diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50160-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50160-0.txt | 11312 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 11312 deletions
diff --git a/old/50160-0.txt b/old/50160-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2373ff5..0000000 --- a/old/50160-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11312 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume -14 (of 20), by Charles Sumner - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 14 (of 20) - -Author: Charles Sumner - -Editor: George Frisbie Hoar - -Release Date: October 8, 2015 [EBook #50160] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: COMPLETE WORKS, 14 *** - - - - -Produced by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - - [Illustration: A. W. Elson & Co., Boston: ANDREW JOHNSON] - - Statesman Edition VOL. XIV - - Charles Sumner - - HIS COMPLETE WORKS - - With Introduction - BY - HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR - - [Illustration] - - BOSTON - LEE AND SHEPARD - MCM - - COPYRIGHT, 1874 AND 1875, - BY - FRANCIS V. BALCH, EXECUTOR. - - COPYRIGHT, 1900, - BY - LEE AND SHEPARD. - - Statesman Edition. - LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES. - OF WHICH THIS IS - No. 565 - - Norwood Press: - NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A. - - - - -CONTENTS OF VOLUME XIV. - - - PAGE - - MAJORITY OR PLURALITY IN THE ELECTION OF SENATORS. Speech in - the Senate, on the Contested Election of Hon. John P. Stockton, - of New Jersey, March 23, 1866 1 - - A SENATOR CANNOT VOTE FOR HIMSELF. Speech in the Senate, on the - Vote of Hon. John P. Stockton affirming his Seat in the Senate, - March 26, 1866 15 - - REMODELLING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Remarks - in the Senate, on the Bill to reorganize the Judiciary of the - United States, April 2, 1866 30 - - THE LATE SOLOMON FOOT, SENATOR FROM VERMONT. Speech in the - Senate, on his Death, April 12, 1866 33 - - COMPLETE EQUALITY IN RIGHTS, AND NOT SEMI-EQUALITY. Letter to a - Committee on the Celebration of Emancipation in the District of - Columbia, April 14, 1866 41 - - JUSTICE TO MECHANICS IN THE WAR. Speech in the Senate, on a - Bill for the Relief of certain Contractors, April 17, 1866 43 - - POWER OF CONGRESS TO COUNTERACT THE CATTLE-PLAGUE. Remarks - in the Senate, on a Resolution to print a Letter of the - Commissioner of Agriculture on the Cattle-Plague, - April 25, 1866 49 - - URGENT DUTY OF THE HOUR. Letter to the American Antislavery - Society, May 1, 1866 51 - - TIME AND RECONSTRUCTION. Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution - to hasten Reconstruction, May 2, 1866 52 - - THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA AND EMANCIPATION. Remarks on a Joint - Resolution relative to Attempted Assassination of the Emperor, - May 8, 1866 56 - - POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE AGAINST CHOLERA FROM ABROAD. - Speeches in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution to prevent the - Introduction of Cholera into the Ports of the United States, - May 9, 11, and 15, 1866 59 - - RANK OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD. Speeches in the - Senate, on an Amendment to the Consular and Diplomatic Bill, - authorizing Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary - instead of Ministers Resident, May 16 and 17, 1866 74 - - OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, AND MR. HUNTER. Remarks - in the Senate, on an Amendment to the Consular and Diplomatic - Bill, creating the Office of Second Assistant Secretary of - State, May 16 and 17, 1866 82 - - DELAY IN THE REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES. Letter to an Applicant, - May, 1866 85 - - INTERRUPTION OF RIGHT OF PETITION. Remarks in the Senate, on - the Withdrawal of a Petition from Citizens of Virginia, - May 24, 1866 86 - - OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION. Remarks in the Senate, on a - Joint Resolution to provide for the Publication of the Official - History of the Rebellion, May 24, 1866 88 - - EQUAL RIGHTS A CONDITION OF RECONSTRUCTION. Amendment in the - Senate to a Reconstruction Bill, May 29, 1866 92 - - INTER-STATE INTERCOURSE BY RAILWAY. Remarks in the Senate, - on the Bill to facilitate Commercial, Postal, and Military - Communication in the several States, May 29, 1866 93 - - ATTITUDE OF JUSTICE TOWARDS ENGLAND. Remarks in the Senate, on - the Bill for the Relief of the Owners of the British Vessel - Magicienne, June 26, 1866 96 - - POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAKE A SHIP CANAL AT NIAGARA. Remarks in - the Senate, on a Bill to incorporate the Niagara Ship-Canal, - June 28, 1866 99 - - HONOR TO A CONSTANT UNION MAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Remarks in the - Senate, on a Joint Resolution to authorize the Purchase for - Congress of the Law Library of the Late James L. Pettigru, of - South Carolina, July 3, 1866 103 - - OPEN VOTING IN THE ELECTION OF SENATORS; SECRET VOTING AT - POPULAR ELECTIONS. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill concerning - the Election of Senators, July 11, 1866 105 - - MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SANDWICH - ISLANDS. Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution releasing - the Pacific Mail Steamships from stopping at the Sandwich - Islands on their Route to Japan and China, July 17, 1866 110 - - TENNESSEE NOT SUFFICIENTLY RECONSTRUCTED. Speech in the Senate, - on a Joint Resolution declaring Tennessee again entitled to - Senators and Representatives in Congress, July 21, 1866 114 - - THE SENATE CHAMBER: ITS VENTILATION AND SIZE. Speech in the - Senate, on an Amendment to the Civil Appropriation Bill, July - 23, 1866 119 - - A SHIP-CANAL THROUGH THE ISTHMUS OF DARIEN. Remarks in the - Senate, on an Amendment to the Civil Appropriation Bill, July - 25, 1866 124 - - INQUIRY INTO THE TITLE OF A SENATOR TO HIS SEAT. Remarks in the - Senate, on the Credentials of the Senator from Tennessee, July - 26, 1866 126 - - NO MORE STATES WITH THE WORD “WHITE” IN THE CONSTITUTION. - Speeches in the Senate, on the Admission of Nebraska as a - State, July 27, December 14 and 19, 1866, and January 8, 1867 128 - - THE METRIC SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Speech in the - Senate, on Two Bills and a Joint Resolution relating to the - Metric System, July 27, 1866 148 - - ART IN THE NATIONAL CAPITOL. Speech in the Senate, on a Joint - Resolution authorizing a Contract with Vinnie Ream for a Statue - of Abraham Lincoln, July 27, 1866 164 - - THE ONE MAN POWER _VS._ CONGRESS. THE PRESENT SITUATION. - Address at the Opening of the Annual Lectures of the Parker - Fraternity, at the Music Hall, Boston, October 2, 1866 181 - - THE OCEAN TELEGRAPH BETWEEN EUROPE AND AMERICA. Answer to - Invitation to attend a Banquet at New York, in Honor of Cyrus - W. Field, November 14, 1866 220 - - ENCOURAGEMENT TO COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS. Letter to a - Convention of Colored Citizens, December 2, 1866 222 - - THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF RECONSTRUCTION. ILLEGALITY OF EXISTING - GOVERNMENTS IN THE REBEL STATES. Resolutions and Remarks in the - Senate, December 5, 1866 224 - - FEMALE SUFFRAGE, AND AN EDUCATIONAL TEST OF MALE SUFFRAGE. - Speech in the Senate, on Amendments to the Bill conferring - Suffrage without Distinction of Color in the District of - Columbia, December 13, 1866 228 - - PROHIBITION OF PEONAGE. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, - January 3, 1867 232 - - PRECAUTION AGAINST THE REVIVAL OF SLAVERY. Remarks in the - Senate, on a Resolution and the Report of the Judiciary - Committee, January 3 and February 20, 1867 234 - - PROTECTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. Speeches in the Senate, on an - Amendment to the Tenure-of-Office Bill, January 15, 17, and - 18, 1867 239 - - DENUNCIATION OF THE COOLIE TRADE. Resolution in the Senate, - from the Committee on Foreign Relations, January 16, 1867 262 - - CHEAP BOOKS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES. Remarks in the Senate, on - Amendments to the Tariff Bill reducing the Tariff on Books, - January 24, 1867 263 - - CHEAP COAL. Speech in the Senate, on an Amendment to the Tariff - Bill, January 29, 1867 271 - - A SINGLE TERM FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND CHOICE BY DIRECT VOTE - OF THE PEOPLE. Remarks in the Senate, on an Amendment of the - National Constitution, February 11, 1867 278 - - RECONSTRUCTION AT LAST WITH COLORED SUFFRAGE AND PROTECTION - AGAINST REBEL INFLUENCE. Speeches in the Senate, on the Bill to - provide for the more Efficient Government of the Rebel States, - February 14, 19, and 20, 1867 282 - - THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill - to establish a Department of Education, February 26, 1867 297 - - MONUMENTS TO DECEASED SENATORS. Remarks in the Senate, on a - Resolution directing the Erection of such Monuments, February - 27, 1867 299 - - A VICTORY OF PEACE. Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution - giving the Thanks of Congress to Cyrus W. Field, March 2, 1867 301 - - FURTHER GUARANTIES IN RECONSTRUCTION. LOYALTY, EDUCATION, AND A - HOMESTEAD FOR FREEDMEN; MEASURES OF RECONSTRUCTION NOT A BURDEN - OR PENALTY. Resolutions and Speeches in the Senate, March 7 and - 11, 1867 304 - - GENEROSITY FOR EDUCATION. Speech in the Senate, on a Joint - Resolution giving the Thanks of Congress to George Peabody, - March 8, 1867 317 - - RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN. THE BALLOT AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPEN - TO ALL. Speeches in the Senate, on the Supplementary - Reconstruction Bill, March 15 and 16, 1867 321 - - PROHIBITION OF DIPLOMATIC UNIFORM. Speech in the Senate, on - a Joint Resolution concerning the Uniform of Persons in the - Diplomatic Service of the United States, March 20, 1867 344 - - VIGILANCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. Remarks in the Senate, on - Resolutions adjourning Congress, March 23, 26, 28, and 29, 1867 348 - - LOYALTY AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE TO - THE REBEL STATES. Remarks in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution - authorizing Surveys for the Reconstruction of the Levees of the - Mississippi, March 29, 1867 358 - - - - -MAJORITY OR PLURALITY IN THE ELECTION OF SENATORS. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE CONTESTED ELECTION OF HON. JOHN P. -STOCKTON, OF NEW JERSEY, MARCH 23, 1866. - - - The seat of Hon. John P. Stockton, as Senator from New Jersey, - was contested at this session of the Senate, on the ground of - irregularity in the election. The Judiciary Committee, by their - Chairman, Mr. Trumbull, reported that he “was duly elected, and - is entitled to his seat,” and in their report stated the case:-- - - “The only question involved in the decision of Mr. - Stockton’s right to a seat is, whether an election by a - plurality of votes of the members of the Legislature of - New Jersey, in joint meeting assembled, in pursuance of - a rule adopted by the joint meeting itself, is valid. - The protestants insist that it is not; and they deny Mr. - Stockton’s right to a seat, because, as they say, he was - not appointed by a majority of the votes of the joint - meeting of the Legislature.” - - The debate on this question showed earnestness and feeling. Mr. - Fessenden, of Maine, used strong language: “I was exceedingly - surprised--more so, I will say, than I ever was before, at a - judicial decision, in my life--at the opinion to which the - Committee on the Judiciary arrived in relation to this matter.” - Mr. Trumbull defended the report. Mr. Sumner followed. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--When the Senator from Illinois rose to speak, I had -made up my mind to say nothing in this debate; but topics have been -introduced by him which I am unwilling should pass without notice. - -The Senator did not disguise that the case is without a precedent -in the history of the Senate. Never before has a Senator appeared in -this Chamber with the credentials of a minority. And I venture to say -further, that the rule of a majority has the constant consecration -of history in the proceedings of parliamentary or electoral bodies. -It is the rule of the House of Commons in the choice of Speaker; and -this is the most important precedent for us, for our Parliamentary -Law is derived from England. But it antedates the English Parliament. -The oldest electoral body in the world is the Conclave of Cardinals; -but who has heard that a Pope was ever elected by a minority? I ask -your attention to this example, that you may see how the rule of -the minority is constantly rejected, notwithstanding temptation, -inducement, and pressure to adopt it. There have been many contested -elections, during which the Cardinals, separated from the world, each -in a small apartment or cell of the Vatican or the Palace of the -Quirinal, have been imprisoned like a jury, sometimes for months, -waiting for the requisite majority. They did not undertake to change -the rule, and set up the will of a minority. There was Lambertini, -who shone as Pope Benedict the Fourteenth, conspicuous as statesman -and patron of letters, who was not chosen until after six months’ -ineffectual efforts. Such instances stand like so many pillars, and I -refer to them now as proper to guide your conduct. - -The question before us is of law, and nothing else. It is not a -question of politics or of sentiment, except so far as these enter into -the determination of law. It is a question for reason alone. - -It lies in a nutshell. A brief text of the National Constitution, and -another brief text of a local statute, are all that need be considered. - -The National Constitution provides as follows:-- - - “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two - Senators from each State, chosen by the _Legislature_ thereof.” - - “The times, places, and _manner of holding elections for - Senators_ and Representatives shall be _prescribed_ in each - State by the _Legislature_ thereof; but the Congress may at any - time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the - places of choosing Senators.” - -In carrying out this provision, the Legislature of New Jersey, by a -statute passed April 10, 1846, and copied from a statute passed in -1790, enacted as follows:-- - - “Senators of the United States on the part of this State shall - be appointed _by the Senate and General Assembly of this State - in joint meeting assembled_.” - -In pursuance of these two provisions of National Constitution and of -local statute, the Legislature of New Jersey has undertaken to elect a -Senator. From the statement of the case, it appears, that, on a certain -day, the two Houses assembled “in joint meeting”; that they proceeded -to act on a resolution declaring that “any candidate receiving a -_plurality_ of votes of the members present shall be declared duly -elected”; that this resolution was adopted by forty-one votes out of -eighty-one,--eleven Senators, being a majority of the Senate, and -thirty members of the House, being less than a majority of that body, -voting for it; that, in pursuance of this resolution, Mr. Stockton was -declared Senator, although he did not receive a majority of the votes -of either House or of the joint meeting. In point of fact, he received -forty votes, of which ten were from Senators and thirty from members of -the Assembly, while against him were forty-one votes; and the question -you are to decide is on the legality of this election. - -The National Constitution is the original and highest source of light -on the question. Here we find, that, in the absence of any regulations -from Congress, the manner of choosing a Senator is referred to the -State Legislature. The Senator is to be chosen by the _Legislature_, -which is to _prescribe_, among other things, the _manner_ of holding -the election. Whatever the State can do must be derived from this -source, nor more nor less. The choice is by the Legislature, according -to a manner prescribed by the Legislature. - -The National Constitution does not undertake to define a State -Legislature or its forms of proceeding. This is left to the State -itself. Notoriously, these Legislatures were modelled on the -Colonial Legislatures preceding them, which had been modelled on the -Parliament of the mother country. As a general rule, there were two -Chambers, upper and lower; but this was not universal. In Georgia and -Pennsylvania there was for a while only a single Chamber, constituting -the Legislature. I mention this to show how completely the State itself -was left to determine the conditions of its Legislature. But the State -speaks through the State Constitution, which fixes these conditions. -Where the Constitution is silent, can the Legislature itself venture to -speak? - -Repairing to the Constitution of New Jersey, we find it providing -that “the _legislative power_ shall be vested in a Senate and General -Assembly”; that these bodies shall meet and organize separately”; that -“all bills and joint resolutions shall be read three times in each -House”; and “no bill or joint resolution shall pass, unless there be -a _majority_ of all the members of each body personally present and -agreeing thereto.” Such is the definition of a Legislature, and such -are the forms of legislative proceedings prescribed by the Constitution -of New Jersey. - -The statute of New Jersey, to which I have referred as framed in 1790, -was entitled “An Act to _prescribe the manner_ of appointing Senators -of the United States and Electors of the President and Vice-President -of the United States on the part of this State.” This was in pursuance -of the National Constitution. It was the execution, on the part of the -State, of the power with which it was invested to prescribe the manner -of electing Senators. - -I have no purpose of raising any question with regard to the validity -of this statute prescribing the election of Senators _in joint -meeting_. Constant usage is in its favor; and yet I have no hesitation -in saying that it has always seemed to me inconsistent with a just -construction of the National Constitution. Senators are to be “chosen -by the Legislature”; but the Legislature is composed of two separate -bodies, defined by the State Constitution. Senators, therefore, should -be chosen by the two bodies separately. So it has always seemed to -me, and the practice of my own State is accordingly. In this opinion -I am sustained by so eminent an authority as Chancellor Kent, who, -after setting forth the usage, proceeds to express his dissent from it -as a just construction of the National Constitution. His language is -explicit:-- - - “I should think, if the question was a new one, that, when the - Constitution directed that the Senators should be chosen by - _the Legislature_, it meant, not the members of the Legislature - _per capita_, but the Legislature in the true technical sense, - being the two Houses acting in their separate and organized - capacities, with the ordinary constitutional right of negative - on each other’s proceedings.”[1] - -It is difficult to resist this conclusion, especially when it is -considered that in any other way the smaller body is actually swamped -by the larger. In a joint meeting the Senate loses its relative power. -I adduce this, not for criticism, but only for illustration. Even -admitting that the received usage of choosing Senators in joint meeting -is consistent with the National Constitution, it is clear that it -should not be extended; and this is the precise question before us. -Contrary to all usage or precedent, and without any direct sanction -in the Constitution or statutes of New Jersey, the Legislature has -undertaken in joint meeting, not only to choose a Senator, but also to -prescribe the manner of choosing him. Finding that it could not choose -according to existing usage, it adopted the resolution declaring that -the election should be determined by a minority of votes instead of a -majority. - -In this resolution two questions arise: first, can the Legislature -itself, by legislative act, substitute a minority for a majority in -the election of Senators, and thus set aside a great and traditional -principle? and, secondly, can it do this in a “joint meeting,” without -any previous legislative act? It is enough for the present occasion, -if I show, that, whatever may be the powers of the Legislature by -legislative act, it can have no such extraordinary power in the -questionable assembly known as “joint meeting.” But we shall better -understand the second question, after considering the first. - -To what extent can a Legislature substitute a minority for a majority -in any of its proceedings? In most cases the question is controlled -by the express language of the State Constitution; but I present the -question now independently of any State Constitution. - -In considering the power of the Legislature, it is important to put -aside any influence that may be attributed to the unquestioned usage -of choosing Representatives and other officers by plurality of votes. -Because the people choose by plurality, it does not follow that a -Legislature may. From time immemorial, the rule in the two cases has -been different, unless we except the New England States, where, until -recently, even popular elections were by a majority. But the origin of -the practice in New England testifies to the rule. - -It is proper for us to interrogate the country from which our -institutions are derived, for the origin of the rule. Indeed, where a -word is used in the Constitution having a previous signification or -character in the institutions of England, we cannot err, if we consider -its import there. I think we do this habitually. Mr. Wirt, in his -masterly argument on the impeachment of Judge Peck, develops this idea. - - “The Constitution secures the trial by jury. Where do you get - the meaning of _a trial by jury_? Certainly not from the Civil - or Canon Law, or the Law of Nations. It is peculiar to the - Common Law; and to the Common Law, therefore, the Constitution - itself refers you for a description and explanation of - this high privilege, _the trial by jury_, and _the mode of - proceeding_ in those trials.… The very name by which it is - called into being authorizes it to look at once to the English - archetypes for its government.”[2] - -Following this statement, so clearly expressed, the words “Legislature” -and “holding elections,” in the National Constitution, which belonged -to the political system of England, may be explained by that -system,--so, at least, that in case of doubt we shall find light in -this quarter. - -Now, from the beginning, it appears that in England there have been -two different rules with regard to elections by the legislature and -elections by the people. Elections by the legislature, like legislative -acts, have been by majority; elections by the people for Parliament -have been by plurality. This distinction is found throughout English -history. - -The House of Commons chooses its Speaker by majority. It may be said, -also, that it chooses the Ministers of the Crown in the same way, -because the fate of a cabinet depends upon a majority. In short, -whatever it does, unless it be the nomination of committees, is by -majority. It is only through majority that it can act. The House of -Commons itself is found in the majority of its members,--never in a -minority. - -On the other hand, members of Parliament are chosen by plurality. No -reason is assigned for the difference; but it may be found, perhaps, in -two considerations: first, the superior convenience, amounting almost -to necessity, of choosing members of Parliament in this way; and, -secondly, the fact that popular bodies were not embraced by the Law of -Corporations, which establishes the rule of the majority. - -Here I adduce the authority of Mr. Cushing, in his Parliamentary Law, -in the very passage cited by the Senator from Illinois:-- - - “At the time of the first settlement and colonization of the - United States, the elections of members of Parliament in - England were conducted upon the principle of plurality, which - also prevailed in all other elections in which the electors - were at liberty to select their candidates from an indefinite - number of qualified persons. Such has been, and still continues - to be, the Common Law of England; and such is the present - practice in that country in all elections.”[3] - -It will be perceived that this statement is with reference to popular -elections, and not elections by corporate or legislative bodies. So far -as it goes, it is explicit. But pardon me, if I say that the Senator -from Illinois has misunderstood it. Had he examined it carefully, he -would have seen that it had no bearing on the present case. Nobody -questions the plurality rule in the election of members of Congress, -although few, perhaps, have considered how it came into existence. Mr. -Cushing, whom the Senator cites, explains it, and in a way to furnish -no authority for a minority instead of a majority in a legislative -body. The rule prevailed in England. The colonies of Virginia and -New York adopted it. From these, as they became States, it gradually -extended throughout the country. A different rule was carried to New -England by the Puritan Fathers. Even popular elections were by the rule -of the majority, as is explained by the same learned authority. - - “The charter of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay being that - of a trading company, and not municipal in its character, - the officers of the Colony were originally chosen at general - meetings of the whole body of freemen, precisely as at the - present day the directors of a business corporation, a bank, - for example, are chosen by the stockholders at a general - meeting. In the choice of Assistants, who were to be eighteen - in number, at these meetings of the Company, or, as they were - called, Courts of Election, the practice seems to have been for - the names of the candidates to be regularly moved and seconded, - and put to the question, one by one, in the same manner with - all other motions. This was then, as it is now, the mode of - proceeding in England, in the election of the Speaker of the - House of Commons, and in the appointment of committees of the - House, when they are not chosen by ballot. Probably, also, it - was the usual mode of proceeding in electing the officers of - a private corporation or company. In voting upon the names - thus proposed, it was ordered--with a view, doubtless, to - secure the independence and impartiality of the electors--that - the freemen, instead of giving an affirmative or negative - voice in the usual open and visible manner, should give their - suffrages by ballot, and for that purpose should ‘use Indian - corn and beans: the Indian corn to manifest election, the beans - contrary.’ The names of the candidates being thus moved and - voted upon, each by itself, it followed, of course, that no - person could be elected but by an absolute majority.”[4] - -The rule, thus curiously explained, continued in Massachusetts down to -a recent day; at last it yielded to the exigency of public convenience, -so that at this moment, I believe, popular elections throughout the -United States are by the plurality rule. But I repeat, that this is no -authority for overturning the rule of the majority in a legislative -body, having in its favor so many reasons of law and tradition. - -I have only alluded to the Law of Corporations; but this law is of -weight in determining the present case. According to this law, the -rule of the majority must prevail. Indeed, an eminent jurist says that -this rule is according to the Law of Nature, as it is unquestionably -according to the Roman Law, and the modern law of civilized states.[5] -But what is a legislative body but a political corporation? Therefore, -when asked if a Legislature, even by legislative act, may set -aside the rule of the majority in the election of Senators, I must -candidly express a doubt. The Constitution confides this power to the -“Legislature”; but the “Legislature” consists of a majority. _Ubi -major pars est, ibi totum_: “Where the greater part is, there is the -whole.” Such is an approved maxim of the law; and this maxim has in its -support, first, the Law of Nature, secondly, the Law of Corporations, -thirdly, the Parliamentary Law, and, fourthly, the principles of -republican government. Who ever thought of saying, Where the minority -is, there is the whole? - -But we are not asked now to decide the question, whether the -Legislature, by legislative act, may substitute the rule of a minority -for the majority. That question is not necessarily before us. In the -present case there has been no legislative act; and the question is, -whether the rule of the minority may be substituted for the majority -by the abnormal body known as joint meeting. On this point the -conclusion is clear. Even assuming that this substitution may be made -by legislative act, it does not follow that it may be made in joint -meeting. - -Surely, such a change is of immense gravity, and should be made -only under all possible solemnities and safeguards. If ever there -was occasion for the delays and precautions provided by legislative -proceedings, with three different readings in each separate House, -it must be when such a change is in question. Such surely is the -suggestion of reason. But the Constitution itself, which delegates to -the “Legislature” of each State the power to _prescribe the manner_ of -electing Senators, uses language not open to evasion. This power is -to be exercised by the “Legislature,” which may prescribe the manner. -It is not to be exercised by any other body than the Legislature; and -the manner is to be prescribed by the Legislature. But, assuming that -it may be exercised in joint meeting, it is clear that this must be in -pursuance of some legislative act, prescribing in advance the manner. - -Supposing the case doubtful, then I submit that all presumptions -and interpretations must tend to support the rule of a majority. In -other words, so important a rule, having its foundation in the Law of -Nature, the Law of Corporations, Parliamentary Law, and the principles -of republican institutions, cannot be set aside without the plainest -and most positive intendment. It cannot be done by inference or -construction. If ever there was occasion where every doubt was to be -counted against the assumption of power, it is the present. I know -very little of cards, but I remember a rule of Hoyle, “When you are in -doubt, take the trick.” Just the reverse must be done in a case like -the present, involving so important a principle: when you are in doubt, -do not take the trick. This is a republican government, and surely you -will not abandon the first principle of a republican government without -good reason. According to received maxims of law, you must always -incline in favor of Liberty. In the same spirit you must always incline -in favor of every principle of republican government, and especially -of that vital principle which establishes the rule of the majority. -Thus inclining, the way at present is easy; and here I quote another -authority, very different from Hoyle. Lord Bacon, in his Maxims of the -Law, after mentioning a similar presumption, says:-- - - “It is a rule drawn out of the depths of reason.… It makes an - end of many questions and doubts about construction of words: - for, if the labor were only to pick out the intention of the - parties, every judge would have a several sense; _whereas this - rule doth give them a sway to take the law more certainly one - way_.”[6] - -And now, Sir, I have only to add, in conclusion, let us incline in -favor of the rule of the majority. So inclining, you will at once show -reverence for the republican principle and will stand on the ancient -ways. - - The question was then taken on an amendment, moved by Mr. - Clark, of New Hampshire, to insert the word “not” before the - word “duly” in the resolution of the Committee, and also before - the word “entitled,” so that it should read that he “was not - duly elected, and is not entitled to his seat.” This amendment - was lost,--Yeas 19, Nays 21. The question then recurred on - the resolution of the Committee. Upon the conclusion of the - calling of the roll, the vote stood, Yeas 21, Nays 20, when - Mr. Morrill, of Maine, said, “Call my name.” This was done, - and he said, “I vote nay.” Mr. Stockton, who had not voted, - rose, and, after stating that his colleague, Mr. Wright, was - at home, said, “When he was last in this Chamber, he told me, - as he left the Hall, that he would not go home, if it were - not for the fact that he had paired off with the Senator from - Maine. Mr. President, I ask that my name be called.” His name - was then called, and he voted in the affirmative, so that the - result was, Yeas 22, Nays 21. Meanwhile Mr. Morrill stated the - circumstances with regard to his original pair with Mr. Wright - and his withdrawal from it. The result was then declared,--Yeas - 22, Nays 21,--making a majority in the affirmative, and the - resolution was treated as adopted. - - * * * * * - - The sequel of these proceedings, ending in the passage of a - resolution, moved by Mr. Sumner, “that the vote of Mr. Stockton - be not received,” and the adoption of a resolution declaring - him “not entitled to a seat as Senator,” will appear under the - next article. - - - - -A SENATOR CANNOT VOTE FOR HIMSELF. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE VOTE OF HON. JOHN P. STOCKTON AFFIRMING -HIS SEAT IN THE SENATE, MARCH 26, 1866. - - - March 26th, immediately after the reading of the Senate - journal, Mr. Sumner rose to what he called a question of - privilege, and moved “that the journal of Friday, March 23, - 1866, be amended by striking out the vote of Mr. Stockton - on the question of his right to a seat in the Senate.” The - circumstances of this vote appear at the close of the last - article. On his motion Mr. Sumner said:-- - -There are two ways, I believe, if there are not three, but there are -certainly two ways of meeting the question presented by the vote of -Mr. Stockton. I use his name directly, because it will be plainer and -I shall be more easily understood. I say there are two ways in which -the case may be met. One is, by motion to disallow the vote; the other, -by motion, such as I have made, to amend the journal. Perhaps a third -way, though not so satisfactory to my mind, would be by motion to -reconsider; but I am not in a condition to make this motion, as I did -not vote with the apparent majority. I call your attention, however, -at the outset, to two ways,--one by disallowing the vote, and the -other by amending the journal. But behind both, or all three, arises -the simple question, Had Mr. Stockton a right to vote? To this it is -replied, that his name was on the roll of the Senate, and accordingly -was called by our Secretary; to which I answer,--and to my mind the -answer is complete,--The rule of the Senate must be construed always in -subordination to the principles of Natural Law and Parliamentary Law, -and therefore you are brought again to the question with which I began, -Had Mr. Stockton a right to vote? - -Had he a right to vote, first, according to the principles of Natural -Law, or, in other words, the principles of Universal Law? I take it -there is no lawyer, there is no man even of the most moderate reading, -who is not familiar with the principle of jurisprudence, recognized in -all countries and in all ages, that no man can be a judge in his own -case. That principle has been reduced to form among the maxims of our -Common Law,--_Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa_. As such it -has been handed down from the earliest days of the mother country. It -was brought here by our fathers, and has been cherished sacredly by us -as a cardinal rule in every court of justice. No judge, no tribunal, -high or low, can undertake to set aside this rule. I have in my hand -the most recent work on the Maxims of Law, where, after quoting this -rule, the learned writer says:-- - - “It is a fundamental rule in the administration of justice, - that a person cannot be judge in a cause wherein he is - interested.”[7] - -In another place, the same learned writer says:-- - - “It is, then, a rule always observed in practice, and of the - application of which instances not unfrequently occur that, - where a judge is interested in the result of a cause, he - cannot, either personally or by deputy, sit in judgment upon - it.”[8] - -This rule had its earliest and most authoritative judicial statement in -an opinion by an eminent judge of England, who has always been quoted -for integrity in times when integrity was rare: I mean Chief Justice -Hobart, of the Court of Common Pleas. In his own Reports, cited as -Hobart’s Reports, I call attention to the case of _Day_ v. _Savadge_, -where this learned magistrate said:-- - - “It was against right and justice, and against natural equity, - to allow them [the Mayor and Aldermen of London] their - certificate, wherein they are to try and judge their own cause.” - -And then he says, in memorable language, which has made his name -famous:-- - - “Even an Act of Parliament, made against natural equity, as, to - make a man judge in his own case, is void in itself; for _jura - naturæ sunt immutabilia_, and they are _leges legum_.”[9] - -Thus strongly and completely did he cover the present case, reaching -forward with judgment. According to him, even an Act of Parliament -making a man judge in his own case is void. But, Sir, he was not alone. -His great contemporary, and our teacher at this hour, Sir Edward Coke, -in a very famous case, known as _Bonham’s_, which I have not before -me now, but which is referred to in other cases, lays down the same -rule,--that a court of justice will not even recognize an Act of -Parliament, if it undertakes to make a man judge in his own case.[10] - -But another judge, who, as lawyer and authority in courts down to this -day, perhaps excels even the two already cited,--I mean Lord Chief -Justice Holt,--has explained and developed this principle in masterly -language. I refer to what is known as Modern Reports, in the case of -_The City of London_ v. _Wood_, where he says:-- - - “I agree, where the city of London claims any freedom or - franchise to itself, there none of London shall be judge or - jury; for there they claim an interest to themselves against - the rest of mankind.” - -He then explains the principle:-- - - “It is against all laws, that the same person should be party - and judge in the same cause, for it is manifest contradiction; - for the party is he that is to complain to the judge, and the - judge is to hear the party; the party endeavors to have his - will, the judge determines against the will of the party, and - has authority to enforce him to obey his sentence: and can - any man act against his own will, or enforce himself to obey? - The judge is agent, the party is patient, and the same person - cannot be both agent and patient in the same thing; but it is - the same thing to say that the same man may be patient and - agent in the same thing as to say that he may be judge and - party, and it is manifest contradiction. And what my Lord Coke - says in _Dr. Bonham’s Case_, in his 8 Co., is far from any - extravagancy; for it is a very reasonable and true saying, - that, if an Act of Parliament should ordain that the same - person should be party and judge, or, which is the same thing, - judge in his own cause, it would be a void Act of Parliament; - for it is impossible that one should be judge and party, for - the judge is to determine between party and party, or between - the Government and the party; and an Act of Parliament can do - no wrong, though it may do several things that look pretty odd, - for it may discharge one from his allegiance to the Government - he lives under and restore him to the state of Nature, but - it cannot make one that lives under a government judge and - party.”[11] - -These are the words of Chief Justice Holt. It will be observed that -three eminent judges, Hobart, Coke, and Holt, all found the inevitable -conclusion on the immutable principles of Natural Law, that law which -is common to all countries. It is the very law of which Cicero spoke in -the memorable sentence of his treatise on the Republic, when he said -that there was but one law for all countries, now and in all times, -the same at Athens as in Rome.[12] It is also that universal law to -which the great English writer, Hooker, alluded, when he said that -her seat is the bosom of God; all things on earth do her homage,--the -least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempt from her -power. To this Universal Law all your legislation must be brought as -to a touchstone; and all your conduct in this Chamber, and all your -rules, must be in accordance with it. Therefore I say, as I began, -the practice of calling the roll of the Senate must be interpreted in -subordination to this commanding rule of Universal Law. - -This is not all. I said that it was forbidden, not only by Natural -Law, but also by Parliamentary Law. Of course, Parliamentary Law in -itself must be in harmony with Natural Law; but Parliamentary Law has -undertaken in advance to deal with this very question. There is no -express rule of the Senate on the subject, but here is a rule of the -other House:-- - - “No member shall vote on any question in the event of which he - is immediately and particularly interested.”[13] - -This is but an expression in parliamentary language of what I have -announced as the rule of universal jurisprudence. But, Sir, this rule -was borrowed from the rules of the British House of Commons, one of -which is,-- - - “If anything shall come in question touching the _return or - election_ of any member, he is to withdraw during the time the - matter is in debate.”[14] - -I quote from May’s Parliamentary Law. From another work of authority, -Dwarris on Statutes, I now read:-- - - “No member of the House may be present in the House when a bill - or any other business concerning himself is debating; while the - bill is but reading or opening, he may.”[15] - -Then, after citing two different cases, the learned writer proceeds:-- - - “This rule was always attended to in questions relative to the - seat of a member on the hearing of controverted elections, and - has been strictly observed in cases of very great moment.”[16] - -Again the same writer says:-- - - “Where a member appeared to be ‘somewhat’ concerned in - interest,”-- - -That is the phrase, only “somewhat concerned,”-- - - “his voice has been disallowed after a division.”[17] - -Then, again, our own eminent countryman, Cushing, who was quoted so -frequently the other day, in his elaborate book on the Law and Practice -of Legislative Assemblies, expresses himself as follows:-- - - “Cases are frequent in which votes received have been - disallowed.”[18] - -Again he says:-- - - “Votes have also been disallowed after the numbers have been - declared, on the ground that the members voting were interested - in the question; and, in reference to this proceeding, there is - no time limited within which it must take place.”[19] - -Thus, Sir, it is apparent that Parliamentary Law is completely in -harmony with Natural Law. Indeed, if it were not, it would be our duty -to correct it, that it might be made in harmony. - - * * * * * - -And now, after this statement of the law, which I believe completely -applicable to the present case, I am brought to consider the remedy. I -said at the outset that there were two modes: one was by disallowing -the vote on motion to that effect, and the other by amending the -journal. But first let me call attention to the practice in disallowing -a vote on motion. I have already read from Dwarris, where the vote was -disallowed, and I will read it again:-- - - “Where a member appeared to be ‘somewhat’ concerned in - interest, his voice has been disallowed after a division.” - - MR. TRUMBULL. Was that at the same or a subsequent session? - -MR. SUMNER. It does not appear whether it was at a subsequent session, -but it simply appears that it was after the division. The Senator -understands that the division in the British Parliament corresponds -with what we call the yeas and nays. They “divide,” as it is -called,--the yeas and the nays being counted by tellers as they pass. - -The American authority is in harmony with the English already quoted. I -read again from Cushing. - - “The disallowance of votes usually takes place, when, after the - declaration of the numbers by the Speaker, it is discovered - that certain members who voted were not present when the - question was put, or _were so interested in the question_”-- - -Mark those words, if you please, Sir-- - - “that they ought to have withdrawn from the House. - - “It has already been seen, that, when it is ascertained that - members have improperly voted, on a division, who were not - in the House when the question was put, if this takes place - before the numbers are declared by the Speaker, such votes are - disallowed by him at once, and not included in the numbers - declared. If the fact is not ascertained until after the - numbers are declared, it is then necessary that there should - be a motion and vote of the House for their disallowance; and - this may take place, for anything that appears to the contrary, - at any time during the session, and has in fact taken place - after the lapse of several days from the time the votes were - given.”[20] - -Thus much for the remedy by disallowance; and this brings me to the -proposition by amending the journal. That remedy, from the nature -of the case, is applicable to an error apparent on the face of the -journal. I ask Senators to note the distinction. It is applicable to an -error apparent on the face of the journal. If the interest of a Senator -appeared only by evidence _aliunde_, by evidence outside, as, for -instance, that he had some private interest in the results of a pending -measure by which he was disqualified, his vote could be disallowed -only on motion; but if the incapacity of the Senator to vote on a -particular occasion appears on the journal itself, I submit that the -journal must be amended by striking out his vote. The case is patent. -We have already seen, by the opinions of eminent judges, great masters -of law in different ages, that what is contrary to the principles of -Natural Law must be void; and English judges tell us that even an Act -of Parliament must be treated as void, if it undertakes to make a man -judge in his own case. - -Now, Sir, apply that principle to your journal. It has recognized a -man as judge in his own case. I insist that the recognition was void. -Is not the true remedy by amending the journal so as to strike out his -name? The journal discloses the two essential facts,--first, that as -Senator he was party to the proceedings, secondly, that as Senator he -was judge in the proceedings; and since these two facts appear on the -face of the journal, it seems to me that the only substantial remedy is -by amending it, so that a precedent of such a character shall not find -place hereafter in the records of the Senate. - -Sir, this question is not insignificant; it is grave. It belongs to the -privileges of the Senate. I might almost say, it is closely associated -with the character of the Senate. Can Senators sit here and allow one -of their number, on an important occasion, to come forward and play at -the same time the two great parts, party and judge? And yet these two -great parts have been played, and your journal records the performance. -Suppose Jesse D. Bright, some years since expelled from the Senate, -after animated debate lasting weeks, and our excellent Judiciary -Committee reporting in his favor,--suppose he had undertaken to vote -for himself,--is there a Senator who would not have felt it wrong to -admit his vote? The defendant showed no want of hardihood, but he -did not offer to vote for himself. But, if Mr. Stockton can vote for -himself, how can you prevent a Senator from voting to save himself from -expulsion? The rule must be the same in the two cases. Therefore I ask -that the journal be rectified, in harmony with Parliamentary Law and -the principles of Universal Law. - -In making this motion, I have no other motive than to protect the -rights of the Senate, and to establish those principles of justice -which will be a benefit to our country for all time. You cannot lightly -see a great principle sacrificed. You abandon your duty, if you allow -an elementary principle of justice to be set at nought in this Chamber. -Be it, Sir, our pride to uphold those truths and to stand by those -principles. I know no way in which we can do it now so completely as in -the motion I have made. The vote of Mr. Stockton was null and void. It -should be treated as if it had not been given. - -I have no doubt that the motion to correct the journal would be in -order even at a late day. I believe that at any day any Senator might -rise in his place and move to expunge from the journal a record in -itself derogatory to the body. I have in my hands a reference to -the case of John Wilkes, who, you will remember, just before our -Revolution, was excluded from Parliament, while his competitor, -Luttrell, was declared duly elected. The decision of Parliament, so the -history records, convulsed the whole kingdom for thirteen years, but -after that long period it was expunged from the journal,--I now quote -the emphatic words,--“as being subversive of the rights of the whole -body of electors of this kingdom.” I submit, Sir, the record in your -journal is subversive of the great principle of jurisprudence on which -the rights of every citizen depend. - - Mr. Reverdy Johnson followed, criticizing Mr. Sumner. He - concluded by saying: “Even supposing there was the slightest - want of delicacy in casting a vote upon such a question by - the member whose seat is contested, it was in the particular - instance more than justified by the circumstances existing at - the time the vote was cast.” - - Mr. Trumbull said:-- - - “I believe, as I said before, that the Senator from New - Jersey is entitled to his seat; but I do not believe that - he is entitled to hold his seat by his own vote. He would - have held his seat without his own vote. The vote upon - the resolution was a tie without the vote of the Senator - from New Jersey; and that would have left him in his seat, - he already having been sworn in as a member. It is not - necessary that the resolution should have passed. He is - here as a Senator, and it would require an affirmative vote - to deprive him of his seat as a Senator.” - - He then avowed his willingness to move a reconsideration of the - vote by which the resolution was carried, “if that is necessary - to accomplish the object.” - - Mr. Sumner, after saying, that, when he brought forward his - motion, he had no reason to suppose that any Senator would move - a reconsideration, proceeded:-- - -The Senator from Illinois says, Suppose we strike out Mr. Stockton’s -name, what will be the effect? I answer, To change all subsequent -proceedings, and make them as if he had not voted, so that the whole -record must be corrected accordingly. The Senator supposes a bill -passed by mistake afterwards discovered, and asks if the bill could be -arrested. Clearly, if not too late. A familiar anecdote with regard to -the passage of the Act of _Habeas Corpus_ in England will help answer -the Senator. According to the story,--it is Bishop Burnet who tells -it,[21]--this great act, which gave to the English people what has -since been called the palladium of their liberties, passed under a -misapprehension created by a jest. It seems that among the affirmative -peers walking through the tellers was one especially fat, when it was -said, “Count ten,”--and ten was counted for the bill, thus securing its -passage. I am not aware that the mistake was divulged until too late -for correction. But we have had in the other House two different cases, -which answer precisely the inquiry of the Senator. - - Here Mr. Sumner read from the House Journal, 29th Congress, 1st - Session, July 6, 1846, p. 1032, a motion by Mr. McGaughey with - regard to the Journal. He next read from the House Journal, - 31st Congress, 1st Session, September 10, 1850, p. 1436, the - following entry:-- - - “The Speaker stated that the result of the vote of the - House on yesterday on the passage of the bill of the House - (No. 387) to supply a deficiency in the appropriation - for pay and mileage of members of Congress for the - present session had been erroneously announced, and that - the subsequent proceedings upon the said bill would - consequently fall. - - “The Speaker then announced the vote to be, Yeas 78, Nays - 76. - - “So the bill was passed; and the journal of yesterday was - ordered to be amended accordingly.” - - In conformity with this precedent, Mr. Sumner did not doubt - that by the correction of the journal the vote affirming Mr. - Stockton’s seat would fall, and he thought it better to follow - this course; but, anxious to avoid a protracted discussion, and - to “seek a practical result,” he was willing to withdraw his - proposition. - - Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, thought that Mr. Sumner would “err - in withdrawing the proposition.” Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, - maintained “that Mr. Stockton had an undoubted right to vote.” - Mr. Stockton followed in vindication of his vote, referring - especially to an alleged understanding between Mr. Morrill - and Mr. Wright, which he said was violated by the vote of the - former. - - “I never looked upon this as my case. It was the case of - the Senator from New Jersey. And when one gentleman from - New Jersey, my colleague, was deprived of his vote by--what - shall I term it? I do not propose to violate parliamentary - propriety by terming it anything,--but when one Senator - from New Jersey by artifice was prevented from recording - his vote, as he would have done, the other was not to vote - from delicacy. - - “Mr. President, there are eleven States out of the Union, - and they wanted to put New Jersey out; and I did not mean - that they should do it from motives of delicacy on my part.” - - Mr. Trumbull said, “Let us settle at this time that a member - has no right to vote upon the question.… I think, upon - consideration, that perhaps the best way to arrive at it is - by the adoption of the resolution offered by the Senator from - Massachusetts.” Mr. Lane, of Kansas, who had voted to sustain - Mr. Stockton, said, “I was never more surprised in my life - than when the Senator from New Jersey asked to vote and did - vote.” Soon afterwards, Mr. Stockton said, “I rise to withdraw - my vote, with the permission of the Senate,” and proceeded - to explain his position. In reply to an inquiry from Mr. - Sumner, the presiding officer [Mr. CLARK, of New Hampshire] - said, “The Chair is of opinion that he cannot, unless by the - unanimous consent of the Senate he wishes to correct the - journal.” Mr. Sumner formally withdrew his motion to correct - the journal, “with the understanding that the Senator from - Vermont [Mr. POLAND] makes the motion for a reconsideration.” - Mr. Poland accordingly moved the reconsideration, and this - was agreed to, so that the original question was again before - the Senate. There was still debate and perplexity as to the - proper proceeding in order to repair the error in receiving Mr. - Stockton’s vote, when Mr. Sumner moved:-- - - “That the vote of Mr. Stockton be not received, in - determining the question of his seat in the Senate.” - - Mr. Sumner remarked:-- - -I have no personal question with the Senator; I have for him nothing -but kindness and respect. I deal with this question simply as a -question of principle. The Senator tells us that he will not vote, when -the case comes up again. I believe him; he will not vote. But, Sir, he -has taken the Constitution in his hand, and, holding it up, he tells us -that he finds in that instrument authority for it in his case.… - -Since the Senator makes the claim, it is important for us to meet it, -in some way or other,--by correcting the journal, or by a resolution -declaring that the Senator shall not vote,--fixing the precedent -forever, so that hereafter we shall not be left to the uncertain will -or opinion of a Senator whose seat may be in question. We must rely, -not upon his honor, but upon the Constitution, interpreted by this body -and fixed beyond recall. Therefore I think still it would be better, if -the Senate had corrected its journal. Being a vote that in itself was -null and void, it was to be treated as not having been given. - -The Senator asks to withdraw his vote. To withdraw what? Something -which has never been done,--that is, legally done. There is no legal -vote of the Senator. His name is recorded as having voted, but it is a -vote that at the time was null and void. There is nothing, therefore, -for him to withdraw, but something for the Senate to annul. - - Mr. Sherman moved the reference of Mr. Sumner’s resolution - to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Senate refused to - refer,--Yeas 18, Nays 22. The resolution was then adopted. - - March 27th, the consideration of the resolution declaring Mr. - Stockton “duly elected” was resumed, when, after the failure - of an effort to postpone it, Mr. Clark moved to amend it by - declaring that he “is not entitled to a seat as Senator.” On - this amendment Mr. Stockton spoke at length. The amendment - was adopted,--Yeas 22, Nays 21,--Mr. Stockton not voting. He - said, “I desire to state, in order that it may be a part of the - record, that I do not vote on this question, on account of the - resolution passed by the Senate yesterday.” The resolution as - amended was then adopted,--Yeas 23, Nays 20. - - - - -REMODELLING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO REORGANIZE THE JUDICIARY OF THE -UNITED STATES, APRIL 2, 1866. - - - This bill, reported from the Judiciary Committee by Mr. - Harris, of New York, was considered for several days in the - Senate, and finally passed that body. It failed in the House - of Representatives. Another bill, having a similar object, - afterwards became a law.[22] - - On the present bill Mr. Sumner remarked:-- - -We all know that the Supreme Court is now some three years behind -in its business, and the practical question is, How are we to bring -relief? There are two different ways. One is by limiting appeals, so -that hereafter it shall have less business. Another, and to my mind -the better way, would be to allow appeals substantially as now, but -to limit the court to the exclusive hearing of those appeals. Of -course that raises the question, whether the judges of the Supreme -Court sitting here in Washington should have duties elsewhere. That -is a question of practice, and also of theory. Since I have been in -the Senate, it has been very often discussed, formally or informally, -and there have been differences of opinion upon it. I believe the -inclination has always been that judges are better in the discharge of -their duties from experience at _Nisi Prius_. That opinion, I take it, -is derived from England; and yet I need not remind the Senator from -New York that the two highest courts in England are held by judges who -at the time do nothing at _Nisi Prius_, and do not go the circuit: -I refer to the court of the Privy Council, and to the highest court -of all, the court of the House of Lords. If you pass over to France, -where certainly the judicature is admirably arranged on principles -of science, where I believe justice is assured, you have the highest -court, known as the Court of Cassation, composed of persons set apart -exclusively for appeals,--never leaving Paris, and never hearing any -other business except that which comes before them on appeal. - -I refer to these instances for illustration. The Senate is also aware, -that, in the beginning of our Government, when Washington invited his -first Chief Justice and his Associates to communicate their views on -the subject of the Judiciary system, the answer, prepared by John Jay, -assigned strong reasons why the Supreme Court should be exclusively for -the consideration of appeals.[23] The other business was by circuit -judges. This recommendation was put aside, and the existing system -prevailed. Justice has been administered to the satisfaction of the -country, reasonably at least, under this system. - -But now we are driven to a pass: justice threatens to fail in the -Supreme Court, unless we provide relief. Is the bill of the Senator -from New York adequate? Speaking frankly, I fear that it is not; and I -fear that the proposition of my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE], if -adopted, will still further limit the relief which my friend from New -York proposes. I am disposed to believe that the only real relief will -be found in setting apart the judges of our highest court exclusively -for the consideration of appeals. They would then sit as many months -in the year as they could reasonably give to judicial labor. They -might, perhaps, hear every case that could reach the tribunal, while -they had a vacation to themselves in which to review the science of -their profession and add undoubtedly to their attainments. I remember -that one of the ablest lawyers in England, in testimony some years -ago before a Committee of the House of Commons on the value of what -is known as the vacation,--I refer to Sir James Scarlett, afterward -Lord Abinger, Lord Chief Baron,--testified that for one, as an old -lawyer, he regarded the vacation as important, because it gave him -an opportunity to review his studies and to read books that he could -not read in the urgency of practice. I have heard our own judges make -similar remarks. - -Now the question is, whether the present bill meets the case. Does it -supply the needed relief? I fear it does not; and I really should be -much better satisfied, if my friend from New York had dealt more boldly -with the whole question by providing a court of appeal, composed of the -eminent judges of the land, devoted exclusively to appeals, and leaving -to other judges the hearing of cases at _Nisi Prius_. - - - - -THE LATE SOLOMON FOOT, SENATOR FROM VERMONT. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS DEATH, APRIL 12, 1866. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--There is a truce in this Chamber. The antagonism of -debate is hushed. The sounds of conflict have died away. The white -flag is flying. From opposite camps we meet to bury the dead. It is a -Senator we bury, not a soldier. - -This is the second time during the present session that we have been -called to mourn a distinguished Senator from Vermont. It was much -to bear the loss once. Its renewal now, after so brief a period, is -a calamity without precedent in the history of the Senate. No State -before has ever lost two Senators so near together. - -Mr. Foot, at his death, was the oldest Senator in continuous service. -He entered the Senate in the same Congress with the Senator from Ohio -[Mr. WADE] and myself; but he was sworn at the executive session in -March, while the two others were not sworn till the opening of Congress -at the succeeding December. During this considerable space of time I -have been the constant witness to his life and conversation. With a -sentiment of gratitude I look back upon our relations, never from the -beginning impaired or darkened by difference. For one brief moment he -seemed disturbed by something that fell from me in the unconscious -intensity of my convictions; but it was for a brief moment only, and he -took my hand with a genial grasp. I make haste also to declare my sense -of his personal purity and his incorruptible nature. Such elements of -character, exhibited and proved throughout a long service, render him -an example for all. He is gone; but these virtues “smell sweet and -blossom in the dust.” - -He was excellent in judgment. He was excellent also in speech; so -that, whenever he spoke, the wonder was that he who spoke so well -should speak so seldom. He was full, clear, direct, emphatic, and never -was diverted from the thread of his argument. Had he been moved to -mingle actively in debate, he must have exerted a commanding influence -over opinion in the Senate and in the country. How often we have -watched him tranquil in his seat, while others without his experience -or weight occupied attention! The reticence which was part of his -nature formed a contrast to that prevailing effusion where sometimes -the facility of speech is less remarkable than the inability to keep -silence; and, again, it formed a contrast to that controversial spirit -which too often, like an unwelcome wind, puts out the lights while -it fans a flame. And yet in his treatment of questions he was never -incomplete or perfunctory. If he did not say, with the orator and -parliamentarian of France, the famous founder of the “Doctrinaire” -school of politics, M. Royer-Collard, that respect for his audience -would not permit him to ask attention until he had reduced his thoughts -to writing, it was evident that he never spoke in the Senate without -careful preparation. You remember well his commemoration of his late -colleague, only a few short weeks ago, when he delivered a funeral -oration not unworthy of the French school from which this form of -eloquence is derived. Alas! as we listened to that most elaborate -eulogy, shaped by study and penetrated by feeling, how little did we -think that it was so soon to be echoed back from his own tomb! - -Not in our debates only did this self-abnegation show itself. He -quietly withdrew from places of importance on committees to which he -was entitled, and which he would have filled with honor. More than once -I have known him insist that another should take the position assigned -to himself. He was far from that nature which Lord Bacon exposes in -pungent humor, when he speaks of “extreme self-lovers,” that “will set -an house on fire and it were but to roast their eggs.”[24] And yet it -must not be disguised that he was happy in the office of Senator. It -was to him as much as his “dukedom” to Prospero. He felt its honors -and confessed its duties. But he was content. He desired nothing more. -Perhaps no person appreciated so thoroughly what it was to bear the -commission of a State in this Chamber. Surely no person appreciated so -thoroughly all the dignities belonging to the Senate. Of its ceremonial -he was the admitted arbiter. - -There was no jealousy, envy, or uncharitableness in him. He enjoyed -what others did, and praised generously. He knew that his own just -position could not be disturbed by the success of another. Whatever -another may be, whether more or less, a man must always be himself. A -true man is a positive, and not a relative quantity. Properly inspired, -he will know that in a just sense nobody can stand in the way of -another. And here let me add, that, in proportion as this truth enters -into practical life, we shall all become associates and coadjutors -rather than rivals. How plain, that, in the infinite diversity of -character and talent, there is place for every one! This world is wide -enough for all its inhabitants; this republic is grand enough for all -its people. Let every one serve in his place according to his allotted -faculties. - -In the long warfare with Slavery, Mr. Foot was from the beginning -firmly and constantly on the side of Freedom. He was against the -deadly compromises of 1850. He linked his shield in the small, but -solid, phalanx of the Senate which opposed the Nebraska Bill. He was -faithful in the defence of Kansas, menaced by Slavery; and when at -last this barbarous rebel took up arms, he accepted the issue, and -did all he could for his country. But even the cause which for years -he had so much at heart did not lead him into debate, except rarely. -His opinions appeared in votes, rather than in speeches. But his -sympathies were easily known. I call to mind, that, on first coming -into the Senate, and not yet personally familiar with him, I was -assured by Mr. Giddings, who knew him well, that he belonged to the -small circle who would stand by Freedom, and the Antislavery patriarch -related pleasantly, how Mr. Foot, on his earliest visit to the House -of Representatives after he became Senator, drew attention by coming -directly to his seat and sitting by his side in friendly conversation. -Solomon Foot by the side of Joshua R. Giddings, in those days, when -Slavery still tyrannized, is a picture not to be forgotten. If our -departed friend is not to be named among those who have borne the -burden of this great controversy, he cannot be forgotten among those -whose sympathies with Liberty never failed. Would that he had done -more! Let us be thankful that he did so much. - -There is a part on the stage known as “the walking gentleman,” who has -very little to say, but always appears well. Mr. Foot might seem, at -times, to have adopted this part, if we were not constantly reminded -of his watchfulness in everything concerning the course of business -and the administration of Parliamentary Law. Here he excelled, and -was master of us all. The division of labor, which is the lesson of -political economy, is also the lesson of public life. All cannot do all -things. Some do one, others do another,--each according to his gifts. -This diversity produces harmony. - -The office of President _pro tempore_ among us grows out of the -anomalous relations of the Vice-President to the Senate. There is no -such officer in the other House, nor was there in the House of Commons -until very recently, when we read of a “Deputy Speaker,” which is the -term by which he is addressed, when in the chair. No ordinary talent -can guide and control a legislative assembly, especially if numerous -or excited by party differences. A good presiding officer is like -Alexander mounted on Bucephalus. The assembly knows its master, “as the -horse its rider.” This was preëminently the case with Mr. Foot, who was -often in the chair, and for a considerable period our President _pro -tempore_. Here he showed special adaptation and power. He was in person -“every inch” a President; so also was he in every sound of the voice. -He carried into the chair the most marked individuality that has been -seen there during this generation. He was unlike any other presiding -officer. “None but himself could be his parallel.” His presence was -felt instantly. It filled this Chamber from floor to gallery. It -attached itself to everything done. Vigor and despatch prevailed. -Questions were stated so as to challenge attention. Impartial justice -was manifest at once. Business in every form was handled with equal -ease. Order was enforced with no timorous authority. If disturbance -came from the gallery, how promptly he launched the fulmination! If it -came from the floor, you have often seen him throw himself back, and -then with voice of lordship, as if all the Senate were in him, insist -that debate should be suspended until order was restored. “The Senate -must come to order!” he exclaimed; and, like the god Thor, beat with -hammer in unison with voice, until the reverberations rattled like -thunder in the mountains. - -The late Duc de Morny, who was the accomplished President of the -Legislative Assembly of France, in a sitting shortly before his death, -after sounding his crier’s bell, which is the substitute for the hammer -among us, exclaimed from the chair: “I shall be obliged to mention by -name the members whom I find conversing. I declare to you that I shall -do so, and I shall have it put in the ‘Moniteur.’ You are here to -discuss and to listen, not to converse. I promise you that I will do -what I say to the very first I catch talking.” Our President might have -found occasion for a similar speech, but his energy in the enforcement -of order stopped short of this menace. Certainly he did everything -consistent with the temper of the Senate, and he showed always what Sir -William Scott, on one occasion, in the House of Commons, placed among -the essential qualities of a Speaker, when he said that “to a jealous -affection for the privileges of the House” must be added “an awful -sense of its duties.”