasion to apply the Parliamentary Law
in its strongest form. Whatever rigors it may have
against propositions inopportune or offensive in character
must be applied now, or never be invoked again;
for never before in this Chamber was there similar occasion
for these rigors. Therefore shall I vote for the
most summary disposition of this joint resolution.</p>

<p>Beyond this, perhaps, there is no occasion for remark,
especially when I consider how eloquent Senators have
already characterized the proposition and the traitor it
seeks to commemorate. I am not disposed to speak of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span>
General Lee. It is enough to say that he stands high
on the catalogue of those who have imbrued their hands
in their country’s blood. I hand him over to the avenging
pen of History.</p>

<p>But there is one practical remark that I would make.
I would call the attention of the Senate to this proposition
in another aspect. We all know the political
associations of the honorable Senator who introduces
it. Must we not regard this joint resolution as revealing
the sentiments of his associates? Does it not prefigure
the policy they would establish, should they obtain
power, as threatened by the Senator from Delaware,
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Saulsbury</span>,] as threatened by other Senators and by
other associates of these Senators? Do we not see here
the policy that would be established,&mdash;a policy which
would take the old Rebellion by the hand and install it
in the high places of power,&mdash;in the Executive Mansion,&mdash;in
these Halls of Congress?</p>

<p>Now, Sir, could I make my voice heard from one end
of this country to the other, from Massachusetts to
Louisiana, it would be to warn against that political
combination which shows itself now in the proposition
of the Senator from Kentucky. Take warning, I would
say to my fellow-countrymen everywhere, not only at
the South, but at the North, but especially at the South,
that the political party with which the Senator is associated,
should it obtain power in this nation, will establish
the policy of which his joint resolution is the expression.
That is the practical remark I have to make.</p>

<p>There is a fact which I think I ought to contribute to
this debate. It so happened that I was with the late
Mr. Stanton when he made the order for the burial of
our patriot dead on the grounds of Arlington. H<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span>e mentioned
it, and disclosed to me his reason. He meant to
bury those dead in perpetual guard over that ground,
so that no person of the family of Lee should ever dare
to come upon it, unless to encounter patriot ghosts
counted by the thousand. In such spirit the ground
was set apart. And now we are asked to dig up these
dead and give over their resting-place to the traitor
family.</p>

<p>My friend by my side [Mr. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>] has already used an
expression which I think a happy inspiration, when he
said that those dead lying there are as sacred as the
Constitution itself. He was right. We may as well
disturb our sacred text as disturb them. Over every
grave are written words of warning. Do you remember,
Sir, that most memorable epitaph over the remains
of William Shakespeare?&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Good friend, for Jesus’ sake forbear</div>
<div class="verse">To dig the dust inclosèd here:</div>
<div class="verse">Blest be the man that spares these stones,</div>
<div class="verse">And curst be he that moves my bones!”</div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="noindent">For two centuries and a half these words have guarded
the immortal dust of England’s greatest poet. I write
them now over the graves of our patriot dead, one and
all. May they continue for centuries to guard their
repose!</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>On the question of giving leave, the vote stood 4 yeas to 54 nays.
The yeas were Messrs. Fowler of Tennessee, Hamilton and Vickers of
Ma<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span>ryland, and McCreery of Kentucky.</p>

</div>



<hr class="chap" />
<h2><a name="NABOTHS_VINEYARD" id="NABOTHS_VINEYARD"></a>NABOTH’S VINEYARD.</h2>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate on the Proposed Annexion of
San Domingo to the United States,
December 21, 1870.</span></p>
<div class="medium">

<hr class="r15" />

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth, the Jezreëlite,
had a vineyard, which was in Jezreël, hard by the palace of Ahab, king
of Samaria.</p>

<p>“And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard,
that I may have it for a garden of herbs, <em>because it is near unto my
house</em>; and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it: or, if it
seem good to thee, <em>I will give thee the worth of it in money</em>.</p>

<p>“And Naboth said to Ahab, <em>The Lord forbid it me, that I should
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a><br /><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span>give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee</em>.”&mdash;<span class="smcap">1 Kings</span>, xxi. 1-3.</p>

</div>

<hr class="r15" />

<p>In his Message at the opening of Congress, December 5, 1870, President
Grant, adverting to the failure of the treaty for the annexion of
San Domingo to the United States at the previous session, for want of
the requisite two-thirds vote of the Senate, proceeded to remark:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I was thoroughly convinced then that the best interests of this country,
commercially and materially, demanded its ratification. Time has only
confirmed me in this view. I now firmly believe that the moment it is
known that the United States have entirely abandoned the project of accepting
as a part of its territory the island of San Domingo a free port
will be negotiated for by European nations in the Bay of Samana. A large
commercial city will spring up to which we will be tributary without receiving
corresponding benefits, and then will be seen the folly of our rejecting
so great a prize.”</p>

</div>

<p>After setting forth at much length the great value of this prize, the
President concluded as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“In view of the importance of this question, I earnestly urge upon
Congress early action, expressive of its views as to the best means of acquiring
San Domingo. My suggestion is, that by joint resolution of the
two Houses of Congress the Executive be authorized to appoint a commission
to negotiate a treaty with the authorities of San Domingo for the
acquisition of that island, and that an appropriation be made to defray the
expenses of such commission. The question may then be determined,
either by the action of the Senate upon the treaty, or the joint action of
the two Houses of Congress upon a resolution of annexation, as in the case
of the acquisition of Texas. So convinced am I of the advantages to flow
from the acquisition of San Domingo, and of the great disadvantages, I
might almost say calamities, to flow from non-acquisition, that I believe
the subject has only to be investigated to be approved.”</p>

</div>

<p>As preliminary to action upon this recommendation of the President,
Mr. Sumner, December 9th, offered the following resolution:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, That the President of the United States be requested to
communicate to the Senate, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public
interest, copies of all papers and correspondence relating to the proposed
annexion of the Dominican portion of the island of San Domingo
or the purchase of any part thereof, including the original and all subsequent
instructions to any agent or consul of the United States, with the
correspondence of such agent or consul; also, any protocol or convention
signed by such agent or consul; also, an account of the debt and liabilities
of the Dominican Government, especially its obligations to the neighboring
Republic of Hayti; also, the provisions of the existing Constitution of
Dominica, so far as the same relate to the sale or transfer of the national
domain; also, any treaty with Hayti or France by which Dominica is
bound or affected; also, any communication from the neighboring Republic
of Hayti, or from our Minister there, relating to the proposed annexion;
also, instructions to the commander of our naval squadron in the waters of
the island since the commencement of the late negotiations, with the reports
and correspondence of such commander; also, any information tending
to show what European power, if any, proposes to acquire jurisdiction
of any part of the island, and if so, of what part; also, any information with
regard to the position of President Baez, under whom the treaty of annexion
was negotiated, and the extent to which he has been maintained in
power by the presence of United States vessels of war; also, any information
with regard to the sentiments of the people in Dominica and the
reported pendency there of civil war; also, any information with regard to
any claim of jurisdiction by the Republic of Hayti over the territory of
Dominica.”</p>

</div>

<p>December 12th, in pursuance of the President’s recommendation,
Mr. Morton, of Indiana, asked, and by unanimous consent obtained,
leave to introduce “a Joint Resolution authorizing the appointment of
commissioners in relation to the Republic of Dominica,” as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“<i>Resolved, &amp;c.</i>, That the President of the United States be authorized
to appoint three commissioners, and also a secretary, (the latter to be
versed in the English and Spanish languages,) to proceed to the island of
San Domingo, and to inquire into, ascertain, and report:&mdash;</p>

<p>“1. The political state and condition of the Republic of Dominica.</p>

<p>“2. The desire and disposition of the people of the said Republic to become
annexed to and to form part of the people of the United States.</p>

<p>“3. The physical, mental, and moral condition of the said people, and
their general condition as to material wealth and industrial capacity.</p>

<p>“4. The resources of the country; its mineral and agricultural products;
the products of its waters and forests; the general character of the soil; the
extent and proportion thereof capable of cultivation; the climate and
health of the country; its bays, harbors, and rivers; its general meteorological
character, and the existence and frequency of remarkable meteorological
phenomena.</p>

<p>“5. The debt of the Government, and its obligations, whether funded and
ascertained and admitted, or unadjusted and under discussion.</p>

<p>“6. Treaties or engagements with other powers.</p>

<p>“7. Extent of boundaries and territory; what proportion is covered by
grants or concessions, and generally what concessions or franchises have
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span>been granted.</p>

<p>“8. The terms and conditions on which the Dominican Government may
desire to be annexed to and become part of the United States as one of the
Territories thereof.</p>

<p>“9. Such other information with respect to the said Government or its
territories as to the said commissioners shall seem desirable or important
with reference to the future incorporation of the said Dominican Republic
into the United States as one of its Territories.</p>

<p>“<span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 2. <i>And be it further resolved</i>, That the said commissioners shall,
as soon as conveniently may be, report to the President of the United
States, who shall lay their report before Congress.</p>

<p>“<span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 3. <i>And be it further resolved</i>, That the said commissioners shall
serve without compensation, (except the payment of expenses,) and the
compensation of the secretary shall be determined by the Secretary of
State, with the approval of the President.”</p>

</div>

<p>December 21st, the latter resolution, to which the precedence had
been given, being under consideration in the Senate, Mr. Sumner
sp<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span>oke as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<h3>SPEECH.</h3>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;The resolution before the Senate
commits Congress to a dance of blood. It is
a new step in a measure of violence. Already several
steps have been taken, and Congress is now summoned
to another.</p>

<p>Before I proceed with the merits of this question, so
far as such language can be used with reference to it,
and as I see the Senator from Ohio [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>] in
his seat, I wish to answer an argument of his yesterday.
He said that the resolution was simply one of inquiry,
and that therefore there could be no objection to it. I
was astonished when I heard one of his experience in
this Chamber and his familiarity with legislation characterize
the pending proposition simply as a resolution
of inquiry. The Senator is mistaken. It is a joint
resolution creating three offices under the Constitution
of the United States, offices contemplated in the Constitution
itself, and specially mentioned by name in the
Act of 1856 to regulate the diplomatic and consular systems
of the United States.<a name="FNanchor_259_259" id="FNanchor_259_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> I read the first section of
that Act, as follows:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That ambassadors, envoys extraordinary and ministers
plenipotentiary, ministers resident, <em>commissioners</em>, chargés
d’affaires, and secretaries of legation, appointed to the countries
hereinafter named in Schedule A, shall be entitled to
compensation for their services, respectively, at the rates per
annum hereinafter specified: that is to say, ambassadors and
envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, the full
amounts specified therefor in said Schedule A; ministers resident
and <em>commissioners</em>, seventy-five per centum.”</p>

</div>

<p>Now, Sir, by this joint resolution the President is
authorized to appoint three “commissioners,” and also a
“secretary,” the latter to be versed in the English and
Spanish languages, to proceed to the island of San Domingo,
and to inquire into, ascertain, and report certain
things. I say this is a legislative act creating three
new offices; but the Senator says that it is simply a
resolution of inquiry. Even suppose the offices are not
diplomatic, they are none the less offices. Let me put
a question to the Senator. Suppose a joint resolution
were brought forward authorizing the appointment of
three commissioners to proceed to England in order to
ascertain the condition of United States securities and
the possibility of finding a market there; according to
his assumption it would be a resolution of inquiry only.
Would he allow it to pass without reference to the Committee
on Finance? Would he not insist that it was a
legislative act opening a most important question, which
should be considered by the appropriate committee?</p>

<p>The Senator is too experienced to be put aside by the
suggestion that the commissioners shall serve without
compensation except the payment of expenses. Does
this alter the case? Without those words in this joint
resolution the general diplomatic law would take effect,
and it would at least be a question if they would <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span>not
be entitled to the salary of $7,500 per annum. And
yet a joint resolution creating three new offices is called
simply a resolution of inquiry! Sir, the Senator is
mistaken; and his mistake in this matter illustrates
other mistakes with reference to the important subject
now before the Senate.</p>

<p>Is it right that these commissioners shall serve without
compensation? Is not the laborer worthy of his
hire? If they are proper men, if among them is that
illustrious Professor, my much-honored friend, who has
been referred to already, Mr. Agassiz, is it right to expect
him to give his invaluable services without compensation?
The requirement that the service shall be
of this kind will necessarily limit it either to the rich
or to the partisan. It does not open a free field to
talent, to fitness, to those various qualities so important
on the commission.</p>

<p>I hope that the Senator will reconsider his judgment,
that he will see that we cannot treat the pending proposition
with the levity&mdash;he will pardon me&mdash;with
which he treated it. Sir, it is something more than a
resolution of inquiry. It is a serious measure, and it
begins on its face by an affront to the Constitution of
the United States, which expressly declares that the
President “shall nominate, and, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, shall appoint, ambassadors,
other public ministers, and consuls”; but by this resolution
he is to appoint commissioners without the advice
and consent of the Senate; and yet this resolution
is accepted by my honorable friend, the Senator from
Ohio.</p>

<p>The Senator, it seems to me, has not comprehended
the object of this resolution. To my mind it is plain.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span>
It is simply to commit Congress to the policy of annexion.
I insist upon this point: the object of the resolution,
and I will demonstrate it, is to commit Congress
to the policy of annexion. Otherwise, why is the
resolution introduced? The President does not need
it. Under existing powers he is authorized to appoint
agents, if he pleases, to visit foreign countries, and he is
supplied with a secret-service fund by which their expenses
may be defrayed. The President does not need
this resolution. It is an act of supererogation, so far as
he is concerned; and it is also contrary, so far as I am
informed, to the precedents of our history.</p>

<p>Agents of an informal character, informally called
Commissioners, and not acting under any statute, have
been appointed in times past by the Executive. I have
a memorandum before me of several occasions. In
1811-12 the President dispatched Mr. Poinsett and
Mr. Scott to Buenos Ayres and Caracas to ascertain
the condition of those two countries, with a view to the
recognition of their independence. In 1817 he dispatched
Mr. Bland, Mr. Rodney, and Mr. Graham to
Buenos Ayres again, and also to Chili; and in 1820
he dispatched Mr. Prevost and Mr. Forbes: all for the
same object. The reports of those gentlemen will be
found spread out at length in the State Papers of our
country, printed by the authority of Congress; but you
will search in vain through your statute-book for any
act or joint resolution creating the Commission. It
was constituted by the President himself, with the assistance
of the Secretary of State; and it was to the
Secretary of State that the Commission reported, and
the President communicated their report to Congress.</p>

<p>Therefore do I say, this joint resolution, as it now<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span>
stands, is entirely unnecessary. The President has all
the power it pretends to give. He may, if he sees fit,
appoint agents,&mdash;calling them by any name that he
pleases, calling them commissioners or anything else,&mdash;he
may appoint agents to any extent, of any number,
to visit this island and report with regard to its
condition. He may give in charge to his envoys all the
matters named in this joint resolution. All these he
may write in their commission; and when they return,
he may, as was done in other days, communicate their
report to Congress.</p>