[25] - -Accustomed as we have become to the rules which govern legislative -proceedings, we are hardly aware of their importance in the development -of liberal institutions. Unknown in antiquity, they were unknown also -on the European continent until latterly introduced from England, which -was their original home. They are among the precious contributions -which England has made to modern civilization; and yet they did not -assume at once their present perfect form. Mr. Hallam tells us that -even as late as Queen Elizabeth “the members called confusedly for -the business they wished to have brought forward.”[26] But now, at -last, these rules have become a beautiful machine, by which business -is conducted, legislation moulded, and debate in all possible freedom -secured. From the presentation of a petition or the introduction of -a bill, all proceeds by fixed processes, until, without disorder, -the final result is reached and a new law takes its place in the -statute-book. Hoe’s printing-press or Alden’s type-setter is not more -exact in operation. But the rules are more even than a beautiful -machine; they are the very temple of Constitutional Liberty. In this -temple our departed friend served to the end with pious care. His -associates, as they recall his stately form, silvered by time, but -beaming with goodness, will not cease to cherish the memory of such -service. His image will rise before them as the faithful presiding -officer, by whom the dignity of the Senate was maintained, its business -advanced, and Parliamentary Law upheld. - -He had always looked with delight upon this Capitol,--one of the -most remarkable edifices of the world,--beautiful in itself, but more -beautiful still as the emblem of that national unity he loved so well. -He enjoyed its enlargement and improvement. He watched with pride its -marble columns moving into place, and its dome as it ascended to the -skies. Even the trials of the war did not make him forget it. His care -secured those appropriations by which the work was forwarded to its -close, and the statue of Liberty installed on its sublime pedestal. -It was natural that in his last moments, as life was failing fast, he -should long to rest his eyes upon an object that was to him so dear. -The early light of morning had come, and he was lifted in bed that -with mortal sight he might once more behold this Capitol; but another -Capitol already began to fill his vision, fairer than your marble -columns, sublimer than your dome, where Liberty without any statue is -glorified in that service which is perfect Freedom. - - - - -COMPLETE EQUALITY IN RIGHTS, AND NOT SEMI-EQUALITY. - -LETTER TO A COMMITTEE ON THE CELEBRATION OF EMANCIPATION IN THE -DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APRIL 14, 1866. - - - SENATE CHAMBER, April 14, 1866. - - DEAR SIR,--It will not be in my power to celebrate with you - Emancipation in the District, but I rejoice that the beautiful - anniversary is to be commemorated. - - Looking back upon the day when that Act became a law by the - signature of Abraham Lincoln, I feel how grandly it has been - vindicated by the result. The sinister forebodings of your - enemies are all falsified. We were told that you could not bear - freedom,--that you would be lawless, idle, and thriftless. I knew - the contrary; and is it not as I foretold? Who so mad as to wish - back the old system of wrong? - - But the work is only _half done_. The freedman, despoiled of - the elective franchise, is only _half a man_. He must be made _a - whole man_; and this can be only by investing him with all the - rights of an American citizen. Here, too, we encounter the same - sinister forebodings that stood in the way of Emancipation. We - are told that you cannot bear enfranchisement, and that you will - not know how to vote. I know the contrary; and I am satisfied, - further, that there can be no true repose in this country until - all its people are admitted to that full equality before the - law which is the essential principle of republican government. - It were not enough to assure equality in what are called civil - rights. This is only _semi-equality_. The equality must be - complete. This I ask, not only for your sake, but also for the - sake of my country, imperilled by such a denial of justice. - - Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir, - faithfully yours, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - DANIEL G. MUSE, ESQ. - - - - -JUSTICE TO MECHANICS IN THE WAR. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF CERTAIN CONTRACTORS, -APRIL 17, 1866. - - - The Senate having under consideration a bill for the relief of - certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and - steam machinery, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I am happy to agree with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. -GUTHRIE] in the fundamental principle he has laid down and developed -so clearly. I agree with him, that by no legislation of ours can we -recognize the principle that contractors with the Government may never -lose. The Senator cannot state the proposition too strongly. But I part -company with him, when he undertakes to apply it to the present case. -We agree on the proposition; we disagree on the application. - -Had these contracts covered a period of peace, there would have been -occasion for the rule of the Senator. But they were not in a period -of peace; they were in a period of war. And the Senator himself has -characterized the war as perhaps the greatest in history. If not -made in a time of war, they were all the harder performed in those -early days which were heralds of war. The practical question for us -as legislators is, whether we can shut our eyes to that condition of -things. The times were exceptional; and so must the remedy be also. - -I have said, had it been a season of peace, then the Senator would -be right, and we should not be justified in seeking exceptionally to -open the Treasury for the relief of these contractors. But, Sir, war -is a mighty disturber. What force in human society, what force in -business, more disturbing? Wherever it goes, it not only carries death -and destruction, but derangement of business, change of pursuits, -interference with the currency, and generally dislocation of the common -relations of life. You cannot be blind to such a condition of things. -You must not shut your eyes to its consequences, if you would do -justice now. - -I repeat, therefore, did these contracts grow out of a period of -peace, I should not now advocate them; but it is because they grow out -of a period of war, that I ask for those who have suffered by them the -same justice we accord to all who have contributed to our success in -that terrible war. Why, Sir, how often do we appeal in this Chamber -for justice to all who have helped the great result! It is my duty -constantly to plead here for justice to those freedmen who have done -so much and placed you under ceaseless obligations. I hope I am not -indifferent also to those national creditors who supplied the means -which advanced our triumph,--nor yet again to those soldiers, whether -on land or sea, who have so powerfully served the national cause. But -there is still another class, for whom no one has yet spoken on this -floor, who have contributed to our success not less than soldier or -creditor,--I was almost ready to say, not less than the freedman: I -mean the mechanics of the country. They, Sir, have helped you carry -this war to its victorious close. Without the mechanics, where would -you have been? what would have been your equipments on the land? where -would have been that marvellous navy on the sea? It was the skilled -labor of the country, rushing so promptly to the rescue, that gave you -the power which carried you on from victory to victory. - -Now, Sir, the practical question is, whether these mechanics, who -have done so much to turn the tide of battle, shall be losers by the -skill, the labor, and the time they devoted to your triumph. Tell me -not, Sir, that they acted according to contract. To that I reply, The -war disturbed the contract, and it is your duty here, sitting as a -high court of equity, to review all the circumstances of the case, -and see in what way the remedy may be fitly applied. You cannot turn -away from the equities, treating it literally and severely according -to the precise terms of the contract. You must go into those vital -considerations arising out of the peculiar circumstances. - -Several facts are obvious to all: a Senator on the other side of the -Chamber has alluded to them. In the first place, there was the general -increase in the price of labor and material that ensued after these -contracts were made. Nobody doubts this. There was then a change in -the currency. There were, also,--what have been alluded to several -times,--changes in the models of these vessels at the Navy Department, -necessarily imposing upon these contractors additional expense and -labor. There was another circumstance, to which my attention has been -directed latterly,--I believe, however, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. -GRIMES] alluded to it yesterday,--that at the moment of the war, when -labor was highest, when it was most difficult to obtain it, there came -an order from the proper authorities exempting those who labored in -the arsenals and public yards of the United States from enrolment. Of -course, all then in private yards or with contractors, so far as they -could, hurried under the national flag, that they might become workmen -there, and thus obtain the coveted exemption from enrolment. - -… - -This order illustrates very plainly the disturbing influence from the -war; and this brings me again to press this point upon your attention. -I mention certain particulars in which this appeared; but I would bring -home the controlling consideration that we were in a time of war, -vast in proportions and most disturbing in its influence. This alone -is enough to account for the failure of these contractors. We were -not in a period of peace, and you err, if you undertake to hold these -contractors to all the austere responsibilities proper in a period of -peace. - -The Senator from Kentucky said that they took the war into their -calculations. Perhaps they did; but who among these contractors could -take that war adequately into his calculations? Who among those -sitting here or at the other end of the avenue properly appreciated -the character of the great contest coming on? Sir, we had passed half -a century in peace; we knew nothing of war, or of war preparations, -when all at once we were called to efforts on a gigantic scale. Are -you astonished that these contractors did not know more about the war -than your statesmen? Be to these contractors as gentle in judgment and -as considerate as you are to others in public life who have erred in -calculations with regard to it. - -I have said that the interest now in question was the great mechanical -interest of the country. It is an interest that is not local, as the -bill is for the benefit of mechanics in all parts of the loyal States, -from Maryland, in the South, to Massachusetts and Maine, in the -North and East, and then stretching from New York, on the seaboard, -to Missouri, beyond the Mississippi. I have a list of the States -concerned, through different contractors, in this very bill,--Maine, -Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, -Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, and even -California. The interest for which I am speaking crosses the mountains -and reaches to the Pacific Ocean. - -I said that this was the skilled labor of the country. What labor more -valuable? what service, while the war was proceeding, more important? -If these mechanics did not expose their persons in the peril of battle, -they gave their skill to prepare others for victory. In ancient times, -the oracle said to the city in danger, “Look to your wooden walls.” -The oracle in our country said, “Look to your ironclads and your -double-enders”; and these mechanics came forward and by ingenious labor -enabled you to put ironclads and double-enders on the ocean, and thus -secure the final triumph. The building of that invulnerable navy was -one of the great triumphs of the war, to be commemorated on many a -special field, and to be seen in the mighty results we now enjoy. - -And yet again I ask, Are you ready to see contractors, who have -done this service, sacrificed? You do not allow the soldier to be -sacrificed, nor the national creditor who has taken your stock. Will -you allow the mechanic? There are many who, without your help, must -suffer. One of the most enterprising and faithful in the whole country -is a constituent of my own, who, during the last year, has been hurried -into bankruptcy from inability to meet liabilities growing out of the -war, and at this moment he finds no chance of relief except in what a -just Government may return to him. My friend on my right [Mr. NYE, of -Nevada] asked you to be magnanimous to these contractors. I do not put -it in that way. I ask you simply to be upright. Do by them as you would -be done by. - -The Senator from Nevada also very fitly reminded you of the experience -of other countries. He told you that England, at the close of the -Crimean War, when her mechanics had suffered precisely as yours, did -not allow them to be sacrificed, but every pound, every shilling, of -liability under their contracts was promptly met by that Government. -Will you be less just to mechanics than England? It is an old saying, -that republics are ungrateful. I hope that this republic will vie with -any monarchy in gratitude to those who have served it. You have shown -energy in meeting your enemies. I ask you to show a commensurate energy -in doing justice to those who have contributed to your success. - -… - - This bill, after much debate, passed the Senate. It did not - pass the House. - - - - -POWER OF CONGRESS TO COUNTERACT THE CATTLE-PLAGUE. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION TO PRINT A LETTER OF THE -COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE ON THE CATTLE-PLAGUE, APRIL 25, 1866. - - - Mr. Sherman of Ohio, reported the following resolution from the - Committee on Agriculture:-- - - “_Resolved_, That there be printed, for the use of the - Senate, ten thousand copies of a letter of the Commissioner - of Agriculture, communicating information in relation to - the rinderpest or cattle-plague.” - - In considering the resolution, he remarked that the Committee - “would like very much to report some measure of a practical - character, to counteract, if possible, the cattle-plague now - prevailing in Europe; but we did not see that Congress had - authority to pass an effective measure.” Mr. Sumner followed:-- - -I was sorry to hear two remarks of the Senator from Ohio. The -first told that the cattle-plague is coming. I hope that by proper -precautions it may be averted. I do trust it may never come. I will -not despair that the Atlantic Ocean may be a barrier. I was sorry also -for the other remark, that in his opinion Congress could not apply -any efficient remedy. I make no issue on this conclusion; but I was -sorry that the Senator having the question in charge had arrived at -that result. It does seem to me, that, under the National Government, -Congress should be able to apply a remedy in such a case. Is not the -National Government defective to a certain extent, if Congress has -not that power? I open the question interrogatively now, without -undertaking to express an opinion upon it. - -I agree with the Senator, that it is of great importance that our -people should be put on their guard; he, therefore, is right in -proposing to circulate all information on the subject. But I do hope -that the Senator will consider carefully whether it be not within the -power of Congress, in some way or other, directly or indirectly, to -apply an efficient remedy. - - - - -URGENT DUTY OF THE HOUR. - -LETTER TO THE AMERICAN ANTISLAVERY SOCIETY, MAY 1, 1866. - - - SENATE CHAMBER, May 1, 1866. - - DEAR SIR,--It will not be in my power to take part at the - approaching anniversary of the Antislavery Society. My duty keeps - me here. - - I trust that the Society, which has done so much for human - rights, will persevere until these rights are established - throughout the country on the impregnable foundation of the - Declaration of Independence. This is not the time for relaxation - of the old energies. Slavery is abolished only in name. The Slave - Oligarchy still lives, and insists upon ruling its former victims. - - Believing, as I do, that the National Government owes protection - to the freedmen, so that they shall not suffer in rights, I - insist on its plenary power over this great question, and that - it may do anything needful to assure these rights. In this - conviction I shall not hesitate at all times to invoke its - intervention, whether to establish what are called civil rights, - or that pivotal right of all, the right to elect the government - which they support by taxes and by arms. - - Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir, - faithfully yours, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ANTISLAVERY SOCIETY. - - - - -TIME AND RECONSTRUCTION. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION TO HASTEN RECONSTRUCTION, MAY 2, -1866. - - - Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, gave notice of his intention to - offer, as a substitute for the bills and resolution reported by - the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, the following:-- - - “That the interests of peace and the interests of the Union - require the admission of every State to its share in public - legislation, whenever it presents itself, not only in an - attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the persons of - representatives whose loyalty cannot be questioned under - any constitutional or legal test.” - - In the debate on printing this resolution, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -I was about to say that the proposition involved in the resolution of -the Senator from Connecticut is so important that it may be considered -as always in order to discuss it. I do not know that we ought to pass -a day without in some way considering it. I certainly do not deprecate -this debate; but while so saying, I am very positive on another point. -I should deprecate any effort now to precipitate decision on the -question; and I most sincerely hope that the Senator from Maine [Mr. -FESSENDEN], the Chairman of the Committee on Reconstruction, who has -this matter in charge, will bear that in mind. I do not believe that -Congress at this moment is in a condition to give the country the best -measure on this important subject. I am afraid that excellent Committee -has listened too much to voices from without, insisting that there must -be a political issue presented to the country. I have always thought -such call premature. There is no occasion now for an issue. There are -no elections in any States. The election in Connecticut is over; the -election in New Hampshire is over. There are to be no elections before -next autumn. What occasion, then, for an issue? I see none, unless -Congress, after most careful and mature consideration of the whole -subject, is able to present a plan on which we can all honestly unite -and as one phalanx move forward to victory. - -I shall not be drawn into premature discussion of the scheme presented -by the report of the Committee on Reconstruction. I speak now to the -question of time only. I am sure that report could not have been made -in the last week of March. I am equally sure, that, if it had been -postponed until the last week of May, they would have made a better one -than they made in the last week of April. I hope, therefore, that the -decision of this question will be postponed as long as possible, in -order that all just influences may come to Congress from the country, -and that Congress itself may be inspired by the fullest and amplest -consideration of the whole question. - -There is the evidence before this Committee,--we have not yet seen it -together. That evidence ought to be together; it ought to be before -the whole country; and we should have returning to us from the country -the just influence which its circulation is calculated to produce. I -am sure, that, wherever that evidence is read, the people will say, -Congress is justified in insisting upon security for the future. For -that purpose I presume the evidence was taken; and I hope Congress will -not act until the natural and legitimate influences from the evidence -are felt in their counsels. - -Allow me to say, by way of comment on the proposition of the Senator -from Connecticut, that it seems to me my excellent friend, in bringing -it forward, forgot two things. - - MR. DIXON. Probably more than that. - -MR. SUMNER. But two things he forgot were so great, so essential, -that to forget them was to forget everything. In the first place, he -forgot that we had been in a war; and, in the second place, he forgot -that four million human beings had been changed from a condition of -slavery to freedom. Those two ruling facts my excellent friend forgot, -evidently, when he drew his proposition. Plainly, he forgot that we -had been in a war, because he fails to make any provision for that -security which common sense and common prudence, the Law of Nations -and every instinct of the human heart, require should be made. He -provides no guaranty. Sir, the essential thing, at this moment, is a -guaranty. The Senator abandons that. If, like the Senator, I could -forget this terrible war, with all the blood and treasure it has cost, -I, too, could be indifferent to security for the future; but as that -war is always in my mind, the Senator will pardon me, if I insist upon -guaranties. - -I have said that my excellent friend forgets that four million human -beings have been changed in their condition. Four million slaves have -been declared freemen. By whom, and by what power? By the National -Government. And let me say, that, as the National Government gave -that freedom, the National Government must secure it. The National -Government cannot leave the men it has made free to the guardianship or -custody or tender mercies of any other government. It is bound to take -them into its own keeping, to surround them with its own protecting -power, and invest them with all the rights and conditions which, in the -exercise of its best judgment, seem necessary to that end. All that the -Senator has forgotten. It is not in his mind. If I could bring myself -to such obliviousness, if I could bathe so completely in the waters of -Lethe as my excellent friend from Connecticut seems to have done daily -in these recent times, I might, perhaps, join in the support of his -proposition. - - - - -THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA AND EMANCIPATION. - -REMARKS ON A JOINT RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF -THE EMPEROR, MAY 8, 1866. - - - A joint resolution “relative to the attempted assassination - of the Emperor of Russia,” introduced in the House of - Representatives by Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, passed that body, - and in the Senate was referred to the Committee on Foreign - Relations. - - May 8th, it was reported to the Senate slightly amended, so as - to read:-- - - “_Resolved, &c._, That the Congress of the United States - of America has learned with deep regret of the attempt - made upon the life of the Emperor of Russia by an enemy of - Emancipation. The Congress sends greeting to his Imperial - Majesty and to the Russian nation, and congratulates the - twenty million serfs upon the providential escape from - danger of the sovereign to whose head and heart they owe - the blessings of their freedom.” - - Mr. Sumner, on reporting it, said, that, as it was a resolution - which would interest the Senate, and as perhaps it ought to be - acted upon immediately and unanimously, he would ask that it be - proceeded with at once. There being no objection, he explained - it briefly. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--This resolution seems scarcely adequate to the -occasion, but the Committee was content with making the few slight -amendments already approved by the Senate, without interfering further -with the idea or language adopted by the other House, where the -resolution originated. - -From the public prints we learn that an attempt has been made on the -life of the Emperor of Russia by an assassin,--maddened against him, so -it is said, on account of his divine effort to establish Emancipation. -Of these things I know nothing beyond the report open to all; but I -am not unacquainted with the generous efforts of the Emperor, and the -opposition, if not animosity, aroused by his perseverance in completing -the good work. - -In urging our own duties, I have more than once referred to this -shining example.[27] The decree of Emancipation, in February, 1861, -has been supplemented by an elaborate system of regulations, where -Human Liberty is crowned by the safeguards of a true civilization, -including protection to what are styled civil rights, especially -rights in court,--then rights of property, with a homestead for every -emancipated serf,--then rights of public education; and added to these -were political rights, with the right to vote for local officers, -corresponding to our officers for town and county: all of which, though -just and practical, have encountered obstacles easily appreciated by -us, who are in a similar transition period. The very thoroughness -with which the Emperor is carrying out Emancipation has aroused the -adversaries of reform, and I think it not improbable that it was one of -these who aimed the blow so happily arrested. The laggard and dull are -not pursued by assassins. - - * * * * * - -The Emperor of Russia was born in 1818, and is now forty-eight -years of age. He succeeded to the imperial throne in 1855. At once, -on his accession, he was inspired to accomplish Emancipation in his -extended empire, stretching from the Baltic to the Sea of Kamtchatka. -One of his earliest declarations signalized his character: he would -have this great work begin from above, anxious that it should not -proceed from below. Therefore he insisted that the imperial government -should undertake it, and not leave the blessed change to the chance -of insurrection and blood. He went forward bravely, encountering -opposition; and now that the decree of Emancipation has gone forth, -he still goes forward to assure all those rights without which -Emancipation, I fear, is little more than a name. Our country does -well, when it offers sincere homage to the illustrious liberator who -has attempted so great a task, and at such hazard, making a landmark of -civilization. - - Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, moved to amend the resolution by - striking out the words “by an enemy of Emancipation,” and - advocated his amendment in a speech. Mr. Sumner replied, - that it was impossible for the Senate to ascertain through - a commission the precise facts in the case,--that it was an - historic case, to be determined by historic evidence,--that the - same testimony or report from which we learned the attempt to - take the life of the Emperor disclosed also the character of - the assassin,--and that doubtless the House of Representatives, - from which the resolution came, acted on this authority. The - amendment was rejected, and the resolution was passed without a - division. - - * * * * * - - Hon. Gustavus V. Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, was - sent to Russia in the ironclad Miantonomoh, charged with - the communication of this resolution to the Emperor. He was - received with much distinction and hospitality. The visit was - subsequently described in a work entitled “Narrative of the - Mission to Russia, in 1866, of the Hon. Gustavus Vasa Fox, - Assistant Secretary of the Navy, from the Journal and Notes - of J. F. Loubat, edited by John D. Champlin, Jr., 1873.” - The mission was entertained brilliantly by Prince Galitzin - at Moscow, August 26th (14th), and it is said that “among - the invited guests at the dinner was the emancipated serf, - Gvozdeff, the mayor of the commune.”[28] - - - - -POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE AGAINST CHOLERA FROM ABROAD. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PREVENT THE -INTRODUCTION OF CHOLERA INTO THE PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 9, 11, -AND 15, 1866. - - - May 9th, the Senate having under consideration a joint - resolution, which had passed the House of Representatives, - to prevent the introduction of cholera into the ports of the - United States, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I must say, that, reflecting upon this question, I -find that I travelled with my friend from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] through -his inquiries and his doubts, but it was only to arrive substantially -at the conclusion of my friend from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS]. I thought -that the criticism of my friend from Maine was in many respects, at -least on its face, just. I went along with him, and yet I hesitated in -adopting the conclusion he seemed to intimate. I doubt, if we proceed -under the House resolution, whether we shall do the work thoroughly. -I doubt whether that resolution can be made sufficiently effective. -Indeed, I may go further, and say I am satisfied that it will not be -efficient for the occasion. We then have the substitute proposed by -our own Committee. Against that there is certainly the remark to be -made, that it is novel. I am not aware that any such proposition has -ever before been brought forward; but certainly it has in its favor -the great argument of efficiency. Yet the question remains behind, to -which the Senator from Maine has directed attention,--whether this -proposition is not something more than even a novelty,--whether it is -not a departure from just principles. I am not inclined to say that -it is anything more than a novelty. I admit that it is such. It does -invest the Government with large and perhaps unprecedented powers, in -order to meet a peculiar case, where a stringent remedy must be applied. - -But, as the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce suggests, the powers -are temporary. I am not ready to say that such powers cannot be -intrusted to the Government. I believe they can be. But while I agree -in that, and am ready to vote accordingly, yet I should like to know -from the Chairman why these powers are to be placed under the direction -of the Secretary of War rather than of the Secretary of the Treasury. - - Mr. Chandler, of Michigan, the Chairman, said that they were - placed jointly in three Secretaries, the Secretary of War, the - Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Treasury. After - briefly considering this organization, Mr. Sumner proceeded - further. - - * * * * * - - May 11th, Mr. Sumner spoke again. - -I should not say anything now, but for the remarks of my friend from -New York [Mr. HARRIS], who seemed at a loss where to find the power -it is proposed to exercise. He was so much at a loss that he went -beyond the bounds he usually prescribes for himself in this Chamber, -and indulged in unwonted jocularity. Not content with showing, as he -supposed, that the power did not exist where it was said to exist, he -asked, with ludicrous face, whether it was not found under the clause -to guaranty a republican form of government. I am very glad to find -that my excellent friend is looking to that clause of the Constitution. -It is a clause very much neglected, but to my mind one of the most -potent in the whole Constitution,--full of beneficent power, which it -would be well, if the Government, at this crisis of its history, were -disposed to exercise. Here are waters of healing for our distressed -country. Follow this text in its natural and obvious requirements, and -you will have security, peace, and liberty under the safeguard of that -great guaranty, the Equal Rights of All. - -But I must remind my friend that there is no occasion for any resort -to this transcendent source of power at the present moment. The power -from which this resolution is derived seems very obvious. My friend -interrupts me to say that it is the war power. I say it is very -obvious, and I will show him in a moment, that it is not the war power. -It is a power that has been exercised constantly, from the beginning of -our history, with regard to which there can be no question,--because -it is embodied in one of the clearest texts of the National -Constitution,--because it has been expounded by a series of decisions -from our Supreme Court, which are among the most authoritative in our -history. It is the power to regulate commerce. My friend smiles; but -would he smile at the Constitution of his country? - - “The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with - foreign nations and among the several States.” - -By the present resolution it is clearly proposed to regulate commerce -with foreign nations. Have not all regulations with regard to -passengers been under this power? Have they not all been to regulate -commerce with foreign nations? Can there be any doubt? Is it not as -plain as language can make it? Why, Sir, ever since I have been in -Congress we have had annual bills for the regulation of passengers -coming into our ports,--bills of different degrees of stringency, -laying one penalty here and another penalty there, all in the execution -of this unquestionable power. - - MR. GRIMES. Will the Senator be kind enough to look at the - second clause of the amended proposition, where it says,-- - - “That he”-- - - that is, the Secretary of War-- - - “shall also enforce the establishment of sanitary cordons - to prevent the spread of said disease from infected - districts adjacent to or within the limits of the United - States”:-- - - not confining it to the lines between the States, but giving - him authority to establish cordons within the jurisdiction of a - State. I should like to know where the Constitution authorizes - such a thing as that. - - MR. SUMNER. I am obliged to my friend even for interrupting me - to call attention to that section, though he will pardon me, - if I do not answer him at this moment, but when I come to that - part of the resolution. - - MR. GRIMES. Any time will do, so that we get it. - - MR. SUMNER. You will have it all. - -I am dwelling now on the power derived from the positive text of the -Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations. I say, that, in -the execution of that power, we have undertaken to apply all manner of -restrictions and regulations to the transportation of passengers. We -have gone so far as to provide for the quantity of water on board each -ship in proportion to every passenger. We have subjected every ship to -regulations while at sea, and again to other regulations after arriving -in port. The exercise of the power is by practice placed absolutely -beyond question. Then it is intrenched in the very best judicial -decisions of our country. I submit that no person can raise a question -with regard to it. - - MR. MORRILL. About regulating the importation of passengers - from foreign countries nobody raises a question or a doubt. - This is a question of quarantine, in its character police. Is - there any precedent in the history of the United States where - that power has been exercised by the General Government? - -MR. SUMNER. I am very glad the Senator presses that question. I meet -it. Does the Senator mean to suggest that the same power that can reach -the sea, and determine even the quantity of water in the hold for each -passenger, cannot apply the minutest possible regulation when that same -ship arrives in the harbor? - - MR. MORRILL. Will my friend allow me to answer him right there? - - MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. MORRILL. I maintain, that, when the passenger is landed, - and comes within the limits and jurisdiction of the State, and - within its police power, the commercial power of the Government - ceases at that point, and the treatment of the passenger - thereafter is within the police power of the State exclusively. - - MR. SUMNER. I think the Senator goes beyond the decision of the - Supreme Court. He overrules that decision. - - MR. MORRILL. I am precisely on a line with the License cases, - in which the principle was applied to the importation of - liquors. - -MR. SUMNER. At a certain stage, I admit, the police power of the State -may intervene; but I do nevertheless insist, as beyond question, that -the power of the United States is complete over every passenger vessel -arriving in the harbor, so that it may be subjected to any regulations -in the discretion of Congress for the public good with reference to -passengers. Of course, this discretion is to be exercised wisely for -the public good, that the public health may not suffer. Strange, if the -National Government, which is our guardian against foreign foes, may -not protect us against this fearful enemy. - - MR. MORRILL. I do not deny that; I agree to that. - - MR. SUMNER. Very well. - - MR. MORRILL. Now my query is, Can the power of commerce, that - power which regulates the passengers on their passage to - this country, follow the passengers entirely into the States - and overrule the internal police of the States? That is the - question. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator puts a question running into that already -propounded by the Senator from Iowa, and to which I was coming in due -course of time. I have already arrived at it. I was illustrating the -power that the Government would have in the harbor; and now let me give -another illustration, familiar to my friend: it is with reference to -goods. I need not remind the Senator, that, when goods arrive, subject -to duties, the custom-house exercises its control, according to the -prescription of law, not only while the goods are water-borne, but -after they have been landed; and if they have been landed in violation -of the law, it pursues them even into the interior. - - MR. CHANDLER. To the Rocky Mountains. - -MR. SUMNER. It is enough to say that it pursues them into the interior. -The National Constitution was not so absurd, nor have our courts -been so absurd in its interpretation, as to recognize a power in the -custom-house merely at the door of the granite structure, and to -require that it shall stop there. No, Sir: the power must be made -effective. We have made it effective with reference to goods. We have -also, to a certain extent, made it effective, through decisions of the -Supreme Court, with reference to passengers. It remains that we should -carry it one stage further, and, for the public weal, and to secure the -public health, which is a large part of the public weal, insist that -this same power shall be invoked as in the pursuit of goods. I cannot -see the difference between the two cases. I cannot doubt that the -power over goods imported at our custom-house under Acts of Congress -and the power over passengers introduced into this country under Acts -of Congress are both derived from the same source, and you can find -no limitation for one and no expansion for one which is not equally -applicable to the other. I insist, therefore, that on this simple text -you find ample power. You must annul the text, or at least limit it by -construction and dwarf its fair proportions, or the power of Congress -to provide against cholera is perfect. - -But as Senators have such scruples about the second clause of the -resolution,-- - - “That he shall also enforce the establishment of sanitary - cordons to prevent the spread of said disease from infected - districts adjacent to or within the limits of the United - States,”-- - -I will add, this clause may be treated under two different -heads,--first, as ancillary, from the nature of the case, to the power -under the clause to regulate commerce with foreign nations. From the -nature of the case, if you have the power to shut out cholera from -the ports, you must be intrusted with an associate power to follow -this same enemy even into the interior, precisely as you follow goods -escaping the exercise of your power in the ports. I am willing, -therefore, to put it even on the first clause of the constitutional -provision, calling it simply ancillary. But I do not stop there; for, -associated with this clause, and constituting part of the provision, -are the words, “and among the several States.” Congress has power -to regulate commerce among the several States. Now, Sir, assuming -that commerce is, as described or defined by our Supreme Court, -intercourse among men, embracing the transportation, not only of goods, -but of passengers, and applicable to everything that comes under -the comprehensive term “intercourse,”--giving to it that expansive -definition which I think you will find in the decisions of the Supreme -Court, I ask you if there is not under that second clause ample -power also to regulate this matter. Congress has power to regulate -commerce, communication, intercourse, transportation of freight and -transportation of passengers among the several States. To make that -effective, you must concede a power such as appears in the clause to -which the Senator from Iowa has directed my attention. There is no -reference here to State lines; and why? From the necessity of the case. -The disease itself does not recognize State lines. The authority which -goes forth to meet the disease must be at least on an equality with the -disease, and can recognize no State lines. How vain to set up State -rights as an impediment to this beneficent power! - -I therefore conclude that the power over this subject is plenary, -whether you look at the first clause of the Constitution to which I -have called attention, relating to foreign commerce, or the second -clause, relating to commerce among the States. It is full; it is -complete. Hence I put aside the constitutional objection, whether used -seriously or jocosely, as it was perhaps by my friend from New York; I -put it aside as absolutely out of the question and irrelevant. Congress -has ample power over this whole subject. And, Sir, permit me to ask, -if it had not ample power over it, where should we be as a government -at this time? Can we confess that a great government of the world must -fold its arms, and see a foreign enemy--for such it is--crossing the -sea and invading our shores, yet we unable to meet it? I do not believe -that this transcendent republic is thus imbecile. I believe, that, -under the text of the National Constitution, as well as from the nature -of the case, it has ample powers to meet such enemy. - -And this brings me, Sir, to the proposed amendment of the Senator -from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS]. He moves to strike out the clause to which -I called attention the other day, and to substitute certain words -creating a commission. I objected to this clause the other day; I will -read it now:-- - - “That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War, with the - coöperation of the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of - the Treasury, whose concurrent action shall be directed by the - Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to adopt an efficient - and uniform system of quarantine against the introduction into - this country of the Asiatic cholera.” - -I objected, it may be remembered, to this clause, as placing the bill -under the patronage of the war power. I did not think it needed that -patronage, though I was willing to admit that it might need sometimes -the exercise of the war authority; but I did not think it needed to -be derived from the war power. It was not from the nature of the case -an exercise of this power, but it was clearly derived from the power -over the commerce of the country; and I regretted, therefore, that the -framers of the bill had seemed to put the war power in the forefront. -The Senator from Vermont meets that suggestion by an amendment to the -effect that a commission shall be constituted, embracing the Secretary -of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Treasury. I -have no particular criticism to make upon the amendment. If the Senate -consent to it, I shall certainly be disposed to join. But I think a -better form still may be adopted, and one placing what we do more -completely and unreservedly under that power of the Constitution from -which I think it is derived,--that is, the power to regulate commerce. -I would therefore propose that the duty shall be confided primarily -to the Secretary of the Treasury, who, in the exercise of his powers, -shall be aided by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, -under the direction of the President of the United States. - -… - -In making this change, we shall simply enlarge and expand the existing -powers of the Secretary of the Treasury. He is now the head of the -custom-house; he regulates the passenger system. Go further, and give -him these additional powers, that shall enable him, so far as he can, -to prevent the introduction of disease into the country. All that we do -will be in harmony with the practice of the Government, and I believe -above question. The Government, in the exercise of admitted powers, -will be, I trust, more than a match for the cholera. - - May 15th, Mr. Reverdy Johnson replied, when Mr. Sumner - rejoined:-- - -The Senator from Maryland has referred us to the decisions of the -Supreme Court which in his opinion bear directly on this point; but, -Sir, with the ingenuity of a practised lawyer, he has omitted to -remind us of that decision which, perhaps, of all others, is the most -applicable. With the permission of the Senate, I will make up for the -deficiency of the learned Senator, or at least endeavor to do so. I -refer to the case of _The United States_ v. _Coombs_, in the twelfth -volume of Peters’s Reports. There you will find one of the able and -well-considered judgments of the late Mr. Justice Story, particularly -treating this question. By “this question” I mean the power of Congress -under the National Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign -nations and among the several States. I will read a passage from his -judgment, page 78:-- - - “The power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate - navigation, as connected with the commerce with foreign nations - and among the States. It was so held and decided by this - court, after the most deliberate consideration, in the case of - _Gibbons_ v. _Ogden_, 9 Wheaton, 189 to 198.” - -All that the Senator will of course recognize; for, indeed, he has -admitted as much in what he has said and cited. The learned judge then -proceeds:-- - - “It does not stop at the mere boundary-line of a State; nor - is it confined to acts done on the water, or in the necessary - course of the navigation thereof. It extends to such acts, - done on land, which interfere with, obstruct, or prevent the - due exercise of the power to regulate commerce and navigation - with foreign nations and among the States. Any offence which - thus interferes with, obstructs, or prevents such commerce and - navigation, though done on land, may be punished by Congress, - under its general authority to make all laws necessary and - proper to execute their delegated constitutional powers.” - -Those are the pointed words of Mr. Justice Story. - - MR. MORRILL. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? - - MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. MORRILL. That is, to regulate commerce. - - MR. SUMNER. To regulate commerce. - - MR. MORRILL. Does the Senator mean to be understood that a - regulation in regard to cholera, a disease, is a regulation of - commerce? - - MR. SUMNER. I do, certainly. - - MR. MORRILL. Then the cholera is commerce? - - MR. SUMNER. No; cholera is not commerce, but cholera comes from - passengers. - - MR. MORRILL. Then is the regulation of it commerce, or is it - the treatment of a disease? Is it a regulation of health, or a - regulation of commerce? - - MR. SUMNER. It is connected with commerce, and must be treated - in its appropriate connection. - -… - -Nor do I understand that this is an exercise of power for the first -time. It is nothing more than a new application of an old power, or -an expansion of an old power to a new condition of circumstances, and -perhaps I may say enlarging the old power, because the circumstances -require the enlargement. I do not understand that any new fountain is -opened. No new source is drawn upon; no new principle is invoked. We go -back to the original text so often applied in kindred cases, and insist -upon its application now. - -If I understand the argument of the Senator, it is that all quarantine -regulations belong to the States exclusively. Am I right in that? - - MR. MORRILL. Most of them. - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator, I understand, says they belong - exclusively to the States. - - MR. MORRILL. Yes. - -MR. SUMNER. If I carry the idea of the Senator still further, it -would be to say that the Government of the United States might make -all possible regulations with reference to passengers water-borne, -but could not touch them with any sanitary regulation the moment they -entered our harbors. Such is the inevitable conclusion; and permit me -to say, it is an absurdity. I will not consent thus to despoil the -National Government of a power which to my mind seems so essential to -the national health. - - After quoting the statute of February 25, 1799, entitled “An - Act respecting Quarantines and Health Laws,” by which United - States officers are directed to assist State officers in - enforcing the quarantine, Mr. Sumner proceeded:-- - -Now I submit that this statute of 1799 relating to quarantine contains -a jumble or confusion not unlike that in the Fugitive Slave Act of -1793,--that is, a recognition of a concurrent jurisdiction in the State -and National Governments over this question. The measure now before the -Senate would follow out the general principle or reasoning of later -years, and assure the jurisdiction to the Federal, or, as I always like -to call it, the National power. It would secure it to the National -power; and to my mind it properly belongs to the National power, and -no ingenuity of the Senator from Maine can satisfy me that it should -not be intrusted to the National power. It is essentially a National -object, and can be performed effectively and thoroughly only through -the National arm. If you intrust it to the different local authorities, -you will have as many systems as you have States or communities, and -you cannot bring your policy to bear with that unity which it ought -to have in dealing with so deadly a foe. You should be able to carry -into this business something of the combination and directness of -war. At the same time I beg to say, as I have heretofore said, that -I do not recognize this in any respect as a military remedy. I treat -it absolutely as commercial; I derive it from a commercial power; and -by the amendment which I have introduced I would place it under the -direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. - - The amendment of Mr. Sumner was agreed to without a division. - The substitute of the Committee, thus amended, was lost,--Yeas - 17, Nays 19. The original House resolution was then amended in - conformity with Mr. Sumner’s amendment, by inserting “Secretary - of the Treasury” instead of “President,” and passed,--Yeas 27, - Nays 12,--and afterwards approved by the President.[29] - - - - -RANK OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC -BILL, AUTHORIZING ENVOYS EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTERS PLENIPOTENTIARY -INSTEAD OF MINISTERS RESIDENT, MAY 16 AND 17, 1866. - - - May 16th, the Senate having under consideration the bill making - appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses for the - ensuing year, Mr. Sumner moved the following amendment:-- - - “_Provided_, That an envoy extraordinary and minister - plenipotentiary appointed at any place where the United - States are now represented by a minister resident shall - receive the compensation fixed by law and appropriated for - a minister resident, and no more.” - - Mr. Sumner then said:-- - -I should like to make a brief explanation of this amendment. It -will be perceived that it comes after the appropriation for salaries -of envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary and ministers -resident. Its object, in one word, is to authorize the Government, in -its discretion, to employ persons with the title of envoy extraordinary -and minister plenipotentiary where it now employs ministers resident, -but without any increase of salary. This subject has occupied the -attention of the Committee on Foreign Relations for several years; it -has been more than once before the Senate. The Committee were unanimous -that the good of the service, especially in Europe, required this -change. From authentic information it appears that our ministers at -courts where they have only the title of ministers resident play a -second part to gentlemen with the higher title, though representing -governments which we should not consider in worldly rank on an equality -with ours. They are second to them; in short, to use a familiar -illustration, and simply to bring the difference home, when they call -upon business or appear anywhere, they bear the same relation to the -envoys extraordinary of those smaller governments that a member of the -other House, calling upon the President, bears to Senators. The Senator -is admitted, when the member of the other House, as we know, waits. - -I hold in my hand the last Almanac of Gotha, for 1866, which is the -diplomatic authority for the world, and has been for a century; and, -by way of example, I turn to the diplomatic list for the Netherlands, -where, it will be remembered, we are represented by a patriotic -citizen, well known to most of us, who was once connected with the -press,--Mr. Pike,--with the title of minister resident. According -to the list, I find at this same court the Grand Duchy of Baden -represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary; -Belgium, the adjoining country, and with a population much inferior -to our own, represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister -plenipotentiary; Denmark, a nation which, shorn of the two provinces -of Schleswig and Holstein, has little more than a million and a half -of population, represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister -plenipotentiary. Spain, of course, is represented by an envoy -extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Even the Grand Duchy of -Hesse is so represented; so is the kingdom of Italy; so is the Duchy of -Nassau; so is Portugal; so is Prussia; and so others. In transacting -business, the American minister resident at this court is always -treated as second to these representatives. I have alluded to the -relations we bear to the head of the Executive Department here, as -compared with members of the other House. I doubt not that Senators -know there is a positive business advantage in having access promptly, -and perhaps with a certain consideration which does not always attach -to those of inferior rank. - -… - -It will be observed that the proposition does not undertake to -empower the President, or to direct him, to make this change; but it -assumes, according to a certain theory of the Constitution, that under -the Constitution it is in the discretion of the President to send -ambassadors, envoys extraordinary, or ministers resident, or any other -diplomatic functionary, in his discretion, Congress having only the -function of supplying the means. - -… - -Now the proposition which I have moved proceeds, in harmony with this, -simply to declare, that, if the President shall undertake to appoint an -envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to any court where we -are now represented by a minister resident, the salary shall be only -that of a minister resident. Proceeding with the theory of this Act -and a certain theory of the Constitution, the President has the power -already to appoint an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary -to any of these courts, if in his discretion he shall see fit; but -there is no salary appropriated by law. If the amendment now offered -should be adopted, it would be in his discretion to change our -representative from a minister resident to an envoy extraordinary, but -without increase of salary; and the simple question remains, whether -this enabling discretion is not proper. The President is not called -upon to exercise it. There are places where he may think it better to -continue the minister resident. - - MR. FESSENDEN. He can do it now. - -MR. SUMNER. But there is no salary; the salary would not apply. The -amendment is to supply the salary in such cases; that is all. I have -heard it observed, that, though the President may now, under the -Constitution, appoint to any place an envoy extraordinary and minister -plenipotentiary, he is restrained in the exercise of that power by -the want of an appropriation to support the appointment. The present -proposition meets that difficulty precisely. - - The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, and Mr. - Grimes, of Iowa. Mr. Sumner replied:-- - -I have no feeling on this question at all,--not the least; nor do I -approach it as a political question. I see no individual in it. I do -not see Mr. Harvey or Mr. Sanford. I see nobody here to oppose, and -nobody to favor. I know nothing in it but my country and its service -abroad. Sir, I think I am as sensitive as any other Senator with regard -to the just influence belonging to my country as a republic great and -glorious in the history of mankind. I believe that I am duly proud of -it, and conscious of the weight it ought to carry wherever it appears. -I know its name stands for something in the world, and that whoever -represents this country on the ocean or in the diplomatic service -has, alone, a great and powerful recommendation. But I also know too -much of human history and too much of human nature, not to know that -men everywhere are influenced more or less by the title of those who -approach them. - - MR. FESSENDEN. Governments are not; men may be. - -MR. SUMNER. But let me remind my friend that governments are -composed of men. He knows well that the presence of a general on a -particular service produces more certain effect and prompter result -than the presence of a colonel or a major, at least under ordinary -circumstances. My other friend, who represents the Naval Committee on -this floor [Mr. GRIMES], knows very well, that, if he sends an admiral -on any service, it may be only of compliment, he produces at once a -greater effect than if he sends a lieutenant. - -The Senator has just induced us to send the Assistant Secretary of the -Navy to Europe, because in that way he might give more _éclat_ to a -certain service. I united with him in the effort. But why not allow a -clerk of the Department to carry our resolution? The Senator knew full -well, if he sent the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, he should do more -than if he sent a simple clerk of the Department. And therefore I am -brought to the precise point, that, whatever the rank of our country in -the world, and how much soever we may be entitled, at all courts where -our representatives are, to the highest precedence, yet, such is human -nature, our position is impaired by the title of the agent we send. I -would give our agent the artificial accessories and incidents which -the Law of Nations allows. I follow the Law of Nations. Why does this -law authorize or sanction, and why do our Constitution and statutes, -following the Law of Nations, authorize and sanction, a difference of -rank, except to obtain corresponding degrees of influence? That is -the theory which underlies the gradation of rank. It runs into the -army; it runs into the navy; it runs into Congress; it runs into all -the business of life; and the simple question is, whether now, in the -diplomatic service of the country, in dealing with our foreign agents, -we shall discard a principle of action followed in everything else. - - The amendment was rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 17. - - * * * * * - - May 17th, Mr. Sumner renewed his effort, by moving the - amendment in the following form:-- - - “_And be it further enacted_, That the salary of any envoy - extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary hereafter - appointed shall be the salary of a minister resident, and - nothing more, except when he is appointed to one of the - countries where the United States are now represented by an - envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.” - - After explaining it, Mr. Sumner said, especially in reply to Mr. - Grimes:-- - -I do not like to discuss things forever that have been discussed so -often. I have said so much on this matter that I feel ashamed to add -another word; and yet, as the Senator from Iowa returns to the assault, -perhaps I should return to the defence. - -I tried to show, last evening, that, in introducing this proposition, -I was simply acting on the practice of the Government in other -respects, and upon the practice of mankind generally, everywhere; -and my friend from Ohio [Mr. WADE] reminds me that the argument of -the Senator from Iowa, a few days ago, was one of the strongest -illustrations of what I said. He induced the Senate to agree to appoint -a new Assistant Secretary of the Navy, merely to allow the actual -Assistant Secretary to go abroad, because his presence would enhance -the service. Under his argument, yielding to its pressure, we appointed -a new functionary in the Department of the Navy. - -Now, if I can have the attention of the Senator from Iowa for one -moment, I would put him a practical question. If he had important -business, say with the mayor of New York, which he wished to present -in the best way possible, I have no doubt my friend would count -naturally upon his own character, and justly; he would believe that -any agent sent by him to the mayor of New York would be well received. -Doubtless he would be well received; yet, if there were two persons -whose services he might employ, one with the rank of general and the -other with the rank of colonel, but equal in abilities and in fitness, -I have no doubt my friend would select the general rather than the -colonel. From familiarity with human nature, he knows that the general, -on arrival, would have a prompter reception than the colonel. It is -useless to say, in reply, that behind the agent is the same personage. -I assume all that; but I would secure for that same personage the best -reception possible, and the highest facilities for his representative. -I would now secure the same thing for my country, and I believe--pardon -me, if I introduce my own personal testimony--but I believe, according -to such opportunities of observation as I have had, now running over a -considerable period of life, that the interests of the country would be -promoted by this change. I believe that business would be facilitated, -and opportunities of influence enhanced. - -I make no allusion to topics playfully introduced into this discussion. -It is a matter of comparative indifference what place a man may have -at a dinner-table; but I do wish to secure facilities in business and -respect for the representatives of my country to the largest degree -possible. - - The amendment was adopted,--Yeas 18, Nays 16. - - - - -OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, AND MR. HUNTER. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC -BILL, CREATING THE OFFICE OF SECOND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, MAY -16 AND 17, 1866. - - - May 16th, the Senate having under consideration the bill making - appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses, - Mr. Sumner moved an addition of twenty per cent. to the - compensation allowed to the clerks of the State Department. A - petition from the clerks was read. Mr. Sumner then said:-- - -I do not know that there is any necessity for me to add anything. -The petition speaks for itself. It states the whole case. But a word -will not be out of place with regard to the gentleman who heads the -petition,--Mr. Hunter. He is one of the oldest public servants now -connected with the Government. He has been in the Department of State -for more than thirty years. He may be called the living index to that -Department; and I believe I do not err in saying that in our Blue -Book of office there is no person whose integrity is more generally -recognized. Placed in a position of especial trust, where all the -foreign correspondence of the Government passes under his eye, that -which comes and that which goes, I believe he has passed a life without -blame. He has been in a position where, had his integrity been open to -seduction, he might have been tempted. No human being imagines that he -has ever yielded. He has discharged his very important trusts on a very -humble salary. I think the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] knows him -well enough to know that he has brought to those functions ability of a -peculiar character. And now, in the decline of life, he finds himself -with the small salary of a clerk, on which he can with difficulty -subsist,--and yet all the time rendering these important services and -discharging these considerable trusts, absorbed in the business of the -office so that he takes it home with him nightly. It leaves with him -in the evening and returns with him in the morning, and then it fills -the long day. I think that such a public servant deserves recognition. -I have for some time felt that his compensation was inadequate. I have -thought that his salary ought to be raised; but, after consideration of -the question in committee, and consultation with others, it was thought -best to present the case in a general proposition such as I have now -moved, being for the addition of twenty per cent. to the compensation -of all the clerks in the Department. The argument for this is enforced -in the petition from these gentlemen which has been read at the desk. I -can see no objection to it, especially after what we have done for the -clerks of the Treasury. Are not public servants at the State Department -as worthy as public servants at the Treasury? - - The debate showed the indisposition of Senators to any general - addition to the compensation of the clerks of the State - Department, but with recognition of the merits of Mr. Hunter. - - * * * * * - - May 17th, after conversation and discussion, Mr. Sumner - changed his motion, so as to read:-- - - “_And be it further enacted_, That the President be, and he - is hereby, authorized to appoint, by and with the advice - and consent of the Senate, a second Assistant Secretary of - State in the Department of State, at an annual salary of - $3,500, to commence on the first day of July, 1866; and the - amount necessary to pay the same is hereby appropriated.” - - Mr. Sumner then said:-- - -A Senator near me says he will not vote for this amendment, unless I -put in the name. It is perfectly well known that it is intended as an -opportunity to appoint Mr. Hunter, and the authorities, I presume, will -take notice. There is no need of inserting his name; and the remark of -the Senator is simply a criticism for an excuse. I hope the Senate will -adopt the amendment without a division. - - There was a division, and the amendment was adopted,--Yeas 18, - Nays 17. - - - - -DELAY IN THE REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES. - -LETTER TO AN APPLICANT, MAY, 1866. - - - This letter was originally published in a Southern paper, but - without the date. - - SENATE CHAMBER [May, 1866]. - - DEAR SIR,--I have your letter of the 19th in reference to the - removal of your political disabilities. - - I am not sure that the time has yet come to make exceptions to - our general policy in individual cases. To do so would open the - door to innumerable applications; and once open, it would be - difficult to shut it. - - I hope to meet such cases as yours by some general enactment; and - as soon as the condition of the country will permit, I shall be - the first to advocate the removal of all disabilities under which - you labor at present. - - Yours truly, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - - - -INTERRUPTION OF RIGHT OF PETITION. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF A PETITION FROM CITIZENS OF -VIRGINIA, MAY 24, 1866. - - - Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, recently presented a petition - from citizens of Augusta County, Virginia, which was duly - referred, stating that the Union men in that locality were - without protection from the local authorities, and asking - that the military power be not withdrawn. The petition caused - excitement in the neighborhood, accompanied by threats. Mr. - Trumbull had asked to withdraw the petition and return it to - the petitioners, “that they may protect themselves, as far as - this will enable them to do so, against the accusations which - have been brought upon them,” and expressed his regret that he - could not propose some measure for their protection. - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I hope the Senate will not take this step without -considering its importance. I do not mean to oppose it, but I would -ask attention to what I may call its gravity. I am not aware that a -petition has ever before been withdrawn on a motion like that now made. -A petition once presented comes into the possession of the Senate; it -passes into its files, and into the archives of the Capitol. We are -about to make a precedent for the first time. I do not say that the -occasion does not justify the precedent. I incline to agree with my -friend from Illinois. We owe protection, so far as we can afford it, -to these petitioners; and since the Senator from Illinois regards this -as the best way, I am disposed to follow him; but in doing it, I wish -the Senate to take notice of the character of the step, and of the -precedent they make. - -But this is not all, Sir. I wish the Senate to take notice that they -are called to adopt this exceptional precedent by the lawless and -brutal condition of the social system about these petitioners. The -very fact which the Senator brings to the attention of the Senate, and -on account of which he invokes an unprecedented exercise of power, -is important evidence on the condition of things in one of these -Rebel States. It goes to show that they are not yet in any just sense -reconstructed, or prepared for reconstruction. Such an abnormal fact -could not occur in any other part of our broad country. That it occurs -here must be referred to remains of Rebellion not yet subdued, but -which you are now called upon, in the exercise of powers under the -National Constitution, to overcome and obliterate. - -Therefore, Sir, I regard this transaction in a double light: first, -as an important precedent in the business of the Senate; secondly, as -illustrating a condition of things to justify every exercise of care -and diligence on our part, that it may not bring forth similar fruits -hereafter. The right of petition, a great popular right, cannot be -interrupted without a blow at the Constitution. - - - - -OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE -PUBLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION, MAY 24, 1866. - - - May 24th, on motion of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, the Senate - considered a joint resolution to provide for the publication - of an official history of the Rebellion. In the debate that - ensued, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--We have already in our history some experience by -which we may be taught on this question. Senators have seen in their -libraries, certainly in the Congressional Library, the large volumes -known as “American Archives,” of which there are portions of two -series. When that collection was commenced, it was intended that it -should embody all the papers, military and diplomatic, and also leading -articles in newspapers, relating to the origin of our Revolution and -the War of Independence. The collection proceeded to the year 1776, -under the editorship of Peter Force, of this city, a gentleman as -competent, I suppose, as any person who could have been selected in -the whole country; but it was subject to the revising judgment of the -Secretary of State. Finally, when Mr. Force had prepared a volume for -1777, and his papers were collected and laid before the Secretary of -State, at that time Mr. Marcy, the latter functionary refused his -assent to any further publication, and the collection, originally -ordered by Act of Congress,[30] was arrested at the year 1776, and -primarily because the Secretary of State declined to give his final -assent, as required under a subsequent Act.[31] Such is our experience -with regard to one important portion of our history, the War of -Independence. The documents are not yet published in one connected -series; I do not know that they ever will be. And now, Sir, it is -proposed to commence another series, promising more expense even than -that of the War of Independence. - -I would simply suggest that we may well consider whether it might not -be advisable to complete the original series, and to illustrate the -War of Independence, before we enter upon the work of illustrating -this recent more terrible conflict. But, Sir, suppose we undertake -the latter work; then I think all that has been said, particularly -by the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN], suggesting caution, care, -and editorship, of infinite importance. I agree with that Senator -absolutely, when he says the whole collection will be of very little -value, it will be trivial, if not well edited, well arranged, and then -well indexed. - - MR. FESSENDEN. And the larger it is, the worse it will be. - -MR. SUMNER. Of course. Then Senators say that we must find a competent -man. Who is the competent man? I do not know him now. I dare say -he might come to light, perhaps, if we went about with a lantern -after him; but the competent man to gather together all this mass of -documents, to put them in order, and then to make a proper analytical -index, would be a very rare character. He must be a man without the -turbulent ambition that belongs to politicians,--disposed to quiet, -willing to live at home with his books and papers, and give himself -day and night to serious toil. That is the character of man you would -require. I do not know where he could be found. - - MR. JOHNSON [of Maryland]. You might find him in Boston. - - MR. SUMNER. In Boston, if anywhere, perhaps. [_Laughter._] But - I do not know him there, I am free to say. - - MR. FESSENDEN. Resign, and take charge of it yourself. - [_Laughter._] - - MR. SUMNER. I do not know but that is the best thing I could do - [_laughter_]; but then I should despair of getting through the - work. - - MR. FESSENDEN. I would agree to serve as your clerk. - - MR. SUMNER. Then the work would surely be done. [_Laughter._] - -All this brings us to the conclusion that what we do should be well -considered and laid out in advance. I think, therefore, it is important -that the resolution should be recommitted, that we should have the -benefit of all the information we can obtain from the Department, and, -if possible, provide in advance the method, the arrangement, and the -way in which the collection should be indexed. As much should be done -in advance as possible. Sir, we may derive instruction on this subject -from what is doing in other nations. At this moment the French Emperor -is publishing the writings of his uncle, the Emperor Napoleon. The -collection has already proceeded to nineteen or twenty quarto volumes, -elaborately edited, the purpose being to bring together every scrap, -military, diplomatic, or personal, which can be found proceeding from -the First Napoleon. All is under special editorship. Some of the first -men of France are a committee superintending it. If we undertake our -work, I think we ought to do as well by it as the Emperor of France -does by the writings of his uncle. - - The joint resolution was recommitted to the Committee on - Military Affairs and reported back with an amendment. - It finally passed both Houses, and was approved by the - President.[32] - - - - -EQUAL RIGHTS A CONDITION OF RECONSTRUCTION. - -AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE TO A RECONSTRUCTION BILL, MAY 29, 1866. - - - April 30th, Mr. Fessenden, from the Joint Committee on - Reconstruction, reported a bill “to provide for restoring to - the States lately in insurrection their full political rights.” - There was no requirement of Equal Rights as a condition of - Reconstruction. - - * * * * * - - May 29th, Mr. Sumner introduced the following amendment as a - substitute for the first section of the bill:-- - -That, when any State lately in rebellion shall have ratified the -foregoing Amendment, and shall have modified its constitution and laws -in conformity therewith, and shall have further provided that there -shall be no denial of the elective franchise to citizens of the United -States because of race or color, and that all persons shall be equal -before the law, the Senators and Representatives from such State, if -found duly elected and qualified, may, after having taken the required -oaths of office, be admitted into Congress as such: _Provided_, that -nothing in this section shall be so construed as to require the -disfranchisement of any loyal person who is now allowed to vote. - - The bill was never called up after the printing of this - amendment. - - - - -INTER-STATE INTERCOURSE BY RAILWAY. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO FACILITATE COMMERCIAL, POSTAL, -AND MILITARY COMMUNICATION IN THE SEVERAL STATES, MAY 29, 1866. - - - A measure relating to inter-State intercourse, especially - by railway, which had been considered by a former Congress, - reappeared in the present Congress. The bill of Mr. Sumner, - “to facilitate commercial, postal, and military communication - among the several States,”[33] was introduced into the House - of Representatives and adopted, with a proviso touching - stipulations between the United States and any railway company. - In the Senate it was considered from time to time. - - * * * * * - - May 29th, the following additional proviso, moved by Mr. Clark, - of New Hampshire, was adopted,--Yeas 24, Nays 15:-- - - “Nor shall it be construed to authorize any railroad - company to build any new road or connection with any other - road, without authority from the State in which said - railroad or connection may be proposed.” - - On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN], that the -measure before us is important: whether so transcendently important as -he depicts I do not venture to say. But, Sir, I believe it a beneficent -measure, and important from its very beneficence. - -The bill as originally presented was complete and simple. I think it -met the idea so ably set forth by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]. -Were the bill adopted in that form, it would be truly beneficent. It -would prevent any State from becoming a turnpike-gate to the internal -commerce of the country. - -No State, I insist, has a right to take toll on the internal commerce -of this great republic, and it belongs to the United States, under the -National Constitution, to regulate that internal commerce. It was in -the exercise of that power, under the National Constitution, and also -of other powers, as the power to regulate the post-office, and also -the military power, that this bill was conceived. I say, Sir, in every -respect it is beneficent. It has been to-day ably and conclusively -vindicated by the Senator from Ohio. On other occasions I have -considered it. I feel now that there is little occasion for any further -elaborate discussion. I regret, Sir, with the Senator from Ohio, that -the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire has been fastened upon -it. I wish it were in our power now to give the bill its original force -and virtue. But, even with that amendment, it is better than nothing. -It does something. It goes forth and does battle with a monopoly in at -least one State of the Union which was in view when the bill was first -presented. It is also a precedent for the future action of Congress, -and it will open the way to what the Senator from Ohio so earnestly -desires. - -I shall be glad hereafter to act with him in carrying out the original -purposes of this bill, so that no State shall be able to set itself in -the way of the internal commerce of the country. But, considering that -the amendment is already attached to the bill, that we have now passed -the stage when it would be advisable to open the discussion again, I -hope the Senate will proceed to its final passage. Though shorn of some -of its virtue, it is better than nothing; it will do much good. Even in -its present form it is essentially beneficent. Therefore I hope it will -be adopted. - - The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 22, Nays 19,--and was - approved by the President.[34] - - - - -ATTITUDE OF JUSTICE TOWARDS ENGLAND. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE OWNERS OF THE -BRITISH VESSEL MAGICIENNE, JUNE 26, 1866. - - - June 26th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to - consider the bill for the relief of the owners of the British - vessel Magicienne. The bill directed the payment of $8,645 - to these owners for damages from the wrongful seizure and - detention of that vessel by the United States ship Onward, in - January, 1863. - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -Before the vote is taken, I desire that the Senate should understand -the character of the bill. The Senate may have forgotten that a message -of the President, bearing date April 4, 1866, communicated to the two -Houses of Congress the correspondence between the Government of the -United States and the Government of Great Britain relating to this -vessel. By that correspondence it appears that the United States, -through Mr. Seward, and the Government of Great Britain, through Lord -Lyons, came to an agreement, in 1863, to refer the question of damages -in this matter to Mr. Evarts, the eminent counsel at New York, and -Mr. Archibald, the British consul at New York. Those two referees -have proceeded with the business and made a report, which forms the -basis of this bill. I call particular attention to the dates, as they -had an influence on the judgment of the Committee. I need not remind -the Senate, that, at a later day, Lord Russell, in a formal manner, -declined all arbitration of our claims on Great Britain. That was by a -communication to Mr. Adams, our minister at Great Britain, bearing date -August 30, 1865. All will remember the terms of that note, which have -been substantially set forth in the annual message of the President. -Had the case of this vessel arisen subsequently to the note, it would -have been a grave question whether the Committee could have counselled -any present recognition of the claim; but it was otherwise. The case -occurred and the referees were selected before the note. Under the -circumstances, there was no alternative. We had selected our court, -and the damages were determined by the judgment of that court. It -only remains for us to abide by the judgment of the tribunal we have -assisted in establishing. - - Mr. Conness, of California, said:-- - - “I have great confidence in the Committee on Foreign - Relations. I know the sense of justice of that Committee, - and of the Chairman of that Committee, and have great - respect for it; but I cannot vote to pay any British claim - in the face of the insulting response made by the British - Government to the proposition even to consider American - claims.” - - Mr. Sumner replied:-- - -I make no question with the Senator from California with regard to -the reply of Lord Russell.… I see that to pay the bill goes against -the grain of the Senator; but I believe he, too, is not insensible to -the claims of equity. While I have no doubt how the conduct of Great -Britain with regard to our losses should be characterized, I am anxious -that my own country should be kept firm and constant in the attitude of -justice. - - The bill passed both Houses without a division, and was - approved by the President.[35] - - - - -POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAKE A SHIP-CANAL AT NIAGARA. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO INCORPORATE THE NIAGARA SHIP-CANAL, -JUNE 28, 1866. - - - June 28th, the Senate took up a bill from the House to - incorporate the Niagara Ship-Canal, and the first question was - on the following amendment, reported by the Senate Committee on - Commerce:-- - - “SECTION 28. _And be it further enacted_, That this Act - shall not take effect, unless the Legislature of the State - of New York shall within one year of the date hereof give - its assent thereto.” - - In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. GUTHRIE] gives his -judgment in favor of the proposed ship-canal, but he gives his argument -against it. He is in favor of delay, and the reason he assigns is, that -the country is already encumbered by a large national debt, which we -should not increase by any additional expenditure; and he asks, with -a triumphant air, whether it has ever before been proposed to reduce -a national debt by increasing it. But his question does not meet the -case. It is proposed, so far as I understand, to provide additional -resources. To that end additional expenditure will be incurred. Out of -the additional resources there will be increased means for the payment -of the national debt. This is the answer to the Senator; and as I -understand him to make no other special objection to proceeding with -the matter now, I feel that he is completely answered. - -I confess, however, Sir, that what fell from the Senator from Iowa -[Mr. GRIMES] produced more impression on my mind. His objection to -the execution of this work by a corporation, and to allowing that -corporation to establish tolls which the people of his State and of -other States at the West should be obliged to pay, certainly deserves -attention. - - MR. SHERMAN. And there is the water power. - -MR. SUMNER. Which is to be given to this corporation. I say it deserves -attention. But I think the Senator is mistaken, when on that account he -interposes the dilatory motion asking the bill recommitted. I do not -know that at a subsequent stage of the debate it may not be important -to recommit it; but I believe that at this moment we had better proceed -with the bill, and have a vote of the Senate on the amendment reported -by the Committee. For one, I wish an opportunity, and the sooner the -better, to vote against that amendment. Senators about me say, so do -they. Let us, then, proceed with the bill; and I hope the Senate will -vote down the amendment which is to invite the consent and coöperation -of the State of New York. On that question the Senate should establish -a precedent. - -The time has come for us to assert the powers of the National -Government, independent of the States, in certain cases. The argument -in this debate has gone very much on the military power of the -Government, little allusion being made to that other source of power -which seems to me so ample,--the power to regulate commerce among the -States. I prefer to found this power upon that text of the National -Constitution. I ask Congress to interpose its power to regulate -commerce among the States,--to interpose it on a great occasion, under -circumstances, I admit, of special responsibility, when I consider the -time and the occasion, but under circumstances which amply justify the -exercise of the power. Who, Sir, can doubt, that, under these special -words of the National Constitution, we have full power over this whole -question? Who can doubt, that, without asking consent of New York, we -may establish a canal about the Falls of Niagara? I am at a loss to -understand how any Senator can hesitate as to the power of Congress. - -Assuming, then, that Congress has the power, the only remaining -question is as to the expediency of exercising it at this time; and -that again brings me to the argument of the Senator from Kentucky, that -at this time, when we are involved in a large national debt, we should -not undertake to increase it. But to this I have already replied. - -I hope, Sir, there will be no delay,--that the Senate will proceed -with the bill at once. The question is great; it is important; it is -almost historical; it is nothing less than to determine whether the -northern shores of Ohio and Illinois shall be brought forward to the -ocean itself, so that the large towns there shall become ports of the -sea. By this ship-canal Chicago and Cleveland may be made harbors on -the Atlantic coast. Sir, that is an object well worthy of an honest -ambition, and I ask the Senate without delay to do what it can for the -great result. - - After debate, the bill was postponed to the second Tuesday of - December. Though considered at the next session, there was no - final action upon it. - - - - -HONOR TO A CONSTANT UNION-MAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE -FOR CONGRESS OF THE LAW LIBRARY OF THE LATE JAMES L. PETTIGRU, OF SOUTH -CAROLINA, JULY 3, 1866. - - - July 3d, the Senate having under consideration a joint - resolution, reported by the Library Committee, appropriating - five thousand dollars for the purchase of the law library of - the late James L. Pettigru, of South Carolina, Mr. Sumner - said:-- - -I see no objection to this proposition on grounds of constitutional -power. I cannot doubt the power. Had I been called to vote, when under -consideration some weeks ago, I should have voted in the negative. I -was disposed at that time to look at the purchase simply as a question -of economy. Since then I have been led to regard it in that other -aspect presented by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE], and I -hesitate to vote against it. - -I have gone over the catalogue of the library. It is a respectable -library for a practising lawyer. Some of the books are valuable, others -may be useful as duplicates. - -But in voting this sum I do not expect an equivalent in the books. I -would make the purchase an occasion of expressing sympathy with courage -and fidelity under peculiar difficulties in the cause of our country. -Mr. Pettigru was like the angel Abdiel, “among the faithless faithful -only he.” In the State of South Carolina, and in Charleston itself, he -continued true to the Union in all its trials, early and late,--first, -in those days when it was menaced by Nullification, and then again -when it was openly assailed by bloody Rebellion. He died in virtuous -poverty, and I am willing that Congress should make this contribution -to his widow. Such a character is an example of infinite value to the -Republic. I wish to show my respect for it. I should be glad to see it -exalted so as to be seen by men. In the deserts of the East a fountain -is always cherished as a sacred spot; such a character was a fountain -in the desert. What desert more complete than South Carolina? - - The joint resolution passed both Houses, and was approved by - the President.[36] - - - - -OPEN VOTING IN THE ELECTION OF SENATORS; SECRET VOTING AT POPULAR -ELECTIONS. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF SENATORS, -JULY 11, 1866. - - - The case of Senator Stockton, and the questions which then - arose with regard to the election of Senators, suggested - the necessity of legislation by Congress on this subject. - Accordingly a bill was reported from the Judiciary Committee, - “to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for - Senators in Congress.” - - * * * * * - - July 11th, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved an amendment to - the bill, allowing every Legislature to settle the manner of - voting, whether _viva voce_ or by ballot. In the debate that - ensued, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I was impressed by a remark of the Senator from -Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL], to the effect, that, while regulating the -election of Senators, it would be well to require uniformity in all -respects. I was impressed by the remark, for it seemed to me a key -to this whole question. If it be of importance to require uniformity -in all respects, then it seems to me we should not fail to prescribe -in all respects the manner of the election. Nothing should be left -uncertain. This, I understand, the bill before us undertakes to do. The -amendment of the Senator from Maine, if adopted, would leave the manner -of election in one important particular open to the caprice of each -Legislature, so that one Legislature might act in one way and another -in another way,--one might choose Senators by open vote, and another by -secret vote. - -Now, Sir, I remark, in the first place, that there should be -uniformity. The question, then, is, Which system shall be -adopted,--open voting, or secret voting? While I am entirely satisfied -that at popular elections secret voting is preferable, and that every -citizen, when about to vote at any such election, has a right to the -protection of secrecy, I do not see my way to the same conclusion with -regard to votes in a representative capacity. Such votes do not belong -to the individual, if I may so express myself, but to his constituents. -A sound policy requires that the constituent should be able to see the -vote given by the representative; but that can be only where it is -open. This argument seems to me unanswerable in principle. - -Reference has been made to the English system; and I am glad to adduce -it for example, not in the election of members of Parliament, but in -elections by Parliament itself, as in the choice of Speaker. According -to the principle I have already stated, elections for members of -Parliament should enjoy the protection of secrecy, which they do not, -while the representative in Parliament should be held to vote in such -a way that his constituents may know what he does, and this is the -English rule. The Speaker of the House of Commons is chosen by open -voting, or _viva voce_. - - MR. FESSENDEN. We do not do it here in the election of a - President of the Senate. - -MR. SUMNER. But I am disposed to believe that in not doing it we fail -to follow the best example. There is no question now with regard to the -manner of voting at popular elections. Our present question concerns -the manner of voting in a representative capacity, and here British -precedent is in favor of open voting. - -The rule at popular elections in our own country has not been uniform. -In some States open voting has prevailed from the beginning; in others, -voting has been by ballot. The origin of these differences, while -curious historically, is not without interest in this debate. I think I -do not err in saying that the example of England was early recognized -in Virginia and the more southern States, also in New York after the -withdrawal of Holland. The Western States, including Kentucky, I need -not remind the Senate, were carved out of Virginia. The great Northwest -Territory was originally part of Virginia, and I presume that the -habit which the Senator from Illinois tells us prevails throughout -that region was derived originally from Virginia, as the latter -State derived it originally from England. In New England the usage -is otherwise; nor is it difficult to trace its origin. New England -borrowed her system of secret voting at popular elections from the -Puritan corporation which originally planted its settlements. By the -Law of Corporations a majority governs, and this rule was practically -enforced by secret voting. Here the simplicity of the times harmonized -with classical example. Beans were used for ballots. A candidate being -named, the elector voted by dropping a black bean or white bean into -a box. The rule at popular elections was carried into elections by -the Legislature. These early settlers were not the first to employ -beans for ballots. The law of Athens enjoined that their magistrates -should be chosen by a ballot of beans: so we are told by Lucian, in -his Dialogues.[37] In other places voting was by black and white -pebbles.[38] These instances, besides showing a curious parallel with -our New England way, illustrate the history of secret voting. - -This brief statement shows the origin of the opposite rules in popular -elections among us,--the South and West receiving theirs from Virginia -and from England, and New England receiving hers from the practice of -a Puritan corporation. I ought to mention that Rhode Island, which was -organized under a charter from Charles the Second, was an exception; -but in other States the original rule of secrecy in popular elections -has prevailed from the beginning. - - * * * * * - -There is no question before us with regard to popular elections. We -are considering how men should vote in a representative capacity. Much -as I am in favor of secret voting at the polls, I cannot hesitate in -declaring for open voting wherever men represent others. Nor can I see -any reason for secrecy in elections by a legislative body which is -not equally strong for secrecy in voting on the passage of laws. But -nobody would dispense with the ayes and noes in our daily business. To -my mind the question is clear. Republican institutions will gain by -establishing the accountability of the representative, and I cannot -doubt that this principle should be our guide in determining the manner -of electing Senators under the National Constitution. - - The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,--Yeas 6, Nays 28. - - The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 25, Nays 11,--also the House - of Representatives, and was approved by the President.[39] - - - - -MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SANDWICH ISLANDS. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION RELEASING THE PACIFIC MAIL -STEAMSHIPS FROM STOPPING AT THE SANDWICH ISLANDS ON THEIR ROUTE TO -JAPAN AND CHINA, JULY 17, 1866. - - - The Senate having under consideration a joint resolution - releasing the Pacific Mail Steamship Company from the portion - of their contract requiring them to stop at the Sandwich - Islands on their route to Japan and China, Mr. Wilson, of - Massachusetts, moved to require, as a condition of release, - the establishment of a monthly mail steamship line between San - Francisco and the Sandwich Islands. - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--This question is not free from embarrassment, -especially where one is in favor of the line to Japan, and also in -favor of a line to the Sandwich Islands, as is the case with myself. -I am anxious to see each of these lines established, believing each -important to the general welfare, and especially to the commercial -interests of the country. But, strong as is my desire, I am not able -to see how the line to Japan can be advantageously held to turn aside -and stop at the Sandwich Islands. To bring these two objects into one -voyage is not unlike the idea of the elderly person who wished her -Bible to be the smallest size book and the largest size type. The two -things do not go together. - -And yet, Sir, I confess that my interest in the Sandwich Islands -inclines me to do all that I can to strengthen and increase our -relations with them. I do not forget that these islands, though -originally discovered by a British navigator, are mainly indebted for -their present civilization to the United States. Missionaries of our -country have planted churches and schools at an expense of at least a -million dollars. One of our countrymen, the late John Pickering, of -Boston, the eminent philologist and scholar, invented the alphabet by -which the native language was reduced to a written text. The whalers of -New England have made these islands a resting-place. Our ships on their -way to China have made them a half-way house. Of all the foreign ships -which reach there five sixths are of our country. Such are the ties of -beneficence and of commerce by which we are bound to these islands. No -other nation there has an interest comparable in character or amount to -ours. Meanwhile the native population is constantly decaying, so that I -presume now it is not more than fifty thousand. - -This brief review furnishes a glimpse of our interest in these islands. -They are the wards of the United States. We cannot turn away from them. -The Government must add its contribution also. On this account I have -heard with pleasure that a national ship, under the command of one -of our most intelligent officers, is to be stationed at the Sandwich -Islands. Her presence will exercise a salutary influence in sustaining -the interests of our people. This is something. But I confess that I -should like to see these islands bound to our continent by a steam line. - -While declaring this desire, with my reasons for it, I am not -satisfied that it is proper to require the Japan line to perform this -service. It is clear, from unanswerable testimony, that the stoppage of -this line cannot be effected without such a deviation as materially to -interfere with its operations. - -The testimony presented by the report is positive. Here, for instance, -is what is said by that eminent authority, Admiral Davis:-- - - “These considerations with regard to the eastern voyage appear - to dispose of the whole question. They show that touching at - the Sandwich Islands, on the return from China, would prolong - the voyage so many days unnecessarily that an additional line - of steamers must soon be established, provided the intercourse - between China and America is to acquire that importance which - is confidently expected.” - -This concerns the voyage from Japan to San Francisco. But Admiral Davis -is also against stopping at the islands on the outward voyage. - -It seems clear, then, that the Japanese line, in order to be effective, -and to accomplish what is so much desired, must be left to itself, -without being obliged to turn aside for any incidental purpose. It must -be a Japanese line, and nothing else; and you must not forget, that, -just in proportion as you impose upon it any additional obligations, -you will impair its efficiency as one of the splendid links of commerce -destined to put a girdle round the globe. - -I am ready, therefore, to release the Japanese line from stopping at -the Sandwich Islands; but at the same time I declare my hope that some -other means will be found to secure a line to these islands. - -In releasing the Company from this service, I am willing to leave to -them the full subsidy already appropriated; but I think they should be -held to shorten their voyage in proportion to the time gained. This -provision will remove an objection which has been made. - - The joint resolution, as amended, passed the Senate,--Yeas - 24, Nays 15,--but it was not considered in the House of - Representatives. At the next session a bill became a law, - authorizing the establishment of ocean mail steamship service - between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands.[40] - - - - -TENNESSEE NOT SUFFICIENTLY RECONSTRUCTED. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING TENNESSEE AGAIN -ENTITLED TO SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, JULY 21, 1866. - - - The Senate considered a joint resolution from the House of - Representatives “declaring Tennessee again entitled to Senators - and Representatives in Congress,” for which a substitute was - reported by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Judiciary - Committee. The joint resolution from the House and the proposed - substitute each had a preamble. In the debate, Mr. Sumner - said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The question, as I understand it, is between two -preambles. I agree with my friend from Illinois, that the preamble -reported by him in many respects has the advantage of that from the -House. It is fuller, and in its structure better. I am glad it sets -forth how Tennessee lost her representation here, and also how she may -again be rehabilitated. But, while according merit to the Senator’s -preamble in that respect, there are other particulars in which it -fails. He himself has already recognized that it is no better than that -of the House, when it sets forth that - - “the body of the people of Tennessee have, by a proper spirit - of obedience, shown to the satisfaction of Congress the return - of said State to due allegiance to the Government, laws, and - authority of the United States.” - -Here the two preambles are alike; there is no advantage in one over -the other. But I understand the Senator is willing to alter this -clause. If he consents to the alteration, and the alteration is made, -then in this respect his preamble will be superior to that of the -House. Clearly, Sir, the assumption is false; “the body of the people -of Tennessee have” not, “by a proper spirit of obedience, shown to the -satisfaction of Congress the return of said State to due allegiance -to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States.” I may -go too far, when I say it is false that Tennessee has shown a proper -spirit, to the satisfaction of Congress,--because, if Congress votes -that, it will not be for me, or for any one else, to say it has voted -a falsehood; but I do say Tennessee has not shown a proper spirit of -obedience in the body of her people. All the evidence which thickens -in the air from that State, and has been darkening our sky during all -this winter, shows that Tennessee has not that spirit of obedience in -the body of her people. Why, Sir, only this winter, the other House -has been constrained to send a commission to Tennessee to investigate -an outrage of unparalleled atrocity growing out of this very rebel -spirit. How can the Senate aver that the body of that people, thus -saturated with the spirit of disloyalty, thus set on fire and inflamed -by this hatred to the Union, have shown to the satisfaction of Congress -a proper spirit of obedience? Sir, you err, if you put in your -statute-book any such assertion, which is historically untrue. You -cannot make it true by your averment. History hereafter, when it takes -up its avenging pen, will record the falsehood to your shame. - - Mr. Sumner then adduced evidence of the actual spirit in - Tennessee, when he was interrupted by Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, who - referred to the testimony of generals and civilians. Mr. Sumner - continued:-- - -That does not go to the question whether we can aver that there is a -proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. No general says -there is a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. I -challenge the Senator to cite the testimony showing a proper spirit of -obedience in the body of her people. Generals testify that in their -opinion it would be better to admit representatives from Tennessee on -this floor and the floor of the other House. That is another question. -Logically, it is not before me yet. I am now speaking of the erroneous -character of this preamble. But I understand that the Senator from -Illinois is willing to alter his preamble. I believe I am right,--am I -not? - - MR. TRUMBULL. Yes, Sir; I am willing those words should go out. - -MR. SUMNER. They ought to go out; and if they do go out, it will make -his preamble in this respect superior to that from the House. - -But there is another allegation in the Senator’s preamble, which I -must say is as erroneous as that on which I have remarked. He there -declares, and calls upon us to declare, that the constitution adopted -by Tennessee is republican in form. A constitution which disfranchises -more than one quarter of its population republican in form! What, -Sir, is a republican form of government? It is a government founded -on the people and the consent of the governed. Sir, the constitution -of Tennessee is not founded on the consent of the governed. It cannot -invoke in its behalf that great principle of the Declaration of -Independence; therefore it is not republican in form. And when you -allege that it is republican in form, permit me to say, you make an -allegation false in fact. I do not raise any question of theory, but -I submit that a constitution which on its face disfranchises more -than one fourth of the citizens cannot be republican in form. You, -Sir, will make a terrible mistake, if at this moment of your history -you undertake to recognize it as such. You will inflict a blow upon -republican institutions. I hope the Senator from Illinois, as he has -consented to one amendment, will consent to another, and will strike -out the words declaring this constitution republican in form and in -harmony with the Constitution of the United States. Do not compel us -to aver what history will look at with scorn. Who can doubt, when -this war is considered gravely and calmly in the tranquillity of the -future, that the historian must bring all these events to the rigid -test of principle? Bringing them to such test, it will be impossible to -recognize any government like that of Tennessee either as republican in -form or in harmony with the National Constitution. - - Mr. Trumbull then moved to strike out the first clause objected - to, and insert instead, “and has done other acts proclaiming - and denoting loyalty,” which was agreed to. Mr. Sumner then - moved to strike out the words “republican in form and not - inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United - States,” which was also agreed to. - - Mr. Sumner then moved his proviso, already moved in the - Louisiana bill and the Colorado bill,[41] that the Act should - not take effect “except upon the fundamental condition that - within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral - franchise, or of any other rights, on account of race or color, - but all persons shall be equal before the law.” This was - lost,--Yeas 4, Nays 34. The four affirmative votes were, Mr. - Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Wade, of - Ohio, and Mr. Sumner. - - The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 28, Nays 4,--and was - approved by the President.[42] The four negative votes were, - Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, - Mr. McDougall, of California, and Mr. Sumner. Its preamble had - been amended according to Mr. Sumner’s desire, but he was not - ready to receive Representatives and Senators from Tennessee - except on the fundamental condition moved by him. - - - - -THE SENATE CHAMBER: ITS VENTILATION AND SIZE. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, -JULY 23, 1866. - - - On motion of Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, a committee was - appointed to consider the ventilation and sanitary condition - of the Senate wing of the Capitol; and the committee made an - elaborate report. - - July 23d, while the Senate had under consideration the bill - making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the - Government, this Senator moved an amendment appropriating - $117,685.25 for improvements approved and recommended in the - report. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Pennsylvania has entitled himself to -the gratitude of all his brethren for the attention he has bestowed -upon an uninviting subject, which concerns the comfort of the -Senate,--I was about to say, the character of our legislation; for, -while breathing this anomalous atmosphere, legislation itself must too -often suffer with our bodies. But he will pardon me, if I suggest that -he is not sufficiently radical in his proposition. I am aware that he -is unwilling to be thought radical. The name is not pleasant to him. - - MR. BUCKALEW. I have no distaste for the name. I claim to be - very radical on some subjects. - -MR. SUMNER. Very well. I hope he will be radical now,--in other words, -that he will be thorough in his remedy for the present case. - -Catching a phrase from ancient Rome, the Senator says that the roof -over our heads must be destroyed, as if it were another Carthage. To -my mind, this is not enough; the walls by which we are shut in must be -destroyed. Our present difficulty is less with the roof than with the -surrounding inclosure, separating us entirely from the open air and -the light of day. Windows are natural ventilators; but we have none. -Let this chamber be brought to the open air and the light of day, and -Nature will do the rest. From its commanding position on a beautiful -eminence, where every breeze can reach it, the Capitol will have an -invigorating supply from every quarter. I doubt if any public edifice -in the world can compare in site with that enjoyed by it,--and I do not -forget the monumental structures of London, Paris, Vienna, or Rome. -But in entering this stone cage with glass above, we renounce the -advantages and opportunities of this unparalleled situation. - -I would have all this massive masonry about us taken down, and the -chamber brought to the windows. This change would make ventilation -easy, and secure all that the Senator so anxiously recommends. It is -more revolutionary than his plan. It will be expensive, very expensive, -I fear; for the very completeness of the original work is an impediment -to change. This Capitol, as we all see, is built for immortality. Its -disadvantages will not be less permanent than its advantages, unless we -apply ourselves resolutely to their revision. Without legislation and -positive effort on our part, this chamber will continue uncomfortable -for generations and long centuries. Senators after us, in thickening -ranks, will sit here as uncomfortable as ourselves. If not for -ourselves, then for those who come after us, we should initiate a -change. - -Besides bringing this chamber to the windows, its proportions should be -reduced,--I am disposed to say one half. A chamber of one half the size -would answer every purpose of business, and not fail essentially even -on occasions of display. Everything is now sacrificed to the galleries. -Senators are treated as the gladiators of the ancient amphitheatre, not -to make “a Roman holiday,” but a Washington show. As many as fourteen -or fifteen hundred people are constantly gathered in these galleries. -But such surrounding multitudes are plainly inconsistent with the -quiet transaction of business and the simple tone which belongs to -legislation. - -I am reminded of the testimony attributed to Sir Robert Peel, whose -protracted parliamentary life made him an expert. Interrogated by the -Committee of the House of Commons with regard to the proper size for -the new chamber, he replied, that, though the House consisted of six -hundred and fifty-eight members, yet that full number was rarely in -attendance, so that on common occasions even a small house would not -be filled, and in his judgment the chamber should be constructed with -a view to the daily business rather than to the infrequent occasions -when it would be crowded. His compendious conclusion was, that the -House should be comfortable every day, at the risk of a tight squeeze -now and then. The same idea had been expressed before by one of the -best of early English writers, Thomas Fuller, who in his proverbs -says: “A house had better be too little for a day than too great for -a year”:[43] houses ought to be proportioned to ordinary, and not -extraordinary occasions. In these concurring sayings I find practical -sense. - -Plainly the Senate Chamber is too big for our daily life. It is not -proportioned to ordinary occasions or every-day business. We all know -that anything in a common tone of voice is heard with difficulty, -unless we give special attention. Now I cannot doubt that the chamber -should be so reduced that a motion or question or remark in a common -tone of voice would be easily heard by every Senator. This should have -been the rule for the architect at the beginning; and I would have it -followed now in the change I suggest. With seven hundred listeners in -the galleries, and with the large corps of reporters, the public would -be in sufficient attendance, and the business of the country would be -transacted more easily and advantageously. - -Looking at these enormous spaces, adapted to the eye rather than to -the ear, I turn with envy to that other chamber where the Senate sat -so many honorable years, and listened to speeches which now belong -to the permanent literature of the country. I doubt if any Senator -who remembers that interesting chamber would not prefer it to this -amphitheatre. For the transaction of daily business it was infinitely -superior; and even on rare occasions, when the republic hung upon the -voice of the orator, there were witnesses enough. The theory of our -institutions was satisfied. The public was not excluded, and there were -reporters to communicate promptly what was said. - - The amendment was agreed to. - - - - -A SHIP-CANAL THROUGH THE ISTHMUS OF DARIEN. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, -JULY 25, 1866. - - - July 25th, the Senate having under consideration the bill - making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the - Government, Mr. Conness, of California, moved the following - amendment:-- - - “To provide for a survey of the Isthmus of Darien, under - the direction of the War Department, with a view to the - construction of a ship-canal, in accordance with the report - of the Superintendent of the Naval Observatory to the Navy - Department, $40,000.” - - In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner remarked:-- - -I have had the advantage of cursorily examining the able and -interesting report on this work by Admiral Davis. It is learned and -instructive, and develops the importance of such a canal to the -commerce of the United States. I need not remind you that California -is necessarily interested, because it is across the Isthmus of Darien -that we reach the distant part of our own country. Therefore this is -to increase and extend the facilities of communication with a part of -our own country. Unhappily, we are obliged to go outside of our own -borders, but I do not know that it becomes on that account any the less -important. - -The Senate will easily see not only its practical value, but also its -grandeur in an historical aspect. From the time of Charles the Fifth, -one of the aspirations of Spain, and indeed of all adventurers and -navigators in those seas, has been to find what was often called “the -secret of the strait,” being a natural gate by which to pass from ocean -to ocean. The proposition now is, not to find, but to make, a gate by -which this object may be accomplished. - -We may well be fascinated by the historic grandeur of the work; but I -am more tempted by its practical value in promoting relations between -distant parts of our own country and in helping the commerce of the -world. But the pending proposition is simply to provide for surveys. -There is no appropriation for the work. We do not bind ourselves in -the future. Such an appropriation, whether regarded in a practical, -scientific, or historic light, is amply commended. I shall gladly vote -for it. - - The amendment was agreed to,--Yeas 22, Nays 13. - - - - -INQUIRY INTO THE TITLE OF A SENATOR TO HIS SEAT. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE CREDENTIALS OF THE SENATOR FROM -TENNESSEE, JULY 26, 1866. - - - On the presentation of the credentials of Hon. David T. - Patterson as a Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Sumner moved their - reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, with a view to - inquiry whether he could take the oaths required by Act of - Congress and the rule of the Senate.[44] In remarks on this - motion, Mr. Sumner referred to the case of Mr. Stark, of - Oregon.[45] Afterwards, in reply to Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, he - said:-- - -… - -But, Sir, there was something that fell from the Senator from Iowa -to which I would make a moment’s reply. He imagines, that, if we make -this reference, we shall establish a dangerous precedent; and he even -goes so far as to imagine the possibility that he or his colleague, -arriving from the patriotic State of Iowa, may find their credentials -called in question. Sir, the Senator forgets for a moment the history -of the country: he forgets that we have just emerged from a great civil -war,--that the State of Tennessee took part in that war,--and that -the very question now under consideration is, whether the gentleman -presenting himself as a Senator was compromised by that war. - -If in the State of Iowa there should unhappily be a rebellion, and if -public report should announce that our patriot friend had taken part -in it to such an extent as to sit on the bench as a judge, enjoying -its commission and swearing allegiance to it, then should he present -himself with credentials as a Senator, I think we should be justified -in asking an inquiry; and that is the extent of what I ask now. I take -the case the Senator from Iowa supposes, but remind you of well-known -facts which he omits; and there, permit me to say, is the whole -question. If the case of Tennessee were an ordinary case, like that -of Iowa, there would be no occasion and no justification for inquiry. -But it is not an ordinary case; it is a case incident to the anomalous -condition of public affairs at this moment. It cannot be treated -according to the ordinary rule; it is a new case, and to meet it we -must make a new precedent. - -The Senator is much afraid of precedents. Sir, I am not afraid of any -precedent having for its object the protection of right; and just -in proportion as new circumstances arise must they be met by a new -precedent. New circumstances have arisen, and you are called on to meet -them frankly, simply. - - The motion prevailed,--Yeas 20, Nays 14. - - * * * * * - - July 27th, the Committee reported that Mr. Patterson, “upon - taking the oaths required by the Constitution and laws, be - admitted to a seat in the Senate of the United States”; and - this report was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 11,--Mr. Sumner voting - in the negative. - - - - -NO MORE STATES WITH THE WORD “WHITE” IN THE CONSTITUTION. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA AS A STATE, JULY -27, DECEMBER 14 AND 19, 1866, AND JANUARY 8, 1867. - - - The question of admitting Nebraska as a State followed that of - Colorado, and with the same effort on the part of Mr. Sumner - to require equal rights without distinction of color in the - constitution of the new State. Nebraska, like Colorado, failed - in this respect. Unquestionably, the discussion on these two - cases prepared the way for the requirement of equal suffrage in - the Rebel States. - - * * * * * - - July 27th, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Chairman of the Committee on - Territories, moved to proceed with the bill for the admission - of the State of Nebraska into the Union, and urged its passage. - Mr. Sumner followed. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I am very sorry to occupy the attention of the Senate -even for one minute, but I shall be very brief. The Senator [Mr. -WADE] tells us that the majority of the people in favor of the State -government was about one hundred and fifty; and by such a slender, slim -majority you are called to invest this Territory with the powers and -prerogatives of a State. The smallness of the majority is an argument -against any present action; but, going behind that small majority, -and looking at the number of voters, the argument increases, for the -Senator tells us there were but eight thousand voters. The question -is, Will you invest those eight thousand voters with the powers and -prerogatives now enjoyed in this Chamber by New York and Pennsylvania -and other States of this Union? I think the objection on this account -unanswerable. It would be unreasonable for you to invest them with -those powers and prerogatives at this time. - -But, Sir, I confess that with me the prevailing objection is, that -the State does not present itself with a constitution republican in -form, and on this question I challenge the deliberate judgment of my -excellent friend, the Senator from Ohio, who is now trying to introduce -this Territory into the Union as a State. I challenge the distinguished -Senator to show that a constitution which disqualifies citizens on -account of color can be republican in form. Sir, I say it is not a -republican government, and I am sorry that my distinguished friend -lends his countenance to a government of such a character. I wish that -my friend would lift himself to the argument that such a government -cannot be republican, and must not be welcomed as such on this floor. - -I forbear entering into the argument. Again and again I have presented -it. Senators have made up their minds. Each must judge for himself. -It is not without pain and trouble that I find myself constrained to -differ from valued friends and associates, with whom I am always proud -to agree; but I cannot recognize a constitution with the word “white” -as republican. With such conviction, it is my duty to oppose the -welcome of this Territory as a State just so long as I can. - - Mr. Wade said in reply: “It is republican in form, but is not - that kind of republicanism that I approve of. If I had my way - about it, nobody would be excluded from the franchise that was - a male citizen of proper age, let his color be what it would. - That would be the color of republicanism that I should like the - best. But to deny that under the Constitution of the United - States this constitution is republican in form is to deny that - we have a republic at all.… The State of Massachusetts is a - little forward on this subject. I am glad of it.” - - Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Mr. - Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, Mr. Garrett - Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, Mr. Buckalew, of - Pennsylvania, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Nye, of Nevada, and - Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, took part in the debate. In the course - of Mr. Nye’s remarks, the following occurred. - - MR. NYE. But my conscientious friend from Massachusetts, - I am terribly afraid, mistakes twinges of dyspepsia for - constitutional scruples. [_Laughter._] - - MR. SUMNER. I never had the dyspepsia in my life. - - MR. NYE. I am glad to hear it; it is some other disease, - then. [_Laughter._] This word “white” is the nightmare of - his mind. - - Mr. Wade, speaking again, said: “The Senator from Massachusetts - has a certain one idea that covers the whole ground.… All the - opposition that he really has to it is because they put the - word ‘white’ in their constitution.” - - Mr. Sumner moved the proviso already moved on the Louisiana - and Colorado bills, requiring as a fundamental condition that - within the State there should be no denial of the elective - franchise or of any other right on account of race or color, - and that this condition should be ratified by the voters of - the Territory; which was lost,--Yeas 5, Nays 34. The Senators - voting yea were Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, Mr. Fessenden, of - Maine, Mr. Morgan, of New York, Mr. Poland, of Vermont, and Mr. - Sumner. - - The bill then passed the Senate,--Yeas 24, Nays 18. It also - passed the House of Representatives, but did not receive the - signature of the President. - - * * * * * - - At the next session of Congress, Mr. Wade introduced another - bill for the admission of Nebraska, which he afterwards - reported from the Committee on Territories. Notwithstanding its - constitution with the word “white,” December 14th, he moved to - proceed with the consideration of this bill. Mr. Sumner was - against taking it up. - -… - -I hope you do not forget the great act of yesterday. By solemn vote, -you have recorded yourselves in favor of Human Rights, and have -established them here at the National Capital. And now, Sir, you are -asked to set aside Human Rights, and to forget the triumph and example -of yesterday. Before you is a constitution with the word “white,”--a -constitution creating a white man’s government, such as is praised -by Senators on the other side,--and you are asked to recognize that -disreputable instrument. I am against any such government, and I trust -the Senate will not proceed with its consideration. - -Do not to-day undo the good work of yesterday, nor imitate that ancient -personage who unwove at night the web woven during the day, so that her -work never proceeded to any end. Do not, I entreat you, unweave to-day -the beautiful web of yesterday. - -Instead of undoing, let us do always; nor is there any lack of measures -deserving attention. There is the Bankrupt Bill, practical and -beneficent in character, and involving no sacrifice of Human Rights. -This is a measure of real humanity, calculated to carry tranquillity -and repose into the business of the country. Besides, it has been too -long postponed. - - Mr. Wade replied with some warmth, when the following passage - occurred. - -MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, I hope to be pardoned, if I make one word -of reply to the Senator. He seemed to think his argument advanced by -personal allusions to myself. If I understand him, he sought to show -inconsistency on my part. - - MR. WADE. Yes, I think I did. - -MR. SUMNER. I am at a loss to understand how the Senator can find -inconsistency, unless he chooses to misunderstand facts. He assumed -that I voted for the admission of Tennessee. - - MR. WADE. When you said you did not, I gave it up. - -MR. SUMNER. My name is recorded, on all the yeas and nays, and they -were numerous, against the admission of Tennessee; and the reason I -assigned was, that the constitution contained the word “white.” - - MR. WADE. You voted for the Constitutional Amendment. - -MR. SUMNER. Yes, I did vote for the Constitutional Amendment, in its -final form;[46] but does the Senator consider himself bound to admit -a Rebel State refusing the suffrage to freedmen? I wish my friend to -answer that. - - MR. WADE. No, I do not. - - MR. SUMNER. I knew he did not. - - MR. WADE. I do not know that I understand the Senator. Let me - say that I should consider myself bound by the Constitutional - Amendment, if the Southern States complied with it within a - reasonable time; and that reasonable time, in my judgment, is - nearly elapsed. - - MR. SUMNER. Even with the word “white” in a constitution? - - MR. WADE. Without regard to that. - - MR. SUMNER. Without regard to the rights of the freedman? - - MR. WADE. On complying with the requisitions of the - Constitutional Amendment, I should vote for them. - -MR. SUMNER. I do not agree with the Senator. I distinctly stated, -when the Amendment was under discussion, that I did not accept it as -a finality, and that, so far as I had a vote on this floor, I would -insist that every one of these States, before its Representatives -were received in Congress, should confer impartial suffrage, without -distinction of color; and now I ask my friend what inconsistency there -is, when I insist upon the same rule for Nebraska. - - MR. WADE. I cannot see how the Senator could have misled the - Southern States with that. When they complied with all we asked - of them in the Constitutional Amendment, I supposed we could - not refuse to let them in on those terms.… Certainly I am as - much for colored suffrage as any man on this floor; but when I - make such an agreement as that, I stand by it always. - -MR. SUMNER. When I make an agreement, I stand by it. But I entered into -no such agreement, and I do not understand that the Senate or Congress -entered into any such agreement. I know that certain politicians and -editors have undertaken to foist something of this sort into the -Constitutional Amendment; but there was no authority for it. The -Committee on Reconstruction may have reported a resolution to that -effect, but they never called it up, and I know well that I offered a -resolution just the contrary. - - MR. DOOLITTLE. The Senator from Massachusetts will allow me? - - MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. DOOLITTLE. The Committee on Reconstruction reported a - resolution, that, if each State should adopt this Amendment, - and the Amendment should become a part of the Constitution, be - adopted by a sufficient number of States, then the States might - be accepted. That was what they reported. - - MR. JOHNSON. It was a bill. - - MR. WADE. That was the understanding I alluded to. - - MR. BROWN. That was not acted upon. - - MR. SUMNER. It was not acted on. I suppose that those who had - it in charge did not venture to invite a vote upon it. - - MR. DOOLITTLE. It was laid on the table by a vote in the House - of Representatives, upon the yeas and nays. - -MR. SUMNER. It never became in any respect a legislative act; therefore -nobody entered legislatively into the agreement attributed to me. -How the Senator could attribute it to me, in the face of constant -asseveration that I would not be a party to any such agreement, -surpasses comprehension. - -… - -So far as the Senator considered the merits of the question, I will -not now reply. There may be a time for that, and the magnitude of the -issue may justify me even in setting forth arguments already adduced. -If I repeat myself, it is because you repeat an effort which ought -never to have been made. But I enter my most earnest protest. To my -mind this is a most disastrous measure. I use this word advisedly; it -is disastrous because it cannot fail to impair the moral efficiency -of Congress, injure its influence, and be something like a bar to the -adoption of a just policy for the Rebel States. Sir, we are now seeking -to obliterate the word “white” from all institutions and constitutions -there; and yet Senators, with that great question before them, rush -swiftly forward to welcome a new State with the word “white” in its -constitution. In other days we all united, and the Senator from Ohio -was earnest among the number, in saying, “No more Slave States!” I now -insist upon another cry: “No more States with the word ‘white’!” On -that question I part company with my friend from Ohio. He is now about -to welcome them. - - The motion of Mr. Wade was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 11,--and the - bill was before the Senate for consideration. Mr. Gratz Brown - then offered the proviso, offered formerly by Mr. Sumner,[47] - requiring, as a fundamental condition, that there should be - no denial of the elective franchise or of any other right on - account of race or color, and upon the further condition that - this requirement be submitted to the voters of the Territory. - In the earnest debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke repeatedly, - especially in reply to Mr. Wade, setting forth again the - objections already made to the admission of Colorado. - - * * * * * - - December 19th, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -I have another word for the Senator from Ohio. He does not see the -importance of this question. It is the question of every day, a -commonplace question. There is the precise difference between the -Senator from Ohio and other Senators. There have been times when the -Senator has most clearly seen the importance of a question of Human -Rights. The Senator has not forgotten a contest in which he took part -with myself against an effort to precipitate Louisiana back into this -Chamber with a constitution like that of Nebraska. Now the Senator -remembers it well. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] tried to -put that constitution through the Senate; but, with all his abilities -and the just influence that belonged to his position, he could not -do it. The Senator from Ohio will not be instructed by that example. -He now makes a kindred effort, seeking to introduce into the Union a -State which defies the first principle of Human Rights. The Senator -becomes the champion of that community. He who has so often raised his -voice for Human Rights now treats the question as trivial: it is a -technicality only; that is all. - -Sir, can a question of Human Rights be a technicality? Can a -constitution which undertakes to disfranchise a whole race be treated -in that effort as only a technicality? And yet that is the position -of the Senator. Why, Sir, the other day he did openly arraign the -constitution of Louisiana, and the effort of our excellent President, -Abraham Lincoln, who pressed it upon us. The constitution of Louisiana -was odious; it should not have been presented to the Senate; and I -doubt if there is any Senator on the right side who does not now -rejoice that it was defeated. - - Then followed a passage with Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, who - volunteered to consider that Mr. Sumner had attacked the - constitution of Iowa, when he had made no allusion to it. - - MR. KIRKWOOD. He compares the case of the Territory of - Nebraska to that of the lately rebellious States. I think - there is a great difference between them. The people of the - Territory of Nebraska are loyal men; the people of the late - rebellious States are not loyal; and when he compares the - one with the other, I think he does injustice to himself - and to the people of that Territory. - - MR. SUMNER. I made no such comparison. - - MR. KIRKWOOD. He speaks of the constitution submitted by - some persons in Louisiana as odious, as offensive, and - compares the constitution of Nebraska and the constitution - of that State, or proposed State, intending to convey the - idea, I presume, that the constitution of Nebraska is - odious and offensive. Now I wish to say to that Senator - that the constitution of Nebraska and the constitution of - Iowa in this particular are identical. Does he call the - constitution of Iowa odious and offensive?… The people of - Iowa are as loyal as the people of Massachusetts are. - - MR. SUMNER. No doubt about it. I never said otherwise. - - MR. KIRKWOOD. But he said our constitution was offensive. - - MR. SUMNER. I made no allusion to the constitution of Iowa. - - MR. KIRKWOOD. But you made an allusion to a constitution - precisely similar in this identical point to that of - Iowa.… I repeat again, I cannot see the difference between - characterizing the constitution of Iowa as odious and - offensive and characterizing the constitution of another - State that agrees with it precisely in terms in that way. - - MR. SUMMER. May I ask the Senator if he considers that - provision in the constitution of Iowa right or wrong? - - MR. KIRKWOOD. I conceive it to be the business of the - people of Iowa, and not the business of the Senator from - Massachusetts. The people of Iowa will deal with it in - their own way, when they see fit; and, as a loyal people, - they have the right to do so; and so, I apprehend, have the - people of Nebraska. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator from Iowa has not been in this body very long. -Had he been here longer, he would have known that toward the people of -Iowa, by vote and voice, I have always been true. One of my earliest -efforts in this Chamber, now many years ago, was in protection of -the interests of the people of Iowa. On that occasion, as the record -shows, I received from the Senators of Iowa expressions of friendship -and kindness which I cannot forget. I have never thought of that -State except with kindness and respect. I have never alluded to that -State except with kindness and respect. I have made no allusion to -Iowa to-night. I have not had Iowa in my mind to-night. And, Sir, for -one good reason: it is my habit, when I speak, so far as I am able, -to speak directly to the question. Iowa has not been before us; her -constitution has not been under discussion; therefore I have had no -occasion to express any opinion upon it. - -But there is another constitution which has been before us, and on -which I have been asked to vote. On that constitution I express an -opinion. I say it contains an odious and offensive principle; and I -doubt if the Senator from Iowa would undertake to say that an exclusion -from rights on account of color would be properly characterized -otherwise than as odious and offensive. I did not know that the -constitution of Iowa was open to that objection, or at least it was -not in my mind, when I spoke; but I do know that the constitution of -Nebraska is open to that objection, and therefore I pronounce it odious -and offensive. It contains a disfranchisement of men on account of -color, and it is a little difficult to speak of that without losing -a little patience. It is difficult at this time, when we have such -great responsibilities with regard to the States lately in rebellion, -to look upon a candidate State like that of Nebraska, coming forward -with a constitution containing this principle of disfranchisement, -without the strongest disposition to use language which I do not want -to use,--language of the utmost condemnation. Such a constitution at -this moment from a new State does not deserve any quarter. Such a -constitution ought to be a hissing and a by-word; and I am at a loss -to understand how any Senator, at this time, not entirely insensible -to our great responsibilities with regard to the States lately in -rebellion, can look upon a new constitution like this except as a -hissing and a by-word. Sir, it is a shame to the people that bring it -here; and it will be a shame to Congress, if it gives it its sanction. -I use that language purposely, and I stand by it, even at the expense -of the criticism of the Senator from Iowa. - -But, in saying this, I intend no reflection upon Iowa. That State is -not before us. Iowa is not a new State, or Territory rather, applying -for admission; nor is it, thank God, a rebel State; but it is a true -loyal State, which in other days, some years ago, in haste and under -sinister influence, introduced words into its constitution which the -Senator from that State now brings forward in this Chamber, not for -condemnation, but from his tone I should suppose for praise. Sir, he -should rather follow another example, and throw a cover over that part -of the constitution of his State which is unworthy the civilization of -our times. - -I am sorry to have been led into these remarks. I was astonished that -the Senator should compel me to make them. When I go back to the -earlier days, I think that perhaps I might have expected other things -from a Senator of Iowa. - -And now, Sir, I come again to the question which in the opinion of -the Senator from Ohio is so trivial,--nothing more than a question of -_assumpsit_. - - MR. WADE. A common count in _assumpsit_. - -MR. SUMNER. A common count. - -… - - January 8th, after the holidays, the question was resumed, when - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -… - -But, Sir, the course of the Senate on this bill fills me with anxiety. -Since the unhappy perversity of the President, nothing has occurred -which seems to me of such evil omen. It passes my comprehension how -we can require Equal Rights in the Rebel States, when we deliberately -sanction the denial of Equal Rights in a new State, completely within -our jurisdiction and about to be fashioned by our hands. Others may -commit this inconsistency; I will not. Others may make the sacrifice; I -cannot. - -It seems as if Providence presented this occasion in order to give -you an easy opportunity of asserting a principle infinitely valuable -to the whole country. Only a few persons are directly interested; -but the decision of Congress now will determine a governing rule for -millions. Nebraska is a loyal community, small in numbers, formed out -of ourselves, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. In an evil hour -it adopted a constitution bad in itself and worse still as an example. -But neither the tie of blood nor the fellowship of party should be -permitted to save it from judgment. At this moment Congress cannot -afford to sanction such wrong. Congress must elevate itself, if it -would elevate the country. It must itself be the example of justice, if -it would make justice the universal rule. It must itself be the model -it recommends. It must begin Reconstruction here at home. - -With pain I differ from valued friends around me, and see a line of -duty which they do not see. Such is my deference to them, that, if the -question were less clear or less important, I should abandon my own -conclusions and accept theirs. But when the question is so plain and -duty so imperative, I have no alternative. - -Let me add, that, in taking the course I do, I have nothing but -friendly feelings for the Territory of Nebraska, or for the men she has -sent to represent her in the Senate. I wish to see Nebraska populous -and flourishing, and the home of Human Rights secured by irrevocable -law; and as for her Senators, I know them now so well that I shall have -peculiar pleasure in welcoming them on this floor. But there are voices -from Nebraska which I wish you to hear. - - Here Mr. Sumner read letters against the admission of Nebraska - with her present constitution, and then proceeded. - -In looking at this question, we are met at the threshold by the fact -that in a vote of nearly eight thousand there was a majority of only -one hundred in favor of this disreputable constitution.