<p>Therefore do I say, the joint resolution is absolutely
unnecessary; and I call the attention of my honored
friend, the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. <span class="smcap">Morton</span>,] who
champions it, to this special point. I ask him to show
its necessity; I ask him to show any good purpose it
can serve; I ask him to show why it is brought forward
on this occasion, unless to commit Congress to the policy
of annexion. Sir, I stand on this position; and I say,
knowing the powers of the President under this Government,
knowing the practice of this Government, that this
resolution is completely superfluous, and that its single
purpose, so far as one can see any purpose in its terms,
is to commit Congress to what I shall show in a very
few moments is a most unjustifiable policy.</p>

<p>Sir, others may do as they please; others may accept
this policy; I will not. I have already set myself
against it, and I continue now as firm against it as
ever. The information which I have received since
our discussions last year has confirmed me in the conclusions
which I felt it my duty then to announce. In
now presenting those conclusions I beg to say that I
shall forbear considering whether the territory <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span>of Dominica
is desirable or not; I shall forbear considering
its resources, even its finances, even its debt,&mdash;menacing
as I know it is to the Treasury of our country,&mdash;except
so far as that debt brings Hayti into this debate.
Some other time these other topics will be proper for
consideration; for the present I shall confine myself to
grounds on which there can be no just difference.</p>

<p>I object to this proposition because it is a new stage
in a measure of violence, which, so far as it has been
maintained, has been upheld by violence. I use strong
language, but only what the occasion requires. As Senator,
as patriot, I cannot see my country suffer in its
good name without an earnest effort to save it.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>The negotiation for annexion began with a person
known as Buenaventura Baez. All the evidence, official
and unofficial, shows him to be a political jockey.
But he could do little alone; he had about him two
other political jockeys, Cazneau and Fabens; and these
three together, a precious copartnership, seduced into
their firm a young officer of ours, who entitled himself
“Aide-de-Camp to the President of the United States.”
Together they got up what was called a protocol, in
which the young officer entitling himself “Aide-de-Camp
to the President” proceeds to make certain promises
for the President. Before I read from this document,
I desire to say that there is not one word showing
that at the time this “Aide-de-Camp” had any title
or any instruction to take this step. If he had, that title
and that instruction have been withheld; no inquiry
has been able to penetrate it. At least the committe<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span>e<a name="FNanchor_260_260" id="FNanchor_260_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a>
which brought out the protocol did not bring out any
such authority. The document is called “a protocol,”
which I need not remind you, Sir, is in diplomatic
terms the first draught of a treaty, or the memorandum
between two powers in which are written down the
heads of some subsequent convention; but at the time
it is hardly less binding than a treaty itself, except, as
you are well aware, that under the Constitution of the
United States it can receive no final obligation without
the consent of the Senate. This document begins
as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The following bases, which shall serve for framing a
definitive treaty between the United States and the Dominican
Republic, have been reduced to writing and agreed
upon by General Orville E. Babcock, Aide-de-Camp to his
Excellency, General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United
States of America, and his special agent to the Dominican
Republic, and Mr. Manuel Maria Gautier, Secretary of State
of the Departments of the Interior and of Police, charged with
the foreign relations of the said Dominican Republic.”<a name="FNanchor_261_261" id="FNanchor_261_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a></p>

</div>

<p>Here you see how this young officer, undertaking to
represent the United States of America, entitles himself
“Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency, General Ulysses
S. Grant, President of the United States of America,
and his special agent to the Dominican Republic.” Sir,
you have experience in the Government of this country;
your post is high, and I ask you, Do you know any such
officer in our Government as “Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency,
the President of the United States”? Does
such designation appear in the Constitution, in any
statute, or in the history of this Republic anywhere?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span>
If it does, your information, Sir, is much beyond mine.
I have never before met any such instance. This young
officer stands alone in using the lofty title. I believe,
still further, that he stands alone in the history of free
governments. I doubt whether you can find a diplomatic
paper anywhere in which any person undertaking
to represent his Government has entitled himself Aide-de-Camp
of the chief of the State. The two duties are
incompatible, according to all the experience of history.
No aide-de-camp would be appointed commissioner;
and the assumption of this exalted and exceptional
character by this young officer shows at least his inexperience
in diplomacy, if not his ambition to play a
great part. Doubtless it had an effect with Baez, Cazneau,
and Fabens, the three confederates. They were
pleased with the eminence of the agent. It helped on
the plan they were engineering.</p>

<p>The young aide-de-camp then proceeds to pledge the
President as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I. His Excellency, General Grant, President of the
United States, promises, <em>privately</em>, to use all his influence,
in order that the idea of annexing the Dominican Republic
to the United States may acquire such a degree of popularity
among members of Congress as will be necessary for its accomplishment.”</p>

</div>

<p class="noindent">Shall I read the rest of the document? It is of
somewhat the same tenor. There are questions of
money in it, cash down, all of which must have been
particularly agreeable to the three confederates. It
finally winds up as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“Done in duplicate, <em>in good faith</em>, in the City of San Domingo,
the 4th day of the month of September, A. D. 1869.</p>

<p class="sig">“<span class="smcap">Orville E. Babcock.</span></p>

<p class="sig">“<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span><span class="smcap">Manuel Maria Gautier.</span>”</p>

</div>

<p>“In good faith,” if you please, Sir.</p>

<p>I have heard it said that Orville E. Babcock did not
write “Aide-de-Camp” against his name at the bottom
of the protocol. This was not necessary. The designation
of a person in such documents always appears
at the beginning,&mdash;as, for instance, in a deed between
two parties. It is not written against the name.</p>

<p>Therefore we have here a “protocol,” so entitled,
signed by a young officer who entitles himself “Aide-de-Camp
to his Excellency, the President of the United
States,” and who promises for the President that he
shall privately use all his influence in order that the
idea of annexing the Dominican Republic to the United
States may acquire such a degree of popularity among
members of Congress as will be necessary for its accomplishment.
Such was the promise. Senators about
me know how faithfully the President has fulfilled it,
how faithfully he has labored, privately and publicly,
even beyond the protocol,&mdash;the protocol only required
that he should work privately,&mdash;privately and publicly,
in order that the idea of annexing the Dominican Republic
should be agreeable to Congress.</p>

<p>The young officer, “Aide-de-Camp to the President
of the United States,” with this important and unprecedented
document in his pocket, returned to Washington.
Instead of being called to account for this unauthorized
transaction, pledging the Chief Magistrate to use his
influence privately with Congress in order to cram down
a measure that the confederates justly supposed to be
offensive, he was sent back with directions to negotiate
a treaty. I would not allude to that treaty, if it had
not been made the subject of discussion by <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span>the President
himself in his Annual Message. You know it.
The treaty itself is not on your tables legislatively; it
has never been communicated legislatively to Congress.
The other House, which may be called to act upon this
important measure, can know nothing of that treaty,
and what we know of it we cannot speak of even in
this debate. We can simply speak of its existence, for
the President himself has imparted that to Congress
and to the country. The treaty exists; and now the
practical question is, By what means was it negotiated?
I have described to you the three confederates who seduced
into their company the aide-de-camp of the President;
and now I have to aver, and I insist that the
evidence will substantiate what I say, that at the time
of the signature of the treaty of annexion Baez was
sustained in power by the presence of our naval force
in the waters of the Dominican Government. Go to
the documents, and you will find that what I say is
true. Confer with naval officers, confer with honest
patriot citizens who know the case, and they will all
testify that without the presence of our ships-of-war in
those waters Baez would have been powerless.</p>

<p>This is not all, Sir; I broaden the allegation. Ever
since the signature of the treaty, and especially since
its rejection, Baez has been sustained in power by the
presence of our naval force. Such I aver to be the fact.
I state it with all the responsibility of my position, and
with full conviction of its truth. I ask you, Sir, to go
to the State Department and Navy Department and
read the reports there on file, and I feel sure that what
I state will be found to be substantially true. I ask
you also to confer with any naval officer who has been
there, or with any patriot citizen.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span></p>
<p>Sir, this is a most serious business. Nothing more
important to the honor of the Republic has occurred for
long years. How many of us now are hanging with
anxiety on the news from Europe! There stand matched
in deadly combat two great historic foes, France and
Germany,&mdash;France now pressed to the wall; and what
is the frequent report? That Bismarck may take Louis
Napoleon from his splendid prison and place him again
on the throne of France, there to obtain from him that
treaty of surrender which the Republic never will sign.
Are we not all indignant at the thought? Why, Sir, it
was only the other day that a member of the Cabinet,
at my own house, in conversation on this question, said
that nothing could make him more angry than the
thought that Bismarck could play such a part, and that
by this device France might be despoiled. And now,
Sir, this is the very part played by the American Government.
Baez has been treated as you fear Bismarck
may treat Louis Napoleon. You call him “President”;
they call him there “Dictator”; better call him “Emperor,”
and then the parallel will be complete. He is
sustained in power by the Government of the United
States that he may betray his country. Such is the
fact, and I challenge any Senator to deny it. I submit
myself to question, and challenge the Senator from
Indiana, who, as I have already said, champions this
proposition, to deny it. I challenge him to utter one
word of doubt of the proposition which I now lay down,
that Baez is maintained in power by the naval force of
the United States, and that, being in power, we seek to
negotiate with him that he may sell his country. It
cannot be denied. Why, Sir, the case has a parallel in
earlier days,&mdash;&mdash;</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span></p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton</span> rose.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Allow me to give one more illustration,
and then the Senator may interfere.&mdash;It has a
parallel in earlier days, when the British Government
selected the king of the Mosquitoes as their puppet on
the margin of Central America. They called the Indian
chief a king, and actually sent to him certain “regalia”
and other signs of royal honor, and then, pretending to
act under him, they claimed the jurisdiction of that region.
Are we not now treating Baez in some measure
as England treated the Mosquito king?</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> Will the Senator allow me to ask him a
question?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> If this Commission go down there, they
can return an answer to all these broad statements of the
Senator, whether they are true or not. The Senator understands
that; but I wish to ask him if he does not know, that,
in answer to all this that he is talking about, it has been
urged that all parties in San Domingo, whether they are for
Baez or Cabral, or whoever they are for, are for annexation?
If that is true, all this is utterly immaterial, except as something
thrown in to obscure this subject before the public. I
aver&mdash;and the Commission will show it&mdash;that all parties,
whether against the Baez Government or for it, are equally
for annexation; and if that is true, all this is frivolous.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Mr. President, I alluded yesterday to
the late Prime-Minister of France, who said that he
accepted war “with a light heart.”<a name="FNanchor_262_262" id="FNanchor_262_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> The Senator from
Indiana speaks in the same vein. He says that my<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span>
allegation is “frivolous.” Sir, never was there a more
important allegation brought forward in this Chamber.
Frivolous! Is it frivolous, when I see the flag of my
country prostituted to an act of wrong? Is it frivolous,
when I see the mighty power of this Republic degraded
to an act of oppression? Nothing frivolous&mdash;&mdash;</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Edmunds.</span> What do you say as to the point, What
are the wishes of the people of that country?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I was remarking on the charge of
frivolity; perhaps the Senator will let me finish on
that head; I had not finished.&mdash;I say that there is
nothing frivolous in the suggestion; I insist that it is
grave. It is too grave; it is oppressive to this Government
and this country. The Senator from Indiana
asks, Why not send out this Commission?&mdash;he always
comes back to his Commission,&mdash;Why not send these
men out? I say, Why send them out, when we now
have in the archives of this Republic evidence that this
very Baez is sustained in power by the naval force of
the United States, and that he now looks to this force
for protection? Can you send out a commission under
such circumstances without making yourself a party to
the transaction?</p>

<p>And now I answer still further. The Senator asks if
I am not aware that all persons there are in favor of
annexion,&mdash;and the inquiry is repeated by my friend,
the Senator from Vermont. I answer categorically, No,
I am not aware of it; I understand the contrary. I
have at least as good information as any accessible during
the last week, and it is not four days old, just to the
contrary. There are two chieftains in Dominica: one
the political jockey with whom our Government has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span>
united, and who is now sustained in power by our naval
force; and the other is Cabral, who, as I have been assured
by one who is bound to be well-informed, represents
the people of his country, besides being <i>de jure</i> its
head. Some time ago Cabral favored the sale of the
Bay of Samana to the United States; but I am assured
that he has never favored annexion to the United States.
I am assured that his policy is to bring the two Governments
of Dominica and Hayti once more together, as
they were down to the revolution and war which lasted
from 1844 to 1848, terminating in the uncertain independence
of the Dominican part of the island.</p>

<p>Now I have answered categorically the inquiries of
my two friends. The evidence, as I have it, is not that
these two chieftains are agreed. On the contrary, there
is between them discord; they differ from each other,&mdash;one
seeking unity for these two Governments, the other
seeking to sell his country for a price. But, whatever
may be the sentiment of the people, whether Baez and
Cabral agree or disagree, I come back to the single practical
point that Baez has been, and is now, maintained
in power by the naval force of the United States. Deny
it, if you can. All this is still worse, when it is considered
that the very Constitution of Dominica, under
which the adventurer professes to hold rule, provides
that there shall be no transfer to any foreign power of
any portion of the country.</p>

<p>Now, Sir, try this again. Suppose during our civil
war Louis Napoleon, in an evil hour, had undertaken to
set up Jefferson Davis as the head of this Government,
and then to make a treaty with him by which Texas,
said to have been much coveted by the Emperor, should
be yielded and become part of Mexico, which itself w<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span>as
to become more or less part of France. Suppose Louis
Napoleon had undertaken such an enterprise, how should
we feel? Would not the blood boil? Would it be
commended at all because we were told that there were
large numbers in the Southern States who favored it?
And yet this is precisely what the United States are
now doing in the Bay of Samana and the port of San
Domingo.</p>

<p>This may be seen in another light. We complain of
taxes. Do you know what we have paid during this
year in carrying out this sorrowful policy? I have here
an article which I cut from a New York paper last evening,
being a letter from San Domingo City, dated December
6, 1870, from which I will read a sentence:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The United States war-steamer Swatara is on a cruise,
the Yantic is at San Domingo City, and the Nantasket is at
Samana.”</p>

</div>

<p>Three ships out of the small Navy of the United
States occupying these waters to enforce this policy!
If force were not to be employed, why these three
ships? why the necessity of any ship? Tell me. Can
there be good reason?</p>