[48] At the -call of less than four thousand voters, you are to recognize a State -government which begins its independent life by defiance of fundamental -truths. I am at a loss to understand the grounds on which this can be -done, unless, in anxiety to gratify the desires of a few persons and -to welcome the excellent gentlemen from Nebraska, you are willing to -set aside great principles of duty at a critical moment of national -history. It is pleasant to be “amiable”; but you have no right to be -amiable at the expense of Human Rights. It is pleasant to be “lenient,” -as the Senator [Mr. WADE] who is urging this bill expresses it; but -take care, that, in lenity to this Territory, you are not unjust. There -can be no such thing as “lenity” where Human Rights are in question. - -The other Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] does not leave room for -discretion. He says we are bound by the Enabling Act passed some time -ago. Assume that the Senator is right, and that the Enabling Act -creates an obligation on the part of Congress,--all of which I deny,--I -insist that there has been no compliance with this Act, either in form -or substance. - -Looking at the Enabling Act, we find that it has not been complied -with in form. This can be placed beyond question. By this Act it -is provided that a “Convention” of the people of Nebraska shall be -chosen by the people, that the election for such “Convention” shall -be held on “the first Monday in June thereafter,” and that “the -members of the Convention thus elected shall meet at the capital of -said Territory on the first Monday in July next.” Now, in point of -fact, such Convention was duly chosen, and it met, according to the -provisions of the Enabling Act. Thus far all was right. But, after -meeting, it voluntarily adjourned or dissolved, without framing a -constitution. Afterward the Territorial Legislature undertook to do -what the Convention failed to do. The Territorial Legislature adopted -a constitution, and submitted it to the people; and this is the -constitution before you. Plainly there has been no compliance with the -Enabling Act, so far as it prescribes the proceedings for the formation -of a constitution. Nothing can be clearer than this. The Act prescribes -a Convention at a particular date. Instead of a Convention at the date -prescribed, we have the Legislature acting at a different date; so that -there is an open non-compliance with the prescribed conditions. It is -vain, therefore, to adduce it. As well refer to Homer’s Iliad or the -Book of Job. - -But the failure in substance is graver still. By the Enabling Act -it is further provided “that the constitution, when formed, shall be -republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States -and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” Here are -essential conditions which must be complied with. The constitution must -be “republican.” Now I insist always that a constitution which denies -Equality of Rights cannot be republican. It may be republican according -to the imperfect notions of an earlier period, or even according to -the standard of Montesquieu; but it cannot be republican in a country -which began its national life in disregard of received notions and the -standards of the past. In fixing for the first time an authoritative -definition of this requirement, you cannot forget the new vows to Human -Rights uttered by our fathers, nor can you forget that our republic is -an example to mankind. This is an occasion not to be lost of acting not -only for the present in time and place, but for the distant also. - -But there is another consideration, if possible, more decisive. I -say nothing now of the requirement that the new constitution shall be -“not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States,” but I call -attention to the positive condition that it must be “not repugnant to -the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” And yet, Sir, in -the face of this plain requirement, we have a new constitution which -disfranchises for color, and establishes what is compendiously called -“a white man’s government.” This new constitution sets at nought the -great principles that all men are equal and that governments stand on -the consent of the governed. Therefore, I say confidently, it is not -according to “the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” Is -this doubted? Can it be doubted? You must raze living words, you must -kill undying truths, before you can announce any such conformity. As -long as those words exist, as long as those truths shine forth in -that Declaration, you must condemn this new constitution. I remember -gratefully the electric power with which the Senator from Ohio [Mr. -WADE], not many years ago, confronting the representatives of Slavery, -bravely vindicated these principles as “self-evident truths.” “There -was a Brutus once that would have brooked the eternal Devil” as easily -as any denial of these. Would that he would speak now as then, and -insist on their practical application everywhere within the power of -Congress, and thus set up a wall of defence for the downtrodden! - -Thus the question stands. The Enabling Act has not been complied with -in any respect, whether of form or substance. In form it has been -openly disregarded; in substance it has been insulted. The failure in -form may be pardoned; the failure in substance must be fatal, unless in -some way corrected by Congress. - -Nobody doubts that Congress, in providing for the formation of a -State constitution, may affix conditions. This has been done from the -beginning of our history. Search the Enabling Acts, and you will find -these conditions. They are in your statute-book, constant witnesses to -the power of Congress, unquestioned and unquestionable. - -Thus, for instance, the Enabling Act for Nebraska requires three things -of the new State as conditions precedent. - -_First._ That Slavery shall be forever prohibited. - -_Secondly._ That no inhabitant shall be molested in person or property -on account of religious worship. - -_Thirdly._ That the unappropriated public lands shall remain at the -sole disposition of the United States, without being subject to local -taxation, and that land of non-residents shall never be taxed higher -than that of residents. - -Read the Act, and you will find these conditions. Does any Senator -doubt their validity? Impossible. - -But this is not all. In addition to these three conditions are three -others, which in order, if not in importance, stand even before these. -They are contained in words already quoted, but strangely forgotten in -this debate:-- - - “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and - not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the - principles of the Declaration of Independence.” - -Consider this clause: you will find it contains three conditions, each -of vital force. - -_First._ The constitution must be “republican.” It does not say “in -form” merely, but “republican”: of course “republican” in substance and -reality. - -_Secondly._ The constitution must be “not repugnant to the Constitution -of the United States.” But surely any constitution which contains -a discrimination of rights on account of color must be “repugnant” -to the Constitution of the United States, which contains no such -discrimination. The text of the National Constitution is blameless; but -the text of this new constitution is offensive. Hence its repugnancy. - -_Thirdly._ The constitution must be “not repugnant to the principles -of the Declaration of Independence.” These plain words allow no -equivocation. Solemnly you have required this just and noble -conformity. But is it not an insult to the understanding, when you -offer a constitution which contains a discrimination of rights on -account of color? - -Now in all these three requirements, so authoritatively made the -conditions of the new constitution, Nebraska fails, wretchedly fails. -It is vain to say that the people there were not warned. They were -warned. These requirements were in the very title-deed under which they -claim. - -Mr. President, pardon me, I entreat you, if I am tenacious. At this -moment there is one vast question in our country, on which all others -pivot. It is justice to the colored race. Without this I see small -chance of security, tranquillity, or even of peace. The war will still -continue. Therefore, as a servant of truth and a lover of my country, -I cannot allow this cause to be sacrificed or discredited by my vote. -Others will do as they please; but, if I stand alone, I will hold this -bridge. - - The persistence of Mr. Sumner was encountered by Mr. Wade, who - said:-- - - “I think it is the business of the statesman to overlook - these little small technicalities which gentlemen argue - about in this body. They make a great fuss about the word - ‘white’ in a constitution of a State where there are no - blacks,--where the question is a simple abstraction.” - - Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, dealt with the question of - Equality, but with pleasantry. - - “My honorable friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, is - six feet three inches in height, and weighs two hundred and - twenty pounds; I am six feet three inches in height, and - weigh one hundred and ninety pounds, if you please. That is - not equality. My honorable friend from Maine here is five - feet nine inches”---- - - MR. FESSENDEN. And a half. [_Laughter._] - - MR. COWAN. I beg the honorable Senator’s pardon. I would - not diminish his stature an inch or half an inch, nor take - a hair from his head; and he weighs one hundred and forty - pounds, if you please. Is that equality? The honorable - Senator from Massachusetts is largely learned; he has - traversed the whole field of human learning; there is - nothing, I think, that he does not know, that is worth - knowing,--and this is no empty compliment that I desire to - pay him now; and he is so much wiser than I am, that at the - last elections he divined exactly how they would result, - and I did not. [_Laughter._] He rode triumphantly upon the - popular wave; and I was overwhelmed, and came out with eyes - and nose suffused, and hardly able to gasp. - - MR. SUMNER. You ought to have followed my counsel. - - MR. COWAN. Why should I not? What was Providence doing - in that? If Providence had made me equal to the honorable - Senator, I should not have needed his counsel, and I should - have ridden, too, on the topmost wave. [_Laughter._] - - January 9th, the amendment of Mr. Gratz Brown was - rejected,--Yeas 8, Nays 24. The Senators voting in the - affirmative were Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Edmunds, of - Vermont, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, Mr. - Howe, of Wisconsin, Mr. Morgan, of New York, Mr. Poland, of - Vermont, and Mr. Sumner. - - Mr. Edmunds then moved the following amendment:-- - - “That this act shall take effect with the fundamental and - perpetual condition that within said State of Nebraska - there shall be no abridgment or denial of the exercise of - the elective franchise or of any other right to any person - by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed.” - - It will be observed that this differs from Mr. Sumner’s in - not requiring the submission of the fundamental condition to - the voters of the Territory. This amendment was lost by a - tie-vote,--Yeas 18, Nays 18. At the next stage of the bill, - being again moved by Mr. Edmunds, it was adopted,--Yeas 20, - Nays 18. The bill was then passed by the Senate,--Yeas 24, Nays - 15. - - * * * * * - - In the other House, the proviso adopted by the Senate was - changed, on motion of Mr. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, so as to - require that the Legislature of the State should by a solemn - public act declare consent to the fundamental condition, and - the bill was then passed,--Yeas 103, Nays 55. In this amendment - the Senate concurred. - - February 8th, the bill was again passed in the Senate, by a - two-thirds vote, over the veto of the President,--Yeas 31, - Nays 9; and February 9th, in the other House, by a two-thirds - vote,--Yeas 120, Nays 44. And so the bill became a law.[49] - Colorado was less fortunate.[50] - - * * * * * - - Thus the protracted struggle for Equal Rights in Nebraska, - establishing a fundamental condition, was crowned with success, - preparing the way for similar requirement in the Rebel States. - - - - -THE METRIC SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON TWO BILLS AND A JOINT RESOLUTION RELATING TO -THE METRIC SYSTEM, JULY 27, 1866. - - - May 18th, Mr. Sumner moved the appointment by the Chair of a - special committee of five, to which all bills and measures - relating to the metric system should be referred; and the - motion was agreed to. - - May 23d, the Chair appointed Mr. Sumner, Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, - Mr. Morgan, of New York, Mr. Nesmith, of Oregon, and Mr. - Guthrie, of Kentucky. Two bills and a joint resolution which - had passed the House of Representatives were referred to the - committee, and July 16th reported to the Senate by Mr. Sumner, - with the recommendation that they pass, namely:-- - - “A Bill to authorize the use of the metric system of - weights and measures.” - - “A Joint Resolution to enable the Secretary of the Treasury - to furnish to each State one set of the standard weights - and measures of the metric system.” - - “A Bill to authorize the use in post-offices of weights of - the denomination of grams.” - - July 27th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, these were taken up and - passed. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--At another time I might be induced to go into this -question at some length; but now, in these latter days of a weary -session, and under these heats, I feel that I must be brief. And yet -I could not pardon myself, if I did not undertake, even at this time, -to present a plain and simple account of the great change which is now -proposed. - -There is something captivating in the idea of weights and measures -common to all the civilized world, so that, in this at least, the -confusion of Babel may be overcome. Kindred is that other idea of one -money; and both are forerunners, perhaps, of the grander idea of one -language for all the civilized world. Philosophy does not despair of -this triumph at some distant day; but a common system of weights and -measures and a common system of money are already within the sphere of -actual legislation. The work has already begun; and it cannot cease -until the great object is accomplished. - -If the United States come tardily into the circle of nations -recognizing a common system of weights and measures, I confess that -I have pleasure in recalling the historic fact that at a very early -day this important subject was commended to Congress. Washington, in -a speech to the First Congress, touched the key-note, when he used -the word “uniformity” in connection with this subject. “Uniformity,” -he said, “in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States -is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly -attended to.”[51] Then again in a speech to the next Congress he went -further, in expressing a desire for “a standard at once _invariable and -universal_.”[52] Here he foreshadowed a system common to the civilized -world. It is for us now to recognize the standard he thus sententiously -described. All hail to a standard “invariable and universal”! - -I shall not occupy time in developing the history of these efforts -on the part of our Government; but I cannot forbear mentioning that -Mr. Jefferson, while Secretary of State, made an elaborate report, -where he proposed “reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio -already established in the coins, and thus bringing the calculation -of the principal affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man -who can multiply and divide plain numbers.”[53] Here is an essential -element in the common system we seek to establish. This was in 1790, -when France was just beginning those efforts which ended at last in -the establishment of the metric system. The subject was revived at -different times in Congress without definite result. President Madison, -in his annual message of 1816, called attention to it in the following -words:-- - - “The great utility of a standard _fixed in its nature - and founded on the easy rule of decimal proportions_ is - sufficiently obvious. It led the Government at an early stage - to preparatory steps for introducing it; and a completion of - the work will be a just title to the public gratitude.”[54] - -Out of this recommendation originated that call of the Senate which -drew forth the masterly report of John Quincy Adams on the whole -subject of weights and measures, where learning, philosophy, and -prophetic aspiration vie with each other. After reviewing whatever had -appeared in the past, and subjecting it all to careful examination, he -says of the French metric system, then only an experiment:-- - - “This system approaches to the ideal perfection of uniformity - applied to weights and measures, and, whether destined to - succeed or doomed to fail, will shed unfading glory upon the - age in which it was conceived and upon the nation by which its - execution was attempted and has been in part achieved.”[55] - -This was in 1821, when the metric system, already invented, was still -struggling for adoption in France. - -This brief sketch shows how from the beginning the National Government -has been looking to a system common to the civilized world. And now -this aspiration seems about to be fulfilled. The bills before you have -already passed the other House; if they become laws, as I trust, they -will be the practical commencement of the “new order.” - - * * * * * - -Before proceeding to explain the proposed system, let me exhibit for -one moment the necessity of change, as illustrated by weights and -measures in the past. - -Language is coeval with man as a social being. Weights and measures are -hardly less early in origin. They are essential to the operations of -society, and are naturally common to all who belong to the same social -circle. At the beginning, each people had a system of its own; but as -nations gradually intermingle and distant places are brought together -by the attractions of commerce, the system of one nation becomes -inadequate to the necessities of the composite body. A common system -becomes important just in proportion to the community of interests. -Next to diversity of languages, discordant weights and measures attest -the insulation of nations. - -The earliest measures were derived from the several parts of the -human body. Such was the cubit, which was the distance between the -elbow and the end of the middle finger, being about twenty-two inches. -Such also were the foot, the hand, the span, the nail, and the thumb. -These measures were derived from Nature, and they were to be found -wherever a human being existed. But they partook of the uncertainty in -the proportions of the human form. When Selden, in his “Table-Talk,” -wittily likened Equity, so far as it depended on the Chancellor, to a -measure determined by the length of the Chancellor’s foot, he exposed -not only the uncertainty of Equity, but also the uncertainty of such a -measure. - -Even in Greece, where Art prevailed in the most beautiful forms, the -famous _stadium_ was none the less uncertain. It was the distance that -Hercules could run without taking breath, being six hundred times the -length of his foot. - -Our own standards, derived from England, are of an equally fanciful -character. The unit of _length_ is the barley-corn, taken from the -middle of the ear and well dried. Three of these in a straight line -make an inch. The unit of _weight_ is a grain of wheat, taken, like -the barley-corn, from the middle of the ear and well dried. Of these, -twenty-four are equal to a pennyweight. Twenty pennyweights make an -ounce, and twelve ounces make a pound. The unit of _capacity_ is -derived from the weight of grains of wheat. Eight pounds of these make -one gallon of wine measure. - -Nor are the extreme vagueness and instability of these standards the -only surprise. There is no principle of science or convenience in the -progression of the different series. Thus we have two pints to a quart, -three scruples to a dram, four quarts to a gallon, five quarters to -an ell, five and a half yards to a perch, six feet to a fathom, eight -furlongs to a mile, twelve inches to a foot, sixteen ounces to a pound, -twenty units to a score. - -Then, as if the only ruling principle governing the selection were -discord, we have different measures bearing the same name, such as the -wine pint and the dry pint, the ounce Troy and the ounce avoirdupois. -Take these last two measures as illustrating the prevailing confusion. -Both seem to come from France. The Troy weight is supposed to derive -its name from the French town of Troyes, where a celebrated fair was -once held. The term “avoirdupois” is French, and seems to have been -part of a statute which declared how weights should be determined. But -Troy and avoirdupois are different measures. - -These measures, having constant differences, had accidental -differences also, in different parts of England, and also in different -parts of our own country. Even where the names are alike, the measures -are often unlike. In England the diversity was almost infinite, so that -these same measures differed in different counties, and sometimes in -different towns of the same county. Latterly in the United States the -standard has been regulated by law, but the confusion from the measures -still continues. The question naturally arises, why such confusion has -been allowed so long without correction. The answer is easy. Except -in rare instances, the triumphs of science are slow and gradual. -Traditional prejudice must be overcome. Each nation is attached to its -own imperfect system, as to its own language. Even though inferior -to another, it has the great advantage of being known to the people -that use it. To this constant impediment it is proper to add the -intrinsic difficulty of establishing a uniform system of weights and -measures which shall satisfy the demands of civilization in scientific -precision, in immediate practical applicability, and in nomenclature. - -Take, for instance, the application of the decimal system, which -seems at first sight simple and complete. It is unquestionably -an immense improvement on the old confusion; but even here we -encounter a difficulty in the circumstance, long since recognized -by mathematicians, that our scale of decimal arithmetic is more the -child of chance than of philosophy. I know not if any better reason -can be given for its adoption than because man has everywhere reckoned -by his ten fingers. On this account it is often called “natural.” -But, considering whether the number _ten_ possesses any intrinsic -excellence, convenience, or fitness, as a ratio of progression, good -authorities have answered in the negative. It is the duplication of -an odd number, which can furnish neither a square nor a cube, and -which cannot be halved without departure from the decimal scale. In -this scale we seem to see always those early days when “wild in woods -the noble savage ran,” and for arithmetic used fingers or toes. An -_octaval_ system, founded on the number eight, would have been better -adapted to the divisions of material things. Among us the decimal -system is adopted for money; but you all know that we are not able -to carry it into rigid practice. Thus convenience, if not necessity, -requires the half-dollar, the quarter-dollar, the half-dime, and the -three-cent piece. In fact, eight divisions to the dollar, as prevailed -in Spain, are more available in the business of life than the decimal -division. The number _eight_ is capable of indefinite bisection. The -progression beginning with two would proceed to four, eight, sixteen, -thirty-two, sixty-four, and so on. - -The decimal scale is made easy of use by the happy system of notation -borrowed from the Hindoos, which might be applied equally well to an -octaval scale; but at this time it would be vain to propose a change in -the radix of the numerical scale. The number _ten_ is the recognized -starting-point, and gives its name to the scale. It only remains for us -at present to follow other nations in applying it to an improved system -of weights and measures. - - * * * * * - -A system of weights and measures born of philosophy, rather than of -chance, is what we now seek. To this end old systems must be abandoned. -A chance system cannot be universal: science is universal; therefore -what is produced by science may find a home everywhere. If we consider -the proper elements or characteristics of such a system, we find at -least three essential conditions. First, the new system must have in -itself the assurance of unvarying stability, and, to this end, it -should be derived from some standard in Nature by which to correct -errors creeping into the weights and measures from time or imperfect -manufacture. Secondly, the parts should be divided decimally, as nearly -as practice will warrant, in conformity with our arithmetic. Thirdly, -it should be such as to disturb national prejudices as little as -possible. - -To a common observer the difficulties of finding an unvarying standard -are not readily apparent. But philosophy shows that all things in -Nature are undergoing change; so that there would seem to be no -invariable magnitude, the same in all countries and in all times, as -Cicero pictured the great principles of Natural Law,[56] by which -a lost standard on an inaccessible island might be reproduced with -mathematical certainty. There is but one magnitude in Nature which, so -far as we know, approximates to these requisites. I refer to the length -of the pendulum vibrating seconds, which in our latitude is about 39.1 -inches. This length, however, varies in travelling from the equator to -the pole, and it also varies slightly under different meridians and -the same latitude; but the law of variation has been determined with -considerable accuracy. One element in this variation is the difference -of temperature. In his report on weights and measures, Mr. Jefferson -proposed that we should find our standard in the pendulum. At the same -time, the French Government, just struggling to throw off ancestral -institutions, conceived the idea of a new system, which, founded in -science, should be common to the civilized world. - -The French began not only by discarding old systems, but also by -discarding a measure derived from the pendulum. They conceived the -idea of measuring an arc of the earth’s meridian, and finding a new -unit in a subdivision of this immense span. The work was undertaken. -An arc of the meridian, embracing upward of nine degrees of latitude, -and extending from Dunkirk, in France, to the Mediterranean, near -Barcelona, in Spain, was measured with scientific care. Illustrious -names in French science, Méchain and Delambre, were engaged in the -work, which proceeded, notwithstanding domestic convulsion and foreign -war. The Reign of Terror at home and invasion from abroad did not -arrest it. Seven years elapsed before the measurements were completed, -when other nations were invited to coöperate in the establishment of -the new system. - -The unit of measure was one ten-millionth part of the distance between -the equator and the north pole thus measured. It received the name -of _metre_, from the Greek, signifying _measure_. A bar of platinum, -representing this length, was prepared with all possible accuracy. This -bar was deposited in the archives of France as the perpetual standard. -Other bars have been copied from it and distributed throughout France -and in foreign countries. - -There is something transcendental in the idea of this measurement of -the earth in order to find a measure for daily life. It was an immense -undertaking. But the conception seems to have been vast rather than -practical. There is reason to believe, from later labors, that there -was a serious error in the work. Thus, the distance of 10,000,000 -metres from the equator to the north pole, established by the French -observers, is too small by 935 yards, according to Bessel,--by 1,410 -yards, according to Puissant,--and by 1,967 yards, according to -Chazallon. Sir John Herschell also testifies with the authority of his -great name against the accuracy of this result. If there be an error -such as is supposed, then the metre ceases to be what it was called -originally, one ten-millionth part of the distance from the equator to -the north pole. - -Even assuming that there is no error, and that the metre is precisely -what it purports to be, yet it is not easy to see how the artificial -standard can be corrected by recurrence to the standard in Nature. -The massive work originally undertaken will not be repeated. The -astronomers of France will not verify the accuracy of the bar of -platinum, which is the artificial standard, by another scientific -enterprise, requiring years for completion. Therefore, for all -practical purposes, the metre is really nothing else than a bar of -platinum with a certain length preserved in the archives of France. It -is not less arbitrary as a standard than the yard or foot, and it can -be perpetuated in practice only by distribution of exact copies from -the original bar, which is the assumed metre. - -I have thus explained the origin and character of the metre, because I -desire that the admirable system founded on it should be seen actually -as it is. To my mind, it gains nothing from the theory which presided -at its origin. Its unit is not to be regarded as a certain portion -of the distance between the equator and the north pole, but as an -artificial measure determined with peculiar care. Had the same or any -other unit been selected without measurement of the earth, the metric -system would not have been less beautiful or perfect. - - * * * * * - -Look now at the system. The metre, which is assumed to be one -ten-millionth part of the distance from the equator to the pole, is, -in fact, 39⅓ inches, or 39.37 inches, in length. It is especially -the unit of _length_; but it is also the unit from which are derived -all measures of weight and capacity, square or cubic. It is at once -foundation-stone and cap-stone. It is foundation-stone to all in the -ascending series, and cap-stone to all in the descending series. - -The unit of _surface measure_, or land measure, is the _are_, from the -Latin _area_, and is the square of ten metres, or, in other words, a -square of which each side is ten metres in length. - -The unit of _solid measure_ is the _stere_, from the Greek, and is the -cube of a metre, or, in other words, a solid mass one metre long, one -metre broad, and one metre high. - -The unit of _liquid measure_ is the _litre_, from the Greek, and is the -cube of the tenth part of the metre, which is the _decimetre_; or, in -other words, it is a vessel where by interior measurement each side and -the bottom are square _decimetres_. - -The unit of _weight_ is the _gram_, also derived from the Greek, -and is the one-thousandth part of the weight of a cubic litre of -distilled water at its greatest density,--this being just above the -freezing-point. - -Such are main elements of the metric system. But each of these has -multiples and subdivisions. It is multiplied decimally upward, and -divided decimally downward. The multiples are from the Greek. Thus, -_deca_, ten, _hecto_, hundred, _kilo_, thousand, and _myria_, ten -thousand, prefixed to _metre_, signify ten metres, one hundred metres, -one thousand metres, and ten thousand metres. The subdivisions are from -the Latin. Thus, _deci_, _centi_, _milli_, prefixed to _metre_, signify -one tenth, one hundredth, and one thousandth of a metre. All this -appears in the following table. - - Metric Denominations and Equivalents in Denominations - Values. in use. - - Myriametre, 10,000 metres, 6.2137 miles. - Kilometre, 1,000 metres, .62137 mile, or 3,280 feet and 10 inches. - Hectometre, 100 metres, 328 feet and 1 inch. - Decametre, 10 metres, 393.7 inches. - METRE, 1 metre, 39.37 inches. - Decimetre, ⅒ of a metre, 3.937 inches. - Centimetre, ¹⁄₁₀₀ of a metre, .3937 inch. - Millimetre, ¹⁄₁₀₀₀ of a metre, .0394 inch. - -These same prefixes may be applied in ascending and descending scales -to the are, the litre, and the gram. Thus, for example, we have -in the ascending scale, _deca_gram, _hecto_gram, _kilo_gram, and -_myria_gram,--and in the descending scale, _deci_gram, _centi_gram, -_milli_gram. - -In this brief space you behold the whole metric system of weights -and measures. What a contrast to the anterior confusion! A boy at -school can master the metric system in an afternoon. Months, if not -years, are required to store away the perplexities, incongruities, and -inconsistencies of the existing weights and measures, and then memory -must often fail in reproducing them. The mystery of compound arithmetic -is essential in the calculations they require. All this is done away by -the decimal progression, so that the first four rules of arithmetic are -ample for the pupil. - -Looking closely at the metric system, we must confess its simplicity -and symmetry. Like every creation of science, it is according to rule. -Master the rule and you master the system. On this account it may -be acquired by the young with comparative facility, and, when once -acquired, it may be used with despatch. Thus it becomes labor-saving -and time-saving. Among its merits I cannot hesitate to mention the -nomenclature. A superficial criticism has objected to the Greek and -Latin prefixes; but this forgets that a system intended for universal -adoption must discard all local or national terms. The prefixes -employed are equally intelligible in all countries. They are no more -French than English or German. They are common, or cosmopolitan, -and in all countries they are equally suggestive in disclosing the -denomination of the measure. They combine the peculiar advantages of -a universal name and a definition. The name instantly suggests the -measure with exquisite precision. If these words seem scholastic or -pedantic, you must bear this for the sake of their universality and -defining power. - -Unquestionably it is difficult for one generation to substitute a -new system for that learned in childhood. Even in France the metric -system was tardily adopted. Napoleon himself, on one occasion, said -impatiently to an engineer who answered his inquiry in metres, “What -are metres? Tell me in _toises_.” It was only in 1840 that the system -was definitely required in the transaction of business. Since then it -has been the legal system of France. Cloth is sold by the metre; roads -are measured by the kilometre; meat is sold by the kilogram, or, as it -is familiarly abridged, by so many _kilos_. - -It is generally admitted that the names are too long, although nobody -has been able to suggest substitutes, unless we regard the various -abridgments in that light. But no abridgment should be allowed to -sacrifice the cosmopolitan character which belongs to the system. Thus, -in England a nomenclature is proposed which would secure short names; -but these would be different in each language, and entirely different -from the French names. This is a mistake. The names in all languages -should be identical, or so nearly alike as to be recognized at once. -This may be accomplished by an abbreviated nomenclature. - -For instance, we may say _met_, _ar_, _lit_, and _gram_; and, in -describing the denomination, we may say, in the ascending scale, -_dec_, _hec_, _kil_, and in the descending scale, _dec_, _cen_, and -_mil_,--indicating respectively 10, 100, 1000, and ⅒, ¹⁄₁₀₀ and ¹⁄₁₀₀₀. -Compounding these, we should have, for example, _kilmet_, _killit_, -_kilgram_, and _cenmet_, _cenlit_, _cengram_. These abbreviations -might be substantially the same in all languages. They would preserve -the characteristics of the unabridged terms, so that the simple -mention of the measure, even in this abridged form, would disclose the -proportion it bears to its fellow-measures. Previous measures have been -represented by monosyllables, as grain, dram, gross, ounce, pound, -stone, ton. Where a word is often repeated, in the hurry of business, -it is instinctively abridged. We shall not err, if we profit by this -experience, and seek to reduce the new nomenclature to its smallest -proportions. - -Twelve words only are required by this system. Learning these, you -learn all. There are five designating the different units of length, -surface, solid capacity, liquid capacity, and weight. Then there are -the seven prefixes, being four in the ascending scale, expressing -_multiples_, or augmentations, of the metre or other units, derived -from the Greek, and three in the descending scale, expressing -subdivisions, or diminutions, of the metre and other units, derived -from the Latin. These twelve words contain the whole system. - -In closing this chapter on the unquestionable advantages of the metric -system, I must not forget that it is already the received system in the -majority of countries. At the Statistical Congress assembled at Berlin -in 1863, it appeared that it was adopted partly or entirely in Austria, -Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, France, Hamburg, Hanover, Hesse, Mecklenburg, -the Netherlands, Parma, Portugal, Sardinia, Saxony, Spain, Switzerland, -Tuscany, the Two Sicilies, and Würtemberg. Since then, Great Britain, -by an Act of Parliament, has added her name to this list. The first -step is taken there by making the metric system _permissive_, as is -proposed in the bills before Congress. The example of Great Britain is -of especial importance to us, since the commercial relations between -the two countries render it essential that these should have a common -system of weights and measures. On this point we cannot afford to -differ from each other. - -The adoption of the metric system by the United States will go far to -complete the circle by which this great improvement will be assured to -mankind. Here is a new agent of civilization, to be felt in all the -concerns of life, at home and abroad. It will be hardly less important -than the Arabic numerals, by which the operations of arithmetic -are rendered common to all nations. It will help undo the primeval -confusion of which the Tower of Babel was the representative. - -As the first practical step to this great end, I ask the Senate -to sanction the bills which have already passed the other House, -and which I have reported from the special committee on the metric -system. By these enactments the metric system will be presented to the -American people, and will become an approved instrument of commerce. -It will not be forced into use, but will be left for the present to -its own intrinsic merits. Meanwhile it must be taught in schools. Our -arithmetics must explain it. They who have already passed a certain -period of life may not adopt it; but the rising generation will embrace -it, and ever afterwards number it among the choicest possessions of an -advanced civilization. - - - - -ART IN THE NATIONAL CAPITOL. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH -VINNIE REAM FOR A STATUE OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, JULY 27, 1866. - - - July 27th, on the last evening of the session, while the - galleries were thronged, Mr. Conness, of California, called - for the consideration of the joint resolution, which had - already passed the House of Representatives, “authorizing a - contract with Vinnie Ream for a statue of Abraham Lincoln.” The - following incident then occurred. - - MR. SUMNER. Before that is taken up, I wish, with the - consent of the Senator, that I might be allowed to put a - joint resolution on its passage. - - MR. CONNESS. This will only occupy a moment. - - MR. SUMNER. It will be debated. - - MR. CONNESS. Not, if you do not debate it. - - MR. SUMNER. It must be debated. - - MR. CONNESS. Will you debate it? - - MR. SUMNER. I shall debate it. - - MR. CONNESS. Let the Senator debate it now. I shall not - give way, in that case. - - MR. SUMNER. I merely wish to put a joint resolution upon - its passage that will take no time. - - MR. CONNESS. That is asking too much. - - Mr. Chandler, of Michigan, then asked Mr. Conness “to give way - for a moment” to allow him to call up----Here he was arrested - by the answer, “I cannot give way to the Senator, after having - refused another Senator.” The joint resolution was then read:-- - - “_Resolved, &c._, That the Secretary of the Interior be, - and he hereby is, authorized and directed to contract with - Miss Vinnie Ream for a life-size model and statue of the - late President Abraham Lincoln, to be executed by her, - at a price not exceeding $10,000, one half payable on - completion of the model in plaster, and the remaining half - on completion of the statue in marble to his acceptance.” - - Mr. Lane, of Indiana, then moved to proceed with the pension - bills that had already passed the other House, and this motion, - after debate, prevailed,--Yeas 19, Nays 18. The pension bills - and other bills were then considered, when another effort was - made for the joint resolution. - - MR. WADE. I move to take up the joint resolution - authorizing a contract with Vinnie Ream for a statue of - Abraham Lincoln. - - MR. SUMNER. I hope that will not be taken up. - - SEVERAL SENATORS. Oh, let us vote. - - MR. SUMNER. Senators say, “Oh, let us vote.” The question - is about giving away $10,000. - - MR. CONNESS. Taking it up is not giving money away, I hope. - - MR. SUMNER. The question is, I say, about giving away - $10,000: that is the proposition involved in this joint - resolution. - - MR. CONNESS. For a statue. - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator says, “For a statue”: an impossible - statue, I say,--one which cannot be made. However, I say - nothing on the merits now; that will come at another time, - if the resolution is taken up. I ask for the yeas and nays - on the question of taking up. - - The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted, Yeas 26, - Nays 8. So the motion was agreed to, and the Senate, as in - committee of the whole, resumed the consideration of the joint - resolution. Mr. Sumner said:-- - -Some evenings ago, Sir, I attempted to secure an appropriation of -$10,000 for worthy public servants in one of the Departments of -the Government. In presenting that case, it was my duty to exhibit -something of their necessities. I showed you how the money was needed -by them to meet the expenses of living, which, as we all know, are -constantly increasing, while the value of money is decreasing. I -showed you also that they were entitled to this allowance by the -service they had performed. After ample discussion, extended through -several evenings, the Senate refused outright to appropriate $10,000 -for distribution among public servants who, I insisted, had earned it -by faithful labor. You acted on a sentiment of economy. It was urged, -that, considering the numerous and heavy draughts upon the Treasury, we -should not be justified in such allowance, and that, if it were made, -then we should be obliged to make it in other cases, and there would be -no end to the drain upon the Treasury. You all remember the fever of -economy that broke out, and also the result. The proposition was voted -down. - -Now, Sir, a proposition is brought forward to appropriate that -identical sum of $10,000 for a work of art. I speak of it in the most -general way. If there were any assurance that the work in question -could be worthy of so large a sum, if there were any reason to imagine -that the favorite who is to be the beneficiary under this resolution -were really competent to execute such a work, still, at this time and -under the circumstances by which we are surrounded, I might well object -to its passage, simply on reasons of economy. This argument is not out -of place. I present, then, as my first objection, the consideration of -economy. Do not, Sir, wastefully, inconsiderately, heedlessly give away -so much. If you are in the mood of appropriation on this scale, select -some of those public servants who have been discharging laborious -duties on an inadequate compensation, and bestow it upon them. Be just -before you are generous. Do this rather than become such sudden patrons -of art. I hope that I do not treat the question too gravely. You -treated the motion to augment compensation in the State Department very -gravely. I but follow your example. - -But, Sir, there is another aspect to which I allude, with your pardon. -I enter upon it with great reluctance. I am unwilling to utter a word -that would bear hard upon any one, least of all upon a youthful artist, -where sex imposes reserve, if not on her part, at least on mine; but -when a proposition like this is brought forward, I am bound to meet it -frankly. - -Each Senator will act on his own judgment and the evidence before -him. Each will be responsible to his own conscience for the vote he -gives. Now, Sir, with the little knowledge I have of such things, with -the small opportunities I have enjoyed of observing works of art, and -with the moderate acquaintance I have formed among artists, I am bound -to express a confident opinion that this candidate is not competent -to produce the work you propose to order. You might as well place her -on the staff of General Grant, or, putting him aside, place her on -horseback in his stead. She cannot do it. She might as well contract -to furnish an epic poem, or the draft of a bankrupt bill. I am pained -to be constrained into these remarks; but, when you press a vote, you -leave me no alternative. Admit that she may make a statue; she cannot -make one that you will be justified in placing here. Promise is not -performance; but what she has done thus far comes under the former head -rather than the latter. Surely this National Capitol, so beautiful -and interesting, and already historic, should not be opened to the -rude experiment of untried talent. Only the finished artist should be -admitted here. - -Sir, I doubt if you consider enough the character of the edifice in -which we are assembled. Possessing the advantage of an incomparable -situation, it is among the first-class structures of the world. -Surrounded by an amphitheatre of hills, with the Potomac at its feet, -it may remind you of the Capitol in Rome, with the Alban and the Sabine -hills in sight, and with the Tiber at its feet. But the situation is -grander than that of the Roman Capitol. The edifice itself is not -unworthy of the situation. It has beauty of form and sublimity in -proportion, even if it lacks originality in conception. In itself it -is a work of art. It should not receive in the way of ornamentation -anything which is not a work of art. Unhappily, this rule is too often -forgotten, or there would not be so few pictures and marbles about us -which we are glad to recognize. But bad pictures and ordinary marbles -warn us against adding to their number. - -Pardon me, if I call attention for one moment to the few works of -art in the Capitol which we might care to preserve. Beginning with -the Vice-President’s room, which is nearest, we find an excellent and -finished portrait of Washington, by Peale. This is much less known than -the familiar portrait by Stuart, but it is well worthy to be cherished. -I never enter that room without feeling its presence. Traversing the -corridors, we find ourselves in the spacious rotunda, where are four -pictures by Trumbull, truly historic in character, by which great -scenes live again before us. These works have a merit of their own -which will always justify the place they occupy. Mr. Randolph, with -ignorant levity, once characterized that which represents the signing -of the Declaration of Independence as a “shin-piece.” He should have -known that there is probably no picture, having so many portraits, -less obnoxious to such a gibe. If these pictures do not belong to -the highest art, they can never fail in interest for the patriot -citizen, while the artist will not be indifferent to them. One other -picture in the rotunda is not without merit: I refer to the Landing -of the Pilgrims, by Weir, where there is a certain beauty of color -and a religious sentiment: but this picture has always seemed to me -exaggerated, rather than natural. Passing from the rotunda to the House -of Representatives, we stand before a picture which, as a work of art, -is perhaps the choicest of all in the Capitol. It is the portrait of -Lafayette, by that consummate artist, who was one of the glories of -France, Ary Scheffer. He sympathized with our institutions; and this -portrait of the early friend of our country was a present from the -artist to the people of the United States. Few who look at it, by the -side of the Speaker’s chair, are aware that it is the production of -the rare genius which gave to mankind the Christus Consolator and the -Francesca da Rimini. - -Turning from painting to sculpture, we find further reason for -caution. The lesson is taught especially by that work of the Italian -Persico, on the steps of the Capitol, called by him Columbus, but -called by others “a man rolling nine-pins,”--for the attitude and the -ball he holds suggest this game. Near to this is a remarkable group -by Greenough, where the early settler is struggling with the savage; -while opposite in the yard is the statue of Washington by the same -artist, which has found little favor because it is nude, but which -shows a mastery of art. There also are the works of Crawford,--the -_alto-rilievo_ which fills the pediment over the great door of the -Senate Chamber, and the statue of Liberty which looks down from the top -of the dome,--attesting a genius that must always command admiration. -There are other statues, by a living artist. There are also the bronze -doors by Rogers, on which he labored long and well. They belong to a -class of which there are only a few specimens in the world, and I have -sometimes thought they might vie with those famous doors at Florence, -which Michel Angelo hailed as worthy to be the gates of Paradise. -Our artist has pictured the whole life of Columbus in bronze, while -portraits of contemporary princes, and of great authors who have -illustrated the life of the great discoverer, add to the completeness -of this artistic work. - -Now, Sir, the chambers of the Capitol are to open again for the -reception of a work of art. It is to be the statue of our martyred -President. He deserves a statue, and it should be here in Washington. -But you cannot expect to have, even of him, more than one statue -here in Washington. Such a repetition or reduplication would be out -of place. It would be too much. There is one statue of Washington. -There is also a statue of Jefferson: I refer to the excellent statue -in front of the Executive Mansion, by the French sculptor, David. -There is also one statue of Jackson. It is now proposed to add a -statue of Lincoln. I suppose you do not contemplate two statues, or -three, but only one. Who now shall make that one, to find hospitality -in the National Capitol? Surely, whoever undertakes the work must -be of ripe genius, with ample knowledge of art, and of unquestioned -capacity,--the whole informed and inspired by a prevailing sympathy -with the martyr and the cause for which he lived and died. Are you -satisfied that this youthful candidate, without ripeness of genius or -ample knowledge of art or unquestioned capacity, and not so situated -as to feel the full inspiration of his life and character, should -receive this remarkable trust? She has never made a statue. Shall she -experiment on the historic dead, and place her attempt under this dome? -I am unwilling. When the statue of that beloved President is set up -here, where we shall look upon it daily, and gather from it courage and -consolation, I wish it to be a work of art in truth and reality, with -living features animated by living soul, so that we shall all hail it -as the man immortal by his life, doubly immortal through art. Anything -short of this, even if through your indulgence it finds a transient -resting-place here, will be removed whenever a correct taste asserts -its just prerogative. - -Therefore, Sir, for the sake of economy, that you may not heedlessly -lavish the national treasure,--for the sake of this Capitol, itself a -work of art, that it may not have anything in the way of ornamentation -which is not a work of art,--for the sake of the martyred President, -whose statue should be by a finished artist,--and for the sake of -art throughout the whole country, that we may not set a pernicious -example,--I ask you to reject this resolution. When I speak for art -generally, I open a tempting theme; but I forbear. Suffice it to say -that art throughout the whole country must suffer, if Congress crowns -with its patronage anything which is not truly artistic. By such -patronage you will discourage where you ought to encourage. - -Mr. President, I make these remarks with sincere reluctance; I am -distressed in making them; but such an appropriation, engineered so -vigorously, and having in its support such a concerted strength, must -be met plainly and directly. Do not condemn the frankness you compel. -If you wish to bestow a charity or a gift, do it openly, without -pretence of any patronage bestowed upon art, or pretence of homage to a -deceased President. Bring forward your resolution appropriating $10,000 -to this youthful candidate. This I can deal with. I can listen to your -argument for charity, and I assure you that I shall never be insensible -to it. But when you propose this large sum for a work of art in the -National Capitol in memory of the illustrious dead, I am obliged to -consider the character of the artist. I wish it were otherwise, but I -cannot help it. - - The remarks of Mr. Sumner were opposed by Mr. Nesmith, of - Oregon, Mr. McDougall and Mr. Conness, of California, Mr. - Yates and Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, and - Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania. In the course of the debate, Mr. - Edmunds, of Vermont, moved an amendment, requiring, that, - before the first instalment of $5,000 should be paid, the model - should be to the “acceptance” of the Secretary of the Interior. - On this motion Mr. Sumner spoke again. - -I think this amendment had better be adopted. It is only a reasonable -precaution. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE] alluded to a contract -with Mr. Stone. He is a known sculptor, whose works are at the very -doors of the Senate Chamber. The committee who employed him must -have been perfectly aware of his character. When they entered into a -contract with him, there was no element of chance; they knew what they -were contracting for. But in the present case there is nothing but -chance, if there be not the certainty of failure. - - MR. CONNESS. How was it in the case of Mr. Powell? - -MR. SUMNER. I am speaking of the present case. One at a time, if you -please. The person that you propose to contract with notoriously has -never made a statue. All who have the most moderate acquaintance with -art know that it is one thing to make a bust and quite another to make -a statue. One may make a bust and yet be entirely unable to make a -statue,--just as one may write a poem in the corner of a newspaper and -not be able to produce an epic. A statue is art in one of its highest -forms. There have been very few artists competent to make a statue. -There is as yet but one instance that I recall of a woman reasonably -successful in such an undertaking. But the eminent and precocious -person to whom I refer had shown a peculiar genius very early in life, -had enjoyed the rarest opportunities of culture, and had vindicated her -title as artist before she attempted this difficult task. Conversing, -as I sometimes have, with sculptors, I remember how they always dwell -upon the difficulty of such a work. It is no small labor to set a -man on his legs, with proper drapery and accessories, in stone or in -bronze. Not many have been able to do it, and all these had already -experience in art. Now there is no such experience here. Notoriously -this candidate is without it. There is no reason to suppose that she -can succeed. Therefore the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] is wise, -when he proposes, that, before the nation pays $5,000 on account, it -shall have some assurance that the work is not absolutely a failure. -Voltaire was in the habit of exclaiming, in coarse Italian words, -that “a woman cannot produce a tragedy.” In the face of what has been -accomplished by Miss Hosmer, I do not venture on the remark that a -woman cannot produce a statue; but I am sure that in the present case -you ought to take every reasonable precaution. Anything for this -Capitol must be “above suspicion.” - -Sir, I did not intend, when I rose, to say anything except directly -upon the motion of the Senator from Vermont; but, as I am on the floor, -perhaps I may be pardoned, if I advert for one moment---- - - MR. HOWE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him one question, - for information? - - MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. HOWE. It is, whether he supposes that by the examination - of a plaster model he could get any assurance that the work in - marble would be satisfactory. - -MR. SUMNER. Obviously; for the chief work of the artist is in the -model. When this is done, the work is more than half done,--almost all -done. What remains requires mechanical skill rather than genius. In -Italy, where are accomplished workmen in marble, the artist leaves his -model in their hands, contenting himself with a few finishing strokes -of the chisel. Sometimes he does not touch the marble. - -I was about to say, when interrupted, that I hoped to be pardoned, if -I adverted for one moment to the onslaught made upon what I have said -in this debate. I do not understand it. I do not know why Senators have -given such rein to the passion for personality. I made no criticism on -any Senator, and no allusion, even, to any Senator. I addressed myself -directly to the question, and endeavored to treat it with all the -reserve consistent with proper frankness. Senators, one after another, -have attacked me personally. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. NESMITH] -seemed to riot in the business. The Senator from California [Mr. -CONNESS], from whom I had reason to expect something better, caught the -spirit of the other Pacific Senator. Sir, there was nothing in what I -said to justify such attack. But I will not proceed in the comments -their speeches invite; I turn away. There was, however, one remark of -the Senator from Oregon to which I will refer. He complained that I was -unwilling to patronize native art, and that I dwelt on the productions -of foreign artists to the disparagement of our own. - -I am at a loss for the motive of this singular misrepresentation. -Let the Senator quote a sentence or word which fell from me in -disparagement of native art. He cannot. I know the art of my country -too well, and think of it with too much of patriotic pride. I alluded -to only one foreign artist, and he was that sympathetic and gifted -Frenchman who has endowed the Capitol with the portrait of Lafayette. -The other artists that I praised were all of my own country. There -was Rembrandt Peale, of Philadelphia, to whom we are indebted for -the portrait of Washington. There was Trumbull, the companion of -Washington, and one of his military staff, who, quitting the toils -of war, gave himself to painting, under the inspiration of West, -himself an American, and produced works which I pronounced the chief -treasure of the rotunda. There also was Greenough, the earliest -American sculptor, and, until Story took the chisel, unquestionably -the most accomplished of all in the list of American sculptors. He was -a scholar, versed in the languages of antiquity and modern times, who -studied the art he practised in the literature of every tongue. Of him -I never fail to speak in praise. There also was Crawford, an American -sculptor, born in New York, and my own intimate personal friend, -whose early triumphs I witnessed and enjoyed. He was a true genius, -versatile, fertile, bold. His short life was crowned by the honors -of his profession, and he was hailed at home and abroad as a great -sculptor. How can I speak of this friend of my early life except with -admiration and love? I alluded also to Rogers, an American artist, from -the West,--yes, Sir, from the West---- - - MR. HOWARD. Who was educated in Michigan. - -MR. SUMNER. Educated in Michigan,--who has given to his country and to -art those bronze doors, which I did not hesitate to compare with the -immortal doors of Ghiberti in the Baptistery of Florence. These, Sir, -were the artists to whom I referred, and such was the spirit in which -I spoke. How, then, can any Senator complain that I praised foreign -artists at the expense of artists at home? The remark, permit me to -say, is absolutely without foundation. - -It is because I would not have the art of my own country suffer, and -because I would have its honors follow merit, that I oppose the largess -you offer. If you really wish to set up a statue of our martyred -President, select an acknowledged sculptor of your own country. Do not -go to a foreigner, and do not go to the unknown. There are sculptors -born among us and already famous. Take one of them. There is Powers, an -artist of rarest skill with the chisel, of exquisite finish,--perhaps -with less variety and freshness than some other artists, perhaps -with less originality, but having in himself many and peculiar -characteristics as a remarkable artist. Summon him. He has been tried. -Contracting with him, you know in advance that you will have a statue -not entirely unworthy of the appropriation or of the place. - -There is another sculptor of our country, whom I should name first of -all, if I were to express freely my unbiased choice: I mean Story. -He is the son of the great jurist, and began life with his father’s -mantle resting upon him. His works of jurisprudence are quoted daily -in your courts. He is also a man of letters. His contributions to -literature in prose and verse are in your libraries. To these he adds -unquestioned fame as sculptor. In the great exhibitions of Europe his -Cleopatra and his Saul have been recognized as equal in art to the best -of our time, and in the opinion of many as better than the best. He -brings to sculpture not only the genius of an artist, but scholarship, -literature, study, and talent of every kind. Take him. Let his name be -associated with the Capitol by a statue which I am sure will be the -source of national pride and honor. - -I might mention other sculptors of our country already known, and -others giving assurance of fame. My friend who sits beside me, the -distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. MORGAN], very properly -reminds me of the sculptor who does so much honor to his own State. -Palmer has a beautiful genius, which he has cultivated for many years -with sedulous care. He has experience. The seal of success is upon -his works. Let him make your statue. There is still another artist, -whose home is New York, whom I would not forget: I refer to Brown, -author of the equestrian statue of Washington in New York. Of all -equestrian statues in our country this is the best, unless Crawford’s -statue at Richmond is its rival. It need not shrink from comparison -with equestrian statues in the Old World. The talent that could -seat the great chief so easily in that bronze saddle ought to find -welcome in this Capitol. There are yet other sculptors; but I confine -my enumeration to those who have done something more than promise -excellence. And now you turn from this native talent, already famous, -to offer a difficult and honorable duty to an untried person, whose -friends can claim for her nothing more than the uncertain promise of -such excellence in sculpture as is consistent with the condition of her -sex. Sir, I will not say anything more. - - The amendment of Mr. Edmunds was voted down,--Yeas 7, Nays - 22,--and the joint resolution passed the Senate,--Yeas 23, Nays - 9.[57] - - * * * * * - - It was understood that the fair artist had received promises of - support from Senators in advance. The spirit of the debate on - their part belongs to the history of the case. Mr. Nesmith, of - Oregon, said:-- - - “Mr. President, if this was a mere matter of research, I - should be very much inclined to defer to the judgment of - the Senator from Massachusetts; but, as it is not, and as - it requires no great learning, no particular devotion to - reading, to discover what is an exact imitation of Nature, - I claim that my judgment on such a subject is as good as - his own.… He objects to this young artist,--this young - scion of the West, from the same land from which Lincoln - came,--a young person who manifests intuitive genius, and - who is able to copy the works of Nature without having - perused the immense tomes and the grand volumes of which - the Senator may boast,--a person who was born and raised in - the wilds of the West, and who is able to copy its great - works.” - - And much more in a worse vein. - - * * * * * - - Mr. Conness, of California, adopted another style:-- - - “And my idea of the great Senator from Massachusetts (by - which name I am very proud to call him, and which is so - well deserved) is, that he is never so great as when he - rises and speaks in behalf of generosity, of humanity, - when he exhibits to us the intellect and the affections in - that happy commingling that is the sweetest and the most - beautiful rule of human life and action.” - - Mr. Yates, of Illinois, bore his testimony:-- - - “I almost feel that the Senator from Massachusetts is a - barbarian [_laughter_] of the highest order, in attacking - this young lady.” - - Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, said:-- - - “I have the highest respect for the opinions of my friend - from Massachusetts upon all classical subjects, and - particularly upon those which relate to most of the fine - arts; but in statuary I propose to follow the lead of my - honorable friend from Ohio [Mr. WADE], who I think is - infinitely superior.” [_Laughter._] - - On the other hand, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, said:-- - - “I know, perhaps, as much of the ability of the young lady - to whom it is proposed to give this job as most members - of this body. I have met her frequently, as other members - of this body have done; and surely she has shown no lack - of that peculiar talent known commonly as ‘lobbying,’ in - pressing forward her enterprise and bringing it to the - attention of Senators.” - - The statue was made. Mr. Delano, Secretary of the Interior, - in a communication addressed to the Vice-President, January - 10, 1871, reports: “The statue in marble has been completed - to my entire satisfaction, and I have this day instructed - the architect of the Capitol to take charge of it.”[58] The - feelings of artists found expression in words of Hiram Powers, - the eminent American sculptor, at Florence, which appeared in - the New York _Evening Post_:-- - - “I suppose that you, as well as all other well-wishers for - art in our country, have been mortified, if not really - disgusted, at the success of the Vinnie Ream statue of our - glorious old Lincoln. An additional five thousand dollars - paid for this caricature! ---- ---- was bad enough; but - this last act of Congress, in favor of a female lobby - member, who has no more talent for art than the carver of - weeping-willows on tombstones, really fills the mind of the - genuine student of art (who thinks that years of profound - study of art as a science are necessary) with despair.” - - - - -THE ONE MAN POWER _vs._ CONGRESS. - -THE PRESENT SITUATION. - -ADDRESS AT THE OPENING OF THE ANNUAL LECTURES OF THE PARKER -FRATERNITY, AT THE MUSIC HALL, BOSTON, OCTOBER 2, 1866. - - -ADDRESS. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--More than a year has passed since I last had the -honor of addressing my fellow-citizens of Massachusetts. I then dwelt -on what seemed the proper policy towards the States recently in -rebellion,--insisting that it was our duty, while renouncing Indemnity -for the past, to obtain at least Security for the future; and this -security, I maintained, could be found only in exclusion of ex-Rebels -from political power, and in irreversible guaranties especially -applicable to the national creditor and the national freedman.[59] -During intervening months, the country has been agitated by this -question, which was perplexed by unexpected difference between the -President and Congress. The President insists upon installing ex-Rebels -in political power, and sets at nought the claim of guaranties and -the idea of security for the future, while he denies to Congress any -control over the question, taking it all to himself. Congress asserts -control, and endeavors to exclude ex-Rebels from political power and -establish guaranties, to the end that there may be security for the -future. Meanwhile the States recently in rebellion, with the exception -of Tennessee, are without representation. Thus stands the case. - -The two parties are the President, on the one side, and the people of -the United States in Congress assembled, on the other side,--the first -representing the Executive, the second representing the Legislative. -It is _The One Man Power_ vs. _Congress_. Of course, each performs -its part in the government; but until now it has always been supposed -that the legislative gave law to the executive, and not that the -executive gave law to the legislative. This irrational assumption -becomes more astonishing, when it is considered that the actual -President, besides being the creature of circumstance, is inferior in -ability and character, while the House of Representatives is eminent -in both respects. A President who has already sunk below any other -President, even James Buchanan, madly undertakes to rule a House of -Representatives which there is reason to believe is the best that -has sat since the formation of the Constitution. Looking at the two -parties, we are tempted to exclaim, Such a President dictating to such -a Congress! It was said of Gustavus Adolphus, that he drilled the Diet -of Sweden to vote or be silent at the word of command; but Andrew -Johnson is not Gustavus Adolphus, and the American Congress is not the -Diet of Sweden. - - * * * * * - -The question at issue is one of the vastest ever presented for -practical decision, involving the name and weal of the Republic at -home and abroad. It is not a military question; it is a question of -statesmanship. We are to secure by counsel what was won by war. Failure -now will make the war itself a failure; surrender now will undo all -our victories. Let the President prevail, and straightway the plighted -faith of the Republic will be broken,--the national creditor and the -national freedman will be sacrificed,--the Rebellion itself will flaunt -its insulting power,--the whole country, in length and breadth, will -be disturbed,--and the Rebel region will be handed over to misrule -and anarchy. Let Congress prevail, and all this will be reversed: the -plighted faith of the Republic will be preserved; the national creditor -and the national freedman will be protected; the Rebellion itself will -be trampled out forever; the whole country, in length and breadth, will -be at peace; and the Rebel region, no longer harassed by controversy -and degraded by injustice, will enjoy the richest fruits of security -and reconciliation. To labor for this cause may well tempt the young -and rejoice the old. - -And now, to-day, I again protest against any present admission of -ex-Rebels to the great partnership of this Republic, and I renew -the claim of irreversible guaranties, especially applicable to the -national creditor and the national freedman,--insisting now, as I did -a year ago, that it is our duty, while renouncing Indemnity for the -past, to obtain at least Security for the future. At the close of a -terrible war, wasting our treasure, murdering our fellow-citizens, -filling the land with funerals, maiming and wounding multitudes whom -Death had spared, and breaking up the very foundations of peace, our -first duty is to provide safeguards for the future. This can be only -by provisions, sure, fundamental, and irrepealable, fixing forever -the results of the war, the obligations of the Government, and the -equal rights of all. Such is the suggestion of common prudence and of -self-defence, as well as of common honesty. To this end we must make -haste slowly. States which precipitated themselves out of Congress must -not be permitted to precipitate themselves back. They must not enter -the Halls they treasonably deserted, until we have every reasonable -assurance of future good conduct. We must not admit them, and then -repent our folly. The verses in which the satirist renders the quaint -conceit of the old Parliamentary orator, verses revived by Mr. Webster, -and on another occasion used by myself, furnish the key to our duty:-- - - “I hear a lion in the lobby roar: - Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door, - And keep him there? or shall we let him in, - To try if we can turn him out again?”