<p>When I think of all this accumulated power in those
waters, those three war-vessels, with the patronage naturally
incident to their presence, it is not astonishing
that there is on the seaboard, immediately within their
influence, a certain sentiment in favor of annexion. But
when you penetrate the interior, beyond the sight of
their smoke, at least beyond the influence of their
money, it is otherwise. There the sentiment is adverse.
There it is Cabral who prevails. So, at least, I am assured.
But whether one or the other prevails, the objec<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span>tion
is the same. You violate the first principles of
self-government and of constitutional liberty, when you
lend your power to either.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>Sir, I have presented but half of this case, and perhaps
the least painful part. I am now brought to another
aspect of it. This naval force to which I have
referred has also been directed against the neighboring
Republic of Hayti (the only colored Government now
existing in the world, a republic seeking to follow our
great example,) penetrating its harbors and undertaking
to dictate what it should do. If you will read again
the reports at the Navy Department, you will find that
I do not overstate when I say that they have undertaken
to dictate to the Government of Hayti what it should
do. Nor is this all. In an unhappy moment, the commodore
of an American fleet, going ashore, allowed himself
to insult and menace the Government there, saying,
that, if it interfered in any way with the territory of
Dominica, he would blow the town down. So I have
been informed by one who ought to know. You look
grave, Sir. Well you may. I wish I could give you
the official evidence on this assumption; but I am assured,
on evidence which I regard as beyond question,
that this incident has occurred. In what school was our
commodore reared? The prudent mother in the story
cautioned her son to take care never to fight with a boy
of his own size. An American commodore, in the same
spirit, undertakes to insult a sister republic too weak to
resist. Of course, if he did this on his own motion and
without instructions from Washington, he ought to be
removed,&mdash;and, in my judgment, rather than carry out
such instruct<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span>ions, he ought to have thrown his sword
into the sea.</p>

<p>Senators murmur. There is a rule of morals and of
honor above all other rules, and no officer of Army or
Navy can consent to do an act of wrong. This was the
voice of our fathers during the Revolution. How we
praised and glorified those British officers who refused
to serve against them, generously sacrificing their commissions
rather than enforce a tyranny! Often have I
honored in my heart of hearts that great man, one of
the greatest in English history, Granville Sharp, foremost
of all England’s Abolitionists, because, while an
humble clerk, and poor, in one of the departments in
London, he resigned his post rather than sustain that policy
toward the Colonies which he regarded as wrong.</p>

<p>No naval officer should have allowed himself to use
such a menace toward this weak republic. By its very
weakness was it entitled to kindness; and yet, Sir, its
weakness was the occasion for the insult it received.
Think you, Sir, that he would have used such language
toward England or France? I think not.</p>

<p>All this is aggravated, when we consider the relations
between Dominica and Hayti, and bring this incredible
transaction to the touchstone of International Law.
Dominica and Hayti became one under President Boyer
in 1822, and the whole island continued as a unit until
1844, when Dominica rose against Hayti, and, after a
bloody conflict of four years, in 1848 succeeded in securing
its independence.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> Mr. President,&mdash;&mdash;</p>

<p><span class="smcap">The Vice-President.</span> Does the Senator from Massachusetts
yield to the Senator from Indiana?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Yes, Sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span></p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> Will the Senator allow me to suggest that it
might help to a better understanding of the proposition he is
about to state, if he will say that they became one by the conquest
of Hayti,&mdash;not by consent, but by force of arms?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I said that they became one in 1822,
and that they continued one till 1844. To what extent
arms played a part I have not said. Suffice it to say
that Dominica constituted part of the Government of
Hayti, which was administered under the name of
Hayti. In 1838, while the two constituted one Government,
a treaty was made with France, which I have
before me, by which the Haytian Government agreed
to pay, in certain annual instalments, the sum of sixty
million francs. Since the separation of the two, Hayti
has proceeded with those payments, and I think the
Senator over the way will not deny that there is at
least ground of claim on the part of Hayti against Dominica
for contribution to those payments.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> Will the Senator allow me to ask him a
question about that?&mdash;because I do not desire to take up the
time of the Senate in answering him,&mdash;and that is this:
Whether the debt for which Hayti agreed to pay France
sixty million francs was not for spoliations upon the property
of French citizens in Hayti, and not in Dominica, and with
which Dominica never had anything to do? That is the
fact about it.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Nothing is said in the treaty before
me of the consideration for these payments.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> The history of the transaction shows that.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> History shows, however, that the two
Governments were one at this time, and I have to s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span>ubmit
that there is at least a question whether Dominica
is not liable to Hayti on that account. All will see the
question, while Hayti insists upon the liability of Dominica.
I mention this that you may see the relation
between the two Governments.</p>

<p>But this is not all. Besides the treaty with France,
there is another between Hayti and Dominica. I have
no copy of it. The resolution which I introduced the
other day calls for it. I became acquainted with it
through the protest which I hold in my hand, made by
the Government of Hayti to Mr. Seward, as Secretary
of State, and dated at Washington the 5th of February,
1868, against the sale and purchase of the Bay of Samana.
In the course of this protest I find the following
allegation:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“That there is a treaty between the Government of Hayti
and that of San Domingo to the effect that no part of the
island can be alienated by either of the two Governments.”</p>

</div>

<p>Now the point which I present to the Senate, and
seek to impress, is, that Hayti, having these claims on
Dominica, is interdicted from their pursuit by an American
commodore.</p>

<p>But perhaps I may be told&mdash;I see my friend, the
Senator from Indiana, is taking notes&mdash;that the American
commodore was justified under the Law of Nations.
I meet him on that point. How could he be justified?
How could the Law of Nations sanction such a wrong?
The only ground would be, that during the pendency of
the negotiation, or while the treaty was under consideration,
the Government of the United States would protect
the territory to be transferred. I have seen that impossible
pretension put forth in newspapers. I call it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span>
“impossible.” It is unfounded in the Law of Nations.
Our ships, during the negotiation of the treaty and during
its consideration in the Senate, had no more right
or power in those waters than before the negotiation.
Only when the treaty was consummated by the act of
the Senate giving to it advice and consent, could we
exercise any semblance of jurisdiction there. Every
effort at jurisdiction until that time was usurpation. I
read now from Wheaton’s authoritative work on International
Law, page 337,<a name="FNanchor_263_263" id="FNanchor_263_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> being part of the section entitled,
“The treaty-making power dependent on the municipal
constitution”:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“In certain limited or constitutional monarchies the consent
of the legislative power of the nation is in some cases
required for that purpose. In some republics, as in that of
the United States of America, the advice and consent of the
Senate are essential, to enable the chief executive magistrate
to pledge the national faith in this form. In all these cases
it is consequently an implied condition, in negotiating with
foreign powers, that the treaties concluded by the executive
government shall be subject to ratification in the manner prescribed
by the fundamental laws of the State.”</p>

</div>

<p>The Chief Magistrate can pledge the national faith
only according to the Constitution.</p>

<p>Now I turn to another place in this same authoritative
work, being page 718,<a name="FNanchor_264_264" id="FNanchor_264_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a> and read as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“A treaty of peace binds the contracting parties from the
time of its signature.”</p>

</div>

<p>Then follows an emphatic note from the very able
commentator, Mr. Dana:&mdash;</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span></p>
<div class="blockquote">

<p>“It would be more exact to say, ‘from the time at which
the treaty is concluded.’ If the political constitution of a
party to the treaty requires ratification by a body in the State,
the treaty is conditional until so ratified.”</p>

</div>

<p>The treaty, therefore, had no effect until ratified by
the Senate; and I repeat, every attempt at jurisdiction
in those waters was a usurpation and an act of violence;
I think I should not go too far, if I said it was an act
of war. If a commodore leaves his quarter-deck, pulls
ashore, and, with his guns commanding a town, threatens
to blow it down, is not this an act of war?</p>

<p>In Great Britain the exclusive prerogative of making
treaties is in the Crown, and so in most other countries
it is in the Executive; but I need not remind you that
in our country it is otherwise. The exclusive prerogative
here is not in the Executive; it is in the President
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and
until that advice and consent have been given he can
exercise no power under that treaty. Those waters
were as sacred as the waters about France or about England.
He might as well have penetrated the ports of
either of those countries and launched his menace there
as have penetrated the waters of this weak power and
launched his menace.</p>

<p>I have called it an act of war,&mdash;war, Sir, made by
the Executive without the consent of Congress. If
Congress had declared war against this feeble republic,
then it would have been the part of the Executive to
carry that declaration into effect; but until then what
right had our Executive to do this thing? None which
can be vindicated by the laws of our country, none except
what is found in the law of force.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span></p>
<p>This outrage by our Navy upon a sister republic is
aggravated by the issue which the President of the
United States in his Annual Message has directly made
with the President of Hayti. Of course, Sir, the President
of the United States, when he prepared his Message,
was familiar with a document like that which I
now hold in my hands, entitled “The Monitor, Official
Journal of the Republic of Hayti,” under date of Saturday,
the 24th of September, 1870, containing the
message of the President of Hayti addressed to the
National Assembly. This message is divided into sections
or chapters, with headings, not unlike a message
or document in our own country. And now, Sir, listen
to what the President of Hayti in this annual message
says of the project of annexion, and then in one moment
listen to the issue which the President of the
United States has joined with this President: I translate
it literally:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The project of annexion of the Dominican part has been
rejected by the American Senate. The anxieties which this
annexion caused to spring up have been dissipated before the
good sense and the wisdom of the Senate at Washington.”</p>

</div>

<p>Of course the President of the United States was intimate
with this document. He could not have undertaken
to hurl his bolt against this feeble republic without
knowing at least what its President had said. I
will not do him the wrong to suppose him ignorant.
His Secretary of State must have informed him. He
must have known the precise words that President Saget
had employed, when he said that the anxieties caused
by this annexion were dissipated before the good sense
and wisdom of the Senate at Washington. Our Presid<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span>ent
joins issue with President Saget; he says that the
rejection of the treaty was a “folly.” There you have
it. The President of the Black Republic calls the rejection
an act of “good sense” and “wisdom”; the President
of the United States calls it an act of “folly.” Am
I wrong? Let me read from the Message of our President:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“A large commercial city will spring up, to which we will
be tributary without receiving corresponding benefits, and
then will be seen the folly of our rejecting so great a
prize.”</p>

</div>

<p>So the two stand, President Saget and President
Grant,&mdash;President Grant speaking with the voice of
forty millions, and this other President, who has less
than six hundred thousand people, all black.</p>

<p>If the President of the United States had contented
himself with thus joining issue with the President of
Hayti, I should have left the two face to face; but, not
content with making this issue, the President of the
United States proceeds to menace the independence of
Hayti. Sir, the case is serious. Acting in the spirit of
his commodore, he nine times over makes this menace.
I have the Message here, and now I substantiate what
I say. The part relating to this subject begins,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“During the last session of Congress a treaty for the annexation
of the Republic of San Domingo to the United
States failed to receive the requisite two-thirds vote of the
Senate.”</p>

</div>

<p>Here he speaks of the rejection of the treaty for the
annexion of Dominica, calling it “the Republic of San
Domingo.” This is distinctive. Then he proceeds to
demand the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> annexion of the whole island. I read as
follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I now firmly believe, that, the moment it is known that
the United States have entirely abandoned the project of accepting
as a part of its territory <em>the island of San Domingo</em>,
a free port will be negotiated for by European nations in the
Bay of Samana.”</p>

</div>

<p>I say nothing of the latter part of the proposition;
I leave that to the judgment of the Senate; but here
you have a proposition for the whole island of San Domingo.
The Senate have rejected a treaty for the annexion
of the Republic of San Domingo.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> Mr. President,&mdash;&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> The Senator will not interrupt me
now. I shall finish this statement presently, and then
he may interrupt me.&mdash;Having thus laid down his
basis proposing the annexion of the whole island, which
is called by the geographers sometimes Hayti and sometimes
San Domingo, the President then proceeds to his
second menace:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The acquisition of San Domingo is desirable because of
its geographical position.”</p>

</div>

<p>He has already described it as “the island of San Domingo,”
and it is desirable because of its geographical
position,&mdash;an argument as applicable to Hayti as to
Dominica.</p>

<p>Then he proceeds to the third:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“San Domingo, with a stable government, under which her
immense resources can be developed, will give remunerative
wages to tens of thousands of laborers <em>not now upon the island</em>.”</p>

</div>

<p>Mark the words, “not now u<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span>pon <em>the island</em>.” It is
the island always in view.</p>

<p>Then comes the fourth:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“San Domingo will become a large consumer of the products
of Northern farms and manufactories.”</p>

</div>

<p>It is the whole island.</p>

<p>Then the fifth:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“The acquisition of San Domingo is an adherence to the
Monroe Doctrine.”</p>

</div>

<p>Though nothing in this place is said of the whole
island, of course those words are necessarily associated
with the previous words, while the argument from the
Monroe Doctrine is just as applicable to Hayti as to
Dominica.</p>

<p>Then the sixth:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“In view of the importance of this question, I earnestly
urge upon Congress early action expressive of its views as to
the best means of acquiring San Domingo.”</p>

</div>

<p>Referring back, of course, to what he has already said.</p>

<p>Then he proposes,&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“A commission to negotiate a treaty with the authorities
of San Domingo <em>for the acquisition of that island</em>, and that
an appropriation be made to defray the expenses of such commission.”</p>

</div>

<p>Here is the proposition undisguised.</p>

<p>And he winds up with the ninth:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“So convinced am I of the advantages to flow from the
acquisition of San Domingo,” &amp;c.</p>

</div>

<p>Thus nine times&mdash;&mdash;</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span></p><div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton</span> rose.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Not quite yet. The Senator will take
notice when I have done with this point, and then he
shall have the floor.&mdash;Nine times in this Message has
the President, after joining issue first with the President
of Hayti,&mdash;nine times has he menaced the independence
of the Haytian Republic. Some remarkable propositions
at times are received with nine cheers. Here
is a menace nine times over; and throughout the whole
of that San Domingo column, written with so much intensity,
we are called to consider commercial, financial,
material advantages, and not one word is lisped of justice
or humanity, not one word of what we owe to the
neighboring Republic of Hayti, nine times menaced.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton</span> rose.</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I know what my friend from Indiana
is about to say,&mdash;that all this is accidental. This is
hard to believe. Nine accidents in one column! Nine
accidents of menace against a sister republic! There
is a maxim of law, which I was taught early and have
not entirely forgotten, that we are bound to presume
that every document is executed solemnly and in conformity
with rule. Sir, we are bound to believe that
the President’s Message was carefully considered. There
can be no accident in a President’s Message. A President’s
Message is not a stump speech. It is not a Senate
speech. It is a document, every line of which must
have been carefully considered, not only by the President
himself, but by every member of his Cabinet.</p>

<p>There are Senators here who have been familiar with
Messages in other years, and know how they are prepared.
I have one in my mind which within my knowledge<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span>
occupied the consideration of the Cabinet three
full days,&mdash;I think four, if not five,&mdash;every single sentence
being carefully considered, read by itself, revised,
sounded with the hammer, if I may so express myself,
like the wheels of a railroad car, to see that it had the
true ring. Of course the Message of a President of the
United States must go through such an examination. I
will not follow the Senator from Indiana in doing the
injustice to the President of supposing that his Message
was ill-considered, that it was not carefully read over
with his Cabinet, that every sentence was not debated,
and that these words were not all finally adopted as expressing
the sentiments of the President. At any rate,
there they stand in the Message. Now any word in a
Message, as in a Queen’s Speech, even loosely or inconsiderately
proposing anything adverse to the independence
of a country, is in the nature of a menace. My
language is not too strong. In such a case a word is a
blow.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>History is often said to repeat itself. More or less it
does. It repeats itself now. This whole measure of
annexion, and the spirit with which it is pressed, find a
parallel in the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, and in the
Lecompton Constitution, by which it was sought to subjugate
a distant Territory to Slavery. The Senator from
Indiana was not here during those days, although he
was acting well his part at home; but he will remember
the pressure to which we were then exposed. And
now we witness the same things: violence in a distant
island, as there was violence in Kansas; also the same
Presidential appliances; and shall I add, the same menace
of personal assault filling the air? All this naturally<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span>
flowers in the Presidential proposition that the annexion
shall be by joint resolution of the two Houses of
Congress; so that we have violence to Dominica, violence
to Hayti, violence to Public Law, including violence
to the Constitution of Dominica, and also to a
Treaty between Dominica and Hayti, crowned by violence
to the Constitution of the United States.</p>

<p>In other days, to carry his project, a President tried
to change a committee. It was James Buchanan.<a name="FNanchor_265_265" id="FNanchor_265_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> And
now we have been called this session to witness a similar
endeavor by our President. He was not satisfied
with the Committee on Foreign Relations as constituted
for years. He wished a change. He asked first for the
removal of the Chairman. Somebody told him that
this would not be convenient. He then asked for the
removal of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. <span class="smcap">Schurz</span>];
and he was told that this could not be done without affecting
the German vote. He then called for the removal
of my friend the Senator from New Hampshire,
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Patterson</span>,] who unhappily had no German votes
behind him. It was finally settled that this could not
be done.</p>

<p>I allude to these things reluctantly, and only as part
of the case. They illustrate the spirit we are called to
encounter. They illustrate the extent to which the
President has fallen into the line of bad examples.</p>

<p>Sir, I appeal to you, as Vice-President. By official
position and by well-known relations of friendship you
enjoy opportunities which I entreat you to use for the
good of your country, and, may I add, for the benefit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span> of
that party which has so justly honored you. Go to the
President, I ask you, and address him frankly with the
voice of a friend to whom he must hearken. Counsel
him to shun all approach to the example of Franklin
Pierce, James Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson; tell
him not to allow the oppression of a weak and humble
people; ask him not to exercise War Powers without
authority of Congress; and remind him, kindly, but
firmly, that there is a grandeur in Justice and Peace
beyond anything in material aggrandizement, beyond
anything in war.</p>

<p>Again I return to the pending resolution, which I
oppose as a new stage in the long-drawn machination.
Am I wrong in holding up this negotiation, which has
in it so much of violence,&mdash;violence toward Dominica,
violence toward Hayti? Of course the proposed treaty
assumes and adopts the civil war pending in the territory
annexed. This is the terrible incumbrance. No
prudent man buys a lawsuit; but we are called to buy
a bloody lawsuit. I read now the recent testimony of
Mr. Hatch, who, while in favor of annexion, writes as
follows, under date of South Norwalk, Connecticut, December
12, 1870:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“I have not, however, looked with favor upon the project
as it has been attempted to be effected; and I firmly believe,
if we should receive that territory from the hands of President
Baez, while all the leading men of the Cabral party, the
most numerous, the most intelligent, and the wealthiest, are
in prison, in exile, or in arms against Baez, without their
having a voice in the transfer, it would result in a terrible
disaster.”</p>

</div>

<p>Be taught by the experience of Spain, when in 1861
this power, on the invitation of a predecessor of Baez<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span>,
undertook to play the part we are asked to play. Forts
were built and troops were landed. By a document
which I now hold in my hand it appears, that, when at
last this power withdrew, she had expended forty millions
of hard Spanish dollars and “sacrificed sixteen
thousand of the flower of her army.” From another
source I learn that ten thousand Spanish soldiers were
buried there. Are we ready to enter upon this bloody
dance? Are we ready to take up this bloody lawsuit?</p>

<p>Vain to set forth, as the Message does, all manner of
advantages, “commercially and materially.” What are
these, if Right and Humanity are sacrificed? What
are these without that priceless blessing, Peace? I am
not insensible to the commercial and material prosperity
of my country. But there is something above these.
It is the honor and good name of the Republic, now
darkened by an act of wrong. If this territory, so much
coveted by the President, were infinitely more valuable
than it is, I hope the Senate would not be tempted to
obtain it by trampling on the weak and humble. Admit
all that the advocates of the present scheme assert
with regard to the resources of this territory, and then
imagine its lofty mountains bursting with the precious
metals, its streams flowing with amber over silver sands,
where every field is a Garden of the Hesperides, blooming
with vegetable gold, and all this is not worth the
price we are called to pay.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>There is one other consideration, vast in importance
and conclusive in character, to which I allude only.
The island of San Domingo, situated in tropical waters,
and occupied by another race, of another color, never
can become a permanent possession of the United St<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span>ates.
You may seize it by force of arms or by diplomacy,
where a naval squadron does more than the minister;
but the enforced jurisdiction cannot endure. Already
by a higher statute is that island set apart to the colored
race. It is theirs by right of possession, by their
sweat and blood mingling with the soil, by tropical position,
by its burning sun, and by unalterable laws of
climate. Such is the ordinance of Nature, which I am
not the first to recognize. San Domingo is the earliest
of that independent group destined to occupy the Caribbean
Sea, toward which our duty is plain as the Ten
Commandments. Kindness, beneficence, assistance, aid,
help, protection, all that is implied in good neighborhood,&mdash;these
we must give, freely, bountifully; but
their independence is as precious to them as is ours to
us, and it is placed under the safeguard of natural laws
which we cannot violate with impunity.</p>

<p>Long ago it was evident that the Great Republic
might fitly extend the shelter of its protection to the
governments formed in these tropical islands, dealing
with them graciously, generously, and in a Christian
spirit,&mdash;helping them in their weakness, encouraging
them in their trials, and being to them always a friend;
but we take counsel of our supposed interests rather
than theirs, when we seek to remove them from the
sphere in which they have been placed by Providence.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>I conclude as I began. I protest against this legislation
as another stage in a drama of blood. I protest
against it in the name of Justice outraged by violence,
in the name of Humanity insulted, in the name of the
weak trodden down, in the name of Peace imperilled,
and in the name of the African race<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span>, whose first effort
at Independence is rudely assailed.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>Later in debate Mr. Sumner spoke in reply as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,&mdash;So far as the Senator from Michigan
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Chandler</span>] arraigns me as a member of the
Republican party I have no reply. He knows that I
am as good a Republican as himself; he knows that I
have had as much to do with the making and support
of the party as himself; and when <span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>
finds the Senators over the way ranging under his
banner, as the Senator predicts, this country will be
regenerated,&mdash;for the Democratic party will be Republican.</p>

<p>But I do reply to the questions of fact. And now,
Sir, I am obliged to make a statement&mdash;the Senator
compels me&mdash;which I had hoped not to make. The
President of the United States did me the honor to call
at my house,&mdash;it was nearly a year ago, during the recess.
Shortly after coming into the room he alluded to
certain new treaties already negotiated, with regard to
which I had no information. Sir, you must expect me
to speak frankly. The President addressed me four
times as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,&mdash;adding,
that the treaties would come before the Judiciary
Committee, and on this account he wished to speak
with me.</p>

<p>He proceeded with an explanation, which I very soon
interrupted, saying: “By the way, Mr. President, it is
very hard to turn out Governor Ashley; I have just received
a letter from the Governor, and I hope I shall
not take too great a liberty, Mr. President, if I read it.
I find it excellent and eloquent, and written with a feeling
which interests me much.” I commenced the letter
and read two pages or more, when I thought the P<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span>resident
was uneasy, and I felt that perhaps I was taking
too great a liberty with him in my own house; but I
was irresistibly impelled by loyalty to an absent friend,
while I was glad of this opportunity of diverting attention
from the treaties. As conversation about Governor
Ashley subsided the President returned to the treaties,
leaving on my mind no very strong idea of what they
proposed, and absolutely nothing with regard to the
character of the negotiation. My reply was precise.
The language is fixed absolutely in my memory. “Mr.
President,” I said, “I am an Administration man, and
whatever you do will always find in me the most careful
and candid consideration.” Those were my words.</p>

<p>I have heard it said that I assured the President that
I would support his Administration in this measure.
Never! He may have formed this opinion, but never
did I say anything to justify it; nor did I suppose he
could have failed to appreciate the reserve with which
I spoke. My language, I repeat, was precise, well-considered,
and chosen in advance: “I am an Administration
man, and whatever you do will always find in me
the most careful and candid consideration.” In this
statement I am positive. It was early fixed in my
mind, and I know that I am right.</p>

<p>And, Sir, did I not give to the treaties the most careful
and candid consideration? They were referred to
the committee with which I am connected. I appeal
to my colleagues on that committee if I did not do all
that I promised. When I first laid them before the
committee, it was very evident that there was a large
majority against them. Indeed, there was only one
member of the committee who said anything in their
favor. I then stated that I hoped our conversation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span>
would be regarded as informal, and that there would be
no immediate vote, or any course which could be interpreted
otherwise than friendly to the Administration.
Too prompt action might be misconstrued.</p>

<p>My desire was to proceed with utmost delicacy. I
did not know then, what I have learned since, how the
President had set his heart upon the project of annexion.
With my experience of treaties, familiar as I have
been with them in the Senate, I supposed that I was
pursuing the course most agreeable to him, and, should
the report be adverse, most respectful and considerate.
This I state, Sir, on my conscience, as my solemn judgment
at the time, and my motive of conduct. I wished
to be careful and candid. It was easy to see from the
beginning that annexion had small chance in the committee,
whatever might be its fate in the Senate; but I
was determined to say and do nothing by which the
result should in any way be aggravated. Again I appeal
to every one of my colleagues on that committee
for their testimony in this behalf. I know that I am
above criticism. I know that I have pursued a patriotic
course, always just and considerate to the President;
and I tell the Senator from Michigan, who has served
with me so long in this Chamber, that he does me great
injustice. Some time or other he will see it so. He
may not see it now; but he ought to rise in his place
and at once correct the wrong.</p>

<p>Perhaps I need not say more, and yet there has been
so much criticism upon me to-night that I proceed a little
further. Here was my friend at my right, [Mr. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>,]
who, having shot his shaft, has left. I wish that he had
praised me less and been more candid. His praise
was generous, but his candor certainly less marked<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span>
than his praise. I might take up every point of his
speech and show you the wrong that he did me. He is
not in his seat. I wish he were. [<i>Mr. Nye entered the
Chamber from one of the cloak-rooms.</i>] Oh, there he
comes. He said that I was against inquiry. No such
thing. I am for inquiry. I wish all the documents
now on the files of the State Department and of the
Navy Department spread before Congress and before
the country. To this end I have introduced a resolution
which is now on your table; I wish this information
before any other step is taken in this business.
Instead of being against inquiry, I am for it, and in that
way which will be most effective. But the resolution
which I introduced, asking for the most important testimony,
all documentary in character, is left on the table,
while a different proposition, legislative in character and
in no respect a resolution of inquiry, but an act creating
three new officers under the Constitution, is pressed
on the Senate, and, as I demonstrated to-day, for the obvious
purpose of associating Congress with this scheme
of annexion. The whole question of annexion was
opened, and I felt it my duty to show at what cost to
the good name of this Republic the scheme has been
pursued down to this day. I entered upon this exposure
with a reluctance which I cannot express; but it
was with me a duty.</p>

<p>My friend at my right [Mr. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>] says&mdash;I took down
his words, I think&mdash;that I saw nothing in the President’s
Message except what he said about San Domingo.
I was speaking of San Domingo, and not of the other
topics; nor was I speaking of the President. There
again my friend did me injustice. I was speaking of
annexion; and it is my habit, I think you will do me<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span>
the justice to say, Mr. President, to speak directly to
the questions on which I undertake to address the Senate.
At any rate, I try to confine myself to the point;
and the point to-day was annexion, and nothing else.
I was not called to go to the right or to the left, to enter
upon all the various topics of the Message, whether for
praise or censure. The Message was not under discussion,
except in one single point. Nor was I considering
the merits of the Administration, or the merits, whether
civil or military, of the President, but the annexion of
San Domingo, on which I felt it my duty to express
myself with the freedom which belongs to a Senator of
the United States.</p>

<p>The Senator here [Mr. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>] says, and the Senator
over the way, [Mr. <span class="smcap">Morton</span>,] I think, said the same
thing, that I have assailed the President. I have done
no such thing. I alluded to the President as little as
possible, and never except in strict subordination to the
main question. On this question of annexion I feel
strongly,&mdash;not as the Senator [Mr. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>] has most uncandidly
suggested, from any pride of opinion, or because
I have already expressed myself one way and the
President another, but because for long years I have felt
strongly always when human rights were assailed. I
cannot see the humble crushed without my best endeavor
against the wrong. Long ago I read those proud
words by which Rome in her glory was described as
making it her business to spare the humble, but to war
down the proud.<a name="FNanchor_266_266" id="FNanchor_266_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> I felt that we had before us a case
where the rule was reversed, and in an unhappy hour
our Government was warring down the humble. So it
seemed to me on the evidence.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span></p>
<p>Do I err? Then set the facts before the people, that
they may judge; but, as I understand those facts,
whether from official documents or from the testimony
of officers or citizens who have been in that island latterly,
Baez has been maintained in power by the arms
of the United States. So I understand it. Correct me,
if I am wrong; but if the facts be as I believe, you
must leave me to my judgment upon them.</p>

<p>Both my honorable friends, the Senator on my right
[Mr. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>] and the Senator over the way [Mr. <span class="smcap">Morton</span>],
have said that I sought to present an unfavorable comparison
between the President of Hayti and the President
of the United States; and the Senator over the
way went into an elaborate arraignment of the Haytian
President. Sir, I had no word of praise for that President.
The Senator is mistaken. From his Message,
which I now hold in my hand, I read his congratulation
that the project of annexion had been defeated by
“the good sense and the wisdom” of the Senate at
Washington; and I then read from the Message of the
President of the United States what I supposed was the
issue he intended to join with the Haytian President,
characterizing this very rejection of annexion on the
part of the Senate as “folly”; and I put the two Messages
on that point face to face, and there I left them.
I said nothing to praise Saget or to arraign Grant. Sir,
I have no disposition to do either. I only wish to do
my duty simply and humbly, pained and sorry that I
am called to differ from so many valued friends, but
then still feeling that for me there is no other course
to pursue.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p>The Joint Resolution was passed the same day,&mdash;Yeas 32, Nays 9:
30 Senators being absent, or refraining from voting.</p>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span>
<p>January 4, 1871, Mr. Sumner’s resolution was taken up, and passed
without a division: also, February 15th, another, calling on the Secretary
of the Navy for “a copy of the instructions to the commander
of the Tennessee on her present cruise; also, the names of the United
States ships-of-war in the waters of the island of San Domingo since
the commencement of the recent negotiations with Dominica, together
wi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span>th the armaments of such ships.”</p>

</div>



<hr class="chap" />
<h2><a name="NEW_YEARS_DAY" id="NEW_YEARS_DAY"></a>NEW YEAR’S DAY.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Article in the New York Independent,
January 5, 1871.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<p class="dropcap">The Old Year is dead. Hail to the New! How
alike! How unlike! Each is a measure of
time,&mdash;the Old belonging to the infinite Past, the New
to the infinite Future. But each has its own trials and
its own triumphs. Be it our aspiration to smooth the
trials and assure the triumphs before us!</p>

<p>Sorrow and grief there must be. May they be tempered
with mercy, and may we bear them with submission!
Work and effort there must be; for such is the
condition of life. And then there is Duty always,
which we are justly told is “more than life.” What
is life where duty fails? Companion with all is Hope,
with too flickering sunshine. All these will be surely
ours in the New Year, as they were during the year
that has passed.</p>

<p>Looking beyond the microcosm of individual life to
the macrocosm of the world, other trials and triumphs
are before us. God grant that the triumphs may surpass
the trials, making the New Year an epoch in human
progress!</p>

<p>Unhappily, we are not yet relieved from anxiety on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span>
account of the Rebellion. Though Reconstruction is in
our statute-book, it is not yet established in the universal
heart of the Nation, as it must be before peace can
be permanently assured. There are painful reports from
States lately in rebellion, showing that life is unsafe and
society disorganized. North Carolina is always considered
less mercurial and violent than her Southern
neighbor, with whom the Rebellion began; but this
slow and staid State is now disturbed by bad spirits,
menacing revolution and blood. A private letter says:
“I am assured, by men who know, that blood will be
spilt, if Congress does not interfere. The excitement
of ’61 bore no comparison to this.” In certain counties
the Ku-Klux-Klan so far dominates that to be a Unionist
is to brave death. Nor is this evil spirit confined to
North Carolina. It shows itself in other States, and
threatens to extend. Alas, that, after all the terrible
sacrifices of these latter days, we should be called to
this new experience!</p>

<p>And yet the Rebellion is said to be suppressed. This
is a mistake. So long as men are in peril whose only
offence is that they love the Nation, or that their skins
are not “white,” the Rebellion still exists. Force is
needed; nor is this the time to remove political disabilities.
Our first obligation is to those who stood by the
Nation, and those others whom the Nation has rescued
from bondage. These two classes must be protected at
all hazards. Here is a sacred duty. And not until this
is completely performed can we listen to the talk of
Amnesty.</p>

<p>Amnesty! Tempting and most persuasive word!
Who would not be glad to accord it? Who would not
delight to behold all in equal citizenship? But the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span>
general safety is the supreme law. The people must be
secure in their homes; especially must the Unionist and
the Freedman be safe against all assault, while dear-bought
rights are fixed beyond recall. When this is
done, how happy will all be to remove every bar and
ban! Nought in vengeance, nought even in punishment;
but all for the sake of that peace which is the
first condition of national welfare.</p>

<p>If Reconstruction and Amnesty perplex us still, it
is because we did not begin to deal with them sooner.
Promptly on the surrender of Lee the just system
should have been declared,&mdash;being Reconstruction on
the principles of the Declaration of Independence, with
a piece of land for every adult freedman, to be followed
by Amnesty and Reconciliation. Our present embarrassments
proceed from failure to comprehend the case,
or from perverse sympathy with Rebels,&mdash;all of which
we inherit from the misrule of Andrew Johnson. It is
for us to apply the corrective. Too late it may be for
the piece of land; but it is not too late for the vigorous
enforcement of Reconstruction, involving necessarily
the adjournment of Amnesty.</p>

<p>Specie Payments should accompany the completion
of Reconstruction. Both have lingered too long. Not
only did we err at the surrender of Lee in postponing
Reconstruction, but also in postponing all effort for
Specie Payments. The time has come for the consummation
of each. May the year we now greet witness
these two triumphs! Peace and security are the specie
of Reconstruction, as gold and silver are the specie of
Currency. We must have both.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>It is hard that these questions should now be c<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span>omplicated
with a machination to annex a West India island
by violence, and without any popular voice in its favor.
Ships of the National Navy uphold an unprincipled pretender,
thus enabled to sell his country. This is violence,
as much as if a broadside were fired. It is according
to the worst precedents. To this crushing fact
add an unknown expenditure from the cost of our navy
engaged in enforcing the capitulation; also the debt to
be assumed, the money to be paid down; and then the
climax of war on a tropical island where already Frenchmen
and Spaniards have succumbed. The whole story
is painful, and forms a melancholy chapter of the national
history. At a moment when there should be
unity among good men for the sake of peace, it is
strange and incomprehensible that this project should
be pressed for adoption. Better far bestow our energies
in the guardianship of Reconstruction and the establishment
of civil order within our borders, including specie
payments.</p>

<p>This attempt is aggravated, when it is considered how
it proceeds in grievous indifference to the African race.
Not content with setting up an adventurer in Dominica,
it menaces the Republic of Hayti. An American Commodore
was found who did not resign rather than do
this thing. What are fairest fields with golden harvests
as compensation for such an act? But, if indifferent to
the means of annexion, and content even with violence,
there remains another question, overtopping all others:
Whether the whole Island of San Domingo is not set
apart by Providence for the African race?&mdash;nay, more,
Whether the whole Caribbean Sea must not be African?
A private letter fro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span>m New Jersey gives expression to
humane sentiments:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“As a great people, instead of swallowing up small republics,
we should encourage their growth, and, above all, leave
a small portion at least where the African and his descendants
may work out the problem of self-government.…
I speak to you in behalf of the colored Sabbath School of
this city, numbering one hundred and eighty-one members,
from seven years of age up to ninety-five,&mdash;I speak in behalf
of our colored citizens, (we are all agreed upon it,)&mdash;I
speak in behalf of myself, a sufferer and a laborer amongst
them for ten years past, when I say we are <em>all opposed</em> to the
annexation of San Domingo.”</p>

</div>

<p>This is natural. It is not easy to comprehend how
it can be otherwise. Colored persons, unwilling to see
their race sacrificed, will make a stand against an ill-omened
measure. New Year’s Day will be elevated by
vows to keep our Republic true to her great mission, as
benefactor, rather than conquering annexer.</p>

<p>Not without anxiety can we see how, contrary to the
promise of his Inaugural, the President proclaims a “policy,”
and insists upon its enforcement, even to the extent
of disregarding the treaty power of the Senate, and
menacing annexion of a foreign nation by Joint Resolution.
Is Congress to be coerced? All this may make
us reflect with more than usual solemnity at the beginning
of a New Year.</p>

<p>Such an effort is adverse to the Republican Party,
with which are associated the best interests of the
country. Every Republican must do his best to keep
the party strong. Questions calculated to divide must
not be pressed. The party must be a unit; but it cannot
be such at any mere word of command. No one
man by <i>ipse dixit</i> can establish the test of fidel<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span>ity to the
party. Its strength is in its principles, and especially
in the Declaration of Independence, which is its corner-stone.
Let us stand by these, without any new shibboleth,
unknown to the party, and which many can never
utter. General Jackson’s great words for the Union
should be adopted now: “The Republican Party; <em>it
must be preserved!</em>” And may every project inconsistent
with its harmony be allowed to slumber! This is
a fit vow for the New Year.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>On this day the thoughts cannot be confined to our
own country. Wherever man exists, there must our
good wishes travel, with the precious example of our
Republic, making Liberty everywhere an inspiration.
To the whole human family must the benison go,&mdash;adding
especially that most precious of all, the benison
of Peace. Humanity stands aghast at the barbarous
conflict yet prolonged between two most civilized nations.
Who can gauge the mighty dimensions of the
fearful sacrifice? Soon must it end, and out of its consuming
fires may a new civilization arise! The time
has come when the War System, which is still the established
arbiter for the determination of international
differences, must give place to peaceful substitutes and
the disarming of nations. Let this be done, and there
will be a triumph with glory serene and lasting, undimmed
by a single tear. Forbear, at least on this day
of aspiration, to insist that such a good cannot be accomplished.
You wrong Human Nature, when you
proclaim that the colossal barbarism bestriding nations
must be maintained. You wrong Justice, when you degrade
it to the condition of successful force, making
<em>Might</em> the substitute and synonym for <em>Right</em>. You<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span>
wrong Charity, with all the virtues in her train, when
you put them under the hoof of Violence. International
War, like Slavery, is a monster chartered by Law.
Why not repeal the charter? That this may be done is
another vow worthy of the year we begin.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="ITALIAN_UNITY" id="ITALIAN_UNITY"></a>ITALIAN UNITY.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Letter to a Public Meeting at the Academy of Music
in New York, January 10, 1871.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="blockquote">

<p class="right medium"><span class="smcap">Senate Chamber</span>, January 10, 1871.</p>

<p class="dropcap">DEAR SIR,&mdash;Though not in person at your great
meeting to commemorate what you happily call
the completion of Italian unity, I shall be there in heart
and soul. A lover of Italy and anxious for her independence
as a nation, I have for years longed to see this
day. Italy without Rome was like the body without its
head. Rome is the natural head of Italy, and is now
at last joined with the body to which it belongs, never
again to be separated.</p>

<p>How many hearts have throbbed with alternate despair
and hope, watching the too tardy fulfilment of the
patriot aspiration for that United Italy which shall possess
once more the Capitoline Hill and the ancient Forum,
the Colosseum and its immense memories of grandeur,
together with the later dome of Michel Angelo, in
itself the emblem of all-embracing unity! This was
the aspiration of Cavour. I remember the great man
well, at the very beginning of the war for Independence,
in a small apartment which was bed-room and office,
while he conversed on the future of the historic <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</a></span>Peninsula,
and with tranquil voice declared that all must be
free to the Adriatic, with Rome as the national capital.
I need not say that I listened with delight and sympathy.
He died before all was free to the Adriatic, and
while Rome was yet ruled by the Papal autocrat. At
last his desires are accomplished. Naturally the liberation
of Venice was followed by the liberation of Rome,
and both, when free, helped complete the national unity.
No longer “merely a geographical expression,” according
to the insulting phrase of Metternich, Italy is now
a nation whose lofty capstone is Rome.</p>

<p>Besides the triumph of the nation, I see in this event
two other things of surpassing value in the history of
Liberty. First, the union of Church and State is overthrown
in its greatest example. The Pope remains the
pastor of a mighty flock, but without temporal power.
Here is a precedent, which, beginning at Rome, must be
followed everywhere, until Church and State are no
longer conjoined, and all are at liberty to worship God
according to conscience, without compulsion from Man.
The other consequence is hardly less important. The
Pope was an absolute sovereign for life. In the overthrow
of his temporal power Absolutism receives a
blow, and the people everywhere obtain new assurance
for the future. Here is occasion for joy and hope.
There is no Italian who may not now repeat the words
of Alfieri without dooming himself to exile:&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Loco, ove solo <span class="smcap">un</span> contra tutti basta,</div>
<div class="verse">Patria non m’ è, benchè natío terreno.”<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The poet who loved Liberty so well was right, when
he refused to recognize as his country that place “where
<em>one alone</em> sufficed against all.” But this was the condition
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</a></span>of Rome under the Papal power.</p>

<p>Therefore, not only in sympathy with Italy, but in
devotion to human rights, do I rejoice in this day.</p>

<p>Full of good wishes for Italy, happy in what she has
already accomplished, and hopeful for the future, I remain,
dear Sir, very faithfully yours,</p>

<p class="sig"><span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.</p>

<p class="noindent medium"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</a></span><span class="smcap">To the Committee.</span></p>

</div>



<hr class="chap" />
<h2><a name="RESPONSE_TO_A_TOAST" id="RESPONSE_TO_A_TOAST"></a>RESPONSE TO A TOAST.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks at a Complimentary Dinner to Colonel John
W. Forney, at Washington, January 28, 1871.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>The occasion was one of farewell to Colonel Forney by his brother
journalists, on his retirement from the editorship of the “Chronicle”
and removal from Washington,&mdash;Mr. Sumner being one of a few invited
guests.</p>

<p>After the toast to Colonel Forney, and his response, Mr. L. A. Gobright,
of the Associated Press, at the call of the Chair rose and
said:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>“<span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>,&mdash;The glory of a free people is the possession of a government
founded upon justice. It is their duty at all times to defend it against
assaults from without and the causes of ruin within. Education is an essential
principle with a view to the elevation of morals. The political superstructure
being a social necessity, controversies as to the architecture and
materials to be employed only excite comment, and thus quicken the interest
in the great results. The people, however, select the workmen: Congress
to make the laws; the Judiciary to expound them; the President to
administer them; and the Press to record them with comments, either of
censure or favorable, as the public interests may demand. We have heard
from the Press; it is but just that we should now hear from Congress,&mdash;from
one who is a native and a resident of a part of the country the people
of which have long been familiar with the subject of Constitutions for the
purpose of securing religious and political freedom. I therefore, in the
name of this Society and at the command of our President, respectfully
call upon the Hon. Charles Sumner to respond to&mdash;</p>

<p>“‘The Government of the United States: The Press records with pride
the acts of the executive and legislative branches to secure the honor of the
nation abroad and its prosperity at home.’”</p>

</div>

<p>Mr<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</a></span>. Sumner, responding, said:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">Really, Mr. President, when I listened to the remarks
of our excellent Mr. Gobright upon Education,
Architecture, and various other important topics,
I could not see how he could land on me. [<i>Laughter.</i>]
By what process I am to-night in that line is past my
comprehension. I am still further mystified when
called to respond for the Government. [<i>Laughter.</i>]</p>

<p>Mr. President, do I represent the Government?
[<i>Laughter and applause.</i>] I wish I did, but I fear
that I do not. I do represent Massachusetts,&mdash;[“<i>That’s
so!</i>”]&mdash;the venerable Commonwealth who gives me
permission to speak for her. And yet, as I am called
to speak of the Government, I am reminded of an incident
which may not be familiar to all, as I do not
remember to have seen it in print, of what occurred
to Joseph Bonaparte, when, after the overthrow of his
family, leaving France, he sought a home on this side of
the ocean, and reaching New York, he looked about for
a soldier or <i>gendarme</i>, or at least a policeman, to whom
he could exhibit his passport. There was none within
sight or call, when, at last, he exclaimed: “This is
the first country where I ever found myself in which
I could not find the Government.” I believe that you
are not more fortunate to-night, when you call upon me
to speak for the Government, than was Joseph Bonaparte,
ex-King of Spain, when he landed in New York.
[<i>Laughter and applause.</i>] We are of course talking
confidentially here,&mdash;[“<i>Oh, yes, of course!</i>”]&mdash;and yet,
if you will allow me to allude to the Government, I
will say that I do wish this Government of ours may
be so good and great, so true and brave, that i<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</a></span>t may become
an example of republican institutions, by which
they may be commended throughout the world. [<i>Applause.</i>]
I am a believer in republican institutions, and
I do earnestly wish that my country should be a most
persuasive example.</p>

<p>But you are thinking more of your guest than of the
Government, and, however I may be addressed, I am
only a witness here to-night. I witness the honors bestowed
and received. The two parties are the gentlemen
of the press in Washington, of the first part, and
my honored friend, John W. Forney, of the second part.
[<i>Applause.</i>] The rest are witnesses only.</p>

<p>If a witness might speak, I would declare the pleasure
I feel in this instance of fellowship and harmony,
as honorable to the many hosts as to the single guest.
Such an example will do something to smooth those differences
which, unhappily, are too often the incident of
public life. And yet this token is natural. Are we not
told that we shall reap as we have sown? And has not
your guest sown always the seeds of kindness and goodwill?
[<i>Applause, and cries of “That’s so!”</i>] And,
therefore, should he not now reap his reward? My
own friendly relations began when there were many
differences between us; but I remember continually
the personal amenity, superior to all differences, by
which I was won to him.</p>

<p>In leaving Washington, he goes from one circle of
friends to another circle, of which we have honored representatives
here to-night. I cannot wish for him more
than that he may be as happy and welcome with them
as he has been with you.</p>

<p>Our guest, only a moment ago, in conversation alluded
to this Saturday evening, which so peculiarly <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</a></span>belongs
to gentlemen of the Press, as reminding of the
“Cotter’s Saturday Night,” the exquisite poem of Burns.
He will allow me to quote words peculiarly applicable:&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“The toil-worn cotter frae his labor goes;</div>
<div class="verse indent2">This night his weekly moil is at an end;</div>
<div class="verse">Collects his spades, his mattocks, and his hoes.”</div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="right">[<i>Laughter.</i>]</p>

<p>Such is your case to-night, unless you are connected
with a Sunday paper. [<i>Laughter.</i>] Your weekly moil
is at an end. Allow me to wish that when it is again
renewed, it may be with heart streng<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</a></span>thened and soul refreshed
by the social enjoyment of to-night.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<h2><a name="DUTY_OF_THE_YOUNG_COLORED_LAWYER" id="DUTY_OF_THE_YOUNG_COLORED_LAWYER"></a>DUTY OF THE YOUNG COLORED LAWYER.</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Address at the Commencement Exercises of the Law
Department of Howard University at Washington,
February 3, 1871.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Young Gentlemen, Graduates of the Law School</span>:&mdash;</p>

<p class="dropcap">I am glad in listening to the exercises on this interesting
occasion. They carry me back to early life,
when I was a student at the Law School of Harvard
University, as you have been students in the Law
School of Howard University. I cannot think of those
days without fondness. They were the happiest of my
life. Nor do I doubt that hereafter you will look back
with something of the same emotion to your student
days.</p>

<p>There is happiness in the acquisition of knowledge,
which surpasses all common joys. The student who
feels that he is making daily progress, constantly learning
something new, who sees the shadows by which he
was originally surrounded gradually exchanged for an
atmosphere of light, cannot fail to be happy. His toil
becomes a delight, and all that he learns is a treasure,&mdash;with
this difference from gold and silver, that it cannot
be stolen or lost. It is a perpetual capital at compound
interest. Therefore do I say, for the sake of happiness,
and also <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</a></span>for worldly good, must the young man be faithful
in study.</p>

<p>Pardon me, if, while congratulating you upon the
career you now commence, I make one or two practical
suggestions, which I hope may not be without value.</p>

<p>In the first place, you must not cease your studies,
now that you leave the Law School. You must be
students always. Some there are who content themselves
with what is called “an education,” and then
cease their studies. This is a mistake. At college or
school we acquire the elements of knowledge, and we
learn also <em>how to study</em>,&mdash;but very little more. If to
this be added the love of study, this is the beginning
of success.</p>

<p>But your studies must not be confined to the Law;
you must study other things. Your minds must be refined
and elevated by Literature; your knowledge must
be extended by Science. All great lawyers testify to
the importance of these acquisitions. Probably most
persons familiar with the law would recognize the venerable
Horace Binney, of Philadelphia, as the living
head of the profession in our country; but while he
was engaged in practice, he was not more remarkable
for profound learning in the Law than for various attainments
in scholarship and science. The necessity of
literature to the lawyer is illustrated by an anecdote of
Lord Brougham, who, when Chancellor of England, was
visited by the father of a young man just commencing
his law studies, and asked what books he would especially
recommend to the beginner. “Tell him to read
Dante,” was the prompt reply. “But,” said the astonished
father, “my son<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</a></span> is beginning law.” “Yes,” said
the Chancellor, “and I say tell him to read Dante. If
he would be a good lawyer, he must be at home in
literature.”</p>

<p>There is one other possession without which science,
literature, and law, all in amplest measure, will be of
small avail: it is Character. Would you succeed, you
must deserve success; and this can only be by character.
Cicero, in his work describing the orator, says that he
must be a good man; that otherwise he cannot be a
true orator.<a name="FNanchor_268_268" id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> This is heathen testimony worthy of constant
memory. But the same may be said of the lawyer.
Remember well, do not forget, you cannot be a
good lawyer unless you are a good man. Nothing is
more certain.</p>

<p>If to these things be added health, there is no success
which will not be within your reach.</p>

<p>There is one other remark which I hope you will allow
me to make. Belonging to a race which for long
generations has been oppressed and despoiled of rights,
you must be the vigilant and sensitive defenders of all
who suffer in any way from wrong. The good lawyer
should always be on the side of Human Rights; and yet
it is a melancholy fact in history that lawyers have too
often lent learning and subtle tongue to sustain wrong.
This you must scorn to do. In the sacred cause of
Justice be faithful, constant, brave. No matter who is
the offender,&mdash;whether crime be attempted by political
party, by Congress, or by President,&mdash;wherever it shows
itself, whether on the continent or on an island of the
sea, you must be ready at all times to stand forth, careless
of consequences, and vindicate the Right. So doing,
you will uphold your own race in its unexampled
trials.</p>

<p>Each of you is a unit of the mass. Therefore,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</a></span> sustaining
the rights of all, you will sustain your own.
Be not satisfied with anything less than the Rights of
All. But while generously maintaining the rights of
others, I venture to say that you will be entirely unworthy
of the vantage-ground on which you now stand,
if you do not insist at all times on those Equal Rights
which are still denied to you. Here particularly is a
duty. The poet has said that</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
<div class="poetry">
<div class="verse">“Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.”</div>
</div>
</div>

<p class="noindent">You are all free, God be praised! But you are still
shut out from rights which are justly yours. Yourselves
must strike the blow,&mdash;not by violence, but in
every mode known to the Constitution and Law. I do
not doubt that every denial of Equal Rights, whether
in the school-room, the jury-box, the public hotel, the
steamboat, or the public conveyance, by land or water,
is contrary to the fundamental principles of Republican
Government, and therefore to the Constitution itself,
which should be corrected by the Courts, if not by
Congress. See to it that this is done. The Constitution
does not contain the word “white”; who can insert it
in the Law? Insist that the common-school, where the
child is prepared for the duties of manhood, shall know
no discrimination unknown to the Constitution. Insist,
also, that the public conveyances and public hotels, owing
their existence to Law, shall know no discrimination
unknown to the Constitution, so that the Senator or
the Representative in Congress, who is the peer of all
at the National Capitol, shall not be insulted and degraded
on the way to his public duties. Insist upon
equal rights everywhere; make others insist upon them.
Insist that our institutions shall be brought into perfect<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</a></span>
harmony with the promises of the Declaration of Independence,
which is grand for its universality. I hold
you to this allegiance,&mdash;first, by the race from which
you are sprung, and, secondly, by the profession you
now espouse.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHARITY_TO_FRANCE_OR_GERMANY" id="CHARITY_TO_FRANCE_OR_GERMANY"></a>CHARITY TO FRANCE OR GERMANY?</h2>

<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, February 4, 1871.</span></p>

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" />
</div>

<div class="medium">

<p>February 4, 1871, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, brought forward a
Joint Resolution authorizing the President “to cause to be stationed
at the port of New York, if the same can be done without injury to
the public service, one or more of our naval vessels, to be there held
in readiness to receive on board for transportation such supplies as
may be furnished by the people of the United States for the destitute
and suffering people of France and Germany.” The resolution was
passed, after debate, in which Senators Howard of Michigan, Conkling
of New York, Morton of Indiana, Casserly of California, Schurz of
Missouri, and others, made brief speeches. Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:&mdash;</p>

</div>

<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,&mdash;If I were compelled to determine
our comparative obligation to France
and Germany, I should hesitate; and what American
could do otherwise? I look at the beginning of our
history, and I see, that, through the genius of our greatest
diplomatist and greatest citizen, Benjamin Franklin,
France was openly enlisted on our side. She gave us
the Treaty of Alliance, and flung her sword into the
trembling scale. Through France was independence
assured; without France it must have been postponed.
Such, Sir, is our obligation to France, infinite in extent,
which, ever paying, we must ever owe.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</a></span></p>
<p>But is our obligation to Germany less? I cannot
forget that this great country, fertile in men as in
thought, has contributed to ours a population numerous
and enlightened, by which the Republic is strengthened
and our civilization elevated. France contributed to
national independence; Germany to national strength
and life. How shall I undertake to determine the difference
between these two obligations? We owe infinitely
to France; we owe infinitely to Germany. It is
within my knowledge,&mdash;indeed, I have learned it within
a very few days,&mdash;that, during this last year, Count
Bismarck, in conversation with a personal friend of my
own, said, with something of pride, that Germany had
in the United States her second largest State after
Prussia.</p>

<div class="medium">

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wilson.</span> What did he mean by that?</p>

</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> The German statesman had encouraged
emigration, by which Germans come here; so that there
is a German population among us larger than that of
any other German State after Prussia. Such, to my
mind, is the natural meaning of his language. Some
of the largest German cities are in our country; and all
this population together is itself a State.</p>

<p>But, Sir, why consider this comparison? Here is
simply a question of charity. Now charity knows no
distinction of persons, knows no distinction of nations;
especially does it know no distinction of friends. I
will not undertake to hold the balance between these
two mighty benefactors, to whom we are under such
great and perhaps equal obligations. Let us do all that
we can for each, with this understanding,&mdash;that, where
there is the most suffering, there must our charity go.</p>



<hr class="chap" />

<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2>

<div class="footnotes">

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Equality before the Law,&mdash;Argument before the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts, December 4, 1849: <i>Ante</i>, Vol. III. pp. 51, seqq.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> The Equal Rights of All,&mdash;Speech on the proposed Amendment of
the Constitution fixing the Basis of Representation, February 5 and 6,
1866: <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 190-4.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> See article entitled “Admission of a Colored Lawyer to the Bar of
the Supreme Court of the United States,” February 1, 1865: <i>Ante</i>, Vol.
XII. pp. 97, seqq.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> “Le domicile est l’habitation fixée en quelque lieu, dans l’intention
d’y demeurer toujours.”&mdash;<i>Le Droit des Gens</i>, Liv. I. ch. 19, § 218.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 75, p. 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> March 16th, Mr. Revels, the recently admitted colored Senator from
Mississippi, made an eloquent speech in opposition to the Bingham Amendment.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> American Insurance Co. <i>v.</i> Canter: 1 Peters, S. C. R., 542.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> M’Culloch <i>v.</i> The State of Maryland: 4 Wheaton, R., 409.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> “Habemus … Senatusconsultum, verumtamen inclusum in tabulis,
tanquam gladium in vagina reconditum.”&mdash;<i>Oratio I. in Catilinam</i>,
Cap. 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 429.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Law of Nations, Book II. ch. 12, § 197.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Hamilton to Washington, April, 1793,&mdash;Cabinet Papers: Works, ed.
J. C. Hamilton, (New York, 1851,) Vol. IV. p. 368.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Nicomachean Ethics, Book V. ch. 10, § 7.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> De Æquitate, Cap. 3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Reading on the Statute of Uses: Works, ed. Spedding, (London, 1859,)
Vol. VII. p. 401.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Dursley <i>v.</i> Berkeley: 6 Vesey, Ch. R., 260.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Life and Death of Sir Matthew Hale, (London, 1682,) p. 106.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Treatise on the Principles and Practical Influence of Taxation and the
Funding System, (2d edit., London, 1852,) p. 120.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Treatise on the Principles and Practical Influence of Taxation and the
Funding System, (2d edit.,) p. 134.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 1842, 3d Ser., Vol. LXI. coll. 909,
913; LXII. 158, 169, 1077.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Contra Aristogeitonem Oratio I., ed. Reiske, (Lipsiæ, 1770,) p. 774. 15.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Senate Bill, No. 793,&mdash;introduced April 15, 1870.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Vol. LXIV. p. 559, October, 1839.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> 35 Geo. III. c. 53, § 3. Lewins, Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit., London,
1865,) p. 100.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 404, art. <span class="smcap">Post-Office.</span></p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Burton’s Diary, (London, 1828,) Vol. II. p. 156.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 405.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Ibid.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Ibid.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Ibid., p. 407.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> Epilogue to Satires, Dial. I. 136-7. Lewins, Her Majesty’s Mails,
(2d edit.,) p. 111.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 407. Lewins,
Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit.,) p. 53.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Encyc. Brit., <i>ubi supra</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 323.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Burton’s Diary, Vol. II. p. 156.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. IV. col. 163, December 17,
1660.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 405. Lewins,
Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit.,) p. 97.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> Lewins, p. 100.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Barber and Howe’s Historical Collections of New York, p. 290.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Encyc. Brit., (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 406.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> Statutes at Large, ed. Hening, Vol. I. p. 436. Encyc. Brit., (8th edit.,)
Vol. XVIII. p. 406.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Lord Cornbury to the Lords of Trade, June 30, 1704: Documents relative
to the Colonial History of New York, ed. O’Callaghan, Vol. IV. p.
1113.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. XVIII. (8th edit.,) pp. 406, 408.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Autobiography: Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. I. p. 174.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Miles, History of the Post-Office: Bankers’ Magazine, (New York,
1857-58,) Vol. XII. pp. 342-3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Ibid., p. 343.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Post-Office Reform, (4th edit.,) pp. 2-4.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Post-Office Reform, (4th edit.,) pp. 12-14.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Ibid., p. 44.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Debates, June 15 and December 18, 1837: Mirror of Parliament, cited
in Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. XVIII. p. 411.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Second Report from Select Committee on Postage, p. 349,&mdash;Minutes
of Evidence, Nos. 10908, 10911: Parliamentary Papers, 1837-8, Vol. XX.
Part 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Vol. LXIV. p. 541, October, 1839.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Post-Office Reform, (4th edit.,) p. 6.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> See the full list in Appendix (A) to Second Report.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> Second Report, pp. 147, 148, 149,&mdash;Minutes of Evidence, Nos. 8126,
8130, 8134.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Ibid., p. 52,&mdash;Minutes of Evidence, No. 6728.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Second Report, p. 305,&mdash;Minutes of Evidence, No. 10378.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Debate on the Budget, July 5, 1839: Hansard, 3d Ser., Vol. XLVIII.
col. 1373.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Ibid., col. 1384.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Speech on the Postage Duties Bill, July 22, 1839: Hansard, 3d Ser.,
Vol. XLIX. coll. 638-9.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Speech on Uniform Penny Postage, July 12, 1839: Hansard, 3d Ser.,
Vol. XLIX. col. 304.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> Debate on the Budget, July 5, 1839: Hansard, 3d Ser., Vol. XLVIII.
coll. 1408, 1409.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Treasury Warrants, November 22 and December 27, 1839: Parliamentary
Papers, 1840, Vol. XLIV. No. 17.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Section LVI.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> First Report from Select Committee on Postage, p. 16,&mdash;Minutes of
Evidence, No. 135: Parliamentary Papers, 1837-8, Vol. XX. Part 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> Third Report from Select Committee on Postage, p. 62: Parliamentary
Papers, 1837-8, Vol. XX. Part 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> In 1839, 75,907,572; in 1840, 168,768,344: First Report of Postmaster-General,
Appendix (D), p. 65: Parliamentary Papers, 1854-5,
Vol. XX.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Ibid., Appendix (F), p. 68.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Post-Office Reform, (4th edit.,) pp. 26, 44.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Third Report of Postmaster-General, Appendix (B), (D), (G), pp. 36,
38, 47: Parliamentary Papers, 1857, Vol. IV.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> Results of the New Postage Arrangements: Journal of the Statistical
Society of London, Vol. IV. p. 96, July, 1841.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> Fraser’s Magazine, September, 1862,&mdash;Vol. LXVI. p. 335.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Notes of a Traveller, (London, 1842,) pp. 169, 170.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> For this testimony, besides the works cited above, see Lewins, Her Majesty’s
Mails, (2d edit.,) pp. 198-201; and Report of Select Committee on
Postage, August, 1843, pp. 12-15: Parliamentary Papers, 1843, Vol. VIII.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Lewins, Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit.,) pp. 191-4.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Report, November 16, 1869, p. 23: Executive Documents, 41st Cong.
2d Sess., H. of R., No. 1, Part 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. I. pp. 235, 734; III. 264; IV. 105; V. 733;
IX. 588; X. 641-2; XII. 705-6; XIII. 505, 507.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Ibid., Vol. V. p. 749; XVI. 783, 833, 869.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Ibid., Vol. XVI. p. 872. Report of Postmaster-General, Nov. 15, 1869,
p. 14.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 337; XVI. 1096. Report of the Postmaster-General,
December 3, 1868, p. 18.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> Act, July 1, 1864, Sec. 8: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 337.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> History of the Post-Office: Bankers’ Magazine, (New York,) December,
1857, Vol. XII. p. 443.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> Hill, Post-Office Reform, (4th edit.,) p. 70.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Tower Armories: Parliamentary Papers, 1837-8, No. 478, Vol.
XXXVI.; 1839, No. 209, Vol. XXX.; 1840, No. 185, Vol. XXIX.;
1841, No. 243, Vol. XIII.; 1845, No. 576, Vol. XLV.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> Post-Office Reform, (4th edit.,) p. 70.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> First Report of Postmaster-General, App. (D), p. 65; Fourteenth ditto,
p. 5: Parliamentary Papers, 1854-5, Vol. XX.; 1867-8, Vol. XXII.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> Gentleman’s Magazine, April, 1815, Vol. LXXXV. Part I. p. 310: Of
the Office of Postmaster-General, 1677.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Speech in the Senate, February 8, 1845.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Report of Postmaster-General, December 1, 1845: Executive Documents,
29th Cong. 1st Sess., H. of R., No. 2, p. 855.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> Report, December 7, 1846: Ex. Doc., 29th Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R.,
No. 4, p. 682.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> Report, December 6, 1847: Ex. Doc., 30th Cong. 1st Sess., H. of R.,
No. 8, p. 1314.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> Report, December 3, 1849: Ex. Doc., 31st Cong. 1st Sess., H. of R.,
No. 5, p. 776.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Miles, Postal Reform, (New York, 1855,) § 34, pp. 25-27; also, History
of the Post-Office,&mdash;Bankers’ Magazine, (New York,) November, 1857,
Vol. XII. p. 364.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Miles, <i>ubi supra</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Letters from Postmaster-General, February 26 and May 21, 1870: Executive
Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 53, p. 8, and No. 86, p. 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> See, <i>ante</i>, <a href="#Page_88">p. 88</a>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> Report of Postmaster-General, November 15, 1869, pp. 104-5: Executive
Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> Speech on the Postage Bill, February 7, 1845: Congressional Globe,
28th Cong 2d Sess., p. 258.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> First Report from Select Committee on Postage, p. 13,&mdash;Minutes of
Evidence, No. 114: Parliamentary Papers, 1837-8, Vol. XX. Part 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> Lewins, Her Majesty’s Mails, (2d edit.,) p. 172, note.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> Third Report from Select Committee on Postage, p. vi: Parliamentary
Papers, 1837-8, Vol. XX. Part 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> Second Report of Select Committee on Postage, p. 149,&mdash;Minutes of Evidence,
Nos. 8134, 8135: Parliamentary Papers, 1837-8, Vol. XX. Part 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> Second Report of Select Committee on Postage, p. 303,&mdash;Minutes of
Evidence, No. 10362: Parliamentary Papers, 1837-8, Vol. XX. Part 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> Ibid., Minutes of Evidence, No. 10363.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> Second Report of Select Committee on Postage, p. 303,&mdash;Minutes of
Evidence, No. 10364.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, <a href="#Page_87">p. 87</a>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> Letters of Postmaster-General, February 26 and May 21, 1870: Executive
Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 53, p. 8, and No. 86,
p. 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> Reports of Postmaster-General, December 3, 1868, p. 2, and November
15, 1869, p. 3: Executive Documents, H. of R., No. 1, 40th Cong. 3d Sess.,
and 41st Cong. 2d Sess.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> Report of the Postmaster-General, November 15, 1869, p. 27.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> For example, on letters of one half-ounce weight or under, the rate for
distances not exceeding five hundred miles was made five cents, and for
greater distances ten cents.&mdash;<i>Act to prescribe the Rates of Postage</i>, February
23, 1861; Statute I. Ch. 13: Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government
of the Confederate States of America, (Richmond, 1864,) p. 34.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> Report of Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, March 10, 1870, with Copy of
Convention, November 8, and Letter from Mr. Reed to Mr. Cass, November
10, 1858: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 58,
pp. 3, 14-17.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> Executive Documents, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 14. Statutes at Large, Vol. XII.
p. 1081.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> Executive Documents, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 16.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> Executive Documents, <i>ut supra</i>, pp. 16, 17.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> Ibid., p. 20.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> Executive Documents, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 18.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XI. p. 408.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 440.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> Executive Documents, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> Ibid.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> Executive Documents, 36th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 1, p. 18.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 1, p. 5.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> See Appendix (A).</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862-3, pp. 843-6: Executive Documents,
37th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 1, Vol. I.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864-5, Part 3, pp. 346-8: Executive
Documents, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 1, Vol. III.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> Mr. Burlingame to Mr. Seward, May 19, 1862: Diplomatic Correspondence,
1862-3, p. 844.&mdash;This disposition of the surplus appears to have been
first suggested as early as November, 1860, in an informal communication
to Mr. Cass from Mr. S. Wells Williams, the accomplished Chinese scholar,
and interpreter to the U. S. Legation in China. The outlines of the plan
there mentioned were afterwards more fully developed in Mr. Burlingame’s
dispatches.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> Mr. Burlingame to Mr. Seward, May 19, 1862: Diplomatic Correspondence,
1862-3, p. 845.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> Ibid.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> Appendix (B).</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> Executive Documents, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 29, p. 4.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 58, p. 3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> Executive Documents, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 29, p. 3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 58, p. 3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> Speech, June 11, 1852: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser.,
Vol. CXXII. col. 494.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> Speech, June 4, 1861: Ibid., Vol. CLXIII. col. 579.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> Mémoire à consulter et Consultation concernant l’Indemnité due au
Baron de Bode, Londres, 1845. De Bode <i>vs.</i> The Queen, 3 House of Lords
Cases, 449. Reports from Select Committees of House of Lords in 1852
and House of Commons in 1861 on Petitions of the Baron de Bode: Parliamentary
Papers, 1860, Vol. XXII. No. 482, and 1861, Vol. XI. No. 502.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> Mr. Reed to Mr. Cass, November 10, 1858: See <i>ante</i>, <a href="#Page_119">p. 119</a>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> Mr. Williams to Mr. Burlingame, October 1, 1863: Diplomatic Correspondence,
1865-6, Part 2, pp. 411-12: Executive Documents, 39th Cong.
1st Sess., H. of R., No. 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> Mr. Burlingame to Mr. Richardson, September 3, 1864,&mdash;Claims against
China, p. 211: Executive Documents, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No.
29.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> Mr. Burlingame to Mr. Seward, May, 1865,&mdash;Diplomatic Correspondence,
1865-6, Part 2, p. 442: Executive Documents, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.,
H. of R., No. 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> Claims against China, p. 173: Executive Documents, 40th Cong. 3d
Sess., H. of R., No. 29.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> Ibid., p. 10.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a> Ibid., pp. 9, 10.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> Claims against China, p. 13; see also pp. 172-182: Executive Documents,
40th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 29.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> Mr. Burlingame to Mr. Seward,&mdash;Diplomatic Correspondence, 1865-6,
Part 2, p. 406: Executive Documents, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., H. of R.,
No. 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> Memoirs of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, edited by his Son, (5th edit.,
London, 1852,) p. 243.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> Memoirs, (5th edit.,) p. 245.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> Ibid., p. 243.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> See Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., Part VI. p. 5155.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> Case of Rev. Samuel Harrison, April 23, 1864: Official Opinions of the
Attorneys-General, Vol. XI. pp. 37-43.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> Speech at Bloomington, Ill., July 16, 1858: Political Debates between
Hon. Abraham Lincoln and Hon. Stephen A. Douglas in the Campaign of
1858 in Illinois, (Columbus, 1860,) p. 35.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> Speech at Springfield, Ill., July 17, 1858: Political Debates, p. 52.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> Speech at Springfield, Ill., July 17, 1858: Political Debates, p. 63.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> Speech at Alton, Ill., October 15, 1858: Political Debates, p. 225.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> Crosby’s Life of Lincoln, p. 33.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> Ibid., p. 86.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> Crosby’s Life of Lincoln, p. 87.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> For more of the letter in question, and the circumstances which gave
occasion to it, see, <i>ante</i>, Vol. IV. pp. 151-3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> “Puro pioque duello.”&mdash;<i>Historiæ</i>, Lib. I. cap. 32.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> “Arte duellica.”&mdash;<i>Epidicus</i>, Act. III. Sc. iv. 14.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> “Vacuum duellis.”&mdash;<i>Carmina</i>, Lib. IV. xv. 8.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> La tres joyeuse, plaisante et recreative Hystoire, composée par le Loyal
Serviteur, des Faiz, Gestes, Triumphes et Prouesses du Bon Chevalier sans
Paour et sans Reprouche, le Gentil Seigneur de Bayart: Petitot, Collection
des Mémoires relatifs à l’Histoire de France, Tom. XV. pp. 241, 242.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> Table-Talk, ed. Singer, (London, 1856,) p. 47,&mdash;<i>Duel.</i></p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V.: View of the Progress
of Society in Europe, Section I. Note XXII.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> Coxe, History of the House of Austria, (London, 1820,) Ch. XIX., Vol.
I. p. 378.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> Acte pour la Constitution fédérative de l’Allemagne du 8 Juin 1815,
Art. 11: Archives Diplomatiques, (Stuttgart et Tubingue, 1821-36,) Vol.
IV. p. 15.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> Journal Officiel du Soir, 3 Juillet 1870.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> Journal Officiel du Soir, 2 Juillet 1870.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> Ibid., 8 Juillet.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> Ibid.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> Ibid.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> Bismarck to Bernstorff, July 19, 1870, with Inclosures: Parliamentary
Papers, 1870, Vol. LXX.,&mdash;Franco-Prussian War, No. 3, pp. 5-8. Gerolt
to Fish, August 11, 1870, with Inclosures: Executive Documents, 41st
Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., Vol. I. No. 1, Part 1,&mdash;Foreign Relations, pp.
219-221. The reader will notice that the copy of the Telegram in this
latter volume is the paper on p. 221, with the erroneous heading, “<i>Count
Bismarck to Baron Gerolt</i>.”</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> Bismarck to Bernstorff, July 18, and to Gerolt, July 19, 1870: Parliamentary
Papers and Executive Documents, Inclosures, <i>ubi supra</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> Journal Officiel du Soir, 17 Juillet 1870.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> “De ce jour commence pour les ministres mes collègues, et pour moi,
une grande responsibilité. [“Oui!” <i>à gauche</i>.] Nous l’acceptons, le cœur
léger.”</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> For the full debate, see the <i>Journal Officiel du Soir</i>, 17 Juillet 1870,
and <i>Supplément</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> Earl Granville to Lords Lyons and Loftus, July 15, 1870,&mdash;Correspondence
respecting the Negotiations preliminary to the War between
France and Prussia, p. 35: Parliamentary Papers, 1870, Vol. LXX.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> Lord Lyons to Earl Granville, July 15, 1870,&mdash;Correspondence respecting
the Negotiations preliminary to the War between France and Prussia,
pp. 39, 40: Parliamentary Papers, 1870, Vol. LXX.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> See references, <i>ante</i>, <a href="#Page_19">p. 19</a>, Note 1. For this telegram in the original,
see Aegidi und Klauhold, <i>Staatsarchiv</i>, (Hamburg, 1870,) 19 Band, s. 44,
No. 4033.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> Journal Officiel du Soir, 17 Juillet 1870.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> Ibid., 20 Juillet.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> Ibid., 23 Juillet.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> Substance of Speech of Bismarck to the Reichstag, [July 20, 1870,]
explanatory of Documents relating to the Declaration of War,&mdash;Franco-Prussian
War, No. 3, p. 29: Parliamentary Papers, 1870, Vol. LXX. Discours
du Comte de Bismarck au Reichstag, le 20 Juillet 1870: Angeberg,
[Chodzko,] Recueil des Traités, etc., concernant la Guerre Franco-Allemande,
Tom. I. p. 215.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> Aegidi und Klauhold, Staatsarchiv, 19 Band, s. 107, No. 4056. Parliamentary
Papers, 1870, Vol. LXX.: Franco-Prussian War, No. 3, pp. 2-3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> For the foregoing statistics, see <i>Almanach de Gotha</i>, 1870, under the
names of the several States referred to,&mdash;also, for Areas and Population,
<i>Tableaux Comparatifs</i>, I., II., III., in same volume, pp. 1037-38.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> “So wie die Franzosen die Herren des Landes sind, die Engländer die
des grössern Meeres, wir die der Beide und Alles umfassenden Luft sind.”&mdash;<span class="smcap">Richter</span>,
(Jean Paul,) <i>Frieden-Predigt an Deutschland</i>, V.: Sämmtliche
Werke, (Berlin, 1826-38,) Theil XXXIV. s. 13.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> Conversations-Lexikon, (Leipzig, 1866,) 8 Band, art. <span class="smcap">Hohenzollern</span>.
Carlyle’s History of Friedrick II., (London, 1858,) Book III. Ch. 1, Vol. I.
p. 200.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> Antoinette, daughter of Étienne Murat, third brother of Joachim.&mdash;<i>Biographie
Générale</i>, (Didot,) Tom. XXXVI. col. 984, art. <span class="smcap">Murat</span>, note.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> Almanach de Gotha, 1870, pp. 85-87, art. <span class="smcap">Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen</span>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> Address at the Palais de Saint-Cloud, July 16, 1870: Journal Officiel
du Soir, 18 Juillet 1870.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> Hume, History of England, Ch. LXV., March 17, 1672.&mdash;The terms of
the Declaration on this point were,&mdash;“Scarce a town within their territories
that is not filled with abusive pictures.” (Hansard’s <i>Parliamentary History</i>,
Vol. IV. col. 514.) Upon which Hume remarks: “The Dutch were long at
a loss what to make of this article, till it was discovered that a portrait of
Cornelius de Witt, brother to the Pensionary, painted by order of certain
magistrates of Dort, and hung up in a chamber of the Town-House, had
given occasion to the complaint. In the perspective of this portrait the
painter had drawn some ships on fire in a harbor. This was construed to
be Chatham, where De Witt had really distinguished himself,” during the
previous war, in the way here indicated,&mdash;“the disgrace” of which, says
Lingard, “sunk deep into the heart of the King and the hearts of his subjects.”&mdash;<i>History
of England</i>, Vol. IX. Ch. III., June 13, 1667.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> Briefe der Prinzessin Elisabeth Charlotte von Orleans an die Raugräfin
Louise, 1676-1722, herausg. von W. Menzel, (Stuttgart, 1843,)&mdash;Paris, 31
Mertz, 1718, s. 288.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> Mémoires, (Paris, 1829,) Tom. VII. pp. 49-51; XIII. pp. 9-10.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> Merry Wives of Windsor, Act V. Sc. 5.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> Queen of Corinth, Act IV. Sc. 3.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> Milton, Il Penseroso, 97-98.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> History of England, (Oxford, 1826,) Ch. XVI., Vol. II. p. 407.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> Sismondi, Histoire des Français, Tom. XVI. pp. 241-42. Martin, Histoire
de France, (4ème édit.,) Tom. VIII. pp. 67, 68.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> History of England, (Oxford, 1826,) Ch. XXIX., Vol. IV. p. 51.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> Sismondi, Tom. XVI. p. 277. Martin, Tom. VIII. p. 90.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> Paradise Lost, Book I. 25-26.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_202_202" id="Footnote_202_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> Séance du 26 Septembre 1848: Moniteur, 27 Septembre.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_203_203" id="Footnote_203_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> A ses Concitoyens: Œuvres, Tom. III. p. 25.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_204_204" id="Footnote_204_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> Séance du 20 Décembre 1848: Moniteur, 21 Décembre.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_205_205" id="Footnote_205_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> A member of the secret society of the <i>Carbonari</i> in Italy.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_206_206" id="Footnote_206_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> Of Wisdom for a Man’s Self: Essay XXIII.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_207_207" id="Footnote_207_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> Matthew, xxvi. 52.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_208_208" id="Footnote_208_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> Siècle de Louis XIV., Ch. XIV.: Œuvres, (édit. 1784-89,) Tom. XX.
p. 406.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_209_209" id="Footnote_209_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> Histoire des Français, Tom. XXV. pp. 452-53.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_210_210" id="Footnote_210_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> Circular of September 16, 1870: Foreign Relations of the United
States,&mdash;Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., Vol. I.
No. 1, Part 1, pp. 212-13.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_211_211" id="Footnote_211_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> Circular of September 16, 1870,&mdash;<i>ubi supra</i>, p. 49, Note 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_212_212" id="Footnote_212_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV., Ch. XIV.: Œuvres, (édit. 1784-89,)
Tom. XX. p. 403.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_213_213" id="Footnote_213_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> De Jure Belli et Pacis, tr. Whewell, Lib. II. Cap. 6, § 4.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_214_214" id="Footnote_214_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> De Jure Naturæ et Gentium, Lib. VIII. Cap. 5, § 9.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_215_215" id="Footnote_215_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> Le Droit des Gens, Liv. I. Ch. 21, § 264.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_216_216" id="Footnote_216_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> Almanach de Gotha, 1870, p. 599.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_217_217" id="Footnote_217_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> Utopia, tr. Burnet, (London, 1845,) Book I. pp. 29, 30.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_218_218" id="Footnote_218_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> Brougham, Lives of Men of Letters, (London and Glasgow, 1856,) p. 59,&mdash;<i>Voltaire</i>.
See also Voltaire, <i>Mémoires pour servir à la Vie de, écrits par
lui-même</i>, (édit. 1784-89,) Tom. LXX. p. 279; also Frédéric II., <i>Histoire
de mon Temps</i>, Œuvres Posthumes, (Berlin, 1789,) Tom. I. Part. I. p. 78.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_219_219" id="Footnote_219_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> Mémoires, Tom. II. p. 133.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_220_220" id="Footnote_220_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> “Nicht durch Reden und Majoritätsbeschlüsse werden die grossen Fragen
der Zeit entschieden,&mdash;das ist der Fehler von 1848 und 1849 gewesen,&mdash;sondern
durch Eisen und Blut.”&mdash;<i>Aeusserungen in der Budgetkommission</i>,
September, 1862.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_221_221" id="Footnote_221_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> Vapereau, Dictionnaire Universel des Contemporains.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_222_222" id="Footnote_222_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> “Plurimis ac valentissimis nationibus cincti, non per obsequium, sed
prœliis et periclitando tuti sunt.”&mdash;<i>Germania</i>, Cap. XL.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_223_223" id="Footnote_223_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> J. J. Rousseau, Extrait du Projet de Paix Perpétuelle de M. l’Abbé
de Saint-Pierre; avec Lettre à M. de Bastide, et Jugement sur la Paix Perpétuelle:
Œuvres, (édit. 1788-93,) Tom. VII. pp. 339-418.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_224_224" id="Footnote_224_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> Observations sur le Projet d’une Paix Perpétuelle de M. l’Abbé de
Saint-Pierre: Opera, ed. Dutens, (Genevæ, 1768,) Tom. V. p. 56.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_225_225" id="Footnote_225_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> Der ewige und allgemeine Friede in Europa, nach dem Entwurf Heinrichs
IV.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_226_226" id="Footnote_226_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> Neues Staatsgebäude.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_227_227" id="Footnote_227_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> Ueber das unvermeidliche Unrecht.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_228_228" id="Footnote_228_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> Zum ewigen Frieden.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_229_229" id="Footnote_229_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_230_230" id="Footnote_230_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_231_231" id="Footnote_231_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> Victor Hugo, Discours d’Ouverture du Congrès de la Paix à Paris, 21
Août 1849: Treize Discours, (Paris, 1851,) p. 19.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_232_232" id="Footnote_232_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> Grundlage des Naturrechts.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_233_233" id="Footnote_233_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> La Solidarité, 25 Juin 1870,&mdash;as cited by Testu, <i>L’Internationale</i>,
(7ème édit.,) p. 275.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_234_234" id="Footnote_234_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> The General Council of the International Working-Men’s Association
on the War, (London, July 23, 1870,) p. iv.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_235_235" id="Footnote_235_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> Testu, L’Internationale, pp. 279-80. The General Council of the International
Working-Men’s Association on the War, p. ii.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_236_236" id="Footnote_236_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> Testu, pp. 284-85. The General Council, etc., p. iii.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_237_237" id="Footnote_237_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> The General Council of the International Working-Men’s Association
on the War, p. iii.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_238_238" id="Footnote_238_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> Ibid.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_239_239" id="Footnote_239_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> Herald of Peace for 1870, September 1st, pp. 101-2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_240_240" id="Footnote_240_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> Ibid., October 1st, p. 125.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_241_241" id="Footnote_241_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> Herald of Peace for 1870, October 1st, p. 125.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_242_242" id="Footnote_242_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> See, <i>ante</i>, <a href="#Page_181">p. 181</a>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_243_243" id="Footnote_243_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> “Nous deffendons à tous les batailles par tout nostre demengne, …
et en lieu des batailles nous meton prüeves de tesmoins.… Et ces batailles
nous ostons en nostre demaigne à toûjours.”&mdash;<i>Recueil Général des
Anciennes Lois Françaises</i>, par Jourdan, etc., (Paris, 1822-33,) Tom. I.
pp. 283-90.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_244_244" id="Footnote_244_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244_244"><span class="label">[244]</span></a> “Crudele gladiatorum spectaculum et inhumanum nonnullis videri
solet: et haud scio an ita sit, ut nunc fit.”&mdash;<i>Tusculanæ Quæstiones</i>, Lib.
II. Cap. XVII. 41.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_245_245" id="Footnote_245_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245_245"><span class="label">[245]</span></a> Suetonius: <i>Titus</i>, Cap. IX. Merivale, History of the Romans under
the Empire, (London, 1862,) Ch. LX., Vol. VII. p. 56.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_246_246" id="Footnote_246_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246_246"><span class="label">[246]</span></a> St. Telemachus, A. D. 404. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, ed. Milman, (London, 1846,) Ch. XXX., Vol. III. p. 70. Smith,
Dict. Gr. and Rom. Biog. and Myth., art. <span class="smcap">Telemachus</span>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_247_247" id="Footnote_247_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247_247"><span class="label">[247]</span></a> Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, <i>ubi supra</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_248_248" id="Footnote_248_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248_248"><span class="label">[248]</span></a> Scene after the Battle of Sedan: Herald of Peace for 1870, October 1st,
p. 121.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_249_249" id="Footnote_249_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249_249"><span class="label">[249]</span></a> De l’Esprit des Lois, Liv. XI. Ch. 6.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_250_250" id="Footnote_250_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250_250"><span class="label">[250]</span></a> “La France se perdra par les gens de guerre.”&mdash;<i>Pensées Diverses</i>,&mdash;<i>Variétés</i>:
Œuvres Mélées et Posthumes, (Paris, 1807, Didot,) Tom. II. p. 138.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_251_251" id="Footnote_251_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251_251"><span class="label">[251]</span></a> Almagest, ed. et tr. Halma, (Paris, 1816-20,) Tom. II. pp. 72, 73.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_252_252" id="Footnote_252_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252_252"><span class="label">[252]</span></a> Naturales Quæstiones, Lib. I. Cap. 1.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_253_253" id="Footnote_253_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253_253"><span class="label">[253]</span></a> Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanæ, Lib. IV. Capp.
59-61.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_254_254" id="Footnote_254_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254_254"><span class="label">[254]</span></a> Travels of the Russian Mission through Mongolia to China, and Residence
in Peking, in 1820-21, by George Timkowski, Vol. I. pp. 460-64.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_255_255" id="Footnote_255_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255_255"><span class="label">[255]</span></a> See the <i>New York Times</i> of August 11, 1870, where the reputed
prophecy is cited in these terms, in a letter of the 27th July from the London
correspondent of that journal, with remarks indicating an expectation
of its fulfilment in the results of the present war. This famous saying has
been variously represented; but the following are its original terms, as recorded
at the time by Las Cases, to whom it was addressed in conversation,
and as authenticated by the Commission appointed by Louis Napoleon for
the collection and publication of the matters now composing the magnificent
work entitled “Correspondance de Napoléon I<sup>er</sup>”:&mdash;
</p>
<p>
“<em>Dans l’état actuel des choses, avant dix ans</em>, toute l’Europe <em>peut être</em>
cosaque, ou toute en république.”&mdash;<span class="smcap">Las Cases</span>, <i>Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène</i>,
(Réimpression de 1823 et 1824,) Tom. III. p. 111,&mdash;Journal, 18 Avril
1816. <i>Correspondance de Napoléon I<sup>er</sup></i>, (Paris, 1858-69,) Tom. XXXII.
p. 326.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_256_256" id="Footnote_256_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256_256"><span class="label">[256]</span></a> Columbian Centinel, June 18, 1825.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_257_257" id="Footnote_257_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257_257"><span class="label">[257]</span></a> Address at the Consecration of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg,
November 19, 1863: McPherson’s Political History of the United States
during the Great Rebellion, p. 606.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_258_258" id="Footnote_258_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258_258"><span class="label">[258]</span></a> “The cause of Liberty in Italy needs the <em>word</em> of the United States
Government, which would be more powerful in its behalf than that of any
other.”&mdash;<i>Message to Mr. Sumner from Caprera</i>, May 24, 1869.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_259_259" id="Footnote_259_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259_259"><span class="label">[259]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XI. pp. 52-65.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_260_260" id="Footnote_260_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260_260"><span class="label">[260]</span></a> The Select Committee appointed to investigate the Memorial of Davis
Hatch.&mdash;See Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_261_261" id="Footnote_261_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261_261"><span class="label">[261]</span></a> Senate Reports, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 188.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_262_262" id="Footnote_262_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262_262"><span class="label">[262]</span></a> Ollivier: Debate in the Corps Législatif, July 15, 1870, previous to the
Declaration of War against Prussia.&mdash;<i>Journal Officiel du Soir</i>, 17 Juillet
1870.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_263_263" id="Footnote_263_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263_263"><span class="label">[263]</span></a> Dana’s edition. Lawrence, 2d edit., pp. 455-56.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_264_264" id="Footnote_264_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264_264"><span class="label">[264]</span></a> Dana’s edition. Lawrence, 2d edit., p. 884.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_265_265" id="Footnote_265_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265_265"><span class="label">[265]</span></a> See Message to the House of Representatives, March 28, 1860, and the
Report thereon: House Journal, p. 620; Reports of Committees, 36th
Cong. 1st Sess., No. 394.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_266_266" id="Footnote_266_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266_266"><span class="label">[266]</span></a> “Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos.”&mdash;<i>Æneid</i>, VI. 853.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_267_267" id="Footnote_267_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267_267"><span class="label">[267]</span></a> Sonetto XXXVII.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_268_268" id="Footnote_268_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268_268"><span class="label">[268]</span></a> De Oratore, Lib. II. Cap. 20.</p>

</div>

</div>

<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 48314 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-04-19 16:56:58 +0000