[60] - -I am against letting the monster in, until he is no longer terrible in -mouth or paw. - - * * * * * - -But, while holding this ground of prudence, I desire to disclaim every -sentiment of vengeance or punishment, and also every thought of delay -or procrastination. Here I do not yield to the President, or to any -other person. Nobody more anxious than I to see this chasm closed -forever. - -There is a long way and a short way. There is a long time and a -short time. If there be any whose policy is for the longest way or -for the longest time, I am not of the number. I am for the shortest -way, and also for the shortest time. And I object to the interference -of the President, because, whether intentionally or unintentionally, -he interposes delay and keeps the chasm open. More than all others, -the President, by officious assumptions, has lengthened the way and -lengthened the time. Of this there can be no doubt. - -From all quarters we learn that after the surrender of Lee the Rebels -were ready for any terms, if they could escape with life. They were -vanquished, and they knew it. The Rebellion was crushed, and they -knew it. They hardly expected to save a small fraction of property. -They did not expect to save political power. They were too sensible -not to see that participants in rebellion could not pass at once -into the copartnership of government. They made up their minds to -exclusion. They were submissive. There was nothing they would not do, -_even to the extent of enfranchising the freedmen and providing for -them homesteads_. Had the National Government taken advantage of this -plastic condition, it might have stamped Equal Rights upon the whole -people, as upon molten wax, while it fixed the immutable conditions of -permanent peace. The question of Reconstruction would have been settled -before it arose. It is sad to think that this was not done. Perhaps in -all history there is no instance of such an opportunity lost. Truly -should our country say in penitential supplication, “We have left -undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those -things which we ought not to have done.” - -Do not take this on my authority. Listen to those on the spot, who -have seen with their own eyes. A brave officer of our army writes from -Alabama:-- - - “I believe the mass of the people could have been easily - controlled, if none of the excepted classes had received - pardon. These classes did not expect anything more than life, - and even feared for that. Let me condense the whole subject. At - the surrender, the South could have been moulded at will; but - it is now as stiff-necked and rebellious as ever.” - -In the same vein another officer testifies from Texas:-- - - “There is one thing, however, that is making against the speedy - return of quietness, not only in this State, but throughout - the entire South, _and that is the Reconstruction policy of - President Johnson_. It is doing more to unsettle this country - than people who are not practical observers of its workings - have any idea of. Before this policy was made known, the people - were prepared to accept anything. They expected to be treated - as rebels,--their leaders being punished, and the property - of others confiscated. But the moment it was made known, all - their assurance returned. Rebels have again become arrogant and - exacting; Treason stalks through the land unabashed.” - -This testimony might be multiplied indefinitely. From city and country, -from highway and by-way, there is but one voice. When, therefore, the -President, in opprobrious terms, complains of Congress as interposing -delay, I reply to him: “No, Sir, it is you, who, by unexpected and -most perverse assumption, have put off the glad day of security and -reconciliation, so much longed for. It is you who have inaugurated anew -that malignant sectionalism, which, so long as it exists, will keep the -Union divided in fact, if not in name. Sir, you are the Disunionist.” - - * * * * * - -Glance, if you please, at that Presidential policy--so constantly -called “my policy”--now so vehemently pressed upon the country, and you -will find that it pivots on at least two alarming blunders, as can be -easily seen: _first_, in setting up the One Man Power as the source of -jurisdiction over this great question; and, _secondly_, in using the -One Man Power for the restoration of Rebels to place and influence, -so that good Unionists, whether white or black, are rejected, and the -Rebellion itself is revived in the new governments. Each of these -assumptions is an enormous blunder. You see that I use a mild term to -characterize such a double-headed usurpation. - - * * * * * - -Pray, Sir, where in the Constitution do you find any sanction of the -One Man Power as source of this extraordinary jurisdiction? I had -always supposed that the President was the Executive,--bound to see -the laws faithfully executed, but not empowered to make laws. The -Constitution expressly says: “The Executive power shall be vested in -a President of the United States of America.” But the Legislative -power is elsewhere. According to the Constitution, “All Legislative -powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United -States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” -And yet the President has assumed legislative power, even to the -extent of making laws and constitutions for States. You all know, -that, at the close of the war, when the Rebel States were without -lawful governments, he assumed to supply them. In this business of -Reconstruction he assumed to determine who should vote, and also to -affix conditions for adoption by the conventions. Look, if you please, -at the character of this assumption. The President, from the Executive -Mansion at Washington, reaches his long executive arm into certain -States and dictates constitutions. Surely here is nothing executive; it -is not even military. It is legislative, pure and simple, and nothing -else. It is an attempt by the One Man Power to do what can be done -only by the legislative branch of Government. And yet the President, -perversely absorbing to himself all power over the reconstruction of -the Rebel States, insists that Congress must accept his work without -addition or subtraction. He can impose conditions: Congress cannot. He -can determine who shall vote: Congress cannot. His jurisdiction is not -only complete, but exclusive. If all this be so, then has our President -a most extraordinary power, never before dreamed of. He may exclaim, -with Louis the Fourteenth, “The State, it is I,” while, like this -magnificent king, he sacrifices the innocent, and repeats that fatal -crime, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. His whole “policy” is -“revocation” of all that has been promised and all we have a right to -expect. - -Here it is well to note a distinction, not without importance in -the issue between the President and Congress. Nobody doubts that -the President may, during war, govern any conquered territory as -commander-in-chief, and for this purpose detail any military officer as -military governor. But it is one thing to govern a State temporarily by -military power, and quite another thing to create a constitution for -a State which shall continue _when the military power has expired_. -The former is a military act, and belongs to the President; the -latter is a civil act, and belongs to Congress. On this distinction -I stand; and this is not the first time that I have asserted it. Of -course, governments set up in this illegitimate way are necessarily -illegitimate, except so far as they acquire validity from time or -subsequent recognition. It needs no learned Chief Justice of North -Carolina solemnly to declare this. It is manifest from the nature of -the case. - -But this illegitimacy becomes still more manifest, when it is known -that the constitutions which the President orders and tries to cram -upon Congress have never been submitted to popular vote. Each is the -naked offspring of an illegitimate convention called into being by the -President, in the exercise of illegitimate power. - -There is another provision of the Constitution, by which, according to -a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, this question -is referred to Congress, and not to the President. I refer to the -provision that “_the United States_ shall guaranty to every State in -this Union a republican form of government.” On these words Chief -Justice Taney, speaking for the Supreme Court, has adjudged, that -“it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established -one in a State; for, as _the United States_ guaranty to each State -a republican government, _Congress must necessarily decide what -government is established in the State_, before it can determine -whether it is republican or not”; and that “unquestionably a military -government established as the permanent government of the State would -not be a republican government, and it would be the duty of Congress -to overthrow it.”[61] But the President sets at nought this commanding -text, reinforced by the positive judgment of the Supreme Court, and -claims this extraordinary power for himself, to the exclusion of -Congress. He is “the United States.” In him the Republic is manifest. -He can do all; Congress nothing. - -And now the whole country is summoned by the President to recognize -State governments created by constitutions thus illegitimate in origin -and character. Without considering if they contain the proper elements -of security for the future, or if they are republican in form, and -without any inquiry into the validity of their adoption,--nay, in -the very face of testimony showing that they contain no elements of -security for the future, that they are not republican in form, and that -they have never been adopted by the loyal people,--we are commanded -to accept them; and when we hesitate, the President, himself leading -the outcry, assails us with angry vituperation, blunted, it must be -confessed, by coarseness without precedent and without bound. It is -well that such a cause has such an advocate. - -Thus setting up the One Man Power as a source of jurisdiction, the -President has committed a blunder of Constitutional Law, proceeding -from an immense egotism, in which the little pronoun “I” plays a -gigantic part. It is “_I_” vs. _The People of the United States in -Congress assembled_. On this unnatural blunder I might say more; but I -have said enough. My present purpose is accomplished, if I make you see -it clearly. - - * * * * * - -The other blunder is of a different character. It is giving present -power to ex-Rebels, at the expense of constant Unionists, white or -black, and employing them in the work of Reconstruction, so that the -new governments continue to represent the Rebellion. This same blunder, -when committed by one of the heroes of the war, was promptly overruled -by the President himself; but Andrew Johnson now does what Sherman was -not allowed to do. The blunder is strange and unaccountable. - -Here the evidence is constant and cumulative. It begins with his -proclamation for the reconstruction of North Carolina. Holden was -appointed Provisional Governor,--an officer unknown to law, and for -whom there was no provision,--although it was notorious that he had -been a member of the Convention which adopted the Act of Secession, -and that he signed it. Then came Perry, Provisional Governor of South -Carolina, who, besides holding a judicial station under the Rebel -Government, was one of its Commissioners of Impressments. I have a -Rebel newspaper containing one of his advertisements in the latter -character. There also was Parsons, Provisional Governor of Alabama, -who in 1863 introduced into the Legislature of that State formal -resolutions tendering to Jefferson Davis “hearty thanks for his good -labors in the cause of our common country, together with the assurance -of continued support,”--and afterwards, in 1864, denounced our national -debt, exclaiming in the Legislature: “Does any sane man suppose we -will consent to pay their [the United States] war debt, contracted in -sending armies and navies to burn our towns and cities, to lay waste -our country,--whose soldiers have robbed and murdered our peaceful -inhabitants?” Such were the agents appointed by the President to -institute loyal governments. But this selection becomes more strange -and unaccountable, when it is considered that all this was done in -defiance of law. - -There is a recent enactment of Congress requiring that no person shall -be appointed to any office of the United States, unless such office has -been created by law.[62] And there is another enactment of Congress, -providing that all officers, civil or military, before entering -upon their official duties or receiving any salary or compensation, -shall take an oath declaring that they have held no office under the -Rebellion or given any aid thereto.[63] In face of these enactments, -which are sufficiently explicit, the President began his work of -Reconstruction by appointing civilians to an office absolutely unknown -to law, when besides they could not take the required oath of office; -and to complete the disregard of Congress, he fixed their salary, and -paid it out of the funds of the War Department. - -Of course such proceeding was an instant encouragement and license to -all ex-Rebels, no matter how much blood was on their hands. Rebellion -was at a premium. It was easy to see, that, if these men were good -enough to be governors of States, in defiance of Congress, all others -in the same political predicament would be good enough for inferior -offices. And it was so. From top to bottom these States were organized -by men who had been warring on their country. Ex-Rebels were appointed -by the governors or chosen by the people everywhere. Ex-Rebels sat in -Conventions and in Legislatures. Ex-Rebels became judges, justices -of the peace, sheriffs, and everything else,--while the faithful -Unionist, white or black, was rejected. As with Cordelia, his love -was “according to his bond, nor more nor less”; but all this was of -no avail. How often during the war have I pleaded for such patriots, -and urged to every effort for their redemption!--and now, when our -arms have prevailed, it is they who are cast down, while the enemies -of the Republic are exalted. The pirate Semmes returns from his ocean -cruise to be chosen Probate Judge,--leaping from the deck of the Ship -Alabama to the judicial bench of the State Alabama. In New Orleans the -Rebel mayor at the surrender to the national flag is once more mayor, -and employs his regained power in the terrible massacre which rises -in judgment against the Presidential policy. Persons are returned to -Congress whose service in the Rebellion makes it impossible for them -to take the oath of office,--as in the case of Georgia, which selects -as Senators Herschel V. Johnson, a Senator of the Rebel Congress, and -Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Rebellion. These are -instances; but from these learn all. - -There is nothing within reach of the President which he has not -lavished on ex-Rebels. The power of pardon and amnesty, like the power -of appointment, has been used for them, wholesale and retail. It would -have been easy to affix a condition to every pardon, requiring, that, -before it took effect, the recipient should carve out of his estate -a homestead for every one of his freedmen, and thus secure to each -what they all covet so much, a piece of land. But the President did no -such thing, although, in the words of the old writ, “often requested -so to do.” Such a condition would have helped the loyal freedmen, -rather than the rebel master. In the same spirit, while undertaking to -determine who shall be voters, all colored persons, howsoever loyal, -were disfranchised, while all white persons, except certain specified -classes, although black with rebellion, were constituted voters on -taking a simple oath of allegiance, thus investing ex-Rebels with a -prevailing power. - -Partisans of the Presidential “policy” are in the habit of declaring -it a continuation of the policy of the martyred Lincoln. This is a -mistake. Would that he could rise from his bloody shroud to repel the -calumny! Happily, he has left his testimony behind, in words which -all who have ears to hear can hear. The martyr presented the truth -bodily, when he said, in suggestive metaphor, that we must “build up -from the sound materials”; but his successor insists upon building from -materials rotten with treason and gaping with rebellion. On another -occasion, the martyr said that “an attempt to guaranty and protect a -_revived_ State government, constructed in whole or _in preponderating -part_ from _the very element_ against whose hostility and violence it -is to be protected, is _simply absurd_.”[64] But this is the very thing -the President is now attempting. He is constructing State governments, -not merely in preponderating part, but _in whole_, from the hostile -element. Therefore he departs openly from the policy of the martyred -Lincoln. - -The martyr says to his successor that the policy adopted is “simply -absurd.” He is right, although he might say more. Its absurdity -is too apparent. It is as if, in abolishing the Inquisition, the -inquisitors had been continued under another name, and Torquemada had -received a fresh license for cruelty. It is as if King William, after -the overthrow of James the Second, had made the infamous Jeffreys -Lord Chancellor. Common sense and common justice cry out against the -outrage; and yet this is the Presidential “policy” now so passionately -commended to the American people. - -A state, according to Aristotle, is a “copartnership,” and I -accept the term as especially applicable to our government. And now -the President, in the exercise of the One Man Power, decrees that -communities lately in rebellion shall be taken at once into our -“copartnership.” I object to the decree as dangerous to the Republic. I -am not against pardon, clemency, or magnanimity, except where they are -at the expense of good men. I trust that they will always be practised; -but I insist that recent rebels shall not be admitted, without proper -precautions, to the business of the firm. And I insist also that the -One Man Power shall not be employed to force them into the firm. - - * * * * * - -Such are two pivotal blunders. It is not easy to see how he has -fallen into these, so strong were his early professions the other way. -The powers of Congress he had distinctly admitted. Thus, as early as -24th July, 1865, he had sent to Sharkey, acting by his appointment -as Provisional Governor of Mississippi, this despatch: “It must, -however, be distinctly understood that the restoration to which your -proclamation refers _will be subject to the will of Congress_.” Nothing -could be more positive. And he was equally positive against the -restoration of Rebels to power. You do not forget, that, in accepting -his nomination as Vice-President, he rushed forward to declare that the -Rebel States must be remodelled, that confiscation must be enforced, -and that Rebels must be excluded from the work of Reconstruction. -His language was plain and unmistakable. Announcing that “government -must be fixed on the principles of _eternal justice_,” he declared, -that, “if the man who gave his influence and his means to destroy the -Government should be permitted to participate in the great work of -reorganization, then all the precious blood so freely poured out will -have been wantonly spilled, and all our victories go for nought.” True, -very true. Then, in words of surpassing energy, he cried out, that “the -great plantations must be seized and divided into small farms,” and -that “traitors should take a back seat in the work of restoration.” -Perhaps the true rule was never expressed with more homely and vital -force than in this last saying, often repeated in different forms, “For -Rebels, back seats.” Add that other saying, as often repeated, “Treason -must be made odious,” and you have two great principles of just -reconstruction, once proclaimed by the President, but now practically -disowned by him. - - * * * * * - -You will ask how the President fell. This is hard to say, certainly, -without much plainness of speech. Mr. Seward openly confesses that -he counselled the present fatal “policy.” Unquestionably the Blairs, -father and son, did the same. So also, I doubt not, did Mr. Preston -King. It is easy to see that Mr. Seward was not a wise counsellor. -This is not his first costly blunder. In formal despatches he early -announced that “the rights of the States, and the condition of every -human being in them, will remain subject to exactly the same laws -and forms of administration, whether the revolution shall succeed or -whether it shall fail.”[65] And now he labors for the fulfilment of -his own prophecy. Obviously, from the beginning, he has failed to -comprehend the Rebellion, while in nature he is abnormal and eccentric, -jumping like the knight on the chess-board, rather than moving on -straight lines. Undoubtedly the influence of such a man over the -President has not been good. But the President himself is his own worst -counsellor, as he is his own worst defender. He does not open his mouth -without furnishing evidence against himself. - -The brave words with which he accepted his nomination as Vice-President -resounded through the country. He was elected. Then followed two -scenes, each of which filled the people with despair. The first was -of the new Vice-President taking the oath of office--in the presence -of the foreign ministers, the judges of the Supreme Court, and the -Senate--while in such a condition that his attempted speech became -trivial and incoherent, and he did not know the name of the Secretary -of the Navy, who is now the devoted supporter of his policy, as he has -been his recent travelling companion. One month and one week thereafter -President Lincoln was assassinated. The people, wrapt in affliction -at the great tragedy, trembled as they beheld a drunken man ascend -the heights of power. But they were generous and forgiving,--almost -forgetful. He was our President, and hands were outstretched to -welcome and sustain him. His early utterances as President, although -commonplace, loose, and wordy, gave assurance that the Rebellion and -its authors would find little favor. Treason was to be made odious. - - * * * * * - -At this time my own personal relations with him commenced. I had known -him slightly while he was in the Senate; but I lost no time in seeing -him after he became President. He received me kindly. I hope that I -shall not err, if I allude briefly to what passed between us. You are -my constituents, and I wish you to know the Presidential mood at that -time, and also what your representative attempted. - -Being in Washington during the first month of the new Administration, -destined to fill such an unhappy place in history, I saw the President -frequently, at the private house he then occupied, or at his office -in the Treasury. He had not yet taken possession of the Executive -Mansion. The constant topic was “Reconstruction,” which was considered -in every variety of aspect. More than once I ventured to press the -duty and renown of carrying out the principles of the Declaration of -Independence, and of founding the new governments on the consent of -the governed, without distinction of color. To this earnest appeal he -replied, as I sat with him alone, in words which I can never forget: -“On this question, Mr. Sumner, there is no difference between us; you -and I are alike.” Need I say that I was touched to the heart by this -annunciation, which seemed to promise a victory without a battle? -Accustomed to controversy, I saw clearly, that, if the President -declared himself for the Equal Rights of All, the good cause must -prevail without controversy. Expressing to him my joy and gratitude, -I remarked that there should be no division in the great Union -party,--that no line should be run through it, on one side of which -would be gentlemen calling themselves “the President’s friends,” but -we should be kept all together as one seamless garment. To this he -promptly replied, “I mean to keep you all together.” Nothing could -be better. We were to be kept all together on the principle of Equal -Rights. As I walked away, that evening, the battle of my life seemed -ended, while the Republic rose before me, refulgent in the blaze of -assured freedom, an example to the nations. - -On another occasion, during the same period, the case of Tennessee was -discussed. I expressed the earnest hope that the President would use -his influence directly for the establishment of impartial suffrage in -that State, saying that in this way Tennessee would be put at the head -of the returning column and be made an example,--in one word, that all -the other States would be obliged to dress on Tennessee. The President -replied, that, if he were at Nashville, he would see this accomplished. -I could not help rejoining, that he need not be at Nashville, for -at Washington his hand was on the long end of the lever with which -he could easily move all Tennessee,--referring, of course, to the -powerful, but legitimate, influence the President might exercise in his -own State by the expression of his desires. Let me confess that his -hesitation disturbed me; but I attributed it to unnecessary caution, -rather than to infidelity. He had been so positive with me, how could I -suspect him? - -At other times the conversation was renewed. Such was my interest in -the question, that I could not see the President without introducing -it. As I was about to return home, I said that I desired, even at the -risk of repetition, to make some parting suggestions on the constant -topic, and that, with his permission, I would proceed point by -point, as was the habit of the pulpit in former days. He smiled, and -observed pleasantly, “Have I not always listened to you?” I replied, -“You have; and I am grateful.” After remarking that the Rebel region -was still in military occupation, and that it was the plain duty of -the President to use his temporary power for the establishment of -correct principles, I proceeded to say: “First, see to it that no -newspaper is allowed which is not thoroughly loyal, and does not -speak well of the National Government and of Equal Rights”; and here -I reminded him of the saying of the Duke of Wellington, that in a -place under martial law an unlicensed press is as impossible as on -the deck of a ship of war. “Secondly, let the officers that you send, -as military governors or otherwise, be known for devotion to Equal -Rights, so that their names alone will be a proclamation, while their -simple presence will help educate the people”; and here I mentioned -Major-General Carl Schurz, who still held his commission in the army, -as such a person. “Thirdly, encourage the population to resume the -profitable labors of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures without -delay,--but for the present to avoid politics. Fourthly, keep the whole -region under these good influences, and at the proper moment hand -over the subject of Reconstruction, with the great question of Equal -Rights, to the judgment of Congress, where it belongs.” All this the -President received with perfect kindness, and I mention this with the -more readiness because I remember to have seen in the papers a very -different statement. - -Only a short time afterwards there was a change, which seemed -like a somersault or an apostasy; and then ensued a strange sight. -Instead of faithful Unionists, recent Rebels thronged the Presidential -antechambers, rejoicing in new-found favor. They made speeches at -the President, and he made speeches at them. A mutual sympathy was -manifest. On one occasion the President announced himself a “Southern -man” with “Southern sympathies,” thus quickening that sectional flame -which good men hoped to see quenched forever. Alas! if, after all our -terrible sacrifices, we are still to have a President who does not know -how to spurn every sectional appeal and make himself representative -of all! Unhappily, whatever the President said or did was sectional. -He showed himself constantly a sectionalist. Instead of telling the -ex-Rebels who thronged the Presidential antechambers, as he should -have done, that he was their friend, that he wished them well from -the bottom of his heart, that he longed to see their fields yield an -increase, with peace in all their borders, and that, to this end, he -counselled them to pursue agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, -and for the present to say nothing about politics,--instead of this, -he sent them away talking and thinking of nothing but politics, and -frantic for the reëstablishment of a sectional power. Instead of -designating officers of the army as military governors, which I had -supposed he would do, he appointed ex-Rebels, who could not take -the oath required by Congress of all officers of the United States, -and they in turn appointed ex-Rebels to office under them; so that -participation in the Rebellion found reward, and treason, instead of -being made odious, became the passport to power. Everywhere ex-Rebels -came out of hiding-places. They walked the streets defiantly, and -asserted their old domination. Under auspices of the President, a new -campaign was planned against the Republic, and they who failed in open -war now sought to enter the very citadel of political power. Victory, -purchased by so much loyal blood and treasure, was little better than -a cipher. Slavery itself revived in the spirit of Caste. Faithful men -who had been trampled down by the Rebellion were trampled down still -more by these Presidential governments. For the Unionist there was -no liberty of the press or liberty of speech, and the lawlessness of -Slavery began to rage anew. - -Every day brought tidings that the Rebellion was reappearing in its -essential essence. Amidst all professions of submission, there was -immitigable hate to the National Government, and prevailing injustice -to the freedman. This was last autumn. I was then in Boston. Moved by -desire to arrest this fatal tendency, I appealed by letter to members -of the Cabinet, entreating them to stand firm against a “policy” which -promised nothing but disaster. As soon as the elections were over, I -appealed directly to the President himself, by a telegraphic despatch, -as follows:-- - - “BOSTON, November 12, 1865. - - “TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON. - - “As a faithful friend and supporter of your administration, - I most respectfully petition you to suspend for the present - your policy towards the Rebel States. I should not present - this prayer, if I were not painfully convinced that thus - far it has failed to obtain any reasonable guaranties for - that security in the future which is essential to peace and - reconciliation. To my mind, it abandons the freedmen to the - control of their ancient masters, and leaves the national debt - exposed to repudiation by returning Rebels. The Declaration of - Independence asserts the equality of all men, and that rightful - government can be founded only on the consent of the governed. - I see small chance of peace, unless these great principles are - practically established. Without this, the house will continue - divided against itself. - - “CHARLES SUMNER, - “_Senator of the United States_.” - -Reaching Washington Saturday evening, immediately before the -opening of the last session of Congress, I lost no time in seeing -the President. I was with him that evening three hours. I found him -changed in temper and purpose. How unlike that President who, only a -few days after arrival at power, made me feel so happy in the assurance -of agreement on the great question! No longer sympathetic, or even -kindly, he was harsh, petulant, and unreasonable. Plainly, his heart -was with ex-Rebels. For the Unionist, white or black, who had borne -the burden of the day, he had little feeling. He would not see the bad -spirit of the Rebel States, and insisted that the outrages there were -insufficient to justify exclusion from Congress. The following dialogue -ensued. - - THE PRESIDENT. Are there no murders in Massachusetts? - - MR. SUMNER. Unhappily, yes,--sometimes. - - THE PRESIDENT. Are there no assaults in Boston? Do not men - there sometimes knock each other down, so that the police is - obliged to interfere? - - MR. SUMNER. Unhappily, yes. - - THE PRESIDENT. Would you consent that Massachusetts, on this - account, should be excluded from Congress? - - MR. SUMNER. No, Mr. President, I would not. - -And here I stopped, without remarking on the entire irrelevancy of the -inquiry. I left the President that night with the painful conviction -that his whole soul was set as flint against the good cause, and that -by the assassination of Abraham Lincoln the Rebellion had vaulted into -the Presidential chair. Jefferson Davis was then in the casemates at -Fortress Monroe, but Andrew Johnson was doing his work. - - “Ah! what avails it, … - If the gulled conqueror receives the chain, - And flattery subdues, when arms are vain?” - -From this time forward I was not in doubt as to his “policy,” which -asserted a condition of things in the Rebel region inconsistent -with the terrible truth. It was, therefore, natural that I should -characterize one of his messages, covering over the enormities there, -as “whitewashing.” This mild term was thought by some too strong. -Subsequent events have shown that it was too weak. The whole Rebel -region is little better than a “whited sepulchre.” It is that saddest -of all sepulchres, the sepulchre of Human Rights. The dead men’s -bones are the remains of faithful Union soldiers, dead on innumerable -fields, or stifled in the pens of Andersonville and Belle Isle,--also -of constant Unionists, white and black, whom we are sacredly bound -to protect, now murdered on highways and by-ways, or slaughtered at -Memphis and New Orleans. The uncleanness is injustice, wrong, and -outrage, having a loathsome stench; and the President is engaged in -“whiting” over these things, so that they shall not be seen by the -American people. To do this, he garbles a despatch of Sheridan, and -abuses the hospitality of the country by a travelling speech, where -every word, not foolish, vulgar, and vindictive, is a vain attempt at -“whitewashing.” - - * * * * * - -Meanwhile the Presidential madness is more than ever manifest. It has -shown itself in frantic effort to defeat the Constitutional Amendment -proposed by Congress for adoption by the people. By this Amendment -certain safeguards are established. Citizenship is defined, and -protection is assured at least in what are called civil rights. The -basis of representation is fixed on the number of voters, so that, -if colored citizens are not allowed to vote, they will not by their -numbers contribute to representative power, and one voter in South -Carolina will not be able to neutralize two voters in Massachusetts or -Illinois. Ex-Rebels who had taken an oath to support the Constitution -are excluded from office, National or State. The National debt is -guarantied, while the Rebel debt and all claim for slaves are annulled. -All these essential safeguards are rudely rejected by the President. - -The madness that would set aside provisions so essentially just, -whose only error is inadequacy, has broken forth naturally in brutal -utterance, where he has charged persons by name with seeking his life, -and has stimulated a mob against them. It is difficult to surpass the -criminality of this act. The violence of the President has provoked -violence. His words were dragon’s teeth, which have sprung up armed -men. Witness Memphis; witness New Orleans. Who can doubt that the -President is author of these tragedies? Charles the Ninth of France -was not more completely author of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew -than Andrew Johnson is author of the recent massacres now crying out -for judgment. History records that the guilty king was pursued in the -silence of night by the imploring voices of murdered men, mingled with -curses and imprecations, while ghosts stalked through his chamber, -until he sweated blood from every pore; and when he came to die, his -soul, wrung with the tortures of remorse, stammered out, “Ah, nurse, -my good nurse! what blood! what murders! Oh, what bad counsels I -followed! Lord God, pardon me! have mercy on me!” Like causes produce -like effects. The blood at Memphis and New Orleans must cry out until -heard, and a guilty President may suffer the retribution which followed -a guilty king. - -The evil he has done already is on such a scale that it is impossible -to measure it, unless as you measure an arc of the globe. I doubt -if in all history there is any ruler who in the same brief space of -time has done so much. There have been kings and emperors, proconsuls -and satraps, who have exercised tyrannical power; but facilities of -communication now lend swiftness and extension to all evil influences, -so that the President is able to do in a year what in other days would -have taken a life. Nor is the evil confined to any narrow spot. It is -coextensive with the Republic. Next to Jefferson Davis stands Andrew -Johnson as its worst enemy. The whole country has suffered; but the -Rebel region has suffered most. He should have sent peace; instead, he -sent a sword. Behold the consequences! - -In support of a cruel “policy” he has not hesitated to use his -enormous patronage. President Lincoln said, familiarly, that, as -the people had continued him in office, he supposed they meant that -others should be continued also; and he refused to make removals. But -President Johnson announces “rotation in office”; and then, warming in -anger against all failing to sustain his “policy,” he roars that he -will “kick them out.” Men appointed by the martyred Lincoln are to be -“kicked out” by the successor, while he pretends to sustain the policy -of the martyr. The language of the President is most suggestive. He -“kicks” the friends of his well-loved predecessor; and he also “kicks” -the careful counsel of that well-loved predecessor, that we must “build -up from the sound materials.” - -That I may give practical direction to these remarks, let me tell -you plainly what must be done. In the first place, Congress must be -sustained in its conflict with the One Man Power; and, in the second -place, ex-Rebels must not be hurried back to power. Bearing in mind -these two things, the way is easy. Of course, the Constitutional -Amendment must be adopted. As far as it goes, it is well; but it does -not go far enough. More is necessary. Impartial suffrage must be -established. A homestead must be secured to every freedman, if in no -other way, through the pardoning power. If to these is added education, -there will be a new order of things, with liberty of the press, liberty -of speech, and liberty of travel, so that Wendell Phillips may speak -freely in Charleston or Mobile. There is an old English play under -the name of “The Four P’s.” Our present desires may be symbolized by -four E’s,--standing for Emancipation, Enfranchisement, Equality, and -Education. Securing these, all else will follow. - -I can never cease to regret that Congress hesitated by proper -legislation to assume temporary jurisdiction over the whole Rebel -region. To my mind the power was ample and unquestionable, whether -in the exercise of belligerent rights or in the exercise of rights -directly from the Constitution itself. In this way everything needful -might have been accomplished. Through this just jurisdiction the Rebel -communities might have been fashioned anew, and shaped to loyalty -and virtue. The President lost a great opportunity at the beginning. -Congress has lost another. But it is not too late. If indisposed to -assume this jurisdiction by an Enabling Act constituting provisional -governments, there are many things Congress may do, acting indirectly -or directly. Acting indirectly, it may insist that Emancipation, -Enfranchisement, Equality, and Education shall be established as -conditions precedent to the recognition of any State whose institutions -have been overthrown by rebellion.[66] Acting directly, it may, by -Constitutional Amendment, or by simple legislation, fix all these -forever. - - * * * * * - -You are aware that from the beginning I have insisted upon Impartial -Suffrage as the only certain guaranty of security and reconciliation. -I renew this persistence, and mean to hold on to the end. Every -argument, every principle, every sentiment is in its favor. But there -is one reason which at this moment I place above all others: it is _the -necessity of the case_. You require the votes of colored persons in -the Rebel States to sustain the Union itself. Without their votes you -cannot build securely for the future. Their ballots will be needed in -time to come much more than their muskets were needed in time past. For -the sake of the white Unionists, and for their protection,--for the -sake of the Republic itself, whose peace is imperilled, I appeal for -justice to the colored race. Give the ballot to the colored citizen, -and he will be not only assured in his own rights, but the timely -defender of yours. By a singular Providence your security is linked -inseparably with the recognition of his rights. Deny him, if you will: -it is at your peril. - -But it is said, Leave this question to the States; and State rights -are pleaded against the power of Congress. This has been the cry: at -the beginning, to prevent effort against the Rebellion; and now, at the -end, to prevent effort against a revival of the Rebellion. Whichsoever -way we turn, we encounter the cry. But yielding now, you will commit -the very error of President Buchanan, when at the beginning he declared -that we could not “coerce” a State. Nobody now doubts that a State in -rebellion may be “coerced”; and to my mind it is equally clear that a -State just emerging from rebellion may be “coerced” to the condition -required by the public peace. - -There are powers of Congress, not derived from the Rebellion, which are -adequate to this exigency; and now is the time to exercise them, and -thus complete the work. It was the Nation that decreed Emancipation, -and the Nation must see to it, by every obligation of honor and -justice, that Emancipation is secured. It is not enough that Slavery is -abolished in name. The Baltimore platform, on which President Johnson -was elected, requires the “utter and complete _extirpation_ of Slavery -from the soil of the Republic”; but this can be accomplished only by -the eradication of every inequality and caste, so that all shall be -equal before the law. - -Be taught by Russia. The Emperor there did not content himself -with naked Emancipation. He followed this glorious act with minute -provisions for rights of all kinds,--as, to hold property, to sue -and testify in court, _to vote_, and _to enjoy the advantages of -education_. All this by the same power which decreed Emancipation. - -Be taught also by England, speaking by her most illustrious statesmen, -who solemnly warn against trusting to any local authorities for justice -to the colored race. I begin with Burke, who saw all questions with the -intuitions of the statesman, and expressed himself with the eloquence -of the orator. Here are his words, uttered in 1792:-- - - “I have seen what has been done by the West Indian Assemblies - [in reference to the improvement of the condition of the - negro]. It is arrant trifling. They have done little; and - what they have done is good for nothing,--_for it is totally - destitute of an executory principle_.”[67] - -Should we leave this question to the States, we, too, should find all -they did “arrant trifling,” and wanting “an executory principle.” - -Edmund Burke was followed shortly afterwards by Canning, who, in 1799, -exclaimed:-- - - “There is something in the nature of the relation between the - despot and his slave which must vitiate and render nugatory and - null whatever laws the former might make for the benefit of the - latter,--which, however speciously these laws might be framed, - however well adapted they might appear to the evils which they - were intended to alleviate, must infallibly be marred and - defeated in the execution.”[68] - -Then again he says:-- - - “Trust not the masters of slaves in what concerns legislation - for slavery. However specious their laws may appear, depend - upon it, they must be ineffectual in their application. It is - in the nature of things that they should be so.… Their laws - can never reach, will never cure the evil.… There is something - in the nature of absolute authority, in the relation between - master and slave, which makes despotism, in all cases and under - all circumstances, an incompetent and unsure executor even of - its own provisions in favor of the objects of its power.”[69] - -The same testimony was repeated at a later day by Brougham, who, in one -of his most remarkable speeches, while protesting against leaving to -the colonies legislation for the freedmen, said,-- - - “I entirely concur in the observations of Mr. Burke, repeated - and more happily expressed by Mr. Canning: that the masters of - slaves are not to be trusted with making laws upon slavery; - that nothing they do is ever found effectual; and that, if, by - some miracle, they ever chance to enact a wholesome regulation, - it is always found to want what Mr. Burke calls _the executory - principle_,--it fails to execute itself.”[70] - -Such is the concurring authority of three statesmen orators, whose -eloquent voices unite to warn against trusting the freedmen to their -old masters. - -Reason is in harmony with this authoritative testimony. It is not -natural to suppose that people who have claimed property in their -brethren, God’s children,--who have indulged that “wild and guilty -fantasy that man can hold property in man,”--will become at once the -kind and just legislators of freedmen. It is unnatural to expect it. -Even if they have made up their minds to Emancipation, they are, from -inveterate habit and prejudice, incapable of justice to the colored -race. There is the President himself, who once charmed the country and -the age by announcing himself the “Moses” of their redemption; and -yet he now exerts all his mighty power against the establishment of -safeguards without which there can be no true redemption. In present -discussion, the old proslavery spirit that was in him, with hostility -to principles and to men, comes out anew,--as, on the application of -heat, the old tunes frozen up in the bugle of Baron Munchausen were -set a-going and broke forth freshly. People do not change suddenly or -completely. The old devils are not all cast out at once. Even the best -of converts sometimes backslide. From so grave a writer as Southey, in -his History of Brazil, we learn that a woman accustomed to consider -human flesh an exquisite dainty was converted to Christianity in -extreme old age. The faithful missionary strove at once to minister to -her wants, and asked if there was any particular food she could take, -suggesting various delicacies; to all which the venerable convert -replied: “My stomach goes against everything. There is but one thing -which I think I could touch. If I had the little hand of a little -tender Tapuya boy, I think I could pick the little bones. But, woe is -me! there is nobody to go out and shoot one for me!”[71] In similar -spirit our Presidential convert now yearns for a taste of those odious -pretensions which were a part of Slavery. - -Now, when a person thus situated, with great responsibilities to his -country and to history, bound by public professions and by political -associations, who has declared himself against Slavery, and has every -motive for perseverance to the end,--when such a person openly seeks to -preserve its odious pretensions, are we not admonished again how unsafe -it must be to trust old masters, under no responsibility and no pledge, -with the power of legislating for freedmen? I protest against it. - -I claim this power for the Nation. If it be said that the power -has never been employed, then I say that the time has come for its -employment. I claim it on at least three several grounds. - -1. There is the Constitutional Amendment, already adopted by the -people, which invests Congress with plenary powers to secure the -abolition of Slavery,--ay, its “extirpation,” according to the promise -of the Baltimore platform,--including the right to sue and testify in -court, and the right also to vote. The distinction attempted between -what are called _civil_ rights and _political_ rights is a modern -invention. These two words in their origin have the same meaning. -One is derived from the Latin, and the other from the Greek. Each -signifies what pertains to a _city_ or _citizen_. Besides, if the -elective franchise seem “appropriate” to assure the “extirpation” of -Slavery, Congress has the same power to secure this right that it has -to secure the right to sue and testify in courts, which it has already -done. Every argument, every reason, every consideration, by which you -assert the power for the protection of colored persons in what are -called _civil_ rights, is equally strong for their protection in what -are called _political_ rights. In each case you legislate to the same -end,--that the freedman may be maintained in the liberty so tardily -accorded; and the legislation is just as “appropriate” in one case as -in the other. - -2. There is also that distinct clause of the Constitution requiring -the United States to “guaranty to every State in this Union _a -republican form of government_.” Here is a source of power as yet -unused. The time has come for its use. Let it be declared that a State -which disfranchises any portion of its citizens by a discrimination -in its nature insurmountable, as in the case of color, cannot be -considered a republican government. The principle is obvious, and its -practical adoption would ennoble the country and give to mankind a new -definition of republican government. - -3. Another reason with me is peremptory. There is no discrimination -of color in the allegiance you require. Colored citizens, like white -citizens, owe allegiance to the United States; therefore they may claim -protection as an equivalent. In other words, allegiance and protection -must be reciprocal. As you claim allegiance of colored citizens, you -must accord protection. One is the consideration of the other. And this -protection must be in all the rights of citizens, civil and political. -Thus again do I bring home to the National Government this solemn duty. -If this has not been performed in times past, it was on account of -the tyrannical influence of Slavery, which perverted our Government. -But, thank God! that influence is overthrown. Vain are the victories -of the war, if this influence continues to tyrannize. Formerly the -Constitution was interpreted always for Slavery. I insist, that, from -this time forward, it shall be interpreted always for Freedom. This is -the great victory of the war,--or rather, it is the crowning result of -all the victories. - -One of the most important battles in the world’s history was that of -Tours, in France, where the Mahometans, who had come up from Spain, -contended with the Christians under Charles the Hammer. On this -historic battle Gibbon remarks, that, had the result been different, -“perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the -schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised -people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”[72] -Thus was Christianity saved; and thus by our victories has Liberty -been saved. Had the Rebels prevailed, Slavery would have had voices -everywhere, even in the Constitution itself. But it is Liberty now -that must have voices everywhere, and the greatest voice of all in the -National Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. - -In this cause I cannot be frightened by words. There is a cry against -“Centralization,” “Consolidation,” “Imperialism,”--all of which are -bad enough, when dedicated to any purpose of tyranny. As the House -of Representatives is renewed every two years, it is inconceivable -that such a body, fresh from the people and promptly returning to the -people, can become a Tyranny, especially when seeking safeguards for -Human Rights. A government inspired by Liberty is as wide apart from -Tyranny as Heaven from Hell. There can be no danger in Liberty assured -by central authority; nor can there be danger in any powers to uphold -Liberty. Such a centralization, such a consolidation,--ay, Sir, such an -imperialism,--would be to the whole country a well-spring of security, -prosperity, and renown. As well find danger in the Declaration of -Independence and the Constitution itself, which speak with central -power; as well find danger in those central laws which govern the moral -and material world, binding men together in society and keeping the -planets wheeling in their orbits. - -Often during recent trials the cause of our country has assumed -three different forms, each essential in itself and yet together -constituting a unit, like the shamrock, or white clover, with triple -leaf, originally used to illustrate the Trinity. It was Three in -One. These three different forms were: first, the national forces; -secondly, the national finances; and, thirdly, the ideas entering -into the controversy. The national forces and the national finances -have prevailed. The ideas are still in question, and even now you -debate with regard to the great rights of citizenship. Nobody doubts -that the army and navy fall plainly within the jurisdiction of the -National Government, and that the finances fall plainly within -this jurisdiction; but the rights of citizenship are as thoroughly -national as army and navy or finances. You cannot without peril cease -to regulate the army and navy, nor without peril cease to regulate -the finances; but there is equal peril in abandoning the rights of -citizens, who, wherever they may be, in whatever State, are entitled -to protection from the Nation. An American citizen in a foreign land -enjoys the protecting hand of the National Government. That protecting -hand should be his not less at home than abroad. - - * * * * * - -Fellow-citizens, allow me to gather the whole case into brief -compass. The President, wielding the One Man Power, has assumed a -prerogative over Congress utterly unjustifiable, while he has dictated -a fatal “policy” of Reconstruction, which gives sway to Rebels, puts -off the blessed day of security and reconciliation, and leaves the best -interests of the Republic in jeopardy. Treacherous to party, false to -the great cause, and unworthy of himself, he has set his individual -will against the people of the United States in Congress assembled. -Forgetful of truth and decency, he has assailed members as “assassins,” -and has denounced Congress itself as a revolutionary body, “called or -assuming to be the Congress of the United States,” and “hanging upon -the verge of the Government,”[73]--as if this most enlightened and -patriot Congress did not contain the embodied will of the American -people. To you, each and all, I appeal to arrest this madness. Your -votes will be the first step. The President must be taught that -usurpation and apostasy cannot prevail. He who promised to be Moses, -and has become Pharaoh, must be overthrown. And may the Egyptians -that follow him share the same fate, so that it shall be said now as -aforetime, “And the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the -sea!” - - - - -THE OCEAN TELEGRAPH BETWEEN EUROPE AND AMERICA. - -ANSWER TO INVITATION TO ATTEND A BANQUET AT NEW YORK, IN HONOR OF CYRUS -W. FIELD, NOVEMBER 14, 1866. - - - On the 15th November, a banquet was given to Cyrus W. Field, - at New York, to exchange congratulations on the happy result - of his efforts in uniting by telegraph the Old and New World. - Many distinguished guests were present. There were also - communications from President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase, - Secretary Seward, Secretary Welles, General Grant, Admiral - Porter, Sir Frederick Bruce, the British Minister, Lord Moncke, - Governor-General of Canada, and many others. Mr. Sumner wrote:-- - - BOSTON, November 14, 1866. - - GENTLEMEN,--I regret much that it is not in my power to unite - with you in tribute to Mr. Field, according to the invitation - with which you have honored me. - - There are events which can never be forgotten in the history of - Civilization. Conspicuous among these was the discovery of the - New World by Christopher Columbus. And now a kindred event is - added to the list: the two worlds are linked together. - - In this work Mr. Field has been pioneer and discoverer. As such - his name will be remembered with that gratitude which is bestowed - upon the world’s benefactors. Already his fame has begun. - - Accept my thanks, and believe me, Gentlemen, - faithfully yours, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - THE COMMITTEE, &C. - - - - -ENCOURAGEMENT TO COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS. - -LETTER TO A CONVENTION OF COLORED CITIZENS, DECEMBER 2, 1866. - - - December 2, 1866. - - DEAR SIR,--I am glad that our colored fellow-citizens are about - to assemble in convention to consider how best to promote their - welfare, and to secure those equal rights to which they are - justly entitled. - - You seek nothing less than a revolution. But you will succeed. - The revolution must prevail. What are called civil rights have - been accorded already; but every argument for these is equally - important for political rights, which cannot be denied without - the grossest wrong. Let the colored citizens persevere. Let them - calmly, but constantly, insist upon those equal rights which are - the promise of our institutions. They should appeal to Congress, - and they should also appeal to the courts. - - I cannot doubt the power and duty of Congress and of the courts - to set aside every inequality founded on color. It will be the - wonder of posterity that a constitution absolutely free from all - discrimination of color was so perverted in its construction as - to sanction this discrimination,--as if such a wrong could be - derived from a text which contains no single word even to suggest - it. The fountain-head is pure: the waters which flow from it must - be equally pure. - - Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir, - faithfully yours, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - J. M. LANGSTON, ESQ. - - - - -THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF RECONSTRUCTION. - -ILLEGALITY OF EXISTING GOVERNMENTS IN THE REBEL STATES. - -RESOLUTIONS AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 5, 1866. - - - Resolutions declaring the true principles of Reconstruction, - the jurisdiction of Congress over the whole subject, the - illegality of existing governments in the Rebel States, and the - exclusion of such States, with such illegal governments, from - representation in Congress, and from voting on Constitutional - Amendments. - -_RESOLVED_, (1.) That in the work of Reconstruction it is important -that no false step should be taken, interposing obstacle or delay, -but that, by careful provisions, we should make haste to complete the -work, so that the unity of the Republic shall be secured on permanent -foundations, and fraternal relations once more established among all -the people thereof. - -2. That this end can be accomplished only by following the guiding -principles of our institutions as declared by our fathers when the -Republic was formed, and that neglect or forgetfulness of these guiding -principles must postpone the establishment of union, justice, domestic -tranquillity, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty, which, -being the declared objects of the National Constitution, must therefore -be the essential aim of Reconstruction itself. - -3. That Reconstruction must be conducted by Congress, and under its -constant supervision; that under the National Constitution Congress -is solemnly bound to assume this responsibility; and that, in the -performance of this duty, it must see that everywhere throughout the -Rebel communities loyalty is protected and advanced, while the new -governments are fashioned according to the requirements of a Christian -commonwealth, so that order, tranquillity, education, and human rights -shall prevail within their borders. - -4. That, in determining what is a republican form of government, -Congress must follow implicitly the definition supplied by the -Declaration of Independence; and, in the practical application of this -definition, it must, after excluding all disloyal persons, take care -that new governments are founded on the two fundamental truths therein -contained: first, that all men are equal in rights; and, secondly, that -all just government stands only on the consent of the governed. - -5. That all proceedings with a view to Reconstruction originating in -Executive power are in the nature of usurpation; that this usurpation -becomes especially offensive, when it sets aside the fundamental truths -of our institutions; that it is shocking to common sense, when it -undertakes to derive new governments from a hostile population just -engaged in armed rebellion; and that all governments having such origin -are necessarily illegal and void. - -6. That it is the duty of Congress to proceed with Reconstruction; -and to this end it must assume jurisdiction of the States lately -in rebellion, except so far as that jurisdiction has been already -renounced, and it must recognize only the Loyal States, or States -having legal and valid legislatures, as entitled to representation in -Congress, or to a voice in the adoption of Constitutional Amendments. - - These resolutions were read and ordered to be printed. Mr. - Sumner, after remarking that he saw “no chance for peace in - the Rebel States until Congress does its duty by assuming - jurisdiction over that whole region,” proposed to read a letter - he had just received from Texas. - - MR. MCDOUGALL [of California]. Allow me to ask the Senator - to read the signature. Let the name of the writer be given. - - MR. SUMNER. I shall not read the signature---- - - MR. MCDOUGALL. Ah! ha! - - MR. SUMNER. And for a very good reason,--that I could not - read the signature without exposing the writer to violence, - if not to death. - - MR. DAVIS [of Kentucky]. Mr. President, I rise to a - question of order. I ask if the reading of the letter by - the Senator from Massachusetts is in order. - - THE PRESIDENT _pro tempore_. In the opinion of the Chair, a - Senator, in making a speech to the Senate, has a right to - read from a letter in his possession, if he deems proper. - - MR. DAVIS. I ask whether it is in order for the Senator - from Massachusetts to make a speech at this time. - - THE PRESIDENT _pro tempore_. The Chair sees nothing - disorderly in it. - - Mr. Sumner then read the letter, and remarked:-- - -I should not read this letter, if I were not entirely satisfied of -the character and intelligence of the writer. It is in the nature of -testimony which the Senate cannot disregard. It points the way to duty. -We must, Sir, follow the suggestions of this patriot Unionist, and -erase the governments under which these outrages are perpetrated. The -writer calls them “sham governments.” They are governments having no -element of vitality. They are disloyal in origin, and they share the -character of the Rebellion itself. We must go forth to meet them, and -the spirit in which they have been organized, precisely as in years -past we went forth to meet the Rebellion. The Rebellion, Sir, has -assumed another form. Our conflict is no longer on the field of battle, -but here in this Chamber, and in the Chamber at the other end of the -Capitol. Our strife is civic, but it should be none the less strenuous. - - - - -FEMALE SUFFRAGE, AND AN EDUCATIONAL TEST OF MALE SUFFRAGE. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL CONFERRING SUFFRAGE -WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DECEMBER 13, -1866. - - - December 10th, the Suffrage Bill for the District of Columbia, - considered in the former session of Congress,[74] was again - taken up for consideration, when Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, - moved to amend it by striking out the word “male,” so that - there should be no limitation of sex. December 12th, after - debate, this motion was rejected,--Yeas 9, Nays 37. The - Senators voting in the affirmative were Mr. Anthony, of - Rhode Island, Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Buckalew, - of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Foster, - of Connecticut, Mr. Nesmith, of Oregon, Mr. Patterson, of - Tennessee, Mr. Riddle, of Delaware, and Mr. Wade, of Ohio. - - The following amendment was then moved by Mr. Dixon, of - Connecticut:-- - - “_Provided_, That no person who has not heretofore voted in - this District shall be permitted to vote, unless he shall - be able, at the time of offering to vote, to read, and also - to write his own name.” - - December 13th, at this stage of the debate, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I have already voted against the motion to strike -out the word “male,” and I shall vote against the pending proposition -to fix an educational test. In each case I am governed by the same -consideration. - -In voting against striking out the word “male,” I did not intend to -express any opinion on the question, which has at last found its -way into the Senate Chamber, whether women shall be invested with -the elective franchise. That question I leave untouched, contenting -myself with the remark, that it is obviously the great question of the -future,--at least one of the great questions,--which will be easily -settled, whenever the women in any considerable proportion insist that -it shall be settled. And so, in voting against an educational test, I -do not mean to say that under other circumstances such test may not be -proper. But I am against it now. - -The present bill is for the benefit of the colored race in the District -of Columbia. It completes Emancipation by Enfranchisement. It entitles -all to vote without distinction of color. The courts and the rail-cars -of the District, even the galleries of Congress, have been opened. -The ballot-box must be opened also. Such is my sense not only of -the importance, but of the necessity of this measure, so essential -does it appear to me for the establishment of peace, security, and -reconciliation, which I so earnestly covet, that I am unwilling to see -it clogged, burdened, or embarrassed by anything else. I wish to vote -on it alone. Therefore, whatever the merits of other questions, I have -no difficulty in putting them aside until this is settled. - -The bill for Impartial Suffrage in the District of Columbia concerns -directly some twenty thousand colored persons, whom it will lift to -the adamantine platform of Equal Rights. If regarded simply in its -influence on the District, it would be difficult to exaggerate its -value; but when regarded as an example to the whole country, under the -sanction of Congress, its value is infinite. In the latter character it -becomes a pillar of fire to illumine the footsteps of millions. What we -do here will be done in the disorganized States. Therefore we must be -careful that what we do here is best for the disorganized States. - -If the bill could be confined in influence to the District, I should -have little objection to an educational test as an experiment. But -it cannot be limited to any narrow sphere. Practically, it takes the -whole country into its horizon. We must, therefore, act for the whole -country. This is the exigency of the present moment. - -Now to my mind nothing is clearer than the present necessity of -suffrage for all colored persons in the disorganized States. It -will not be enough, if you give it to those who read and write; you -will not in this way acquire the voting force needed there for the -protection of Unionists, whether white or black. You will not secure -the new allies essential to the national cause. As you once needed the -muskets of blacks, so now you need their votes,--and to such extent -that you can act with little reference to theory. You are bound by -the necessity of the case. Therefore, when asked to open suffrage -to women, or when asked to establish an educational standard for -our colored fellow-citizens, I cannot, on the present bill, simply -because the controlling necessity under which we act will not allow -it. By a singular Providence, we are constrained to this measure of -Enfranchisement for the sake of peace, security, and reconciliation, -so that loyal persons, white or black, may be protected, and that the -Republic may live. Here, in the national capital, we begin the real -work of Reconstruction, by which the Union will be consolidated forever. - - The amendment of Mr. Dixon was rejected,--Yeas 11, Nays 34. - The Senators voting in the affirmative were Mr. Anthony, Mr. - Buckalew, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Fogg, Mr. Foster, Mr. - Hendricks, Mr. Nesmith, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Riddle, and Mr. - Willey. - - The bill then passed the Senate,--Yeas 32, Nays 13. On the - next day it passed the other House, and, being vetoed by - President Johnson, it passed both Houses by a two-thirds vote, - so that it became a law.[75] - - - - -PROHIBITION OF PEONAGE. - -RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 3, 1867. - - - January 3d, in the Senate, Mr. Sumner introduced the following - resolution:-- - - “_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be - directed to consider if any further legislation is needed - to prevent the enslavement of Indians in New Mexico or - any system of peonage there, and especially to prohibit - the employment of the army of the United States in the - surrender of persons claimed as peons.” - - Mr. Sumner then called attention to facts showing the necessity - of action. He said:-- - -I think you will be astonished, when you learn that the evidence is -complete, showing in a Territory of the United States the existence -of slavery which a proclamation of the President has down to this day -been powerless to root out. During the life of President Lincoln, I -more than once appealed to him, as head of the Executive, to expel this -evil from New Mexico. The result was a proclamation, and also definite -orders from the War Department; but, in the face of proclamation and -definite orders, the abuse has continued, and, according to official -evidence, it seems to have increased. - - Mr. Sumner here read from the Report of the Commissioner on - Indian Affairs, also from the Report of a Special Agent, - containing the correspondence of army officers, including an - order from the Assistant Inspector General in New Mexico to aid - in the rendition of fugitive peons to their masters, and then - remarked:-- - -The special Indian agent who reports this correspondence very aptly -adds:-- - - “The aid of Congress is invoked to stop the practice.” - -I hope the Department of War will communicate directly with General -Carleton, under whose sanction this order has been made, and I hope -that our Committee on the Judiciary will consider carefully if -further legislation is not needed to meet this case. A Presidential -proclamation has failed; orders of the War Department have failed; the -abuse continues, and we have a very learned officer in the army of the -United States undertaking to vindicate it. - - The reference was changed to the Committee on Military Affairs, - and the resolution was adopted. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson, of - Massachusetts, Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, - reported a bill to abolish and forever prohibit the system of - peonage in the Territory of New Mexico and other parts of the - United States, which became a law.[76] - - - - -PRECAUTION AGAINST THE REVIVAL OF SLAVERY. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION AND THE REPORT OF THE JUDICIARY -COMMITTEE, JANUARY 3 AND FEBRUARY 20, 1867. - - - January 3, 1867, in the Senate, Mr. Sumner introduced the - following resolution:-- - - “_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be - directed to consider if any action of Congress be needed, - either in the way of legislation or of a supplementary - Amendment to the Constitution, to prevent the sale of - persons into slavery for a specified term by virtue of a - decree of court.” - - In its consideration, he called attention to cases like the - following:-- - - “PUBLIC SALE. The undersigned will sell at the court-house - door, in the city of Annapolis, at twelve o’clock, M., on - Saturday, 8th December, 1866, a negro man named Richard - Harris, for six months, convicted at the October term, - 1866, of the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, for - larceny, and sentenced by the Court to be sold as a slave. - - “Terms of sale, cash. - - “WM. BRYAN, - “_Sheriff Anne Arundel County_. - - “December 3, 1866.” - - He then remarked:-- - -It seems to me, Sir, that these cases throw upon Congress the duty -at least of inquiry; and I wish the Committee on the Judiciary, from -which proceeded the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery, would -enlighten us on the validity of these proceedings, and the necessity -or expediency of further action to prevent their repetition. I do not -know that the Civil Rights Bill, which was afterward passed, may not be -adequate to meet these cases; but I am not clear on that point. - -When the Constitutional Amendment was under consideration, I objected -positively to the phraseology. I thought it an unhappy deference to an -original legislative precedent at an earlier period of our history. I -regretted infinitely that Congress was willing, even indirectly, to -sanction any form of slavery. But the Senate supposed that the phrase -“involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof -the party shall have been duly convicted,” was simply applicable to -ordinary imprisonment. At the time I feared that it might be extended -so as to cover some form of slavery. It seems now that it is so -extended, and I wish the Committee to consider whether the remedy can -be applied by Act of Congress, or whether we must not go further and -expurgate that phraseology from the text of the Constitution itself. - - After remarks by Mr. Reverdy Johnson and Mr. Creswell, of - Maryland, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -The remarks of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] seem to justify -entirely the resolution I have brought forward. I have simply called -attention to what was already notorious, but with a view to action. I -am not sure, that, under the Constitutional Amendment, this abuse may -not be justified, and I desire to have the opinion of the Committee -after ample consideration. - -This, Sir, is not the first time in which incidents like this have -occurred. I remember, that, many years ago, when I first came into this -Chamber, the good people whom I represent were shocked at reading that -four colored sailors of Massachusetts had been sold into slavery in -the State of Texas. I did what I could to obtain their liberation, but -without success. I applied directly to the Senator from Texas at that -time, who will be remembered by many as the able General Rusk, beside -whom I sat on the other side of the Chamber. He openly vindicated the -power of the court to make such a sale, and I have never heard anything -of those poor victims from that time to this. Under the operation of -the Constitutional Amendment I trust they are now emancipated; but I am -not sure of that, since they are in Texas. - - The resolution was adopted. Subsequently Mr. Creswell moved the - printing of a bill, introduced by him at the preceding session, - to protect children of African descent from being enslaved in - violation of the Constitution of the United States. - - February 20th, Mr. Poland, from the Committee on the Judiciary, - to whom this bill had been referred, reported that its object - was accomplished by the Civil Rights and the Habeas Corpus - Acts, and that no further legislation was needed. In a - conversation that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -It strikes me the practical question is, whether recent incidents have -not admonished us that there is a disposition to evade the statute, and -under the protection of State laws---- - - MR. TRUMBULL [of Illinois]. That is the very thing the statute - guards against. - -MR. SUMNER. But the statute was not effective to prevent those -incidents. - - MR. TRUMBULL. Will any statute, if it is not executed? - -MR. SUMNER. But when apprised of an evasion, I ask whether it is not -expedient to counteract that evasion specifically and precisely, so -that there shall be no possible excuse? Liberty is won by these anxious -trials. Those who represent her are accustomed to take case by case -and difficulty by difficulty,--overcoming them, if they can. Secure -first the general principle, as in the Constitutional Amendment,--then -legislation as extensive or minute as the occasion requires. Let it be -“precept upon precept, line upon line,” so long as any such outrage can -be shown. - -I would not seem pertinacious, though I do not know that I can err by -any pertinacity on a question of Human Liberty. I feel that we are -painfully admonished, by incidents occurring under our very eyes, -that we ought to do something to tighten that great Constitutional -Amendment. It contains in its text words which I regret. I regretted -them at the time; I proposed to strike them out; and now they return -to plague the inventor. There should have been no recognition in the -Constitutional Amendment of any possibility of Slavery. The reply -is, that the Amendment, if properly interpreted, does not recognize -the possibility of Slavery being legal in any just sense. But it is -misinterpreted,--has been so in an adjoining State; and who can tell -that it will not be so now in every one of the Southern States? I am -sorry that the Committee has not reported the bill. - -The Senate last night passed a bill, on the report of my colleague, -to prohibit slavery and peonage in New Mexico. Under the Constitutional -Amendment, I take it, that bill was unnecessary, it was superfluous. -But we have found a difficulty in that Territory. There has been -outrage; slavery in some form exists there; and consequently my -colleague was right, when he brought his Committee to the conclusion -that they must meet it by specific enactment. Where the abuse appears, -we must root it out. That is Radicalism. So long as a human being is -held as a slave anywhere under this flag, from the Atlantic to the -Pacific coast, there is occasion for your powerful intervention; and -if there is ambiguity or failure in existing statutes, then you must -supply another statute. - - - - -PROTECTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE TENURE OF OFFICE BILL, -JANUARY 15, 17, AND 18, 1867. - - - This session of Congress was occupied by efforts to restrain - and limit the appointing power of the President. The - differences between the President and Congress increased daily. - Among measures considered by Congress was a bill to regulate - the tenure of offices, known as the Tenure of Office Bill. - - January 15th, Mr. Sumner moved to amend this bill by adding a - new section:-- - - “_And be it further enacted_, That all officers or agents, - except clerks of Departments, now appointed by the - President or by the head of any Department, whose salary - or compensation, derived from fees or otherwise, exceeds - one thousand dollars annually, shall be nominated by the - President and appointed by and with the advice and consent - of the Senate; and the term of all such officers or agents - who have been appointed since the first day of July, 1866, - either by the President or by the head of a Department, - without the advice and consent of the Senate, shall expire - on the last day of February, 1867.” - - Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, who reported the pending bill, opposed - the amendment. Mr. Sumner followed. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The proposition I offer now I moved last week on -another bill, in a slightly different form, but it was substantially -the same. I did not then understand that there was objection to it -in principle. It was opposed as not germane to the bill in hand; -or, if germane, its adoption on that bill was supposed in some way -to embarrass its passage. On that ground, as I understand, it was -opposed,--not on its merits. Senators who spoke against it avowed their -partiality for it, if I understood them aright,--declared, that, if -they had an opportunity on any proper bill, they would vote for it. - -Well, Sir, I move it on another bill, to which I believe all will admit -it is entirely germane. There is no suggestion that it is not germane. -It is completely in order. But the objection of the Senator from -Vermont, if I understand, is, that it may interfere with the symmetry -of his bill, and introduce an element which he, who has that bill in -charge and now conducts it so ably, had not intended to introduce. -Very well, Sir; that may be said; but I do not think it a very strong -objection. - -The Senator is mistaken, if he supposes that the amendment would -endanger the bill. Just the contrary. It would give the bill strength. - - MR. HOWE. Merit. - -MR. SUMNER. It would give it both strength and merit,--because it is -a measure which grows out of the exigency of the hour. His bill on -a larger scale is just such a measure. It grows out of the present -exigency, and this is its strength and its merit. We shall pass that, -if we do pass it,--and I hope we shall,--to meet a crisis. We all feel -its necessity. But the measure which I now move grows equally out of -the present exigency. If ingrafted on the bill, it will be, like the -original measure, to meet the demands of the moment. It will be because -without it we shall leave something undone which we ought to do. - -Now, I ask Senators, is there any one who doubts that under the -circumstances such a provision ought to pass? Is there any one who -doubts, after what we have seen on a large scale, that the President, -for the time being at least, ought to be deprived of the extraordinary -function he has exercised? He has announced in public speech that he -meant to “kick out of office” present incumbents; and it was in this -proceeding, that, on his return to Washington, he undertook to remove -incumbents wherever he could. It cannot be doubted, Sir, that we owe -protection to these incumbents, so far as possible. This is an urgent -duty. If the Senator from Vermont will tell me any other way in which -this can be promoted successfully, I shall gladly follow him; but -until then I must insist that it shall share the fortunes of the bill, -“pursue the triumph and partake the gale.” If the bill succeeds, then -let this measure, which is as good as the bill. - -But the suggestion is made, that the amendment should be matured in -a committee. Why, Sir, it is very simple. Any one can mature it who -applies his mind to it for a few moments. It has already been before -the Senate for several days, discussed once, twice, three times, I -think, not elaborately, but still discussed, so that its merits have -become known; and beside its discussion in open Senate, I am a witness -that it has been canvassed in conversation much. Many Senators have -applied their minds to it, and I may say that in offering it now I -speak not merely for myself, but for others, and the proposition, in -the form in which I present it, is not merely my own, but it is that -of many others, to whose careful supervision it has been submitted. -Therefore I say that it is matured, so far as necessary, and there is -no reason why the Senate should not act upon it. Why postpone what is -in itself so essentially good? Why put off to some unknown future the -chance of applying the remedy to an admitted abuse? Is there any one -here who says that this is not an abuse, that here is not a tyrannical -exercise of power? No one. Then, Sir, let us apply the remedy. This is -the first chance we can get. Take it. - - Mr. Fessenden was “not disposed to overturn a system which - has recommended itself to the experience of the Government, - recommended itself to the most approved mode of doing the - business of the country for years, with which no fault whatever - has been found in its practical operation, simply because at - this time we are in this ‘muss’ with regard to appointments.” - He was “opposed utterly to the amendment.” Mr. Sumner replied:-- - -It is very easy to answer an argument, when you begin by exaggerating -consequences. Now, Sir, the Senator warns us against my proposition, -because it would impose so much business upon the Senate. Is that true? -He reminds us of the number of appointments we should be obliged to -act upon in the Internal Revenue Department. How many? The assistant -assessors. What others? Those can be counted. - - MR. CRAGIN. Inspectors under the internal revenue laws. - -MR. SUMNER. Inspectors also: those can all be counted. He then reminds -us of the officers in the custom-houses. They can all be counted. It -would not act on clerks in the custom-houses; it acts only, if at all, -on officers of the custom-houses, in a certain sense superior, some -with considerable responsibility. They can all be counted. It is easy -to say that we shall be obliged to deal with many thousands; but I say, -nevertheless, they can all be counted. - -But are we not obliged to deal with many thousand postmasters, and -also with many thousand officers in the army? How have we carried this -great war along? The Senate has acted always upon all the nominations -of the Executive for the national army, beginning with the general and -ending with a second lieutenant. Every one comes before the Senate; -and what is the consequence? The Executive has a direct responsibility -to the Senate with regard to every army appointment. But you are not -disposed to renounce that responsibility because it brings into this -Chamber many thousand nominations. Of the officers that I would bring -into the Chamber, some you may consider as second lieutenants in the -civil service, others as first lieutenants, others as captains. And why -should we not act upon them? - -The Senator says we had better follow the received system. One of the -finest sentiments that have fallen from one of the most gifted of our -fellow-countrymen is that verse in which he says,-- - - “New occasions teach new duties.” - -We have a new occasion, teaching a new duty. That new occasion is the -misconduct of the Executive of the United States; and the new duty is, -that Congress should exercise all its powers in throwing a shield over -fellow-citizens. The Executive is determined to continue this warfare -upon the incumbents of office; shall we not, if possible, protect them? -That is our duty growing out of this hour. It may not be our duty next -year, or four years from now, as it was not our duty last year, or four -years back. But because it may not be our duty next year, and was not -our duty last year, it does not follow that it is not our duty now. I -would act in the present according to the exigency; and if there is -an abuse, as no one will hesitate, I think, to admit, I would meet it -carefully, considerately, and bravely. - -… - -When to-morrow comes, if happily we see a clearer sky, I shall -then hearken gladly to the Senator from Maine, and follow him in -sustaining the old system; but meanwhile the old system has ceased to -be applicable. It does not meet the case. It was good enough when we -had a President in harmony with the Senate; but it is not good enough -now. We owe it, therefore, to ourselves, and to those looking here for -protection, to apply the remedy. - - January 17th, after an earnest debate, Mr. Sumner spoke again. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--As the proposition on which the Senate is about to -vote was brought forward by me, I hope that I may have the indulgence -of the Senate for a few minutes. Had I succeeded in catching the eye of -the Chair at the proper time, I should, perhaps, have said something in -reply to the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS]; but he has already -been answered by the Senator from California [Mr. CONNESS]. Besides, -the topics which he introduced were political. He did not address -himself directly to the proposition itself. I do not say that his -remarks were irrelevant, but obviously he seized the occasion to make a -political speech. The Senator is an excellent debater; he always speaks -to the point as he understands it; and yet his point is apt to be -political. Of course he speaks as one having authority with his party, -in which he is an acknowledged leader. And now, Sir, you will please -to remark, he comes forward as leader for the President of the United -States. The Senator from Indiana, an old-school Democrat,--he will not -deny the appellation,--presents himself as defender of the President. I -congratulate the President upon so able a defender. Before this great -controversy is closed, the President will need all the ability, all -the experience, all the admirable powers of debate which belong to the -distinguished Senator. - -As I shall recall the Senate precisely to the question, I begin by -asking the Secretary to read the amendment. - - The Secretary read the amendment, when Mr. Sumner continued. - -Now, Mr. President, I am unwilling to be diverted from that plain -proposition into any general discussion of a merely political -character. I ask your attention to the simple question on which you are -to vote. - -Here I meet objections brought against the amendment, so far as I have -been able to comprehend them. They have chiefly found voice, unless I -am much mistaken, in the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN], who is as -earnest as he is unquestionably able. The Senator began with a warning, -and his beginning gave tone to all he said. He warned us not to forget -the lessons of the past; and he warned us also not to fall under the -influence of any animosity. When he warned us not to forget the lessons -of the past, such was his earnestness that he seemed to me fresh from -the study of Confucius. No learned Chinese, anxious that there should -be no departure from the ancient ways, and filled with devotion for -distant progenitors, could have enjoined that duty more reverently. -We were to follow what had been done in the past. Now, Sir, I have a -proper deference for the past; I recognize its lessons, and seek to -comprehend them; but I am not a Chinese, to be swathed by traditions. -I break all bands and wrappers, when the occasion requires. I trust -that the Senator will do so likewise. The present occasion is of such -a character that his lesson is entirely inapplicable. It is well to -regard the past, and study its teachings. It is well also to regard the -future, and seek to provide for its necessities. This is plain enough. - -Then, Sir, we are not to act under the influence of animosity. -Excellent counsel. But, pray, what Senator, on an occasion like this, -when we strive to place in the statutes of the country an important -landmark, can allow himself to act under such influence? Is the Senator -from Maine the only one who can claim this immunity? I am sure he will -not make exclusive claim. As he is conscious that he is free from such -disturbing influence, so also am I. He is not more free from it than I -am. Most sincerely from my heart do I disclaim all animosity. I have -nothing of the kind. I see nothing but my duty. - -And when I speak of duty, I speak of what I would emphatically call -the duty of the hour. I tried the other day, in what passed between -myself and the Senator from Maine, briefly to illustrate this idea. -I said that we are not to act absolutely with reference to the past, -nor absolutely with reference to the future, but we are to act in the -present. Each hour has its duties, and this hour has duties such as -few other hours in our history have ever presented. Is there any one -who can question it? Are we not in the midst of a crisis? Sometimes -it is said that we are in the midst of a revolution. Call it, if you -will, simply a crisis. It is a critical hour, having its own peculiar -responsibilities. Now, if you ask me in what this present duty -specially centres, on what it specially pivots, I have an easy reply: -it is in protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen, wherever he may -be. I repeat it, protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen is the -imminent duty of the hour. This duty is so commanding, so engrossing, -so absorbing, so peculiar,--let me say, in one word, so sacred,--that -to neglect it is like the neglect of everything. It is nothing less -than a general abdication. - -Such, I say emphatically, is the duty of the hour, in presence of which -it is vain for the Senator to cite the experience of other times, when -no such duty was urgent. He does not meet the case. What he says is -irrelevant. All that was done in the past may have been well done; for -it I have no criticism; but at this time it is absolutely inapplicable. - -I return, then, to my proposition, that the duty of the hour is -protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen. But when I have said -this, I have not completed the proposition. You may ask, Protection -against whom? I answer plainly, Against the President of the United -States. There, Sir, is the duty of the hour. Ponder it well, and do -not forget it. There was no such duty on our fathers, there was no -such duty on recent predecessors in this Chamber, because there was no -President of the United States who had become the enemy of his country. - - Here Mr. Sumner was called to order by Mr. McDougall, a - Democratic Senator from California, who insisted that no - Senator had a right to make use of such words in speaking of - the President. Confusion ensued, with various calls to order. - There was question as to what Mr. Sumner really said. The - presiding officer [Mr. ANTHONY, of Rhode Island] decided that - Mr. Sumner was in order, from which decision Mr. McDougall - appealed, but finally withdrew his appeal, when Mr. Sumner - continued. - -When interrupted in the extraordinary manner witnessed by the Senate, I -was presenting reasons in favor of the measure on which we are to vote, -and I insisted as strongly as I could that the special duty of the hour -was protection to loyal and patriotic citizens against the President; -I was replying to what fell from the Senator from Maine, who seems, if -I may judge from his argument, to feel that there is no occasion for -special safeguard, and that the system left by our fathers is enough. -In this reply I used language which, according to the short-hand -reporter, was as follows: I read from his notes:-- - - “There, Sir, is the duty of the hour. There was no such duty on - our fathers, there was no such duty on our recent predecessors, - because there was no President of the United States who had - become the enemy of his country.” - -These were my words when suddenly interrupted. By those words, Sir, I -stand. - - MR. DOOLITTLE [of Wisconsin]. I raise a question of order, - whether these words are in order, as stated by the Senator. - - THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has already decided a - similar point of order. The Chair will submit this question - to the Senate. - - The Presiding Officer decided that Mr. Sumner was in order. - Mr. Doolittle appealed from this decision. Debate ensued on the - appeal, when Mr. Lane, of Indiana, moved to lay the appeal upon - the table. Amid much confusion, other motions were interposed. - At last a vote was reached on the motion of Mr. Lane. The yeas - and nays were ordered, and, being taken, resulted,--Yeas 29, - Nays 10. So the appeal was laid upon the table. Mr. Sumner, - who was in his seat, refrained from voting. The Senate then - adjourned. - - * * * * * - - January 18th, Mr. Sumner, having the floor, continued. - -It is only little more than a year ago that I felt it my duty to -characterize a message of the President as “whitewashing.”[77] The -message represented the condition of things in the Rebel States as fair -and promising, when the prevailing evidence was directly the other -way. Of course the message was “whitewashing,” and this was a mild -term for such a document. But you do not forget how certain Senators, -horror-struck at this plainness, leaped forward to vindicate the -President. Yesterday some of these same Senators, horror-struck again, -leaped forward again in the same task. Time has shown that I was right -on the former occasion. If anybody doubts that I was right yesterday, -I commend him to time. He will not be obliged to wait long. Meanwhile -I shall insist always upon complete freedom of debate, and I shall -exercise it. John Milton, in his glorious aspirations, said, “Give -me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to -conscience, above all liberties.”[78] Thank God, now that slave-masters -are driven from this Chamber, such is the liberty of an American -Senator. Of course there can be no citizen of a republic too high for -exposure, as there can be none too low for protection. Exposure of the -powerful, and protection of the weak,--these are not only invaluable -liberties, but commanding duties. - -At last the country is opening its eyes to the actual condition of -things. Already it sees that Andrew Johnson, who came to supreme power -by a bloody incident, has become the successor of Jefferson Davis -in the spirit by which he is ruled and in the mischief he inflicts -on his country. It sees the President of the Rebellion revived in -the President of the United States. It sees that the violence which -took the life of his illustrious predecessor is now by his perverse -complicity extending throughout the Rebel States, making all who love -the Union its victims, and filling the land with tragedy. It sees -that the war upon faithful Unionists is still continued under his -powerful auspices, without distinction of color, so that all, both -white and black, are sacrificed. It sees that he is the minister of -discord, and not the minister of peace. It sees, that, so long as his -influence prevails, there is small chance of tranquillity, security, -or reconciliation,--that the restoration of prosperity in the Rebel -States, so much longed for, must be arrested,--that the business of -the whole country must be embarrassed,--and that the conditions so -essential to a sound currency must be postponed. All these things the -country observes. But indignation assumes the form of judgment, when -it is seen also that this incredible, unparalleled, and far-reaching -mischief, second only to the Rebellion itself, of which it is a -continuation, is created, invigorated, and extended through plain -usurpation. - -I know that the President sometimes quotes the Constitution, and -professes to carry out its behests. But this pretension is of little -value. A French historian, whose fame as writer is eclipsed by his -greater fame as orator, who has held important posts, and now in -advancing years is still eminent in public life, has used words which -aptly characterize an attempt like that of the President. I quote -from the History of M. Thiers, while describing what is known as the -Revolution of the 18th Brumaire. - - “When any one wishes to make a revolution, it is always - necessary to disguise the illegal as much as possible,--to use - the terms of a Constitution in order to destroy it, and the - members of a Government in order to overturn it.”[79] - -In this spirit the President has acted. He has bent Constitution, laws, -and men to his arbitrary will, and has even invoked the Declaration -of Independence for the overthrow of those Equal Rights it so grandly -proclaims. - -In holding up Andrew Johnson to judgment, I do not dwell on his open -exposure of himself in a condition of intoxication, while taking the -oath of office,--nor do I dwell on the maudlin speeches by which he has -degraded the country as it was never degraded before,--nor do I hearken -to any reports of pardons sold, or of personal corruption. This is not -the case against him, as I deem it my duty to present it. These things -are bad, very bad; but they might not, in the opinion of some Senators, -justify us on the present occasion. In other words, they might not be a -sufficient reason for the amendment which I have moved. - -But there is a reason which is ample. The President has usurped -the powers of Congress on a colossal scale, and has employed these -usurped powers in fomenting the Rebel spirit and kindling anew the -dying fires of the Rebellion. Though the head of the Executive, he has -rapaciously seized the powers of the Legislative, and made himself -a whole Congress, in defiance of a cardinal principle of republican -government, that each branch must act for itself, without assuming the -powers of the other; and, in the exercise of these illegitimate powers, -he has become a terror to the good and a support to the wicked. This is -his great and unpardonable offence, for which history must condemn him, -if you do not. He is a usurper, through whom infinite wrong is done to -his country. He is a usurper, who, promising to be a Moses, has become -a Pharaoh. Do you ask for evidence? No witnesses are needed to prove -this guilt. It is found in public acts which are beyond question. It is -already written in the history of our country. Absorbing to himself all -the powers of the National Government, and exclaiming, with the French -monarch, that _he alone_ is “the Nation,” he assumes, without color -of law, to set up new governments in the Rebel States, and, in the -prosecution of this palpable usurpation, places these governments of -his own creation in the hands of traitors, to the exclusion of patriot -citizens, white and black, who, through his agency, are trampled again -under the heel of the Rebellion. Thus a power plainly illegitimate -is wielded to establish governments plainly illegitimate, which are -nothing but engines of an intolerable oppression, under which peace -and union are impossible; and this monstrous usurpation is continued -in constant efforts by every means to enforce the recognition of these -illegitimate governments, so tyrannical in origin and so baneful in -the influence they are permitted to exert. And now, in the maintenance -of this usurpation, the President employs the power of removal from -office. Some, who would not become the partisans of his tyranny, he -has, according to his own language, “kicked out.” Others are spared, -but silenced by this menace and the fate of their associates. Wherever -any vacancy occurs, whether in the Loyal or the Rebel States, it -is filled by the partisans of his usurpation. Other vacancies are -created to provide for these partisans. I need not add, that, just in -proportion as we sanction such nominations or fail to arrest them, -according to the measure of our power, we become parties to his -usurpation. - -Here I am brought directly to the practical application of this -simple statement. I have already said that the duty of the hour is in -protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen against the President. -This cannot be doubted. The first duty of a Government is protection. -The crowning glory of a Republic is, that it leaves no human being, -however humble, without protection. Show me a man exposed to wrong, -and I show you an occasion for the exercise of all the power that God -and the Constitution have given you. It will not do to say that the -cases are too numerous, or that the remedy cannot be applied without -interfering with a system handed down from our fathers, or, worse -still, that you have little sympathy with this suffering. This will not -do. You must apply the remedy, or fail in duty. Especially must you -apply it, when, as now, this wrong is part of a huge usurpation in the -interest of recent Rebellion. - -The question, then, recurs, Are you ready to apply the remedy, -according to your powers? The necessity for this remedy may be seen in -the Rebel States, and also in the Loyal States, for the usurpation is -felt in both. - -If you look at the Rebel States, you will see everywhere the triumph of -Presidential tyranny. There is not a mail which does not bring letters -without number supplicating the exercise of all the powers of Congress -against the President. There is not a newspaper which does not exhibit -evidence that you are already tardy in this work of necessity. There -is not a wind from that suffering region which is not freighted with -voices of distress. And yet you hesitate. - -I shall not be led aside to consider the full remedy, for it is not my -habit to travel out of the strict line of debate. Therefore I confine -myself to the bill before us, which is applicable alike to Loyal and -Rebel States. - -This bill has its origin in what I have already called the special -duty of the hour, which is protection of loyal and patriotic citizens -against the President. I have shown the necessity of this protection. -But the brutal language the President employs shows the spirit in which -he acts. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS], whose judgment could -not approve this brutality, doubted if the President had used it. Let -me settle this question. Here is the “National Intelligencer,” always -indulgent to the President. In its number for the 13th of September -last it thus reports what the Chief Magistrate said at St. Louis:-- - - “I believe that one set of men have enjoyed the emoluments of - office long enough, and they should let another portion of - the people have a chance. [_Cheers._] How are these men to be - got out [_A voice, ‘Kick ’em out!’--cheers and laughter_], - unless your Executive can put them out,--unless you can reach - them through the President? Congress says he shall not turn - them out, and they are trying to pass laws to prevent it being - done. Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this - action [_cheers_],--if you will stand by me in trying to give - the people a fair chance,--to have soldiers and citizens to - participate in these offices,--God being willing, I will kick - them out,--I will kick them out just as fast as I can. [_Great - cheering._]” - -Such diction as this is without example. Proceeding from the President, -it is a declaration of “policy” which you must counteract; and in this -duty make a precedent, if need be. - -The bill before the Senate, which the Senator from Vermont [Mr. -EDMUNDS] has shaped with so much care and now presses so earnestly, -arises from this necessity. Had Abraham Lincoln been spared to us, -there would have been no occasion for any such measure. It is a bill -arising from the exigency of the hour. As such it is to be judged. -But it does not meet the whole case. Undertaking to give protection, -it gives it to a few only, instead of the many. It provides against -the removal of persons whose offices, according to existing law and -Constitution, are held by and with the advice and consent of the -Senate. Its special object is to vindicate the power of the Senate over -the offices committed to it according to existing law and Constitution. -Thus vindicating the power of the Senate, it does something indirectly -to protect the citizen. In this respect it is beneficent, and I shall -be glad to vote for it. - -The amendment goes further in the same direction. It provides that -all agents and officers appointed by the President or by the head of a -Department, with salaries exceeding $1,000, shall be appointed only by -and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and it further proceeds -to vacate all such appointments made since 1st July last past, so as to -arrest the recent process of “kicking out.” The proposition is simple; -and I insist that it is necessary, unless you are willing to leave -fellow-citizens without protection against tyranny. Really the case is -so plain that I do not like to argue it, and yet you will pardon me, if -I advert to certain objections which have been made. - -We have been told that the number of persons it would bring before -the Senate is such that it would clog and embarrass the public -business,--in other words, that we have not time to deal with so many -cases. This is a strange argument. Because the victims are numerous, -therefore we are to fold our hands and let the sacrifice proceed. -But I insist that just in proportion to the number is the urgency -of your duty. Every victim has a voice; and when these voices count -by thousands, you have no right to turn away and say, “They are too -numerous for the Senate.” This is my answer to the objection founded on -numbers. - -But this is not all. You did not shrink, during the war, from the -numerous nominations of military officers, counting by thousands; -nor did you shrink from the numerous nominations of naval officers, -counting by thousands. The power over all these you never relaxed, and -I know well you never will relax. You know, that, even if unable to -consider carefully every case, yet the power over them enables you to -interpose a veto on any improper nomination. The power of the Senate is -a warning against tyranny in the Executive. But it is difficult to see -any strong reason for this power in the case of the army and navy which -is not applicable also to civil officers. This I should say in tranquil -times; but there is another reason peculiar to the hour. Even if in -tranquil times I were disposed to leave the appointing power as it is, -I am not disposed to do so now. - -Then, again, we are told that we must not abandon the system of -our fathers. I have already answered this objection precisely, in -saying, that, whatever may have been the system of the Fathers, -it is inadequate to the present hour. But I am not satisfied that -the proposition moved by me is inconsistent with the system of the -Fathers. The officers of the Internal Revenue did not exist then, -and the inferior officers of the customs were few in number and with -small emoluments. But all district attorneys and marshals, even if -their salary was no more than two hundred dollars, were subject to the -confirmation of the Senate. - - MR. EDMUNDS. And so they are yet. - -MR. SUMNER. And so they are yet. But can the Senator doubt, that, if, -at the time when those officers were made subject to the confirmation -of the Senate, weighers and gaugers and inspectors had been as well -paid as they are now, they, too, would have been brought under the -control of this body? I cannot. - - MR. EDMUNDS. I do not think they would. - -MR. SUMNER. But even if the Senator does not accept the view which I -present on the probable course of our fathers, he cannot resist the -argument, that, whatever may have been the old system, we must act now -in the light of present duties. I repeat, a system good for our fathers -may not be good for this hour, which is so full of danger. - -Then, again, we are told, with something of indifference, if not -of levity, that it is not the duty of the Senate to look after the -“bread and butter” of officeholders. This is a familiar way of saying -that these small cases are not worthy of the Senate. Not so do I -understand our duties. There is no case so small as not to be worthy -of the Senate, especially if in this way you can save a citizen from -oppression and weaken the power of an oppressor. - -Something has been said about the curtailment of the Executive power, -and the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] has even argued against the -amendment as conferring upon the President additional powers. This -is strange. The effect of the amendment is, by clear intendment, to -take from the President a large class of nominations and bring them -within the control of the Senate. Thus it is obviously a curtailment of -Executive power, which I insist has become our bounden duty. The old -resolution of the House of Commons, moved by Mr. Dunning, is applicable -here: “The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and -ought to be diminished.” In this spirit we must put a curb on the -President, now maintaining illegitimate power by removals from office. - - * * * * * - -Mr. President, I have used moderate language, strictly applicable -to the question. But it is my duty to remind you how much the public -welfare depends upon courageous counsels. Courage is now the highest -wisdom. Do not forget that we stand face to face with an enormous and -malignant usurper, through whom the Republic is imperilled,--that -Republic which, according to our oaths of office, we are bound to save -from all harm. The lines are drawn. On one side is the President, and -on the other side is the people of the United States. It is the old -pretension of prerogative, to be encountered, I trust, by that same -inexorable determination which once lifted England to heroic heights. -The present pretension is more outrageous, and its consequences are -more deadly; surely the resistance cannot be less complete. An American -President must not claim an immunity denied to an English king. In the -conflict he has so madly precipitated, I am with the people. In the -President I put no trust, but in the people I put infinite trust. Who -will not stand with the people? - -Here, Sir, I close what I have to say at this time. But before I take -my seat, you will pardon me, if I read a brief lesson, which seems -written for the hour. The words are as beautiful as emphatic. - - “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy - present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we - must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must - think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and - then we shall save our country.” - -These are the words of Abraham Lincoln.[80] They are as full of vital -force now as when he uttered them. I entreat you not to neglect the -lesson. Learn from its teaching how to save our country. - - Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Reverdy Johnson replied. Mr. Howe, of - Wisconsin, and Mr. Lane, of Indiana, favored the amendment. Mr. - Johnson suggested that the expression of opinion adverse to the - President would disqualify a Senator to sit on his impeachment. - Mr. Sumner interrupted him to say:-- - -What right have I to know that the President is to be impeached? How -can I know it? And let me add, even if I could know it, there can be no -reason in that why I should not argue the measure directly before the -Senate, and present such considerations as seem to me proper, founded -on the misconduct of that officer. - - Mr. Sumner here changed his amendment by striking out the - limitation of $1,000 and inserting $1,500. He then said:-- - -I make the change in deference to Senators about me, and especially -yielding to the earnest argument of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. -EDMUNDS], who was so much disturbed by the idea that the Senate would -be called to act upon inspectors. My experience teaches me not to be -disturbed at anything. I am willing to act on an inspector or a night -watchman; and if I could, I would save him from Executive tyranny. The -Senator would leave him a prey, so far as I can understand, for no -other reason than because he is an inspector, an officer of inferior -dignity, and because, if we embrace all inspectors, we shall have too -much to do. - -Sir, we are sent to the Senate for work, and especially to surround -the citizen with all possible safeguards. The duty of the hour is as I -have declared. It ought not to be postponed. Every day of postponement -is to my mind a sacrifice. Let us not, then, be deterred even by the -humble rank of these officers, or by their number, but, whether humble -or numerous, embrace them within the protecting arms of the Senate. - - The amendment was rejected,--Yeas 16, Nays 21. After further - debate, the bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 29, Nays 9. It then - passed the House with amendments. To settle the difference - between the two Houses, there was a Committee of Conference, - when the bill agreed upon passed the Senate,--Yeas 22, Nays - 10,--and passed the House,--Yeas 112, Nays 41. March 2d, the - bill was vetoed, when, notwithstanding the objections of the - President, it passed the Senate,--Yeas 35, Nays 11,--and passed - the House,--Yeas 138, Nays 40,--and thus became a law.[81] - - - - -DENUNCIATION OF THE COOLIE TRADE. - -RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, FROM THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, -JANUARY 16, 1867. - - - The following resolution was reported by Mr. Sumner, who asked - the immediate action of the Senate upon it. - -Whereas the traffic in laborers transported from China and other -Eastern countries, known as the Coolie trade, is odious to the people -of the United States as inhuman and immoral; - -And whereas it is abhorrent to the spirit of modern international -law and policy, which have substantially extirpated the African -slave-trade, to permit the establishment in its place of a mode of -enslaving men different from the former in little else than the -employment of fraud instead of force to make its victims captive: -Therefore - -_Be it resolved_, That it is the duty of this Government to give effect -to the moral sentiment of the Nation through all its agencies, for the -purpose of preventing the further introduction of coolies into this -hemisphere or the adjacent islands. - - The resolution was adopted. - - - - -CHEAP BOOKS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF BILL REDUCING THE -TARIFF ON BOOKS, JANUARY 24, 1867. - - - The Senate having under consideration the bill to provide - increased revenue from imports, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved - to retain the following articles on the free list:-- - - “Books, maps, charts, and other printed matter, specially - imported in good faith for any public library or society, - incorporated or established for philosophical, literary, or - religious purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine - arts.” - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--By the existing law, public libraries and literary -societies receive books, maps, charts, and engravings free of duty. -It is now proposed to change the law, so that public libraries and -literary societies shall no longer receive books, maps, charts, and -engravings free of duty. It is a little curious that the present moment -is seized for this important change, which I must call retrogressive in -character. It seems like going back to the Dark Ages. We made no such -change during the war. We went through all its terrible trials and the -consequent taxation without any such attempt. Now that peace has come, -and we are considering how to mitigate taxation, it is proposed to add -this new tax. - - MR. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator allow me to ask whether he - regards this bill as a mitigation of the taxes upon goods - brought from foreign countries? - - MR. SUMNER. I am not discussing the bill as a general measure. - - MR. HENDRICKS. I thought the Senator spoke of the present - effort to mitigate taxation. - -MR. SUMNER. I believe I am not wrong, when I say there is everywhere -a disposition to reduce taxation, whether on foreign or domestic -articles. Such is the desire of the country and the irresistible -tendency of things. But what must be the astonishment, when it appears, -that, instead of reducing a tax on knowledge, you augment it! - -I insist, that, in imposing this duty, you not only change the -existing law, but you depart from the standing policy of republican -institutions. Everywhere we have education at the public expense. The -first form is in the public school, open to all. But the public library -is the complement or supplement of the public school. As well impose a -tax on the public school as on the public library. - -I doubt if the Senate is fully aware of the number of public libraries -springing into existence. This is a characteristic of our times. Nor -is it peculiar to our country. Down to a recent day, public libraries -were chiefly collegiate. In Europe they were collegiate or conventual. -There were no libraries of the people. But such libraries are now -appearing in England and in France. Every considerable place or centre -has its library for the benefit of the neighborhood. But this movement, -like every liberal tendency, is more marked in the United States. Here -public libraries are coming into being without number. The Public -Library of Boston and the Astor Library of New York are magnificent -examples, which smaller towns are emulating. In my own State there -are public libraries in Lowell, Newburyport, New Bedford, Worcester, -Springfield,--indeed, I might almost say in every considerable town. -But Massachusetts is not alone. Public libraries are springing up in -all the Northern States. They are now extending like a belt of light -across the country. They are a new Zodiac, in which knowledge travels -with the sun from east to west. Of course these are all for the public -good. They are public schools, where every book is a schoolmaster. To -tax such institutions now, for the first time, is a new form of that -old enemy, a “tax on knowledge.” Such is my sense of their supreme -value that I would offer them bounties rather than taxes. - -In continuation of this same hospitality to knowledge, I wish to go -still further, and relieve imported books of all taxes, so far as not -inconsistent with interests already embarked in the book business. For -instance, let all books, maps, charts, and engravings printed before -1840 take their place on the free list. Publications before that time -cannot come in competition with any interests here. The revenue they -afford will be unimportant. The tax you impose adds to the burdens of -scholars and professional men who need them. And yet every one of these -books, when once imported, is a positive advantage to the country, by -which knowledge is extended and the public taste improved. I would not -claim too much for these instructive strangers belonging to another -generation. I think I do not err in asking for them a generous welcome. -But, above all, do not tax them. - -It is sometimes said that we tax food and clothes, therefore we must -tax books. I regret that food or clothes are taxed, because the tax -presses upon the poor. But this is no reason for any additional tax. -Reduce all such taxes, rather than add to them. But you will not fail -to remember the essential difference between these taxes. In New -England education from the beginning was at the public expense; and -this has been for some time substantially the policy of the whole -country, except so far as it was darkened by Slavery. Therefore I -insist, that, because we tax food and clothes for the body, this is no -reason why we should tax food and clothes for the mind. - - The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted,--Yeas 22, - Nays 13; so the amendment was adopted. - - Mr. Sumner then moved to exempt “maps, charts, and engravings - executed prior to 1840.” He said that this amendment was - naturally associated with that on which the Senate had just - acted; that there could be no competition with anything at home. - - In reply to Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr. Sumner again spoke. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--There is no question of the exemption of those who -are best able to pay these duties; it is simply a question of a tax -on knowledge. The Senator by his system would shut these out from the -country, and would say, “Hail to darkness!” I do not wish to repeat -what I have so often said; but the argument of the Senator has been -made here again and again, and heretofore, as often as made, I have -undertaken to answer it. He says we put a tax on necessaries now,--on -the food that fills the body, on the garments that clothe the body. -I regret that we do. I wish we were in a condition to relieve the -country of such taxation. But does not the Senator bear in mind that -he proposes to go further, and to depart from the great principle -governing our institutions from the beginning of our history? We have -had education free: in other words, we have undertaken to fill the mind -and to clothe the mind at the public expense. We never did undertake -to fill the body or to clothe the body at the public expense. Sir, as -a lover of my race, I should be glad, could the country have clothed -the body and filled the body at the public expense. I should be -glad, had society been in such a condition that this vision could be -accomplished; but we all know that it is not, and I content myself with -something much simpler and more practical. I would aim to establish the -principle which seems to have governed our fathers, and which is so -congenial with republican institutions, that education and knowledge, -so far as practicable, shall be free. - -To make education and knowledge free, you must, so far as possible, -relieve all books from taxation. I have already said that I did not -propose to interfere with any of the practical interests of the book -trade; but, where those interests are out of the way, I insist that -the great principle of republican institutions should be applied. This -is my answer to the Senator from Oregon. I fear he has not adequately -considered the question. He has not brought to it that knowledge, that -judgment, which always command my respect, as often as he addresses -the Senate. He seems to have spoken hastily. I hope that he will -withdraw, or at least relax, his opposition, and, revolving the subject -hereafter, range himself, as he must, with his large intelligence, on -the side of human knowledge. - - Then, again, in reply to Mr. Conness, of California, Mr. Sumner - remarked:-- - -It is because I hearken to the needs of my country that I make -this proposition. I am not to be led aside by the picture of other -necessities. I respect all the necessities of the people; but among -the foremost are those of public instruction, and it is of those I am -a humble representative on this floor. The Senator from California -may, if he chooses, treat that representation with levity; he may -announce himself an opponent of the policy which I would establish for -my country; he may set himself against what I insist is a fundamental -principle of republican institutions, that knowledge should not be -taxed; he may go forth and ask for taxation on books and on public -libraries, and, if he chooses, carry the principle still further, and -tax the public school. He will then be consistent with himself. I hope -that he will allow me to speak for what I believe the true need of the -country. - - The motion to exempt maps, charts, and engravings was rejected. - - Mr. Sumner then moved to place on the free list “books printed - prior to 1840.” It being objected, that “the duty as already - laid was very low, only 15 per cent.,”--that “we have to look - to revenue,”--and that it was desirable “to have all the - interests of the country taxed,”--Mr. Sumner replied:-- - -Every argument for making the duty low is equally strong against -having any duty on the subject. There is no reason that could have -influenced the Committee in favor of reducing the duty which is not -equally strong in favor of removing the duty. The Senator declares -that the object is revenue. But the revenue that will come from this -source is very small; it is not large enough to compensate for the -mischief it will cause. Sir, I believe all the conclusions of the best -experienced in taxation are, that we should seek as much as possible to -diminish the objects of taxation. Just in proportion as nations become -experienced in imposing taxes do they limit the objects to which the -taxes are applied. It seems to me we are strangely insensible to that -lesson of history. We seem to be groping about and seizing hold of -every little object, every filament, if I may so express myself, which -we can grasp, in order to drag it into the sphere of taxation. - -I think we should be better employed, if we declined to tax a large -number of articles which it is proposed to tax, and brought our -taxation to bear on a few important articles, which we should make -contribute substantially to the resources of the country. The tax that -is now proposed will contribute nothing of any real substance to the -resources of the country, while to my view it is not creditable. I say -it frankly, it is not creditable to the civilization of our age, and -least of all is it creditable to the civilization of a republic. - -Such is my conviction. As often as I have thought of this question, -I cannot see it in any other light; and I do think that money derived -from a tax on books can be vindicated only on the principle of the -Roman emperor, “Money from any quarter, no matter what, for money does -not smell.”[82] Now it were better, if, instead of hunting up these -several articles for taxation, running them down like game, to bag -them in the public treasury, we should confine ourselves to the great -subjects, and make them productive. There are enough of them, and in -this way we can have revenue enough. I would have all the revenue we -want; but, having it, be hospitable to literature, to knowledge, to -art; and now let me say, be hospitable to books, because through books -you will obtain what you desire in literature, in knowledge, and in art. - - Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, thought Mr. Sumner ought to be content - with what was done. “If he gets the rate reduced from 25 to 15 - per cent., when the taxes on everything we eat and wear are - being raised 20, 30, 40, or 50 per cent., I think that he ought - to be content.” - -MR. SUMNER. Personally I am content with anything. I am trying to do -what I think best for the people. I may be mistaken in my judgment; and -when I see so many distinguished Senators so earnestly differing from -me, I am led to call in question my conclusions; and yet considerable -reflection and some experience in dealing with this question have -always brought me more strongly than before to the same unalterable -conclusion. I feel, that, in imposing this tax, you make a great -mistake; because it is a bad example, and just to the extent of its -influence keeps knowledge out of the country. - - The motion of Mr. Sumner was rejected,--Yeas 5, Nays 32. - Another motion by him, to exempt mathematical instruments and - philosophical apparatus imported for societies, shared the same - fate. - - - - -CHEAP COAL. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE TARIFF BILL, JANUARY 29, -1867. - - - January 29th, the Senate having under consideration the bill - to provide increased revenue from imports, known as the Tariff - Bill, Mr. Sumner moved the following:-- - - “On all bituminous coal mined and imported from any - place not more than thirty degrees of longitude east of - Washington, fifty cents per ton of twenty-eight bushels, - eighty pounds to the bushel.” - - The effect of this amendment would be to reduce the duty from - $1.50 to 50 cents a ton. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The object of the amendment is to bring the bill back -where it was at first. The Senate will remember that in committee a -motion prevailed by which the duty of 50 cents per ton on the coal -mentioned was raised to $1.50. I am at a loss to understand the precise -object of this increased tax on coal. There are strong reasons against -any tax on coal; and the reasons are stronger still against this -increased tax. Its movers must have an object. What is it? - -It seems that there are imported into the United States about 500,000 -tons, being 350,000 from the British Provinces and 150,000 from Great -Britain; and this coal is to be taxed at the rate of $1.50 a ton in -gold. If the same amount of importation continued, this tax would yield -$750,000 in gold,--a handsome addition to the revenue. But I am sure -the tax is not imposed on this account. It is imposed with some vague -hope of benefit to the coal interest. But here, as we look at it, we -are mystified. Is it supposed that the price of coal throughout the -country will be raised to this extent? The idea is monstrous. There -are some 22,000,000 tons now produced, which, if raised in price -according to this tax, will cost the country 33,000,000 gold dollars in -addition to the present price. This might be advantageous to certain -proprietors, but it must be damaging to the country. Nobody can expect -this. The object, then, is something else. I will not say that it is -merely to take advantage of the States that do not produce coal, for -this would be sheer oppression. I suppose that it must be to exclude -foreign coal, and to that extent open the market for domestic coal. - -But this tax will be positively oppressive to coal-purchasers in New -England, to say nothing of New York. Nature has denied coal to this -region of country,--or rather, Nature has placed the natural supply for -this region outside our political jurisdiction. It is in Nova Scotia, -on the other side of our boundary line. Coal in abundance is there, -easily accessible by water, and therefore transported at comparatively -small cost. Another part of our country has a different supply. On the -other side of the mountain-ridge separating the sea-coast from the -valleys of the West is an infinite coal-field, the source of untold -wealth, which, beginning in the mountains and filling West Virginia -and Western Pennsylvania, stretches through the valley of the Ohio, -enriching the States that border upon it, and then, crossing the -Mississippi, extends through other States beyond, even to Colorado. -This is the greatest coal-field, as it is also the greatest corn-field, -in the world. It is magnificent beyond comparison. This is the natural -resource for the immense region west of the Alleghanies. But why should -New England, which has a natural resource comparatively near at home, -be compelled at great sacrifice to drag her coal from these distant -supplies? - -I hear of complaint at Pittsburg, where the price of coal is only two -dollars a ton, currency. But imported coal in New England costs at -the mine two dollars a ton, gold. Add three or four dollars a ton for -freight. And now it is proposed to pile on this a duty of more than -two dollars, currency. If Pittsburg complains of coal at two dollars a -ton, what must Boston say, when you make it nine dollars? Is this just? -Is it practically wise? But I forget: there can be no wisdom without -justice. - -If it be said that the interests of New England are protected even by -the bill before the Senate, I have to say in reply, that no interest -of hers is protected at the expense of the rest of the country. All -that we ask is fair play. Let it be shown that there is any part of the -country which will suffer from the favor accorded to New England as -her coal-purchasers must suffer from the favor accorded to the distant -coal-owners of the mountains, and I will do what I can to see justice -done. I ask nothing but that justice which I am always willing to -accord. We constitute parts of one country with common interests, and -the prosperity of each is bound up in the prosperity of all. - -It is said that this proposed tax will be of advantage to the -Cumberland coal in the mountains of Maryland. Perhaps; but not to any -considerable extent. I understand that not more than 60,000 tons of -Nova Scotia coal are imported in competition with that of Cumberland. -This is mainly at Providence, where it is used in the manufacture of -iron. But the Cumberland coal is so completely adapted to glassworks, -railways, ocean steamships, blacksmiths’ forges, that it may be said to -command the market exclusively. Nature has given to it this monopoly. -Why not be content? - -There are peculiar reasons why coal should be cheap, whether viewed -as a necessary or as a motive power. As a necessary, it enters into -the comforts of life; as a motive power, it is the substitute for -water-power. What reason can you give for a tax on motive power from -coal which is not equally strong for a tax on motive power from water, -unless it be that one is “black” and the other is “white”? I plead -that you shall not needlessly add to the public burden in a particular -portion of the country. I have alluded to the cheapness of coal at -Pittsburg. In other places it is cheaper still. At Pomeroy, in Ohio, -it is $1.40 a ton, and at Cumberland itself it is $1.50 a ton, always -currency; and yet New England is to pay $1.50 tax, gold, being more -than the coal is worth to its producer, besides the large cost of -transportation. - -Next after the industry of a people is cheap coal, as an element of -national prosperity. Without it, even industry will lose much of its -activity and variety. It is coal that has vitalized and quickened all -the mighty energies of England. From coal have come all the various -products of her manufactories, and these again have furnished the -freights for her ships, so that she has become not only a great -manufacturing nation, but also a great commercial nation. Coal is the -author of all this. Coal is the fuel under the British pot which makes -it boil. It ought to do the same for us, and even more, if you will let -it. Therefore I end as I began,--tax coal as little as possible. - - In reply especially to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, and - Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -… - -Now, without following the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] in that -proposition, I do insist, that, on articles of prime necessity, we -should reduce taxation where we can. Therefore, when the Senator from -Ohio tells me, that, if my proposition is adopted, we shall lose a -certain amount of revenue derived from coal, I have an easy reply. Very -well,--let us lose that amount of revenue derived from coal. You ought -not to obtain it; coal ought not to be one of your taxed articles. So -far as possible, coal should be cheap. That is the proposition with -which I began and ended; and if I do not impress that upon the Senate, -I certainly fail in what I attempted. - - MR. GRIMES [of Iowa]. Why should it be cheap? - - MR. SUMNER. Because it enters into the necessaries of life, and - because it is a motive power that works our manufactories. - -… - -I say that the article is necessary to us in New England. It enters -into our daily life,--into the economies of every house, into the -expenses of every citizen. It enters, therefore, into the welfare -of the community; and you cannot tax coal without making the whole -community feel it, whether rich or poor. Every poor man feels it. If I -said the rich man felt it, you would reply, “That makes no difference; -let him feel it.” I insist that every poor man feels it; and I insist -further, that all who are interested in the manufactures of the country -necessarily feel it,--not only producers and owners, but all who use -the products of their looms. I say, that, as a motive power, it should -be made cheap and kept cheap. Now the apparent policy is, to make it -dear and keep it dear. - - MR. HENDRICKS [of Indiana]. I like the Senator’s argument just - where he is now; but I wish to ask him whether, if by a tariff - you raise the price of every yard of cheap woollen goods and - cheap cotton goods, it is not a direct tax on the labor of the - poor man of the West, who has to buy them? - - MR. CRESWELL [of Maryland, to Mr. Sumner]. That is the - application of your argument. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator from Maryland says that is the application of -my argument. Pardon me, not at all; because the tax on cotton and on -woollen goods--I have had very little to do with imposing any such -tax--is not oppressive on any part of the country, nor does it bear -hard on the constituents of the Senator, or on the constituents of any -Senator on this floor; whereas the increase of the tax on coal will -bear hard upon a whole community, and upon all its interests; and that -is the precise difference between the two cases. - -The Senator from Ohio seemed to speak of this with perfect -tranquillity, as if there were nothing in it oppressive, or even -open to criticism. He thought we might tax coal as we tax any other -article. I differ from him. I do not think you should tax coal as you -tax other articles; and, further, I do not think you should impose -any tax bearing with special hardship, so as to be something akin to -injustice, on any particular part of our country. That is my answer to -the argument of the Senator from Maryland, and to the inquiry of the -Senator from Indiana. - - Mr. Creswell replied warmly, criticizing Mr. Sumner, saying, - among other things,-- - - “The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has treated - us to a Free-Trade speech in the Senate of the United - States. The commentary of the Senator from Indiana was - just and correct; it was a deduction that he had a - right logically to make; and I tell the Senator from - Massachusetts that his course in the Senate to-day is in - its effects a better Free-Trade speech than has ever been - made in any of the Middle States during the last ten years.” - - Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, united with Mr. Sumner. - - The amendment was lost,--Yeas 11, Nays 25. - - - - -A SINGLE TERM FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND CHOICE BY DIRECT VOTE OF THE -PEOPLE. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION, -FEBRUARY 11, 1867. - - - The Senate had under consideration an Amendment to the National - Constitution, reported by the Judiciary Committee, as follows:-- - - “No person elected President or Vice-President, who has - once served as President, shall afterward be eligible to - either office.” - - Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, thought that the words “who has once - served as President” should be struck out. Mr. Williams, of - Oregon, suggested: “No person who has once served as President - shall afterward be eligible to either office.” Mr. Poland, of - Vermont, moved, as a substitute, the following:-- - - “The President and Vice-President of the United States - shall hereafter be chosen for the term of six years; and no - person elected President or Vice-President, who has once - served as President, shall afterward be eligible to either - office.” - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -I agree with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON], so far as I was -able to follow his remarks. It seems to me it would be better, if the -term of the President were six years rather than four. I regretted -that the report of the Committee did not embody such a change. I am -therefore thankful to the Senator from Vermont, who by his motion gives -us an opportunity to vote on that proposition. - -But allow me to go a little further, and there I should like the -attention of my friend opposite [Mr. JOHNSON]. If the term of the -President is to be six years, should we not abolish the office of -Vice-President? Are you willing to take the chance of a Vice-President -becoming President a few weeks after the beginning of the six years’ -term, and then serving out that full term? We all know, in fact, -that the Vice-President is nominated often as a sort of balance -to the President. It is too much with a view to certain political -considerations, and possibly to aid the election of the President, -rather than to secure the services of one in all respects competent to -be President. Suppose, therefore, we have a President only, and leave -to Congress the provision for a temporary filling of the office, as now -on the disability of the President and Vice-President. - -I throw out these views without making any motion. I submit that we do -not meet all the difficulties of the present hour, unless we go still -further and provide against abnormal troubles from the nomination -of a Vice-President selected less with reference to fitness than to -transient political considerations. As my friend says, he is thrown in -for a make-weight, and then, in the providence of God, the make-weight -becomes Chief Magistrate. It seems to me important, that, if possible, -we should provide against the recurrence of such difficulties. - -But suppose the proposition of the Committee to stand as reported, -I am brought then to the question raised by the Senator from Maine -[Mr. FESSENDEN], whether it should be applicable to a Vice-President -in the providence of God called to be President. On that point I am -obliged to go with the Committee. It seems to me that the evil we wish -to guard against in the case of the President naturally arises in the -case of a Vice-President who becomes President. I say this on the -reason of the case, and then I say it on our melancholy experience. -The three cases in our history which distinctly teach the necessity -of the Amendment before us are of three Vice-Presidents who in the -providence of God became Presidents. But for these three cases, nobody -would have thought of change. It is to meet the difficulties found to -arise from a Vice-President becoming President, and then hearkening -to the whisperings and temptations which unhappily visit a person in -his situation, that we have been led to contemplate the necessity of -change. I hope, therefore, if the proposition of the Senator from -Vermont [Mr. POLAND] is not taken as a substitute, that the words of -the Committee will be preserved. - -I am disposed to go still further. I would have an additional -Amendment,--one that has not appeared in this discussion, though not -unknown in this Chamber, for distinguished Senators who once occupied -these seats have more than once advocated it,--I mean an Amendment -providing for the election of President directly by the people, without -the intervention of Electoral Colleges. Such an Amendment would give -every individual voter, wherever he might be, a positive weight in the -election. It would give minorities in distant States an opportunity -of being heard in determining who shall be Chief Magistrate. Now they -are of no consequence. Such an Amendment would be of peculiar value. -It would be in harmony, too, with those ideas, belonging to the hour, -of the unity of the Republic. I know nothing that would contribute -more to bring all the people, to mass all the people, into one united -whole, than to make the President directly eligible by their votes. But -no such proposition is before us, nor is there any such proposition -as I have alluded to with regard to the office of Vice-President. I -hope, however, that these subjects will not be allowed to pass out of -mind, and that some time or other we shall be able to act on them in a -practical way. - - After debate, the question was dropped without any vote. - - - - -RECONSTRUCTION AT LAST WITH COLORED SUFFRAGE AND PROTECTION AGAINST -REBEL INFLUENCE. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE MORE EFFICIENT -GOVERNMENT OF THE REBEL STATES, FEBRUARY 14, 19, AND 20, 1867. - - - The subject of Reconstruction was uppermost during the present - session, sometimes in Constitutional Amendments and sometimes - in measures of legislation. - - * * * * * - - February 13th, the Senate received from the House of - Representatives a bill “to provide for the more efficient - government of the Insurrectionary States,” which, after various - changes, was finally passed under the title of “An Act to - provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States,” - being the most important measure of legislation in the history - of Reconstruction. As this bill came from the House it was a - military bill, creating five military districts in the South, - without any requirement with regard to suffrage, and with no - exclusion of Rebels. Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, and Mr. Blaine, of - Maine, announced in the House amendments requiring in the new - constitutions “that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed - by all male citizens of the United States twenty-one years - old and upward, without regard to race, color, or previous - condition of servitude, except such as may be disfranchised for - participating in the late Rebellion or for felony at Common - Law.” But they had not been able to obtain a direct vote; nor - was there any exclusion of Rebels in their propositions. Mr. - Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said:-- - - “The amendment of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] - lets in a vast number of Rebels and shuts out nobody. All - I ask is, that, when the House comes to vote upon that - amendment, it shall understand that the adoption of it - would be an entire surrender of those States into the hands - of the Rebels.” - - About this time the House passed what was known as the - Louisiana Bill, being a bill providing for the reconstruction - of that State, with all necessary machinery, not unlike the - bill introduced on the first day of the preceding session, - “to enforce the guaranty of a republican form of government - in certain States whose governments have been usurped or - overthrown.”[83] The two bills together would have made a - complete system of Protection, and the second, when extended to - all the States, a complete system of Reconstruction. - - * * * * * - - February 14th, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -I am in favor of each of these bills. Each is excellent. One is -the beginning of a true Reconstruction; the other is the beginning -of a true Protection. Now in these Rebel States there must be -Reconstruction and there must be Protection. Both must be had, and -neither should be antagonized with the other. The two should go on -side by side,--guardian angels of the Republic. Never was Congress -called to consider measures of more vital importance. I am unwilling to -discriminate between the two. I accept them both with all my heart, and -am here now to sustain them by my constant presence and vote. - -But, Sir, what we know as the Louisiana Bill came into this Chamber -first; it was first made familiar to us; it has precedence. On that -account it seems to me it ought to come up first, it ought to lead the -way. I am not going to say that this is better than the other, or that -the other is better than this. Each is good; and yet, I doubt not, each -is susceptible of amendment. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] has -already foreshadowed an important amendment on the bill reported by the -Committee of which he is Chairman; I have already sent to the Chair an -amendment which at the proper time I may move on the other bill. But I -desire to make one remark with regard to amendments. I am so much in -earnest for the passage of these bills, that I shall cheerfully forego -any amendment of my own, if I find it to be the general sentiment of -those truly in earnest for the bills that we ought not to attempt -amendments. If, however, amendments seem to be preferable, then I shall -propose those I have sent to the Chair. - - February 15th, the Senate began the consideration of the - Military Bill, continuing in session until three o’clock in - the morning of the next day. Speeches and motions showed - great differences on the subject. Some were content with a - purely military bill, contemplating simply the protection of - the people in the Rebel States. Others wished to add measures - of Reconstruction; and here again there were differences. - Some were content with the requirement of suffrage without - distinction of color in the new constitutions, making no - provision for the exclusion of Rebels, leaving the organization - in the hands of the existing electors, and providing, that, on - the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, and of a State - constitution securing equal suffrage, any such State should be - entitled to representation in Congress. - - In the hope of putting an end to these differences, a caucus - of Republican Senators was held the next forenoon, when a - committee was appointed, as follows: Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, - Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, Mr. Harris, - of New York, Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr. Trumbull, - of Illinois, and Mr. Sumner, to consider the pending bill and - amendments and report to the caucus. The committee withdrew - from the Senate, leaving a Senator making a long and elaborate - speech, and proceeded with their work. The House bill was - taken as the basis, and amended in several particulars, to - which Mr. Sumner afterwards alluded in the Senate. An effort - by Mr. Sumner to require equal suffrage found no favor; nor - did what was known as the Louisiana Bill, which he proposed - as a substitute; nor an effort to exclude Rebels. He felt - it his duty to say to the committee, that, on the making of - the report, he should appeal to the caucus, which he did. - The caucus, by 15 Yeas to 13 Nays,--Senators standing to be - counted,--voted to require equal suffrage in the choice of the - constitutional conventions; also in the new constitutions, - and in their ratification. But the bill was left without any - exclusion of Rebels, and with the declaration, that, doing - these things and ratifying the Amendment to the National - Constitution, a State should be entitled to representation in - Congress. In these latter respects it seemed to Mr. Sumner - highly objectionable. - - The vote of the caucus to require suffrage without distinction - of color seemed a definitive settlement of that question for - the Rebel States. At that small meeting, and by those informal - proceedings, this great act was accomplished. For Mr. Sumner it - was an occasion of especial satisfaction, as his long-continued - effort was crowned with success. These volumes show how, - by letter, speech, resolution, and bill, he had constantly - maintained this duty of Congress. His bill, introduced on the - first day of the preceding session, “to enforce the guaranty - of a republican form of government in certain States whose - governments have been usurped or overthrown,” contained the - specific requirement now adopted, while the debates on the - Louisiana Bill,[84] the Colorado Bill,[85] the Nebraska - Bill,[86] and the Constitutional Amendment,[87] attested his - endeavor to apply this requirement. - - During the evening session, Mr. Sherman, chairman of the - caucus committee, moved the bill accepted by the caucus, as a - substitute for the House bill. It was understood that it would - receive the support of the Republican Senators without further - amendment, and, as they constituted a large majority, its - passage was sure. Under these circumstances, Mr. Sumner left - the Chamber at midnight. The vote was taken a little after six - o’clock, Sunday morning,--Yeas 29, Nays 10. - - In the other House, the substitute of the Senate was the - occasion of decided differences, not unlike those in the Senate - on the House bill. Many felt that the Unionists were left - without adequate protection. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, - after saying that the Senate had sent “an amendment which - contains everything else but protection,” exclaimed: “Pass this - bill and you open the flood-gates of misery,--you disgrace, - in my judgment, the Congress of the United States.” Mr. - Boutwell, of Massachusetts, said: “My objection to the proposed - substitute of the Senate is fundamental, it is conclusive. It - provides, if not in terms, at least in fact, by the measures - which it proposes, to reconstruct those State governments - at once through the agency of disloyal men.” Mr. Williams, - of Pennsylvania, said: “We sent to the Senate a proposition - to meet the necessities of the hour, which was Protection - without Reconstruction, and it sends back another, which is - Reconstruction without Protection.” At length, on motion of Mr. - Stevens, the House refused to concur in the amendment of the - Senate, and asked a committee of conference on the disagreeing - votes of the two Houses. - - * * * * * - - February 19th, the excitement of the House was again - transferred to the Senate, where Mr. Williams, of Oregon, - moved that the Senate insist upon its amendment, and agree to - the conference. An earnest debate ensued, in which Mr. Sumner - favored the conference committee, and also explained what he - wished to accomplish by the bill. Mr. Williams withdrew his - motion, when Mr. Sherman moved that the Senate insist on its - amendment to the House bill and that the House be informed - thereof. Mr. Trumbull sustained the motion. Mr. Sumner followed. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--In what the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] has -said of the failure by the President to discharge his duties under -existing laws I entirely agree. He touches the case to the quick. It is -impossible not to see that the special difficulty of the present moment -springs from the bad man who sits in the executive chair. He is the -centre of our woes. More than once before I have recalled the saying -of Catholic Europe, “All roads lead to Rome.” So now, among us, do all -roads lead to the President. We attempt nothing which does not bring us -face to face with him, precisely as during the Rebellion we attempted -nothing which did not bring us face to face with Jefferson Davis. I -mention this, not to deter, but for encouragement. We have already -conquered the chief of the Rebellion. I doubt not that we shall conquer -his successor also. But this can be only by strenuous exertion. It is -no argument against legislation that the President will not execute it. -We must do our duty, and insist always that he shall do his. - -Therefore I am in favor of some measure of Reconstruction, the best -we can secure, the more thorough the better. And I ask you to take -such steps as will best accomplish this result. There is a difference -between the two Houses, and at this stage the customary proceeding is -a conference committee. But the Senator from Illinois is against any -such committee in a case of such magnitude. To my mind his argument -should be directed against the rule of Parliamentary Law which -provides a conference committee at this precise stage of parliamentary -proceedings. Let him move to change the Parliamentary Law, so that -in cases of peculiar importance the common rule shall cease to -be applicable. Let this be his thesis. But, so long as the _Lex -Parliamentaria_ exists, I submit that it is hardly reasonable to resist -its application, especially when the House has asked a conference -committee on a bill of theirs which you have amended. - -… - -I differ from the Senator [Mr. SHERMAN, of Ohio] radically, when he -intimates that the bill needs only “slight” amendments. With this -opinion I can understand that he should urge a course which I fear may -cut off amendments to me essential. - -Mr. President, I would speak frankly of this measure, which has in -it so much of good and so much of evil. Rarely have good and evil -been mixed on such a scale. Look at the good, and you are full of -grateful admiration. Look at the evil, and you are impatient at such -an abandonment of duty. Much is gained, but much is abandoned. You -have done much, but you have not done enough. You have left undone -things which ought to be done. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] -was right in asking more. I agree with him. I ask more. All the good -of the bill cannot make me forget its evil. It is very defective. -It is horribly defective. Too strong language cannot be used in -characterizing a measure with such fatal defects. But nobody recognizes -more cordially than myself the good it has. Pardon me, if I do my best -to make it better. - -This is the original House bill for the military government of -the Rebel States, revised and amended by the Senate in essential -particulars. As it came from the House it was excellent in general -purpose, but imperfect. It was nothing but a military bill, providing -protection for fellow-citizens in the Rebel States. Unquestionably it -was improved in the Senate. It is easy to mention its good points, for -these are conspicuous and seem like so many monuments. - -Throughout the bill, in its title, in its preamble, and then again in -its body, the States in question are designated as “Rebel States.” I -like the designation. It is brief and just. It seems to justify on the -face any measure of precaution or security. It teaches the country -how these States are to be regarded for the present. It teaches these -States how they are regarded by Congress. “Rebel States”: I like the -term, and I am glad it is repeated. God grant that the time may come -when this term may be forgotten! but until then we must not hesitate to -call things by their right names. - -More important still is the declaration in the preamble, that “no -legal State governments” now exist in the enumerated Rebel States. This -is a declaration of incalculable value. For a long time, too long, we -have hesitated; but at last this point is reached, destined to be “the -initial point” of a just Reconstruction. For a long time, again and -again, I have insisted that those governments are _illegal_. Strangely, -you would not say so. The present bill fixes this starting-point of a -true policy. If the existing governments are “illegal,” you have duties -with regard to them which cannot be postponed. You cannot stop with -this declaration. You must see that it is carried out in a practical -manner. In other words, you must brush away these illegal governments, -the spawn of Presidential usurpation, and supply their places. The -illegal must give place to the legal; and Congress must supervise and -control the transition. The bill has a special value in the obligations -it imposes upon Congress. Let it find a place in the statute-book, and -your duties will be fixed beyond recall. - -Another point is established which in itself is a prodigious triumph. -As I mention it, I cannot conceal my joy. It is the direct requirement -of universal suffrage, without distinction of race or color. This -is done by Act of Congress, without Constitutional Amendment. It -is a grand and beneficent exercise of existing powers, for a long -time invoked, but now at last grasped. No Rebel State can enjoy -representation in Congress, until it has conferred the suffrage upon -all its citizens, and fixed this right in its constitution. This is the -Magna Charta you are about to enact. Since Runnymede, there has been -nothing of greater value to Human Rights. - -To this enumeration add that the bill is in its general purposes a -measure of protection for loyal fellow-citizens trodden down by Rebels. -To this end, the military power is set in motion, and the whole Rebel -region is divided into districts where the strong arm of the soldier is -to supply the protection asked in vain from illegal governments. - -Look now at the other side, and you will see the defects. By -an amendment of the Senate, the House bill, which was merely a -military bill for protection, has been converted into a measure of -Reconstruction. But it is Reconstruction without machinery or motive -power. There is no provision for the initiation of new governments. -There is no helping hand extended to the loyal people seeking to lay -anew the foundations of civil order. They are left to grope in the -dark. This is not right. It is a failure on the part of Congress, which -ought to preside over Reconstruction and lend its helping hand, by -securing Education and Equal Rights to begin at once, and by appointing -the way and the season in which good citizens should proceed in -creating the new governments. - -I cannot forget, also, that there is no provision by which the freedmen -can be secured a freehold for themselves and their families, which has -always seemed to me most important in Reconstruction. - -But all this, though of the gravest character, is dwarfed by that other -objection which springs from the present toleration of Rebels in the -copartnership of government. Here is a strange oblivion, showing a -strange insensibility. - -The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] argued that the bill would -put the new governments into loyal hands. Has he read it? My precise -objection is, that it does not put the government into loyal hands. -Look at it carefully, and you will see this staring you in the face -at all points. While requiring suffrage for all, without distinction -of race or color, it leaves the machinery and motive power in the -hands of the existing governments, which are conducted by Rebels. -Therefore, under this bill, Rebels will initiate and conduct the work -of Reconstruction, while loyal citizens stand aside. The President -once said, “For the Rebels back seats.” This bill says, “For the loyal -citizens back seats.” Nobody is disfranchised. There is no traitor, -red with loyal blood, who may not play his part and help found the -new government. The bill excepts from voting only “such as _may be_ -disfranchised for participation in the Rebellion.” It does not require -that any body shall be disfranchised, but leaves this whole question to -the existing government, who will, of course, leave the door wide open. - -Looking at this feature, I cannot condemn it too strongly. It is true -that suffrage is at last accorded to the colored race; but their -masters are left in power to domineer, and even to organize. With -experience, craft, and determined purpose, there is too much reason -to fear that all safeguards will be overthrown, and the Unionist -continue the victim of Rebel power. This must not be. And you must -interfere in advance to prevent it. You must exercise a just authority -in disfranchising dangerous men. On this point there must be no -uncertainty, no “perhaps.” It is not enough to say that Rebels _may be_ -disfranchised; you must say _must_. Without this is surrender. - -Such a surrender Congress cannot make. Therefore do I rejoice with my -whole heart that the House of Representatives has given to the Senate -the opportunity of reconsidering its action and taking the proper -steps for amending the bill. The new governments must be on a loyal -basis. Loyal people must be protected against Rebels. Here I take my -stand. I plead for those good people, who have suffered as people never -suffered before. I appeal to you as Senators not to miss this precious -opportunity. Take care that the bill is amended, so that it may be the -fountain of peace, and not the engine of discord and oppression. - - Mr. Sherman followed in an earnest speech, in the course of - which the following passage occurred. - - MR. SHERMAN. The Senator from Massachusetts now for the - first time in the Senate has stated his opposition to this - bill. - - MR. SUMNER. Allow me to correct the Senator. The Senator - was not here, when, at two o’clock in the morning, I - denounced this amendment as I have, to-day, and much more - severely. - - MR. SHERMAN. He now states that the ground of his - opposition is, that the bill does not disfranchise the - whole Rebel population of the Southern States. - - MR. SUMNER. I beg the Senator’s pardon. I take no such - ground. I say it does not provide proper safeguards against - the Rebel population. I have not opened the question to - what extent the disfranchisement should go. - - The motion of Mr. Sherman was agreed to, and the bill, with the - Senate amendment, was returned to the House, which proceeded - promptly to its consideration. The substitute of the Senate - was concurred in, with a further amendment,--(1.) excluding - from the conventions, and also from voting, all persons - excluded from holding office under the recent Constitutional - Amendment; (2.) declaring civil governments in the Rebel States - provisional only and subject to the paramount authority of the - United States; (3.) conferring the elective franchise upon - all, without distinction of color, in elections under such - provisional governments; and (4.) disqualifying all persons - from office under provisional government who are disqualified - by the Constitutional Amendment. The vote of the House - was,--Yeas 128, Nays 46. - - * * * * * - - February 20th, in the Senate, Mr. Williams moved concurrence - with the House amendments. After brief remarks by Mr. Sherman, - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -I differ from the Senator [Mr. SHERMAN], when he calls this a small -matter. It is a great matter. - -I should not say another word but for the singular speech of the -Senator yesterday. He made something like an assault on me, because I -required the very amendments the House have now made; and yet he is to -support them. I am glad the Senator has seen light; but he must revise -his speech of yesterday. The Senator shakes his head. What did I ask? -What did I criticize? It was, that the bill failed in safeguard against -Rebels. I did not say how many to exclude. I only said some must be -excluded, more or less. None were excluded. That brought down the -cataract of speech we all enjoyed, when the Senator protested with all -the ardor of his nature, and invoked the State of Ohio behind him to -oppose the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts. And now, if -I understand the Senator from Ohio, he is ready to place himself side -by side with the Senator from Massachusetts in support of the amendment -from the House embodying this very proposition. I am glad the Senator -is so disposed. I rejoice that he sees light. To-morrow I hope to -welcome the Senator to some other height. - - MR. COWAN [of Pennsylvania]. Excelsior! - -MR. SUMNER. And I hope the word may be applicable to my friend from -Pennsylvania also. [_Laughter._] - -But there was another remark of the Senator which struck me with -astonishment. He complained that I demanded these safeguards now, -and said that I had already in the bill all that I had ever demanded -before,--that universal suffrage, without distinction of race or -color, was secured; and, said he, “the Senator from Massachusetts has -never asked anything but that.” Now I can well pardon the Senator for -ignorance with regard to what I have said or asked on former occasions. -I cannot expect him to be familiar with it. And yet, when he openly -arraigns me with the impetuosity of yesterday, I shall be justified in -showing how completely he was mistaken. - - Here Mr. Sumner referred to his speech before the Massachusetts - Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865, entitled - “The National Security and the National Faith, Guaranties for - the National Freedman and the National Creditor,” and showed - how completely at that time he had anticipated all present - demands.[88] He then continued:-- - -And yet, when I simply insisted upon some additional safeguard against -the return of Rebels to power, the Senator told us that I was asking -something new. Thank God, the other House has supplied the very -protection which I desired; it has laid the foundation of a true peace. -That foundation can be only on a loyal basis. - -Two Presidents--one always to be named with veneration, another always -most reluctantly--have united in this sentiment. Abraham Lincoln -insisted that the new governments should be founded on loyalty; that, -if there were only five thousand loyal persons in a State, they were -entitled to hold the power. His successor adopted the same principle, -when, in different language, he compendiously said, “For the Rebels -back seats.” What is now required could not be expressed better. “For -the Rebels back seats,” until this great work of Reconstruction is -achieved. - - Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, spoke especially in - reply to Mr. Sumner, congratulating him upon his acceptance of - the result. Mr. Sumner followed. - -I am sorry to say another word; and yet, if silent, I might expose -myself to misunderstanding. I accept the amendments from the other -House as the best that can be had now; but I desire it distinctly -understood that I shall not hesitate to insist at all times upon -applying more directly and practically the true principles of -Reconstruction. There is the Louisiana Bill on our table. The time, -I presume, has passed for acting on it at this session; but in the -earliest days of the next session I shall press that subject as -constantly as I can. I believe you owe it to every one of these States -to supply a government in place of that you now solemnly declare -illegal. In such a government you will naturally secure a true loyalty, -and I wish to be understood as not in any way circumscribing myself by -the vote of to-day. - -It may be that it will be best to require of every voter the same oath -required of all entering Congress, which we know as the test oath. -At least something more must be done; there must be other safeguards -than those supplied by this very hasty and crude act of legislation. I -accept it as containing much that is good, some things infinitely good, -but as coming short of what a patriotic Congress ought to supply for -the safety of the Republic. - -Let it be understood, then, that I am not compromised by this bill, -or by blandishments of Senators over the way [Messrs. SHERMAN and -STEWART]. I listen to them of course with pleasure, and to all their -expressions of friendship I respond with all my heart. I like much to -go with them; but I value more the safety of my country. When Senators, -even as powerful as the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Nevada, -take a course which seems to me inconsistent with the national -security, they must not expect me to follow. - - After further debate, late in the evening of February 20th - the vote was reached, and the House amendments were concurred - in,--Yeas 35, Nays 7. The effect of this was to pass the bill. - - * * * * * - - March 2d, the bill was vetoed. The House, on the same day, by - 138 Yeas to 51 Nays, and the Senate, by 38 Yeas to 10 Nays, - passed the bill by a two-thirds vote, notwithstanding the - objections of the President, so that it became a law.[89] - - - - -THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF -EDUCATION, FEBRUARY 26, 1867. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I am unwilling that this bill should be embarrassed -by any question of words. I am for the bill in substance, whatever -words may be employed. Call it a bureau, if you please, or call it a -department; I accept it under either designation. The Senator from -Connecticut [Mr. DIXON] has not too strongly depicted the necessity of -the case. We are to have universal suffrage, a natural consequence of -universal emancipation; but this will be a barren sceptre in the hands -of the people, unless we supply education also. From the beginning -of our troubles, I have foreseen this question. Through the agency -and under the influence of the National Government education must be -promoted in the Rebel States. To this end we need some central agency. -This, if I understand it, is supplied by the bill before us. - -Call it a bureau or a department; but give us the bill, and do not -endanger it, at this moment, in this late hour of the session, by -unnecessary amendment. Sir, I would, if I could, give it the highest -designation. If there is any term in our dictionary that would impart -peculiar significance, I should prefer that. Indeed, I should not -hesitate, could I have my way, to place the head of the Department of -Education in the Cabinet of the United States,--following the practice -of one of the civilized governments of the world. I refer to France, -which for years has had in its Cabinet a Minister of Education. But no -such proposition is before us. The question is simply on a name; and I -hope we shall not take up time with regard to it. - - The bill passed both Houses of Congress, and became a law.[90] - - - - -MONUMENTS TO DECEASED SENATORS. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ERECTION OF SUCH -MONUMENTS, FEBRUARY 27, 1867. - - - Mr. Poland, of Vermont, introduced a resolution directing - the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate to see that monuments - were placed in the Congressional burial-ground, in memory of - Senators who had died at Washington since July 4, 1861. On the - question of taking up this resolution for consideration, Mr. - Sumner remarked:-- - -Originally there was a reason for these monuments. Senators and -Representatives dying here found their last home in the Congressional -burial-ground, and these monuments covered their remains. At a later -day, with increasing facilities of transportation, the custom of -burial here has ceased; but the monuments, being only cenotaphs, were -continued until 1861, when this custom was suspended. Meantime Death -has not been less busy here, and the question is, whether the former -custom shall be revived, and cenotaphs be placed in an unvisited -burial-ground, to mark the spot where the remains of a Senator might -have been placed, had they not been transported to repose among his -family, kindred, and neighbors. - -I cannot but think that the suspension of this custom of monuments, -which occurred at the beginning of the war, was notice or indication -that the occasion for them had passed; and I doubt sincerely the -expediency of reviving the custom, unless where an associate is -actually buried here. If those dying here, but buried elsewhere, -are to be commemorated by Congress in any monumental form, it seems -to me better that it should be a simple tablet of stone or brass in -the Capitol, where it would be seen by the visitors thronging here, -and perhaps arrest the attention of their successors in public duty, -teaching how Death enters these Halls. But why place an unsightly -cenotaph in a forlorn burial-ground,--I may add, at considerable cost? -I cannot doubt that the time has come for this expense to cease. - - The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Contingent - Expenses of the Senate. - - - - -A VICTORY OF PEACE. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION GIVING THE THANKS OF -CONGRESS TO CYRUS W. FIELD, MARCH 2, 1867. - - - By a joint resolution introduced by Mr. Morgan, of New York, - the President was requested “to cause a gold medal to be - struck, with suitable emblems, devices, and inscription, to be - presented to Mr. Field,” and to “cause a copy of this joint - resolution to be engrossed on parchment, and transmit the same, - together with the medal, to Mr. Field, to be presented to him - in the name of the people of the United States of America.” - - March 2d, the joint resolution was considered. After a speech - from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I rejoice in every enterprise by which human industry -is quickened and distant places are brought near together. In ancient -days the builders of roads were treated with godlike honor. I offer -them my homage now. The enterprise which is to complete the railroad -connection between the Pacific and the Atlantic belongs to this class. -But this is not so peculiar and exceptional as that which has already -connected the two continents by a telegraphic wire. It is not so -historic. It is not itself so great an epoch. - -It is not easy to exaggerate the difficulty or the value of the new -achievement. - -The enterprise was original in its beginning and in every stage of -its completion. It began by a telegraph line connecting St. John’s, -the most easterly port of America, with the main continent. This was -planned at the house of Cyrus W. Field, by a few gentlemen, among whom -were Peter Cooper, Moses Taylor, Marshall O. Roberts, and David Dudley -Field. New York and St. John’s are about twelve hundred miles apart. -When these two points were brought into telegraphic association, the -first link was made in the chain destined to bind the two continents -together. Out of this American beginning sprang efforts which ended in -the oceanic cable. - -In other respects our country led the way. The first soundings across -the Atlantic were by American officers in American ships. The United -States ship Dolphin first discovered the telegraphic plateau as early -as 1853, and in 1856 the United States ship Arctic sounded across from -Newfoundland to Ireland, a year before Her Majesty’s ship Cyclops -sailed the same course. - -It was not until 1856 that this American enterprise showed itself in -England, where it was carried by Mr. Field. Through his energies the -Atlantic Telegraphic Company was organized in London, with a board of -directors composed of English bankers and merchants, among whom was -an American citizen, George Peabody. By conjoint exertions of the two -countries the cable was stretched from continent to continent in 1858. -Messages of good-will traversed it. The United States and England -seemed to be near together, while Queen and President interchanged -salutations. Then suddenly the electric current ceased, and the cable -became a lifeless line. The enterprise itself hardly lived. But it was -again quickened into being, and finally carried to a successful close. -British capital, British skill, contributed largely, and the society -had for its president an eminent Englishman, the Right Honorable James -Stuart Wortley; but I have always understood that our countryman -was the mainspring. His confidence never ceased; his energies never -flagged. Twelve years of life and forty voyages across the Atlantic -were woven into this work. He was the Alpha and the Omega of a triumph -which has few parallels in history. - -Englishmen who took an active part in this enterprise have received -recognition and honor from the sovereign. Some have been knighted, -others advanced in service. Meanwhile Cyrus W. Field, who did so much, -has remained unnoticed by our Government. He has been honored by the -popular voice, but it remains for Congress to embody this voice in a -national testimonial. If it be said that there is no precedent for such -a vote, then do I reply that his case is without precedent, and we -must not hesitate to make a precedent by this expression of national -gratitude. Thanks are given for victories in war: give them now for a -victory of peace. - - The joint resolution passed both Houses without a division, and - was approved by the President.[91] - - - - -FURTHER GUARANTIES IN RECONSTRUCTION. - -LOYALTY, EDUCATION, AND A HOMESTEAD FOR FREEDMEN; MEASURES OF -RECONSTRUCTION NOT A BURDEN OR PENALTY. - -RESOLUTIONS AND SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, MARCH 7 AND 11, 1867. - - - March 7th, the following resolutions were introduced by Mr. - Sumner, and on his motion ordered to lie on the table and be - printed. - - “RESOLUTIONS declaring certain further guaranties required - in the Reconstruction of the Rebel States. - - “_Resolved_, That Congress, in declaring by positive - legislation that it possesses paramount authority over the - Rebel States, and in prescribing that no person therein - shall be excluded from the elective franchise by reason of - race, color, or previous condition, has begun the work of - Reconstruction, and has set an example to itself. - - “_Resolved_, That other things remain to be done, as - clearly within the power of Congress as the elective - franchise, and it is the duty of Congress to see that these - things are not left undone. - - “_Resolved_, That among things remaining to be done are the - five following. - - “First. Existing governments, now declared illegal, must be - vacated, so that they can have no agency in Reconstruction, - and will cease to exercise a pernicious influence. - - “Secondly. Provisional governments must be constituted - as temporary substitutes for the illegal governments, - with special authority to superintend the transition to - permanent governments republican in form. - - “Thirdly. As loyalty beyond suspicion must be the basis of - permanent governments republican in form, every possible - precaution must be adopted against Rebel agency or - influence in the formation of these governments. - - “Fourthly. As the education of the people is essential to - the national welfare, and especially to the development of - those principles of justice and morality which constitute - the foundation of republican government, and as, according - to the census, an immense proportion of the people in the - Rebel States, without distinction of color, cannot read and - write, therefore public schools must be established for the - equal good of all. - - “Fifthly. Not less important than education is the - homestead, which must be secured to the freedmen, so that - at least every head of a family may have a piece of land. - - “_Resolved_, That all these requirements are in the nature - of guaranties to be exacted by Congress, without which the - United States will not obtain that security for the future - which is essential to a just Reconstruction.” - - March 11th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to - consider the resolutions. Mr. Williams, of Oregon, was not - prepared to vote on these resolutions until they had received - the consideration of some committee, and he moved their - reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Oregon has made no criticism on the -resolutions, but nevertheless he objects to proceeding with them now; -he desires reference, he would have the aid of a committee, before he -proceeds with their consideration. If I can have the attention of the -Senator, it seems to me that this will be as good as a committee. The -resolutions are on the table; they are plain; they are unequivocal; -they are perfectly intelligible; and they make a declaration of -principle and of purpose which at this moment is of peculiar importance. - -Congress has undertaken to provide for the military government of -the Rebel States, and has made certain requirements with regard to -Reconstruction, and there it stops. It has presented no complete -system, and it has provided no machinery. From this failure our -friends at the South are at this moment in the greatest anxiety. -They are suffering. Former Rebels, or persons representing the -Rebellion, are moving under our bill to take a leading part. Already -the Legislature of Virginia, packed by Rebels, full of the old Rebel -virus, has undertaken to call a convention under our recent Act. -Let that convention be called, and what is the condition of those -friends to whom you owe protection? Unless I am misinformed by valued -correspondents, the position of our friends will be very painful. I -have this morning a letter from Mr. Botts,--I mention his name because -he is well known to all of us, and I presume he would have no objection -to being quoted on this floor,--in which he entreats us to provide -some protection for him and other Unionists against efforts already -commenced by Rebels or persons under Rebel influence. - -I am anxious for practical legislation to that end; but, to -pave the way for such legislation, I would have Congress, at the -earliest possible moment, make a declaration in general terms of its -purposes. The Senator says these resolutions do not propose practical -legislation. I beg the Senator’s pardon: they do not propose what we -call legislation, but they announce to these Rebel States what we -propose to do; they foreshadow the future; they give notice; they -tell the Rebels that they are not to take part in Reconstruction; -and they tell our friends and the friends of the Union that we mean -to be wakeful with regard to their interests. Such will be their -effect. They are in the nature of a declaration. At the beginning of -the war there was a declaration, which has been often quoted in both -Houses, with regard to the purposes of the war. Very often in times -past declarations of policy were made in one House or the other, -and sometimes by concurrent resolutions of the two Chambers. If the -occasion requires, the declaration ought to be made. In common times -and under ordinary circumstances there would be no occasion for such a -declaration, but at this moment there seems peculiar occasion; you must -give notice; and the failure of our bill to meet the present exigency -throws this responsibility upon us. - -The next question is as to the character of the notice. It begins in -its title by declaring that certain further guaranties are required in -the Reconstruction of the Rebel States. Can any Senator doubt that such -guaranties are required? I submit that on that head there can be no -question. I am persuaded that my excellent friend from Oregon will not -question that general statement. - - Mr. Sumner then took up the several points of the resolutions - in order and explained them. Coming to that declaring the - necessity of a homestead for the freedman, he proceeded:-- - -I believe that all familiar with the processes of Reconstruction have -felt that our work would be incomplete, unless in some way we secured -to the freedman a piece of land. Only within a few days, gentlemen -fresh from travel through these States have assured me, that, as they -saw the condition of things there, nothing pressed upon their minds -more than the necessity of such a provision. The more you reflect upon -it, and the more you listen to evidence, the stronger will be your -conclusion as to this necessity. - -Do you ask as to the power of Congress? Again I say, you find it -precisely where you found the power to confer universal suffrage. To -give a homestead will be no more than to give a vote. You have done the -one, and now you must do the other. We are told that to him that hath -shall be given; and as you have already given the ballot, you must go -further, and give not only education, but the homestead. Nor can you -hesitate for want of power. The time for hesitation has passed. - - MR. FESSENDEN [of Maine]. I should like to ask my friend a - question, with his permission. - - MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. FESSENDEN. The Senator put the granting of the ballot - on the ground that without it the Government would not be - republican in form, as I understood his argument. - - MR. SUMNER. Yes. - - MR. FESSENDEN. Now I should like to know if he puts the - possession by every man of a piece of land on the same ground. - - MR. SUMNER. I do not. - - MR. FESSENDEN. The Senator assimilated the two, and said, that, - having done the one, we must do the other. I supposed, perhaps, - the same process of reasoning applied to both. - - MR. SUMNER. No; the homestead stands on the necessity of the - case, to complete the work of the ballot. - - MR. GRIMES [of Iowa]. Have we not done that under the Homestead - Law? - - MR. SUMNER. The freedmen are not excluded from the Homestead - Law; but I would provide them with a piece of land where they - are. - - MR. FESSENDEN. That is more than we do for white men. - -MR. SUMNER. White men have never been in slavery; there is no -emancipation and no enfranchisement of white men to be consummated. -I put it to my friend, I ask his best judgment, can he see a way to -complete and crown this great and glorious work without securing land? -My friend before me [Mr. GRIMES] asks, “How are we to get the land?” -There are several ways. By a process of confiscation we should have had -enough; and I have no doubt that the country would have been better, -had the great landed estates of the South been divided and subdivided -among the loyal colored population. That is the judgment of many -Unionists at the South. I say nothing on that point; but clearly there -are lands through the South belonging to the United States, or that -have fallen to the United States through the failure to pay taxes. It -has always seemed to me that in the exercise of the pardoning power it -would have been easy for the President to require that the person who -was to receive a pardon should allot a certain portion of his lands to -his freedmen. That might have been annexed as a condition. A President -properly inspired, and disposed to organize a true Reconstruction, -could not have hesitated in such a requirement. That would have been -a very simple process. I am aware that Congress cannot affect the -pardoning power; but still I doubt not there is something that can -be done by Congress. Where Congress has done so much, I am unwilling -to believe it cannot do all that the emergency requires. Let us not -shrink from the difficulties. With regard to the homestead there -may be difficulties, but not on that account should we hesitate. We -must assure peace and security to these people, and, to that end, -consider candidly, gently, carefully, the proper requirements, and then -fearlessly provide for them. - -There is still another, which I have not named in these resolutions, -though I have employed it in the careful and somewhat extended -Reconstruction Bill which I have laid on the table of the Senate, and -which some time I may try to call up for discussion,--and that is, the -substitution of the vote by ballot for the vote _viva voce_. Letters -from Virginia, and also from other parts of the South, all plead for -this change. They say, that, so long as the vote _viva voce_ continues, -it will be difficult for the true Union men to organize; they will be -under check and control from the Rebels. I have a letter, received only -this morning, from a Unionist, from which I will read a brief passage. - -… - -Now does my excellent friend from Oregon, who wishes to bury this -effort in a committee, doubt the concluding resolution? Can he hesitate -to say that every one of these requirements is in the nature of a -guaranty, without which we shall not obtain that complete security -for the future which our country has a right to expect? There they -are. That the illegal governments must be vacated. Who can doubt -that? That provisional governments must be constituted as temporary -substitutes for the illegal governments. Who can doubt that? That the -new governments must be founded on an unalterable basis of loyalty, -and to that end no Rebels must be allowed to exert influence or agency -in the formation of the new governments. Who can doubt that? Then, -again, education: who can doubt? Certainly not my friend from Oregon: -he will not doubt the importance of education as a corner-stone of -Reconstruction. It is a golden moment. We have the power. Let us not -fail to exercise it. Exercising it now, we can shape the destinies of -that people for the future. There remains the homestead. I see the -practical difficulties; but I do not despair. Let us apply ourselves -to them, and I do not doubt that we can secure substantially to every -head of a family among the freedmen a piece of land, and we may then go -further, and, in the way of machinery, provide a vote by ballot instead -of a vote _viva voce_. - -Now I insist that all these are in the nature of guaranties of future -peace, and we should not hesitate in doing all within our power to -secure them. I hope, therefore, that Senators will act on these -resolutions without reference to a committee. I see no occasion for a -reference. There is one objection, at least, on the face: it will cause -delay. Let these resolutions be adopted and go to the country, and you -will find that the gratitude of the American people, and of all Union -men at the South, will come up to Congress for your act. - - Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, deprecated the adoption of the - resolutions. The bill recently passed “purported to be final.… - It provided certain terms, harsh and severe in the extreme, - upon which the States formerly in rebellion should be restored - to the Union.” He then remarked: “These resolutions come from - the right quarter. Whatever may be my opinion of his [Mr. - SUMNER’S] political views, I will say for that Senator, that - for the last two years he has been prophetic; what he has - announced, what he has declared, what he has said must be law, - has become law upon many subjects.… Let us know what is coming; - let us see the worst.… While I was very glad to find--if I - understood them correctly--that the Senator from Maine [Mr. - FESSENDEN] and some other Senators about me did not coincide - with the views of the Senator from Massachusetts, I could not - forget that two years ago I heard a Senator on this floor say - that upon another subject there was not a single Senator here - who agreed with the Senator from Massachusetts; and yet upon - that very subject I believe every Senator on the majority side - of the Senate now, if not at heart concurring with him, acts - and votes with him.” - - Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, opposed the resolutions. It seemed to - him “not exactly fair or just or ingenuous to the Southern - people to add new terms, or require of them additional - guaranties, as conditions to the admission of representation.” - - Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, voted for the recent bill - because he thought he saw in opinions of Mr. Sumner, “and a few - others who concur with him, that, if the measure then before - the Senate was not adopted, harsher, much harsher, measures - would in the end be exacted of the South.” - - Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, thought the resolutions - “unfair to Congress and unfair to the country.” - - Mr. Sumner said in reply:-- - -The objects which I seek in Reconstruction are regarded in very -different lights by myself and by Senators who have spoken. The -Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Maryland, and the Senator -from Ohio all regard these requirements as in the nature of burdens or -penalties. Education is a burden or penalty; a homestead is a burden -or penalty. It is a new burden or penalty which I am seeking--so these -distinguished Senators argue--to impose upon the South. Are they right, -or am I right? Education can never be burden or penalty. Justice in the -way of a homestead can never be burden or penalty. Each is a sacred -duty which the nation owes to those who rightfully look to us for -protection. - -Now, at this moment, in the development of events, the people at the -South rightfully look to us for protection. They rightfully look to -us, that, in laying the foundation-stone of future security, we shall -see that those things are done which will make the security real, and -not merely nominal. And yet, when I ask that the security shall be -real, and not merely nominal, I am encountered by the objection that -I seek to impose new burdens,--that I am harsh. Sir, if I know my own -heart, I would not impose a burden upon any human being. I would not -impose a burden even upon those who have trespassed so much against -the Republic. I do not seek their punishment. Never has one word -fallen from my lips asking for their punishment, for any punishment -of the South. All that I ask is the establishment of human rights on -a permanent foundation. Is there any Senator who differs from me? I -am sure that my friend from Ohio seeks the establishment of future -security; but he will allow me to say, that to my mind he abandons it -at the beginning,--he fails at the proper moment to require guaranties -without which future security will be vain. - -This is not the first time that the Senator from Ohio has set himself -against fundamental propositions of Reconstruction. When, now more -than four years ago, I had the honor of introducing into this Chamber -a proposition declaring the jurisdiction of Congress over this whole -question, and over the whole Rebel region, I was met by the Senator, -who reminded me that I was alone, and did not hesitate to say that my -position was not unlike that of Jefferson Davis. - - Here Mr. Sumner sent to the desk the speech of Mr. Sherman, - April 2, 1862, and the Secretary read what he said of Mr. - Sumner’s position. - -I have not called attention to these remarks in any unkind spirit, for -I have none for the Senator; I have no feeling but kindness and respect -for him; but as I listened to him a few minutes ago, remonstrating -against the position I now occupy, I was carried back to that early -day when he remonstrated, if possible, more strenuously against the -position I then occupied. I had the audacity then to assert the -paramount power of Congress over the whole Rebel region. That was the -sum and substance of my argument; and you have heard the answer of the -Senator. And now, in the lapse of time, the Senator has ranged himself -by my side, voting for that measure of Reconstruction which is founded -on the jurisdiction of Congress over the whole Rebel region. - -As time passed, the subject assumed another character. It was with -regard to the suffrage. A year ago I asserted on this floor that we -must give the suffrage to all colored persons by Act of Congress and -without Constitutional Amendment, founding myself on two grounds. -One was the solemn guaranty in the Constitution of a republican form -of government; and I undertook to show that any denial of rights on -account of color was unrepublican to such extent that the government -sanctioning it could not be considered in any just sense republican. -I then went further, and insisted, that, from the necessity of the -case, at the present moment, Congress must accord the suffrage to all -persons at the South, without distinction of color. I argued that the -suffrage of colored citizens was needed to counterbalance the suffrage -of the Rebels.[92] One year has passed, and now, by Act of Congress, -you have asserted the very power which the Senator from Ohio, and -other distinguished Senators associated with him, most strenuously -denied. That Senator and other Senators insisted that it could be only -by Constitutional Amendment. I insisted that it could be under the -existing text of the Constitution; nay, more, that from the necessity -of the case it must be in this way. And in this way it has been done. - -But, in doing it, you have unhappily failed to make proper provision -for enforcing this essential security. You have provided no machinery, -and you have left other things undone which ought to be done. And -now, urging that these things should be done, I am encountered again -by my friend from Ohio, whom I had encountered before on these other -cardinal propositions; and he now, just as strenuously as before, -insists that it is not within our power or province at this moment to -make any additional requirements of the Rebel States. He is willing -that the bill in certain particulars shall be amended. I do not know -precisely to what extent he would go; but he will make no additional -requirements, as he expresses it, in the nature of burdens. Sir, I -make no additional requirements in the nature of burdens. I have -already said, I impose no burdens upon any man; but I insist upon the -protection of rights. And now, at this moment, as we are engaged in -this great work of Reconstruction, I insist that the work shall be -completely done. It will not be completely done, if you fail to supply -any safeguards or precautions that can possibly be adopted. - -A great orator has told us that he had but one lamp by which his -feet were guided, and that was the lamp of experience.[93] There is -one transcendent experience, commanding, historic, which illumines -this age. It is more than a lamp; it is sunshine. I mean the example -afforded by the Emperor of Russia, when he set free twenty million -serfs. Did he stop with their freedom? He went further, and provided -for their education, and also that each should have a piece of land. -And now, when I ask that my country, a republic, heir of all the ages, -foremost in the tide of time, should do on this question only what -the Emperor of Russia has done, I am met by grave Senators with the -reproach that I am imposing new burdens. It is no such thing. I am -only asking new advantages for all in that distracted region, with new -securities for my country, to the end that it may be safe, great, and -glorious. - - After remarks by Mr. Howard, of Michigan, the resolutions, on - motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen, were laid on the table,--Yeas 36, - Nays 10. - - March 12th, the resolutions were again considered, when Mr. - Morton, of Indiana, spoke in favor of education, and Mr. Howe, - of Wisconsin, sustained the resolutions generally. - - July 3d, Mr. Sumner made another attempt to have them - considered, speaking specially upon the importance of a - homestead for freedmen. - - - - -GENEROSITY FOR EDUCATION. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION GIVING THE THANKS OF -CONGRESS TO GEORGE PEABODY, MARCH 8, 1867. - - - March 5th, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, - leave to bring in the following joint resolution, which was - read twice and ordered to be printed. - - “JOINT RESOLUTION presenting the thanks of Congress to - George Peabody. - - “_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of - the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That - the thanks of Congress be, and they hereby are, presented - to George Peabody, of Massachusetts, for his great and - peculiar beneficence in giving a large sum of money, - amounting to two million dollars, for the promotion of - education in the more destitute portions of the Southern - and Southwestern States, the benefits of which, according - to his direction, are to be distributed among the entire - population, without any distinction, except what may be - found in needs or opportunities of usefulness. - - “SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the - duty of the President to cause a gold medal to be struck, - with suitable devices and inscriptions, which, together - with a copy of this resolution, shall be presented to Mr. - Peabody in the name of the people of the United States.” - - March 8th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the joint resolution was - taken up for consideration, when the latter said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I hope sincerely that there can be no question on this -resolution. It expresses the thanks of Congress for an act great in -itself, and also great as an example. - -I recall no instance in history where a private person during life -has bestowed so large a sum in charity. Few after death have done so -much. The bequest of Smithson, which Congress accepted with honor, and -made the foundation of the institution bearing his name and receiving -our annual care, was much less than the donation of Mr. Peabody for -purposes of education in the South and Southwestern States, to be -distributed among the whole population, without any distinction other -than needs or opportunities of usefulness to them. - -I hail this benefaction as of especial value now: first, as a -contribution to education, which is a sacred cause never to be -forgotten in a republic; secondly, as a charity to a distressed part -of our country which needs the help of education; and, thirdly, as an -endowment for the equal benefit of all, without distinction of caste. -As it is much in itself, so I cannot but think it will be most fruitful -as an example. Individuals and communities will be moved to do more -in the same direction, and impartial education may be added to recent -triumphs. - -I am not led to consider the difference between the widow’s mite and -the rich man’s endowment, except to remark, that, when a charity is -so large as to become historic, it is necessarily taken out of the -category of common life. Standing apart by itself, it challenges -attention and fills the mind, receiving homage and gratitude. Such, I -am sure, has been the prevailing sentiment of our country toward Mr. -Peabody. In voting this resolution, Congress will only give expression -to the popular voice. - -I should be sorry to have it understood that the thanks of Congress -can be won only in war. Peace also has victories deserving honor. A -public benefactor is a conqueror in the perpetual conflict with evil. -He, too, meets the enemy face to face. Let him also have the reward of -victory. - -Already in England our benefactor has signalized himself by a generous -endowment of the poor. The sum he gave was large, but not so large -as he has given for education in our country. The sentiments of the -British people found expression through the Queen, who honored him with -a valuable present, her own portrait, and an autograph letter declaring -her grateful sense of his beneficence. Kindred sentiments may justly -find expression through Congress, which is empowered to write the -autograph of the American people. - -If it be said that such a vote is without precedent, I reply that this -is a mistake. You voted thanks to Mr. Vanderbilt for the present of a -steamer, and to Mr. Field for generous enterprise in establishing the -telegraphic cable between the two continents. But even if there were -no precedent, then, do I say, make a precedent. Your vote will be less -unprecedented than his generosity. - -At this moment, when we are engaged in the work of Reconstruction, -this endowment for education in the Southern and Southwestern States -is most timely. Education is the foundation-stone of that Republican -Government we seek to establish. On this account, also, I would honor -the benefactor. - -I have not asked a reference to a committee, because it seemed that -the resolution was of such a character that the Senate would be glad -to act upon it directly. The thanks we offer will be of more value, if -promptly offered. - - The joint resolution was adopted by the Senate,--Yeas 36, Nays - 2. March 13th it passed the House unanimously, was approved by - the President, and became a law.[94] - - - - -RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN. - -THE BALLOT AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPEN TO ALL. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION BILL, MARCH -15 AND 16, 1867. - - - To counteract the malign influence of President Johnson, and - to protect the public interest jeopardized by his conduct, - Congress provided for a session to commence March 4, 1867, - immediately after the expiration of its predecessor. The new - Congress was signalized by a second Reconstruction Bill, - “supplementary to an Act to provide for the more efficient - government of the Rebel States,” passed March 2, 1867, which - was promptly introduced into the House of Representatives and - passed. - - As early as March 13th, the House bill was reported to the - Senate from the Judiciary Committee, with a substitute, and for - several days thereafter it was considered. Among the various - amendments moved was one by Mr. Drake, of Missouri, providing - that the registered electors should declare, by their votes of - “Convention” or “No Convention,” whether a convention to frame - a constitution should be held, which was rejected,--Yeas 17, - Nays 27. - - March 15th, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved an amendment, - that the commanding general should furnish a copy of the - registration to the Provisional Government of the State; and - whenever thereafter the Provisional Government should by legal - enactment provide that a convention should be called, the - commanding general should then direct an election of delegates. - In the debate on this proposition, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--In voting on the proposition of the Senator from Maine, -I ask myself one question: How would the Union men of the South vote, -if they had the privilege? They are unrepresented. We here ought to be -the representatives of the unrepresented. How, then, would the Union -men of the South vote on the proposition of the Senator? I cannot -doubt, that, with one voice, they would vote No. They would not trust -their fortunes in any way to the existing governments of the Rebel -States. Those governments have been set up in spite of the Union men, -and during their short-lived existence they have trampled upon Union -men and upon their rights. That region might be described as bleeding -at every pore, and much through the action of the existing governments, -owing their origin to the President. So long as they continue, their -influence must be pernicious. I hear, then, the voice of every Union -man from every one of the Rebel States coming up to this Chamber and -entreating us to refuse all trust, all power, to these Legislatures. I -listen to their voice, and shall vote accordingly. - -But I feel, nevertheless, that something ought to be done in the -direction of the proposition of the Senator from Maine. I listened to -his remarks, and in their spirit I entirely concur; but it seems to -me that his argument carried us naturally to the proposition of the -Senator from Missouri. To my mind, that proposition is founded in good -sense, in prudence, in a just economy of political forces. It begins -at the right end. It begins with the people. The Senator proposes -that the new governments, when constituted, shall stand on that broad -base. The proposition of the Committee stands the pyramid on its apex. -I am therefore for the proposition of the Senator from Missouri, and -I hope that at the proper time he will renew it, and give us another -opportunity of recording our votes in its favor. - - The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 33. - - March 16th, Mr. Sumner moved to insert “all” before “electors,” - and to substitute “registered” for “qualified,” so as to read, - “ratified by a majority of the votes of all the electors - registered as herein specified.” After debate, the amendment - was rejected,--Yeas 19, Nays 25. - - Mr. Drake subsequently renewed his rejected amendment, with a - modification that the result should be determined by a majority - of those voting, and it was adopted. Mr. Conkling, of New York, - moved to reconsider the last vote, so as to provide that the - result should be determined by a majority of all the votes - registered, instead of a majority of all the votes given. On - this motion, Mr. Sumner remarked:-- - -I said nothing, when the question was up before; but I cannot allow the -vote to be taken now without expressing in one word the ground on which -I shall place my vote. - -We have just come out from the fires of a terrible Rebellion, and our -special purpose now is to set up safeguards against the recurrence -of any such calamity, and also for the establishment of peace and -tranquillity throughout that whole region. There is no Senator -within the sound of my voice who is not anxious to see that great -end accomplished. How shall it be done? By founding government on a -majority or on a minority? If these were common times, then I should -listen to the argument of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. DRAKE], and -also of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON], to the effect that the -government might be founded on a majority of those who actually vote, -although really a minority of the population; but at this moment, when -we are seeking to recover ourselves from the Rebellion, and to guard -against it in future, I cannot expose the country to any such hazard. -I would take the precaution to found government solidly, firmly, on -a majority,--not merely a majority of those who vote, but a majority -of all registered voters. Then will the government be rooted and -anchored in principle, so that it cannot be brushed aside. How was it -when the Rebellion began? Everything was by minorities. A minority in -every State carried it into rebellion. I would have the new government -planted firmly on a majority, so that it can never again be disturbed. -I can see no real certainty of security for the future without this -safeguard. - - The motion to reconsider prevailed,--Yeas 21, Nays 18; but - the amendment of Mr. Conkling was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays - 22,--when Mr. Drake’s amendment was again adopted. Then, on - motion of Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, it was provided “that such - convention shall not be held, unless a majority of all such - registered voters shall have voted on the question of holding - such convention,”--Yeas 21, Nays 18. - - Mr. Drake then moved to require in the new constitutions, - “that, at all elections by the people for State, county, or - municipal officers, the electors shall vote by ballot,” and - this was adopted,--Yeas 22, Nays 19. Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, - at once moved to reconsider the last vote, and was sustained - by Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, and Mr. - Morton, of Indiana. Mr. Sumner sustained the amendment. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The argument of the Senator from Oregon proceeds on -the idea that this is a small question. He belittles it, and then puts -it aside. He treats it as of form only, and then scorns it. Sir, it -may be a question of form, but it is a form vital to the substance, -vital to that very suffrage which the Senator undertakes to vindicate. -Does the Senator know that at this moment the special question which -tries British reformers is the ballot? To that our heroic friend, John -Bright, has dedicated his life. He seeks to give the people of England -vote by ballot. He constantly looks to our country for the authority -of a great example. And now the Senator is willing to overturn that -example. I will not, by my vote, consent to any such thing. I would -reinforce the liberal cause, not only in my own country, but everywhere -throughout the world; and that cause, I assure you, is staked in part -on this very question. - -No, Sir,--it is not a small question. It cannot be treated as trivial. -It is a great question. Call it, if you please, a question of form; but -it is so closely associated with substance that it becomes substance. -I hope the Senate will not recede from the generous and patriotic vote -it has already given. I trust it will stand firm. Ask any student of -republican institutions what is one of their admitted triumphs, and he -will name the vote by ballot. There can be no doubt about it. Do not -dishonor the ballot, but see that it is required in the constitutions -of these Rebel States. The Senator from Oregon raises no question of -power. Congress has the power. That is enough. You must exercise it. - - Mr. Drake then modified his amendment, so that, instead of - “all elections by the people for State, county, or municipal - officers,” it should read, “all elections by the people,” and - it was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays 22. Mr. Sumner then remarked:-- - -The Senate has been occupied for two days in the discussion of -questions, many merely of form. I propose now to call attention to one -of substance, with which, as I submit, the best interests of the Rebel -States and of the Republic at large are connected. I send to the Chair -an amendment, to come in at the end of section four. - - The Secretary read the proposed amendment, as follows:-- - - “_Provided_, That the constitution shall require the - Legislature to establish and sustain a system of public - schools open to all, without distinction of race or color.” - - Mr. Sumner proceeded to say:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I shall vote for this bill,--not because it is what I -desire, but because it is all that Congress is disposed to enact at -the present time. I do not like to play the part of Cassandra,--but I -cannot forbear declaring my conviction that we shall regret hereafter -that we have not done more. I am against procrastination. But I am also -against precipitation. I am willing to make haste; but, following the -ancient injunction, I would make haste slowly: in other words, I would -make haste so that our work may be well done and the Republic shall not -suffer. Especially would I guard carefully all those who justly look to -us for protection, and I would see that the new governments are founded -in correct principles. You have the power. Do not forget that duties -are in proportion to powers. - -I speak frankly. Let me, then, confess my regret that Congress chooses -to employ the military power for purposes of Reconstruction. The army -is for protection. This is its true function. When it undertakes to -govern or to institute government, it does what belongs to the civil -power. Clearly it is according to the genius of republican institutions -that the military should be subordinate to the civil. _Cedant arma -togæ_ is an approved maxim, not to be disregarded with impunity. -Even now, a fresh debate in the British Parliament testifies to this -principle. Only a fortnight ago, the Royal Duke of Cambridge, cousin to -the Queen, and commander of the forces, used these words:-- - - “The practice of calling out troops to quell civil disturbances - is exceedingly objectionable; _but it must not be forgotten - that the initiative in such cases is always taken by the civil - authorities themselves_.”[95] - -This declaration, though confined to a particular case, embodies an -important rule of conduct, which to my mind is of special application -now. - -By the system you have adopted, the civil is subordinate to the -military, and the civilian yields to the soldier. You accord to -the army an “initiative” which I would assure to the civil power. -I regret this. I am unwilling that Reconstruction should have a -military “initiative.” I would not see new States born of the bayonet. -Leaving to the army its proper duties of protection, I would intrust -Reconstruction to provisional governments, civil in character and -organized by Congress. You have already pronounced the existing -governments illegal. Logically you should proceed to supply their -places by other governments, while the military is in the nature of -police, until permanent governments are organized, republican in form -and loyal in character. During this transition period, permanent -governments might be matured on safe foundations and the people -educated to a better order of things. As the twig is bent the tree -inclines: you may now bend the twig. These States are like a potter’s -vessel: you may mould them to be vessels of honor or of dishonor. - -From the beginning I have maintained these principles. Again and again -I have expressed them in the Senate and elsewhere. At the last session -I insisted upon the Louisiana Bill in preference to the Military -Bill. In the earliest moments of the present session I introduced a -bill of my own, prepared with the best care I could bestow, in which -was embodied what seemed to me a proper and practical system of -Reconstruction, with provisional governments to superintend the work -and pave the way for permanent governments. This measure, which I now -hold in my hand, is entitled “A Bill to guaranty a republican form -of government in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, -Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, and to -provide for the restoration of these States to practical relations with -the Union.” Its character is seen in its title. It is not a military -bill, or a bill to authorize Reconstruction by military power; but it -is a bill essentially civil from beginning to end. - -The principles on which this bill proceeds appear in its preamble, -which, with the permission of the Senate, I will read. - - “Whereas in the years 1860 and 1861 the inhabitants of - Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, - Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas changed - their respective constitutions so as to make them repugnant to - the Constitution of the United States; - - “And whereas the inhabitants of these States made war upon the - United States, and after many battles finally surrendered, - under the rules and usages of war; - - “And whereas the inhabitants of these States, at the time of - their surrender, were without legal State governments, and, - as a rebel population, were without authority to form legal - State governments, or to exercise any other political functions - belonging to loyal citizens, and they must so continue until - relieved of such disabilities by the law-making power of the - United States; - - “And whereas it belongs to Congress, in the discharge of its - duties under the Constitution, to secure to each of these - States a republican form of government, and to provide for the - restoration of each to practical relations with the Union; - - “And whereas, until these things are done, it is important - that provisional governments should be established in these - States, with legal power to protect good citizens in the - enjoyment of their rights, and to watch over the formation of - State governments, so that the same shall be truly loyal and - republican: Therefore”---- - -With this preamble, exhibiting precisely the necessity and reasons -of Reconstruction, the bill begins by declaring that the provisional -governments shall convene on the fourth Monday after its passage, and -shall continue until superseded by permanent governments, created by -the people of these States respectively, and recognized by Congress as -loyal and republican. It then establishes an executive power in each -State, vested in a governor appointed by the President by and with the -advice and consent of the Senate, and not to be removed except by such -advice and consent. The legislative power is vested in the governor and -in thirteen citizens, called a legislative council, appointed by and -with the advice and consent of the Senate, and not to be removed except -by such advice and consent. All these, being officers of the United -States, must take the test oath prescribed already by Act of Congress; -and the bill adds a further oath to maintain a republican form of -government, as follows:-- - - “I do hereby swear (or affirm) that I will at all times use my - best endeavors to maintain a republican form of government in - the State of which I am an inhabitant and in the Union of the - United States; that I will recognize the indissoluble unity of - the Republic, and will discountenance and resist any endeavor - to break away or secede from the Union; that I will give my - influence and vote to strengthen and sustain the National - credit; that I will discountenance and resist every attempt, - directly or indirectly, to repudiate or postpone, in any part - or in any way, the debt which was contracted by the United - States in subduing the late Rebellion, or the obligations - assumed to the Union soldiers; that I will discountenance - and resist every attempt to induce the United States or any - State to assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid - of rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the - loss or emancipation of any slave; that I will discountenance - and resist all laws making any distinction of race or color; - that I will give my support to education and the diffusion of - knowledge by public schools open to all; and that in all ways I - will strive to maintain a State government completely loyal to - the Union, where all men shall enjoy equal protection and equal - rights.” - -I know well the whole history of oaths, and how often they are -the occasion of perjury by the wholesale. But I cannot resist the -conclusion that at this moment, when we are taking securities for the -future, we ought to seize the opportunity of impressing upon the people -fundamental principles on which alone our Government can stand. You -may exclude Rebels; but their children, who are not excluded, have -inherited the Rebel spirit. The schools and colleges of the South -have been nurseries of Rebellion. I would exact from all seeking the -public service, or even the elective franchise, a pledge to support a -republican government; and to make this pledge perfectly clear, so that -all may understand its extent, I would enumerate the points which are -essential. If a citizen cannot give this pledge, he ought to have no -part in Reconstruction. He must stand aside. - -From this requirement the bill proceeds to enumerate certain classes -excluded from office and also from the elective franchise. This is -less stringent than what is known as the Louisiana Bill. It does not -exclude citizens who have not held office, unless where they have left -their homes within the jurisdiction of the United States and passed -within the Rebel lines to give aid and comfort to the Rebellion,--or -where they have voluntarily contributed to any loan or securities -for the benefit of any of the Rebel States or the central government -thereof,--or where, as authors, publishers, editors, or as speakers -or preachers, they have encouraged the secession of any State or the -waging of war against the United States. - -The bill then provides for executive and judicial officers, and for -their salaries, under the provisional government; also for grand -and petit juries; also for a militia. But all officers, jurors, and -militiamen must take the oath that they are not in the excluded -classes, and also the oath to support a republican form of government. - -The bill then annuls existing legislatures; also the acts of -conventions which framed ordinances of secession, and the acts of -legislatures since, subject to certain conditions; and it provides that -the judgments and decrees of court, which have not been voluntarily -executed, and which have been rendered subsequently to the date of the -ordinance of secession, shall be subject to appeal to the highest court -in the State, organized after its restoration to the Union. Safeguards -like these seem essential to the protection of the citizen. - -The bill does what it can for education by requiring-- - - “That it shall be the duty of the governor and legislative - council in each of these States to establish public schools, - which shall be open to all, without distinction of race or - color, to the end, that, where suffrage is universal, education - may be universal also, and the new governments find support in - the intelligence of the people.” - -Such are the provisional governments. - -The bill then provides for permanent governments republican and truly -loyal. For this purpose the governor must make a registration of male -citizens twenty-one years of age, of whatever color, race, or former -condition, and, on the completion of this register, invite all to take -the oath that they are not in the excluded classes, and also the oath -to maintain a republican form of government; and if a majority of the -persons duly registered shall take these oaths, then he is to order an -election for members of a convention to frame a State constitution. -Nobody can vote or sit as a member of the convention except those who -have taken the two oaths; but no person can be disqualified on account -of race or color. All qualified as voters are eligible as members of -the convention. - -The constitution must contain in substance certain fundamental -conditions, never to be changed without consent of Congress:-- - -First, That the Union is perpetual; - -Secondly, That Slavery is abolished; - -Thirdly, That there shall be no denial of the elective franchise, or of -any other right, on account of race or color, but all persons shall be -equal before the law; - -Fourthly, That the National debt, including pensions and bounties to -Union soldiers, shall never be repudiated or postponed; - -Fifthly, That the Rebel debt, whether contracted by a Rebel State or by -the central government, shall never be recognized or paid; nor shall -any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, or any pension or -bounty for service in the Rebellion, be recognized or paid; - -Sixthly, That public schools shall be established, open to all without -distinction of race or color; - -Seventhly, That all persons excluded from office under this Act shall -be excluded by the constitution, until relieved from disability by Act -of Congress. - -The constitution must be ratified by the people and submitted to -Congress. If Congress shall approve it as republican in form, and shall -be satisfied that the people of the State are loyal and well-disposed -to the Union, the State shall be restored to its former relations and -the provisional government shall cease. - -Such is the bill which I should be glad to press upon your attention, -creating provisional governments and securing permanent governments. -It is not a military bill; and on this account, in spirit and form, if -not in substance, it might be preferred to that which you have begun -to sanction. Besides, it contains abundant safeguards. I regret much -that something like this cannot be adopted. It is with difficulty that -I renounce a desire long cherished to see Reconstruction under the -supervision of Congress, according to the forms of civil order, without -the intervention of military power. I am sure that such a bill would -be agreeable to the Unionists of the Rebel States; and this with me is -a rule of conduct which I am unwilling to disregard. They are without -representation in Congress. Let us be their representatives. I hear -their voices gathered into one prayer. I cannot refuse to listen. - - * * * * * - -If this bill cannot be adopted, then I ask that you shall take at least -one of its provisions. Require free schools as an essential condition -of Reconstruction. But I am met by the objection, that we are already -concluded by the Military Bill adopted a few days ago, so that we -cannot establish any new conditions. This is a mistake. There is no -word in the Military Bill which can have this interpretation. Besides, -the bill is only a few days old; so that, whatever its character, -nothing is as yet fixed under its provisions. It contains no compact, -no promise, no vested right, nothing which may not be changed, if the -public interests require. There are some who seem to insist that it is -a strait-jacket. On the contrary, this very bill asserts in positive -terms “the paramount authority of the United States.” Surely this is -enough. In the exercise of this authority, it is your duty to provide -all possible safeguards. To adopt a familiar illustration, these States -must be “bound to keep the peace.” Nothing is more common after an -assault and battery. But this can be only by good laws, by careful -provisions, by wise economies, and securities of all kinds. - -Sometimes it is argued that it is not permissible to make certain -requirements in the new constitutions, although, when the constitutions -are presented to Congress for approval, we may object to them for the -want of these very things. Thus it is said that we may not require -educational provisions, but that we may object to the constitutions, -when formed, if they fail to have this safeguard. This argument forgets -the paramount power of Congress over the Rebel States, which you have -already exercised in ordaining universal suffrage. Who can doubt, that, -with equal reason, you may ordain universal education also? And permit -me to say that one is the complement of the other. But I do not stop -with assertion of the power. The argument that we are to wait until -the constitution is submitted for approval is not frank. I wish to be -plain and explicit. We have the power, assured by reason and precedent. -Exercise it. Seize the present moment. Grasp the precious privilege. -There are some who act on the principle of doing as little as possible. -I would do as much as possible, believing that all we do in the nature -of safeguard must redound to the good of all and to the national fame. -It is in this spirit that I now move to require a system of free -schools, open to all without distinction of caste. For this great -safeguard I ask your votes. - -You have prescribed universal suffrage. Prescribe now universal -education. The power of Congress is the same in one case as in the -other. And you are under an equal necessity to employ it. Electors -by the hundred thousand will exercise the franchise for the first -time, without delay or preparation. They should be educated promptly. -Without education your beneficent legislation may be a failure. The -gift you bestow will be perilous. I was unwilling to make education the -condition of suffrage; but I ask that it shall accompany and sustain -suffrage. - -Mr. President, I plead now for Education. Nothing more beautiful -or more precious. Education decorates life, while it increases all -our powers. It is the charm of society, the solace of solitude, and -the multiple of every faculty. It adds incalculably to the capacity -of the individual and to the resources of the community. Careful -inquiry establishes what reason declares, that labor is productive in -proportion to its education. There is no art it does not advance. There -is no form of enterprise it does not encourage and quicken. It brings -victory, and is itself the greatest of victories. - -In a republic education is indispensable. A republic without education -is like the creature of imagination, a human being without a soul, -living and moving blindly, with no just sense of the present or the -future. It is a monster. Such have been the Rebel States,--for years -nothing less than political monsters. But such they must be no longer. - -It is not too much to say, that, had these States been more -enlightened, they would never have rebelled. The barbarism of Slavery -would have shrunk into insignificance, without sufficient force to -break forth in blood. From the returns before the Rebellion[96] we -learn that in the Slave States there were not less than 493,026 -native white persons over twenty years of age who could not read -and write,--while in the Free States, with double the native white -population, there were but 248,725 native whites over twenty years of -age thus blighted by ignorance. In the Slave States the proportion -was 1 in 5; in the Free States it was 1 in 22. The number in Free -Massachusetts, with an adult native white population of 470,375, was -1,055, or 1 in 446; the number in Slave South Carolina, with an adult -native white population of only 120,136, was 15,580, or 1 in 8. The -number in Free Connecticut was 1 in 256, in Slave Virginia 1 in 5; in -Free New Hampshire 1 in 192, and in Slave North Carolina 1 in 3. In -this prevailing ignorance we may trace the Rebellion. A population that -could not read and write naturally failed to comprehend and appreciate -a republican government. - -This contrast between the Rebel States and the Loyal States -appeared early. It was conspicuous in two Colonies, each of which -exercised a peculiar influence. Massachusetts began her existence -with a system of free schools. The preamble of her venerable statute -deserves immortality. “That learning may not be buried in the grave -of our fathers,” her founders enacted that every township of fifty -householders should maintain a school for reading and writing, and -every town of a hundred householders a school to fit youths for the -University.[97] This statute was copied in other Colonies. It has -spread far, like a benediction. At the same time Virginia set herself -openly against free schools. Her Governor, Sir William Berkeley, in -1671, in a reply to the Lords Commissioners of Plantations on the -condition of the Colony, made this painful record: “I thank God _there -are no free schools_, nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these -hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience and heresy and -sects into the world, and printing has divulged them.… God keep us from -both!”[98] Thus spoke Massachusetts, and thus spoke Virginia, in that -ancient day. The conflict of ideas had already begun. Can you hesitate -to adopt the statute so well justified by time? It began in an infant -colony. Let it be the law of a mighty republic. - -The papers of the day mention an incident, showing how the original -spirit of the Virginia Governor still animates these States. A motion -to print two hundred copies of the Report of the State Superintendent -of Public Education was promptly voted down in the Senate of Louisiana, -while a Senator, in open speech, “denounced the public education scheme -as an unmitigated oppression, an electioneering device, an imposition, -which he intended to bring in a bill to abolish, if they were allowed -to go on legislating.” With such brutality is this beautiful cause now -encountered. It is as if a savage rudely drove an angel from his tent. - -Be taught by this example, and do not hesitate, I entreat you. -Remember how much is now in issue. You are to fix the securities of -the future, and especially to see that a republican government is -guarantied in an the Rebel States. I call them “Rebel,” for such they -are in spirit still, and such is their designation in your recent -statute. But I ask nothing in vengeance or unkindness. All that I -propose is for their good, with which is intertwined the good of -all. I would not impose any new penalty or bear hard upon an erring -people. Oh, no! I simply ask a new safeguard for the future, that these -States, through which so much trouble has come, may be a strength -and a blessing to our common country, with prosperity and happiness -everywhere within their borders. I would not impose any new burden; -but I seek a new triumph for civilization. For a military occupation -bristling with bayonets I would substitute the smile of peace. But this -cannot be without Education. As the soldier disappears, his place must -be supplied by the schoolmaster. The muster-roll will be exchanged for -the school-register, and our headquarters will be a school-house. - -Do not forget the grandeur of the work in which you are engaged. -You are forming States. Such a work cannot be done hastily or -carelessly. The time you give will be saved to the country hereafter -a thousand-fold. The time you begrudge will rise in judgment against -you. It is a law of Nature, that, just in proportion as the being -produced is higher in the scale and more complete in function, all -the processes are more complex and extended. The mature liberty we -seek cannot have the easy birth of feebler types. As man, endowed with -reason and looking to the heavens, is above the quadruped that walks, -above the bird that flies, above the fish that swims, and above the -worm that crawls, so should these new governments, republican in form -and loyal in soul, created by your care, be above those whose places -they take. The Old must give way to the New, and the New must be worthy -of a Republic, which, ransomed from Slavery, has become an example to -mankind. Farewell to the Old! All hail to the New! - - Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, - and Mr. Conness, of California, joined in criticism of Mr. - Sumner’s opposition to the employment of the military arm in - Reconstruction, protesting particularly against the declaration - that States are “about to be born of the bayonet.” To the - proposed requirement of a system of free schools in the Rebel - States Mr. Frelinghuysen objected: “For us to undertake now - to add new conditions to the Reconstruction measure which the - Thirty-Ninth Congress adopted I hold to be bad faith.… That is - not the way to do business.… Let this nation keep its faith. I - hope, Mr. President, that the amendment will not be adopted.” - Mr. Patterson, of New Hampshire, would “be glad to have such - a requisition laid on all the States of the Union, if it were - not unconstitutional. But he wished to ask him [Mr. SUMNER] - this question: Does he think it possible to establish a system - of common schools in these Southern States corresponding to - the common-school system of New England, unless he first - confiscates the large estates and divides them into small - homesteads, so that there may be small landholders who shall - support these schools by the taxation which is laid upon them?” - - MR. SUMNER. I do. - - MR. PATTERSON. You think it is possible? - - MR. SUMNER. I do, certainly,--most clearly. - - Mr. Morton said: “The proposition is fundamental in its - character; its importance cannot be overestimated; and I - hope that it will be placed as a condition, upon complying - with which they shall be permitted to return.” Mr. Cole, - of California, declared himself “warmly in favor of the - amendment.” Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, and Mr. Buckalew, of - Pennsylvania, both Democrats, spoke against it. The latter - thought Mr. Sumner “not open to criticism for the sentiments - which he has expressed upon this occasion, nor for the position - which he has assumed.” In a humorous vein, he said: “The - propositions which the Senator from Massachusetts makes one - year, and which are criticized by his colleagues as extreme, - inappropriate, and untimely, are precisely the propositions - which those colleagues support with greater zeal and vehemence, - if possible, than he, the year following. In short, Sir, we - can foresee at one session of Congress the character of the - propositions and of the arguments with which we are to be - favored at the next in this Chamber, by looking to the pioneer - man, who goes forward in advance, his banner thrown out, his - cause announced, the means by which it shall be carried on and - the objects in view proclaimed with force and frankness.” - - Mr. Sumner replied:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The question of power, I take it, must be settled -in this Chamber. You have already most solemnly voted to require in -every new constitution suffrage for all, without distinction of race -or color or previous condition. But the greater contains the less. If -you can do that, you can do everything. If you can require that Magna -Charta of human rights, you can require what is smaller. It is already -fixed in your statutes, enrolled in your archives, that Congress has -this great power. I do not say whether it has this power over other -States; that is not the question; but it has the power over the Rebel -States. That power is derived from several sources,--first, from the -necessity of the case, because the State governments there are illegal, -and the whole region has passed, as in the case of Territories, under -the jurisdiction of Congress: no legal government exists there, except -what Congress supplies. There is another source in the military power -now established over that region; then, again, in that great clause -of the National Constitution by which you are required to guaranty to -every State a republican form of government. Here is enough. Out of -these three sources, these three overflowing fountains, springs ample -authority. You have exercised it by prescribing in their constitutions -Suffrage for all. I ask you to go one step further, and to prescribe -Education for all. - -I am met here by personal objections; I am asked why I have not -brought this forward before. Sir, I have brought it forward in season -and out of season. I have on the table before me a speech of mine -in 1865, where, in laying down the great essential guaranties, I -declared them as follows: First, the unity of the Republic; secondly, -Enfranchisement; thirdly, the guaranty of the National debt; fourthly, -the repudiation of the Rebel debt; fifthly, Equal Suffrage; and, -sixthly, Education of the people.[99] Therefore from the beginning I -have asked this guaranty, believing, as I do most clearly, that under -the National Constitution you may demand it. If you may demand it, if -you have the power, then do I insist it is your duty so to do. Duties -are in proportion to powers. These great powers are not merely for -display or idleness, but for employment, to the end that the Republic -may be advanced and fortified. - -Then I have been reminded very earnestly by Senators that I have used -strong language in saying that these governments will be open to -the imputation of being born of the bayonet. This is not the first -time I have used that language in this Chamber. From the beginning I -have protested against Reconstruction by military power. Again and -again I have asserted that it is contrary to the genius of republican -institutions, and to a just economy of political forces. I have not -been hearkened to. Others have pressed the intervention of military -power; and now, as I am about to record my vote in favor of the pending -proposition, I cannot but express my sincere and unfeigned regret that -Congress did not see its way to a generous measure of Reconstruction -purely civil in character, having no element of military power. Such -you had before you at the last session in the Louisiana Bill, which I -sought to press day by day; and when, at the last moment, the Military -Bill was passed, I, from my place here, declared that I should deem it -my duty at the earliest possible moment in this session to press the -Louisiana Bill, or some kindred measure not military in character. - -I was early tutored in the principles of Jefferson. I cannot -forget his Inaugural Address, where he lays down among the -cardinal principles, or what he calls “the essential principles -of our Government,” and consequently those which ought to shape -its administration, “The supremacy of the civil over the military -authority.” Imbued with this principle, I hoped that Congress would see -the way to establish at once civil governments in all those States, -and not subject them to military power, except so far as needed for -purposes of protection. This is the true object of the army. It is to -protect the country,--not to make constitutions, or to superintend -the making of constitutions. At least, so I have read the history of -republican institutions, and such are the aspirations that I presume to -express for my country. - - The vote on Mr. Summer’s proposition stood, Yeas 20, Nays 20, - being a tie, so that the amendment was lost. Any one Senator - changing from the negative would have carried it. - - The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 38, Nays 2. On the amendments - of the Senate there was a difference between the two Houses, - which ended in a committee of conference, whose report was - concurred in without a division. - - March 23d, the bill was vetoed by the President. On the same - day it was passed again by the House,--Yeas 114, Nays 25,--and - by the Senate,--Yeas 40, Nays 7,--being more than two thirds; - so that it became a law, notwithstanding the objections of the - President.[100] - - - - -PROHIBITION OF DIPLOMATIC UNIFORM. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE UNIFORM OF -PERSONS IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 20, 1867. - - - March 20th, Mr. Summer, from the Committee on Foreign - Relations, reported the following joint resolution:-- - - “_Resolved, &c._, That all persons in the diplomatic - service of the United States are prohibited from wearing - any uniform or official costume not previously authorized - by Congress.” - - He then stated that it was reported from the Committee - unanimously, and that perhaps the Senate would be willing to - consider it at once. The resolution was proceeded with by - unanimous consent, when Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, remarked: “I do - not see what right we have to prevent a minister abroad from - wearing the uniform of our army, if he chooses.” Mr. Sumner - replied:-- - -The Senator is aware that a habit exists among our ministers in Europe -of wearing uniforms of other countries in the nature of court costumes -or dresses; and this is often required before they are presented. The -Committee on Foreign Relations, after careful consideration, have -unanimously come to the conclusion that it is expedient to prohibit any -such uniform or official costume, unless sanctioned previously by Act -of Congress. It seems clear that our ministers abroad should not be -required by any foreign government to wear a uniform, costume, or dress -unknown to our own laws. This is very simple, and not unreasonable. - -This question is perhaps more important than it appears. On its face -it is of form only, or rather of dress, proper for the learned in -Carlyle’s “Sartor Resartus.” But I am not sure that it does not concern -the character of the Republic. Shall our ministers abroad be required -by any foreign government to assume a uniform unknown to our laws? -Ministers of other countries appear at foreign courts in the dress they -would wear before the sovereign at home. What is good enough for the -sovereign at home is, I understand, good enough for other sovereigns. -And surely the dress in which one of our ministers would appear before -the President of the United States ought to be sufficient anywhere. Its -simplicity is to my mind no argument against it. - -It is sometimes said, gravely enough, that, if our ministers appear -in the simple dress of a citizen, according to the requirement of Mr. -Marcy’s famous circular, they may be mistaken for “upper servants.” If -such be the case, they will have little of the stamp of fitness. I am -not troubled on this head. Their simplicity would be a distinction, -and it would be typical of the republican government they represent. -Amidst the brilliant dresses and fantastic uniforms of European courts -a simple dress would be most suggestive. A British minister appearing -at the Congress of Vienna in simple black, with a single star on -his breast, so contrasted with the bedizened crowd about him as to -awaken the admiration of an illustrious prince, who exclaimed, “How -distinguished!” - -This is an old subject, which I trust may be disposed of at last. -Mr. Marcy enjoined simplicity in the official dress of our foreign -representatives, and dwelt with pride on the well-known example of -Benjamin Franklin. But his instructions were not sufficiently explicit, -and they were allowed to die out. Some appeared in simple black, and -were not mistaken for “upper servants.” But gold lace at last carried -the day, and our representatives now appear in a costume peculiar to -European courts. A simple prohibition by Congress will put an end to -this petty complication, and make it easy for them to follow abroad the -simple ways to which they have been accustomed at home. - - MR. SHERMAN. All I wish to know is, whether General Dix, or - any other minister, could wear the uniform of our army, if he - chose. The rule, if I understand it, in some foreign countries, - is, that a person must appear at court in some kind of uniform. - If none is provided by his government, or authorized by his - government, then he adopts a certain uniform according to the - custom of the country to which he is accredited. Perhaps, - however, I am not correct. - -MR. SUMNER. The object of the pending measure is to encounter that -precise requirement of foreign governments, and to put our ministers -on an equality with those of other countries. I have already said that -ministers of other countries may appear at the courts to which they -are addressed as they would appear before their own sovereign. I take -it the Turkish ambassador is not obliged to assume in Paris or London -any official costume peculiar to France or England; but he appears, as -at a reception by his own sovereign, with the fez on his head. And so -the Austrian ambassador appears in his fantastic Hungarian jacket. But -I see no reason why there should be one rule for these ambassadors, -and another for the representatives of the American Republic. Here, as -elsewhere, there should be equality. The equality of nations is a first -principle of International Law. But this is offended by any requirement -of a foreign government which shall not leave our representative free -to appear before the sovereign of the country to which he is accredited -as he would before the Chief Magistrate of the American people,--in -other words, in the simple dress of an American citizen. This is the -whole case. - - MR. SHERMAN. The Senator does not yet answer my question: Will - this prevent an American minister abroad from wearing the - uniform of an officer of the army of the United States, such as - he would be entitled to wear under our laws, if here? - - MR. SUMNER. If entitled under our laws, there could be no - difficulty. - - MR. SHERMAN. We have a law which authorizes a volunteer officer - who has attained the rank of a brigadier-general, for instance, - always on state occasions to wear that uniform. - -MR. SUMNER. There can be no misunderstanding. The ministers are simply -to follow Congress; and as Congress has not authorized any uniform -or official costume, they can have none, unless they come within the -exceptional case to which the Senator has alluded. Certain persons who -have been in the military service are authorized, under an existing Act -of Congress, to wear their military uniform on public occasions. This -resolution cannot interfere in any way with that provision. It leaves -the Act of Congress in full force, and is applicable only to those not -embraced by that Act. - - The joint resolution passed the Senate without a division. - March 25th, it passed the House without a division, and was - approved by the President, so that it became a law.[101] It was - promptly communicated to our ministers abroad by a circular - from the Department of State. - - - - -VIGILANCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON RESOLUTIONS ADJOURNING CONGRESS, MARCH 23, -26, 28, AND 29, 1867. - - - March 23d, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, offered a resolution - adjourning the two Houses on Tuesday, March 26th, at twelve - o’clock, noon, until the first Monday of December, at twelve - o’clock, noon. Mr. Drake, of Missouri, moved to amend by - striking out “the first Monday of December,” and inserting - “Tuesday, the 15th day of October.” This amendment was - rejected,--Yeas 19, Nays 28. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, then - moved to amend by inserting “first Monday of November,” and - this amendment was rejected,--Yeas 18, Nays 27. Mr. Sumner then - moved the adjournment of the two Houses on Thursday, the 28th - day of March, at twelve o’clock, noon, until the first Monday - of June, and that on that day, unless then otherwise ordered - by the two Houses, until the first Monday of December. This - was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 31. The question then recurred on - the resolution of Mr. Trumbull. A debate ensued, in which Mr. - Sumner said:-- - -I am against the resolution. In my opinion, Congress ought not to -adjourn and go home without at least some provision for return to our -post. As often as I think of this question, I am met by two controlling -facts. I speak now of facts which stare us in the face. - -You must not forget that the President is a bad man, the author of -incalculable woe to his country, and especially to that part which, -being most tried by war, most needed kindly care. Search history, and -I am sure you will find no elected ruler who, during the same short -time, has done so much mischief to his country. He stands alone in bad -eminence. Nobody in ancient or modern times can be his parallel. Alone -in the evil he has done, he is also alone in the maudlin and frantic -manner he has adopted. Look at his acts, and read his speeches. This is -enough. - -Such is the fact. And now I ask, Can Congress quietly vote to go home -and leave such a man without hindrance? These scenes are historic. His -conduct is historic. Permit me to remind you that your course with -regard to him will be historic. It can never be forgotten, if you keep -your seats and meet the usurper face to face,--as it can never be -forgotten, if, leaving your seats, you let him remain master to do as -he pleases. Most of all, he covets your absence. Do not indulge him. - -Then comes the other controlling fact. There is at this moment a -numerous population, counted by millions,--call it, if you please, -eight millions,--looking to Congress for protection. Of this large -population, all the loyal people stretch out their hands to Congress. -They ask you to stay. They know by instinct that so long as you remain -in your seats they are not without protection. They have suffered -through the President, who, when they needed bread, has given them a -stone, and when they needed peace, has given them strife. They have -seen him offer encouragement to Rebels, and even set the Rebellion on -its legs. Their souls have been wrung as they beheld fellow-citizens -brutally sacrificed, whose only crime was that they loved the Union. -Sometimes the sacrifice was on a small scale, and sometimes by -wholesale. Witness Memphis; witness New Orleans; ay, Sir, witness the -whole broad country from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. - -With a Presidential usurper menacing the Republic, and with a large -population, counted by millions, looking to Congress for protection, I -dare not vote to go home. It is my duty to stay here. I am sure that -our presence here will be an encouragement and a comfort to loyal -people throughout these troubled States. They will feel that they are -not left alone with their deadly enemy. Home is always tempting. It -is pleasant to escape from care. But duty is more than home or any -escape from care. As often as I think of these temptations, I feel -their insignificance by the side of solemn obligations. There is the -President: he must be watched and opposed. There is an oppressed -people: it must be protected. But this cannot be done without effort -on the part of Congress. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” -Never was there more need for this vigilance than now. - -An admirable and most suggestive engraving has been placed on our -tables to-day, in “Harper’s Weekly,”[102] where President Johnson is -represented as a Roman emperor presiding in the amphitheatre with -imperatorial pomp, and surrounded by trusty counsellors, among whom it -is easy to distinguish the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the -Navy, looking with complacency at the butchery below. The victims are -black, and their sacrifice, as gladiators, makes a “Roman holiday.” -Beneath the picture is written, “Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum--Massacre -of the Innocents at New Orleans, July 30, 1866.” This inscription -tells the terrible story. The bloody scene is before you. The massacre -proceeds under patronage of the President. His Presidential nod is -law. At his will blood spurts and men bite the dust. But this is only -a single scene in one place. Wherever in the Rebel States there is -a truly loyal citizen, loving the Union, there is a victim who may -be called to suffer at any moment from the distempered spirit which -now rules. I speak according to the evidence. This whole country is -an “Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum,” where the victims are counted by -the thousand. To my mind, there is no duty more urgent than to guard -against this despot, and be ready to throw the shield of Congress over -loyal citizens whom he delivers to sacrifice. - - The resolution of Mr. Trumbull was agreed to,--Yeas 29, Nays 16. - - March 25th, on motion of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, the - resolution was returned from the House of Representatives for - reconsideration. Meanwhile the House adopted the following - resolution, which was laid before the Senate:-- - - “That the Senate and House of Representatives do hereby - each give consent to the other that each House of Congress - shall adjourn the present session from the hour of twelve - o’clock, meridian, on Thursday next, the 28th day of March - instant, to assemble again on the first Wednesday of - May, the first Wednesday of June, the first Wednesday of - September, and the first Wednesday of November, of this - year, unless the President of the Senate _pro tempore_ and - the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall by joint - proclamation, to be issued by them ten days before either - of the times herein fixed for assembling, declare that - there is no occasion for the meeting of Congress at such - time.” - - On motion of Mr. Fessenden, this resolution was referred to the - Committee on the Judiciary. - - March 26th, the House resolution was reported by Mr. Trumbull, - with a substitute adjourning the two Houses “on the 28th - instant, at twelve o’clock, meridian.” Debate ensued, when Mr. - Howe, of Wisconsin, moved an adjournment on the 29th of March - until the first Monday of June, and on that day, unless then - otherwise ordered by the two Houses, until the first Monday of - December. After debate, this amendment was rejected,--Yeas 17, - Nays 25. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to amend the substitute - of the Committee by adding “to meet again on the first Monday - of November next,” which was rejected,--Yeas 16, Nays 25. Mr. - Sumner then moved to amend the substitute by adding:-- - - “_Provided_, That the President of the Senate _pro tempore_ - and the Speaker of the House of Representatives may by - joint proclamation, at any time before the first Monday - of December, convene the two Houses of Congress for the - transaction of business, if in their opinion the public - interests require.” - - Here he said:-- - -I am unwilling to doubt that Congress may authorize their officers to -do that. I cannot doubt it. Assuming that we have the power, is not -this an occasion to exercise it? I do not wish to be carried into the -general debate. I had intended to say something about it; but it is -late.… I will not, therefore, go into the general question, except to -make one remark: I do think Congress ought to do something; we ought -not to adjourn as on ordinary occasions,--for this is not an ordinary -occasion, and there is the precise beginning of the difference between -myself and the Senator from Maine, and also between myself and the -Senator from Illinois. - -The Senator from Illinois said, Why not, as on ordinary occasions, -now go home? Ay, Sir, that is the very question. Is this an ordinary -occasion? To my mind, it clearly is not. It is an extraordinary -occasion, big with the fate of this Republic. - - The amendment of Mr. Sumner was rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 26. - Mr. Howe then moved to insert “Friday, the 29th,” instead of - “Thursday, the 28th,” which was rejected. Mr. Drake then moved - an amendment, 28th March until 5th June, when, unless a quorum - of both Houses were present, the presiding officers should - adjourn until 4th September, when, unless a quorum of both - Houses were present, they should adjourn until the first Monday - of December. This also was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 27. The - substitute reported by Mr. Trumbull was then agreed to,--Yeas - 21, Nays 17. The other House then adopted a substitute, - adjourning March 28th to the first Wednesday of June, and - to the first Wednesday of September, unless the presiding - officers, by joint proclamation ten days before either of - these times, should declare that there was no occasion for the - meeting of Congress at that time. In the Senate, March 28th, - Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved a substitute, adjourning March - 30th to the first Wednesday of July, and then, unless otherwise - ordered by both Houses, on the next day adjourning without day. - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -The Senate seems to have arrived at a point where the difference is -one of form rather than substance. We have been occupied almost an -hour in discussing the phraseology of the resolution. We have reached -the great point which was the subject of such earnest discussion -two or three days ago, that Congress ought in some way or other to -secure to itself the power of meeting during the long period between -now and next December. I understand Senators are all agreed on that. -I am glad of it. Only by time and discussion we have reached that -harmony. The House has given us three opportunities. The old story is -repeated. The Senate, so far as I can understand, is ready to adopt the -proposition of the House,--substantially I mean, for this proposition, -as I understand it, is simply to secure for Congress an opportunity -of coming together during the summer and autumn. Now the practical -question is, How shall this be best accomplished? I am ready to accept -either of the forms. I am willing to accept the form last adopted by -the House. I do not see that that is objectionable. I am ready, if I -can get nothing better, to accept the form proposed by the Senator from -Vermont; but I must confess that the form proposed by the Senator from -Missouri seems briefer, clearer, better. If I could have my own way, I -would set aside the proposition of the Senator from Vermont, and fall -back upon that of the Senator from Missouri, as better expressing the -conclusion which I am glad to see at last reached. - -I believe it is settled that we shall not adjourn to-morrow. Am I right? - - MR. EDMUNDS. Yes, Sir. - -MR. SUMNER. I am glad of it. That is the gain of a day. We were to -adjourn to-day at twelve o’clock, and then again to-morrow at twelve -o’clock, and now it is put off until Saturday. I cannot doubt that the -Senate would do much better, if it put off the adjournment until next -week. There is important business on your table, which ought to be -considered. - - Mr. Sumner then called attention to measures deserving - consideration, and continued:-- - -Here is another measure, which I once characterized as an effort -to cut the Gordian knot of the suffrage question. It is a bill -introduced by myself to carry out various constitutional provisions -securing political rights in all our States, precisely as we have -already secured civil rights. The importance of this bill cannot be -exaggerated. There is not a Senator who does not know the anxious -condition of things in the neighboring State of Maryland for want of -such a bill. Let Congress interfere under the National Constitution, -and exercise a power clearly belonging to it, settling this whole -suffrage question, so that it shall no longer agitate the politics -of the States, no longer be the occasion of dissension, possibly of -bloodshed, in Maryland or in Delaware, or of difference in Ohio. Let us -settle the question before we return home. - -When I rose, I had no purpose of calling attention to these measures. -My special object was to express satisfaction that the Senate at last -is disposed to harmonize with the other House on the important question -of securing to Congress the power of meeting during the summer and -autumn. That is a great point gained for the peace and welfare of the -country. Without it you will leave the country a prey to the President; -you will leave our Union friends throughout the South a sacrifice to -the same malignant usurper. - - The substitute proposed by Mr. Edmunds was agreed to,--Yeas - 25, Nays 14. The House non-concurring, it was referred to a - committee of conference. - - March 29th, another resolution having been meanwhile adopted by - the House, providing for an adjournment to the first Wednesday - of June, and then, if a quorum of both Houses were not present, - to the first Wednesday of September, and then, in the absence - of a quorum, to the first Monday of December, Mr. Edmunds moved - the following substitute:-- - - “The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House - of Representatives are hereby directed to adjourn their - respective Houses on Saturday, March 30, 1867, at twelve - o’clock, meridian, to the first Wednesday of July, 1867, - at noon, when the roll of each House shall be immediately - called, and immediately thereafter the presiding officer of - each House shall cause the presiding officer of the other - House to be informed whether or not a quorum of its body - has appeared; and thereupon, if a quorum of the two Houses - respectively shall not have appeared upon such call of the - rolls, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the - House of Representatives shall immediately adjourn their - respective Houses without day.” - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -I am against the amendment on two grounds: first, that it proposes -to adjourn too soon; and, secondly, that it superfluously and -unnecessarily makes a new difference with the House of Representatives. -In the first place, it proposes to adjourn too soon,--that is, -to-morrow at twelve o’clock. The business of the country will suffer -by adjournment at that time. We are now in currents of business that -recall the last days of regular sessions, or the rapids that precede a -cataract. Senators are straggling for the floor, and perhaps are not -always amiable, if they do not obtain it. We ought to give time for all -this important business, so that there be no such unseemly struggle. - -The calendar of the Senate shows one hundred and fifteen bills now -on your table from the Senate alone, of which only a small portion -have been considered; and looking at the House calendar, I find one -of their late bills numbered one hundred and two, showing that very -large number, of which you have considered thus far only a very small -proportion. I do not ask attention to these numerous bills, but -unquestionably among them are many of great importance. There are two -especially to which I have already referred, and to which I mean to -call your attention, so long as you sit as a Congress, and down to the -last moment, unless they shall be acted on. I mean, in the first place, -the bill providing for a change in the time of electing a mayor and -other officers in the city of Washington. Congress ought not to go home -leaving this question unsettled. - -You have bestowed the suffrage upon the colored people here, and they -are about to exercise it in choosing aldermen and a common council; but -those aldermen and common councilmen will find themselves presided over -by a mayor chosen by a different constituency, and hostile to them in -sentiment, one possessing sometimes the veto power, and always a very -considerable influence, which he will naturally exercise against this -new government. Will you leave Washington subject to such discord? -Will you consent that the votes of the colored people shall be thus -neutralized the first time they are called into exercise? I trust -Congress will not adjourn until this important bill is acted upon. It -is very simple; it need not excite discussion; it is practical. Let it -be read at the table, and every Senator will understand it, and will be -ready to vote upon it without argument. Thus far I have not been able -to bring it before the Senate, though I have tried day by day. I have -not yet been able to have it read. - - Mr. Sumner then referred again to the bill securing the - elective franchise throughout the country, vindicating its - constitutionality and necessity. - - Mr. Wilson then moved to amend by making the day of adjournment - the 10th of April; but this was rejected,--Yeas 13, Nays 28. - Mr. Sumner then moved to amend by inserting “five o’clock, - Saturday afternoon,” instead of “twelve o’clock, noon,” saying, - “so that we shall have five hours more for work”; but this, - modified by the substitution of four o’clock, was likewise - rejected. - - The substitute of Mr. Edmunds was then adopted,--Yeas 28, Nays - 12,--Mr. Sumner voting in the negative. The House concurred, - and the adjournment took place accordingly. - - * * * * * - - In this episode began the differences with regard to President - Johnson. To protect good people against him was the object of - the earnest effort to prolong the session and to provide for an - intermediate session before the regular meeting of Congress. - Among those who voted for the adjournment were distinguished - Senators who afterwards voted for his acquittal, when impeached - at the bar of the Senate. - - - - -LOYALTY AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE REBEL -STATES. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SURVEYS FOR -THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LEVEES OF THE MISSISSIPPI, MARCH 29, 1867. - - - March 29th, on motion of Mr. Sprague, of Rhode Island, the - Senate proceeded to consider a joint resolution directing - an examination and estimate to be made of the cost of - reconstructing the levees of the Mississippi. Mr. Sumner - remarked that he was not against making this exploration - and inquiry,--that he welcomed anything of the kind,--but - he was anxious that Congress should not commit itself to - the expenditure involved. He therefore moved the following - amendment:-- - - “_Provided_, That it is understood in advance that no - appropriations for the levees of the Mississippi River - shall be made in any State until after the restoration of - such State to the Union, with the elective franchise and - free schools without distinction of race or color.” - - On this he remarked:-- - -I am unwilling that Congress should seem in any way to commit itself -to so great an expenditure in one of these States, except with the -distinct understanding that it shall not be until after the restoration -of the State to the Union on those principles without which the -State will not be loyal or republican. We are all seeking to found -governments truly loyal and truly republican. Will any Rebel State be -such until it has secured in its constitution the elective franchise -to all, and until it has opened free schools to all? The proposition -is a truism. A State which does not give the elective franchise to -all, without distinction of color, is not republican in form, and -cannot be sanctioned as such by the Congress of the United States. -Now I am anxious, so far as I can, to take a bond in advance, and -to hold out every temptation, every lure, every seduction to tread -the right path,--in other words, to tread the path of loyalty and of -republicanism. Therefore I seize the present opportunity to let these -States know in advance, that, if they expect the powerful intervention -of Congress, they must qualify themselves to receive it by giving -evidence that they are truly loyal and truly republican. - -This is no common survey of a river or harbor. The Senator from Maine -[Mr. MORRILL] has already pointed out the difference between the two -cases. They are wide apart. It is an immense charity, a benefaction, -from which private individuals are to gain largely. Thus far these -levees have always been built, as I understand,--I am open to -correction,--by the owners of the lands, and by the States. - - MR. STEWART [of Nevada]. And principally by the swamp lands - donated by Congress. - -MR. SUMNER. Now it is proposed, for the first time, that the National -Government shall intervene with its powerful aid. Are you ready to -embark in that great undertaking? I do not say that you should not, -for I am one who has never hesitated, and I do not mean hereafter -to hesitate, in an appropriation for the good of any part of the -country, if I can see that it is constitutional; and on the question -of constitutionality I do not mean to be nice. I mean always to be -generous in interpretation of the Constitution, and in appropriations -for any such object; but I submit that Congress shall not in any -respect pledge itself to this undertaking, involving such a lavish -expenditure, except on the fundamental condition that the States where -the money is to be invested shall be truly loyal and republican in -form; and I insist that not one of those States can be such, except on -the conditions stated in my amendment. - - No vote was reached, and the joint resolution was never - considered again. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] Commentaries on American Law (4th edit.), Vol. I. p. 226. - -[2] Stansbury, Report of the Trial of Judge Peck, Appendix, p. 499. - -[3] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States (2d -edit.), § 126, p. 47. - -[4] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States (2d -edit.), Appendix, IV., p. 996. - -[5] Savigny, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, § 97, Band II. p. -329. - -[6] Maxims, Reg. 3. - -[7] Broom, Legal Maxims, (3d edit.,) p. 111. - -[8] Broom, Legal Maxims, (3d edit.,) p. 116. - -[9] Hobart, R., 86, 87. - -[10] 8 Coke, R., 118. - -[11] 12 Modern Reports, 687, 688. - -[12] “Nec erit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac; -sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et -immutabilis continebit, unusque erit communis quasi magister et -imperator omnium deus.”--_De Republica_, Lib. III. c. 22. - -[13] Rules and Orders of the House of Representatives: Rule 28 [29]. - -[14] May, Treatise on the Law, etc., of Parliament, (5th edit.,) p. 598. - -[15] Dwarris, Treatise on Statutes, (2d edit.,) Part I. p. 220. - -[16] Ibid. - -[17] Dwarris, Treatise on Statutes, (2d edit.,) Part I. p. 245. - -[18] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies (2d edit.), p. 711. - -[19] Ibid., p. 713. - -[20] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies (2d edit.), pp. 712, -713. - -[21] History of His Own Times (fol. edit.), Vol. I. p. 485. - -[22] Act of April 10, 1869: Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI. pp. 44, 45. - -[23] Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, § 1573, Vol. III. pp. -437, seqq., note. - -[24] Essays: Of Wisdom for a Man’s Self. - -[25] Address on nominating Hon. Charles Abbot to the Speakership of the -House of Commons, November 16, 1802: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, -Vol. XXXVI. col. 915. - -[26] Constitutional History of England (London, 1829), Vol. I. p. 358, -note. - -[27] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 312-314; Vol. XIII. pp. 57-60. - -[28] Narrative, p. 265. - -[29] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 357. - -[30] Act, March 2, 1833: Statutes at Large, Vol. IV. p. 654. - -[31] Act, March 3, 1843: Ibid., Vol. V. p. 641. - -[32] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 369. - -[33] See, _ante_, Vol. XII. p. 105. - -[34] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 66. - -[35] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 601. - -[36] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 365. - -[37] The Sale of Philosophers: Works, tr. Francklin, (London, 1781,) -Vol. I. p. 412. - -[38] - - “Mos erat antiquus, niveis atrisque lapillis, - His damnare reos, illis absolvere culpâ.” - - OVID, _Metam._, Lib. XV. 41, 42. - -[39] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 243, 244. - -[40] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 343, 344. - -[41] _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 185; Vol. XIII. p. 352. - -[42] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 364. - -[43] Holy State: Of Building. - -[44] _Ante_, Vol. X. pp. 273, seqq. - -[45] _Ante_, Vol. VIII. pp. 208, seqq. - -[46] The Fourteenth Amendment. - -[47] _Ante_, p. 130. - -[48] Total vote, 7776: for the constitution, 3938; against, 3838: -majority, 100.--_Congressional Globe_, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 126, -852. - -[49] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 391. - -[50] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. p. 374. - -[51] Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., col. 933, January 8, 1790. - -[52] Ibid., 2d Cong. 1st Sess., col. 15, October 25, 1791. - -[53] Plan for establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and -Measures of the United States, July 13, 1790: Writings, Vol. VII. p. -488. - -[54] Annals of Congress, 14th Cong. 2d Sess., col. 14, December 3, 1816. - -[55] Report upon Weights and Measures, p. 48. - -[56] See, _ante_, p. 19, note. - -[57] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 370. - -[58] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 13. - -[59] Speech at the Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865: -_Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 305, seqq. - -[60] Bramston, Art of Politics, 162-165. See, _ante_, Vol. VIII. p. 212. - -[61] Luther _v._ Borden et al., 7 Howard, R., 42, 45. - -[62] Act, February 9, 1863: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 646. - -[63] Act, July 2, 1862: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 502. - -[64] Annual Message, December 8, 1863. - -[65] Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, April 22, 1861: Executive Documents, -37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. I. p. 198. - -[66] This was done in part. Mr. Sumner’s efforts to make education a -condition failed. See, _post_, pp. 304-316, 326-343. - -[67] Letter to the Right Hon. Henry Dundas, April 9, 1792: Works -(Boston, 1865-67), Vol. VI. p. 261. - -[68] Speech in the House of Commons, on the Abolition of the -Slave-Trade, March 1, 1799: Speeches (4th edit.), Vol. I. p. 192. - -[69] Speech in the House of Commons, on the Abolition of the -Slave-Trade, March 1, 1799: Speeches (4th edit.), Vol. I. pp. 193, 194. - -[70] Speech in the House of Lords, on Negro Apprenticeship, February -20, 1838: Speeches (Edinburgh, 1838), Vol. II. pp. 218, 219. - -[71] History of Brazil (London, 1810), Vol. I. p. 223, note. - -[72] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Boston, 1855), Chap. LII. -Vol. VI. p. 387. - -[73] Speeches, February 22 and August 18, 1866: McPherson’s History of -the United States during Reconstruction, pp. 61, 127. - -[74] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 5-7. - -[75] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 375. - -[76] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 546. - -[77] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 47, seqq. - -[78] Areopagitica; A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing: -Works (London, 1851), Vol. IV. p. 442. - -[79] Histoire de la Révolution Française (13me édit.), Tom. X. p. 357. - -[80] Annual Message, December 1, 1862: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. -3d Sess., House, No. 1, p. 23. - -[81] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 430-432. - -[82] - - “Lucri bonus est odor, ex re - Qualibet.”--JUVENAL, _Sat._ XIV. 204, 205. - -An allusion to the familiar anecdote of Vespasian: “Reprehendenti filio -Tito, quod etiam urinæ vectigal commentus esset, pecuniam ex prima -pensione admovit ad nares, sciscitans, num odore offenderetur; et illo -negante, ‘Atqui,’ inquit, ‘e lotio est.’”--SUETONIUS, _Vespasianus_, c. -23. See the Commentators generally. - -[83] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 21, seqq. - -[84] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 179, seqq. - -[85] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 346, seqq. - -[86] _Ante_, pp. 128, seqq. - -[87] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 115, seqq. - -[88] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 337-339. - -[89] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 428-430. - -[90] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 434. - -[91] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 574. - -[92] Speech on “The Equal Rights of All,” February 5, 6, 1866: _ante_, -Vol. XIII. pp. 115, seqq. - -[93] Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775: -Wirt’s Life of Henry (3d edit.), p. 120. - -[94] Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 20. - -[95] Speech in the House of Lords, on Troops at Elections, March 1, -1867: Times, March 2. - -[96] See “Barbarism of Slavery,” _ante_, Vol. VI. p. 157. - -[97] Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, -November 11, 1647, Vol. II. p. 203. - -[98] Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia, Vol. II. p. 517. - -[99] Speech entitled “The National Security and the National Faith”: -_ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 325, seqq. - -[100] Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. pp. 2-5. - -[101] Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 23. - -[102] March 30, 1867. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, -volume 14 (of 20), by Charles Sumner - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: COMPLETE WORKS, 14 *** - -***** This file should be named 50160-0.txt or 50160-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/1/6/50160/ - -Produced by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |