diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50160-h/50160-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50160-h/50160-h.htm | 15182 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 15182 deletions
diff --git a/old/50160-h/50160-h.htm b/old/50160-h/50160-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 6e4fd76..0000000 --- a/old/50160-h/50160-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15182 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 14 (of 20), by Charles Sumner. - </title> - - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - -<style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%;} - -h1, h2 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; - page-break-before: always;} - -h3 { - text-align: center; - clear: both;} - -p { - margin-top: .75em; - text-align: justify; - text-indent: 1em; - margin-bottom: .75em; -} - -hr.tb { - width: 30%; - margin-left: 35%; - margin-right: 35%; - margin-top: 1.5em; - margin-bottom: 1.5em; - visibility: hidden; -} - -hr.chap { - width: 65%; - margin-left: 17.5%; - margin-right: 17.5%; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; -} - -hr.r15 { - width: 15%; - margin-left: 42.5%; - margin-right: 42.5%; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; -} - -table { - width: 90%; - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; - max-width: 100%; -} - -.blockquote { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -.caption {font-weight: bold; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0; - margin: 0.25em 0;} - -.center {text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em;} - -p.dropcap { - text-indent: 0em; -} - -p.dropcap:first-letter { - float: left; - margin: 0.03em 0.1em 0em 0em; - font-size: 250%; - line-height:0.85em;} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; - right: 84%; - text-align: right;} - -.footnotes { - border: dashed 1px; -} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .6em; - text-decoration: none;} - -.hanging {text-indent:-1em;} - -td.hanging {padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;} - -.plabeln {text-align: center; - font-size: 100%; - font-weight: bold; - text-indent: 0em;} - -.medium {font-size: 85%;} - -.noindent {text-indent: 0em;} - -.pagenum {color:#800000; - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right;} - -.poetry-container { - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em;} - -.poetry { - text-align: left; - display: inline-block;} - -.poetry .verse { - text-indent: -3em; - padding-left: 3em; - font-size: 95%;} - -.poetry .indent4 { - text-indent: 1em;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.sig {margin-left: 10%;} - -.sig2 {margin-left: 20%;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.space-by-1 {margin-left: 0.7em;} - -.space-by-2 {margin-left: 1.4em;} - -.space-by-3 {margin-left: 2em;} - -.tdr {text-align: right;} - -@media handheld { -p.dropcap:first-letter { - float: none; - margin: 0; - font-size: 100%;} - img {max-width: 100%; width: auto; height: auto;} - - .poetry - { - display: block; - margin-left: 1.5em; - } - - .blockquote { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; - font-size: smaller; - } -} - - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -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) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 472px;"> -<img src="images/frontispiece.jpg" width="472" height="600" alt="Andrew Johnson" /> -<p class="caption"><small>A. W. Elson & Co., Boston</small></p> -<p class="caption">ANDREW JOHNSON</p> -</div> - -<hr class="r15" /> - -<h1 style="visibility: hidden;">Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 14 (of 20)</h1> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 399px;"> -<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="399" height="650" alt="Cover page" /> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[Pg ii]</a></span></p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Copyright</span>, 1874 <span class="smcap">and</span> 1875,<br /> -<small>BY</small><br /> -FRANCIS V. BALCH, <span class="smcap">Executor</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Copyright</span>, 1900,<br /> -<small>BY</small><br /> -LEE AND SHEPARD.</p> - -<p class="center">Statesman Edition.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><small>Limited to One Thousand Copies.</small></span></p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><small>Of which this is</small></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 100px;"> -<img src="images/issuenumber.jpg" width="100" height="21" alt="No. 565" /> -</div> - -<p class="center">Norwood Press:<br /> -<span class="smcap"><small>Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.</small></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p> - -<h2>CONTENTS OF VOLUME XIV.</h2> - -<table summary="contents" style="max-width: 50em; margin: auto;"> - <tr> - <td></td><td class="tdr">PAGE</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#MAJORITY_OR_PLURALITY_IN_THE_ELECTION"><span class="smcap">Majority or Plurality in the Election of Senators.</span> -Speech in the Senate, on the Contested Election of Hon. -John P. Stockton, of New Jersey, March 23, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">1</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#A_SENATOR_CANNOT_VOTE_FOR_HIMSELF"><span class="smcap">A Senator cannot vote for Himself.</span> Speech in the -Senate, on the Vote of Hon. John P. Stockton affirming -his Seat in the Senate, March 26, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">15</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#REMODELLING_OF_THE_SUPREME_COURT_OF"><span class="smcap">Remodelling of the Supreme Court of the United -States.</span> Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill to reorganize -the Judiciary of the United States, April 2, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">30</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_LATE_SOLOMON_FOOT_SENATOR_FROM"><span class="smcap">The Late Solomon Foot, Senator from Vermont.</span> Speech -in the Senate, on his Death, April 12, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">33</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#COMPLETE_EQUALITY_IN_RIGHTS_AND_NOT"><span class="smcap">Complete Equality in Rights, and not Semi-Equality.</span> -Letter to a Committee on the Celebration of Emancipation -in the District of Columbia, April 14, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">41</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#JUSTICE_TO_MECHANICS_IN_THE_WAR"><span class="smcap">Justice to Mechanics in the War.</span> Speech in the Senate, -on a Bill for the Relief of certain Contractors, April 17, -1866</a></td><td class="tdr">43</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_COUNTERACT_THE"><span class="smcap">Power of Congress to counteract the Cattle-Plague.</span> -Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution to print a Letter -of the Commissioner of Agriculture on the Cattle-Plague, -April 25, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">49</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#URGENT_DUTY_OF_THE_HOUR"><span class="smcap">Urgent Duty of the Hour.</span> Letter to the American Antislavery -Society, May 1, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">51</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#TIME_AND_RECONSTRUCTION"><span class="smcap">Time and Reconstruction.</span> Remarks in the Senate, on a -Resolution to hasten Reconstruction, May 2, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">52</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_EMPEROR_OF_RUSSIA_AND_EMANCIPATION"><span class="smcap">The Emperor of Russia and Emancipation.</span> Remarks -on a Joint Resolution relative to Attempted Assassination -of the Emperor, May 8, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">56</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_PROVIDE_AGAINST_CHOLERA"><span class="smcap">Power of Congress to provide against Cholera from -Abroad.</span> 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</a></td><td class="tdr">59</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#RANK_OF_DIPLOMATIC_REPRESENTATIVES"><span class="smcap">Rank of Diplomatic Representatives Abroad.</span> 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</a></td><td class="tdr">74</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#OFFICE_OF_ASSISTANT_SECRETARY_OF_STATE"><span class="smcap">Office of Assistant Secretary of State, and Mr. -Hunter.</span> 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</a></td><td class="tdr">82</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#DELAY_IN_THE_REMOVAL_OF_DISABILITIES"><span class="smcap">Delay in the Removal of Disabilities.</span> Letter to an -Applicant, May, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">85</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#INTERRUPTION_OF_RIGHT_OF_PETITION"><span class="smcap">Interruption of Right of Petition.</span> Remarks in the -Senate, on the Withdrawal of a Petition from Citizens -of Virginia, May 24, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">86</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#OFFICIAL_HISTORY_OF_THE_REBELLION"><span class="smcap">Official History of the Rebellion.</span> Remarks in the -Senate, on a Joint Resolution to provide for the Publication -of the Official History of the Rebellion, May 24, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">88</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#EQUAL_RIGHTS_A_CONDITION_OF_RECONSTRUCTION"><span class="smcap">Equal Rights a Condition of Reconstruction.</span> Amendment -in the Senate to a Reconstruction Bill, May 29, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">92</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#INTER-STATE_INTERCOURSE_BY_RAILWAY"><span class="smcap">Inter-State Intercourse by Railway.</span> Remarks in the -Senate, on the Bill to facilitate Commercial, Postal, and -Military Communication in the several States, May 29, -1866</a></td><td class="tdr">93</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#ATTITUDE_OF_JUSTICE_TOWARDS_ENGLAND"><span class="smcap">Attitude of Justice towards England.</span> Remarks in the -Senate, on the Bill for the Relief of the Owners of the -British Vessel Magicienne, June 26, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">96</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_MAKE_A_SHIP-CANAL"><span class="smcap">Power of Congress to make a Ship Canal at Niagara.</span> -Remarks in the Senate, on a Bill to incorporate the -Niagara Ship-Canal, June 28, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">99</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#HONOR_TO_A_CONSTANT_UNION-MAN_OF_SOUTH"><span class="smcap">Honor to a Constant Union Man of South Carolina.</span> -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</a></td><td class="tdr">103</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#OPEN_VOTING_IN_THE_ELECTION_OF_SENATORS"><span class="smcap">Open Voting in the Election of Senators; Secret Voting -at Popular Elections.</span> Speech in the Senate, on -the Bill concerning the Election of Senators, July 11, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">105</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#MAIL_SERVICE_BETWEEN_THE_UNITED_STATES"><span class="smcap">Mail Service between the United States and the Sandwich -Islands.</span> 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</a></td><td class="tdr">110</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#TENNESSEE_NOT_SUFFICIENTLY_RECONSTRUCTED"><span class="smcap">Tennessee not sufficiently reconstructed.</span> Speech in -the Senate, on a Joint Resolution declaring Tennessee -again entitled to Senators and Representatives in Congress, -July 21, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">114</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_SENATE_CHAMBER_ITS_VENTILATION"><span class="smcap">The Senate Chamber: its Ventilation and Size.</span> Speech -in the Senate, on an Amendment to the Civil Appropriation -Bill, July 23, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">119</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#A_SHIP-CANAL_THROUGH_THE_ISTHMUS_OF"><span class="smcap">A Ship-Canal through the Isthmus of Darien.</span> Remarks -in the Senate, on an Amendment to the Civil Appropriation -Bill, July 25, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">124</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#INQUIRY_INTO_THE_TITLE_OF_A_SENATOR_TO"><span class="smcap">Inquiry into the Title of a Senator to his Seat.</span> Remarks -in the Senate, on the Credentials of the Senator -from Tennessee, July 26, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">126</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#NO_MORE_STATES_WITH_THE_WORD_WHITE"><span class="smcap">No More States with the Word “White” in the Constitution.</span> -Speeches in the Senate, on the Admission -of Nebraska as a State, July 27, December 14 and 19, -1866, and January 8, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">128</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_METRIC_SYSTEM_OF_WEIGHTS_AND_MEASURES"><span class="smcap">The Metric System of Weights and Measures.</span> Speech -in the Senate, on Two Bills and a Joint Resolution relating -to the Metric System, July 27, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">148</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#ART_IN_THE_NATIONAL_CAPITOL"><span class="smcap">Art in the National Capitol.</span> Speech in the Senate, on -a Joint Resolution authorizing a Contract with Vinnie -Ream for a Statue of Abraham Lincoln, July 27, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">164</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_ONE_MAN_POWER_vs_CONGRESS"><span class="smcap">The One Man Power <i>vs.</i> Congress. The Present Situation.</span> -Address at the Opening of the Annual Lectures -of the Parker Fraternity, at the Music Hall, Boston, -October 2, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">181</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_OCEAN_TELEGRAPH_BETWEEN_EUROPE"><span class="smcap">The Ocean Telegraph between Europe and America.</span> -Answer to Invitation to attend a Banquet at New York, -in Honor of Cyrus W. Field, November 14, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">220</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#ENCOURAGEMENT_TO_COLORED_FELLOW-CITIZENS"><span class="smcap">Encouragement to Colored Fellow-Citizens.</span> Letter to -a Convention of Colored Citizens, December 2, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">222</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_TRUE_PRINCIPLES_OF_RECONSTRUCTION"><span class="smcap">The True Principles of Reconstruction. Illegality -of Existing Governments in the Rebel States.</span> -Resolutions and Remarks in the Senate, December 5, -1866</a></td><td class="tdr">224</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#FEMALE_SUFFRAGE_AND_AN_EDUCATIONAL_TEST"><span class="smcap">Female Suffrage, and an Educational Test of Male -Suffrage.</span> Speech in the Senate, on Amendments to -the Bill conferring Suffrage without Distinction of Color -in the District of Columbia, December 13, 1866</a></td><td class="tdr">228</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#PROHIBITION_OF_PEONAGE"><span class="smcap">Prohibition of Peonage.</span> Resolution and Remarks in the -Senate, January 3, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">232</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#PRECAUTION_AGAINST_THE_REVIVAL_OF"><span class="smcap">Precaution against the Revival of Slavery.</span> Remarks -in the Senate, on a Resolution and the Report of the -Judiciary Committee, January 3 and February 20, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">234</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#PROTECTION_AGAINST_THE_PRESIDENT"><span class="smcap">Protection against the President.</span> Speeches in the Senate, -on an Amendment to the Tenure-of-Office Bill, -January 15, 17, and 18, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">239</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#DENUNCIATION_OF_THE_COOLIE_TRADE"><span class="smcap">Denunciation of the Coolie Trade.</span> Resolution in the -Senate, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, -January 16, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">262</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#CHEAP_BOOKS_AND_PUBLIC_LIBRARIES"><span class="smcap">Cheap Books and Public Libraries.</span> Remarks in the -Senate, on Amendments to the Tariff Bill reducing the -Tariff on Books, January 24, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">263</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#CHEAP_COAL"><span class="smcap">Cheap Coal.</span> Speech in the Senate, on an Amendment to -the Tariff Bill, January 29, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">271</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#A_SINGLE_TERM_FOR_THE_PRESIDENT_AND_CHOICE"><span class="smcap">A Single Term for the President, and Choice by Direct -Vote of the People.</span> Remarks in the Senate, on an -Amendment of the National Constitution, February 11, -1867</a></td><td class="tdr">278</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#RECONSTRUCTION_AT_LAST_WITH_COLORED_SUFFRAGE"><span class="smcap">Reconstruction at Last with Colored Suffrage and -Protection against Rebel Influence.</span> Speeches in -the Senate, on the Bill to provide for the more Efficient -Government of the Rebel States, February 14, 19, and -20, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">282</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_DEPARTMENT_OF_EDUCATION"><span class="smcap">The Department of Education.</span> Remarks in the Senate, -on the Bill to establish a Department of Education, -February 26, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">297</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#MONUMENTS_TO_DECEASED_SENATORS"><span class="smcap">Monuments to Deceased Senators.</span> Remarks in the Senate, -on a Resolution directing the Erection of such Monuments, -February 27, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">299</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#A_VICTORY_OF_PEACE"><span class="smcap">A Victory of Peace.</span> Speech in the Senate, on a Joint -Resolution giving the Thanks of Congress to Cyrus W. -Field, March 2, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">301</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#FURTHER_GUARANTIES_IN_RECONSTRUCTION"><span class="smcap">Further Guaranties in Reconstruction. Loyalty, Education, -and a Homestead for Freedmen; Measures -of Reconstruction not a Burden or Penalty.</span> Resolutions -and Speeches in the Senate, March 7 and 11, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">304</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#GENEROSITY_FOR_EDUCATION"><span class="smcap">Generosity for Education.</span> Speech in the Senate, on a -Joint Resolution giving the Thanks of Congress to George -Peabody, March 8, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">317</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#RECONSTRUCTION_AGAIN"><span class="smcap">Reconstruction again. The Ballot and Public Schools -open to All.</span> Speeches in the Senate, on the Supplementary -Reconstruction Bill, March 15 and 16, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">321</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#PROHIBITION_OF_DIPLOMATIC_UNIFORM"><span class="smcap">Prohibition of Diplomatic Uniform.</span> Speech in the Senate, -on a Joint Resolution concerning the Uniform of -Persons in the Diplomatic Service of the United States, -March 20, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">344</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#VIGILANCE_AGAINST_THE_PRESIDENT"><span class="smcap">Vigilance against the President.</span> Remarks in the Senate, -on Resolutions adjourning Congress, March 23, 26, 28, -and 29, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">348</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#LOYALTY_AND_REPUBLICAN_GOVERNMENT_CONDITIONS"><span class="smcap">Loyalty and Republican Government Conditions of -Assistance to the Rebel States.</span> Remarks in the -Senate, on a Joint Resolution authorizing Surveys for -the Reconstruction of the Levees of the Mississippi, -March 29, 1867</a></td><td class="tdr">358</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="MAJORITY_OR_PLURALITY_IN_THE_ELECTION" id="MAJORITY_OR_PLURALITY_IN_THE_ELECTION"></a>MAJORITY OR PLURALITY IN THE ELECTION -OF SENATORS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on the Contested Election of Hon. John -P. Stockton, of New Jersey, March 23, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>The Senator did not disguise that the case is without<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>It lies in a nutshell. A brief text of the National<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> -Constitution, and another brief text of a local statute, -are all that need be considered.</p> - -<p>The National Constitution provides as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of -two Senators from each State, chosen by the <em>Legislature</em> -thereof.”</p> - -<p>“The times, places, and <em>manner of holding elections for -Senators</em> and Representatives shall be <em>prescribed</em> in each -State by the <em>Legislature</em> thereof; but the Congress may -at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except -as to the places of choosing Senators.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Senators of the United States on the part of this State -shall be appointed <em>by the Senate and General Assembly of -this State in joint meeting assembled</em>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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 <em>plurality</em> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>Legislature</em>, -which is to <em>prescribe</em>, among other things, the -<em>manner</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>Repairing to the Constitution of New Jersey, we find -it providing that “the <em>legislative power</em> shall be vested -in a Senate and General Assembly”; that these bodies<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> -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 <em>majority</em> 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.</p> - -<p>The statute of New Jersey, to which I have referred -as framed in 1790, was entitled “An Act to <em>prescribe -the manner</em> 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.</p> - -<p>I have no purpose of raising any question with regard -to the validity of this statute prescribing the election -of Senators <em>in joint meeting</em>. 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:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I should think, if the question was a new one, that, -when the Constitution directed that the Senators should -be chosen by <em>the Legislature</em>, it meant, not the members of -the Legislature <i>per capita</i>, 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.”<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> -no such extraordinary power in the questionable assembly -known as “joint meeting.” But we shall better -understand the second question, after considering -the first.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The Constitution secures the trial by jury. Where do -you get the meaning of <em>a trial by jury</em>? 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> -explanation of this high privilege, <em>the trial by jury</em>, and <em>the -mode of proceeding</em> 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.”<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> -by the Law of Corporations, which establishes -the rule of the majority.</p> - -<p>Here I adduce the authority of Mr. Cushing, in his -Parliamentary Law, in the very passage cited by the -Senator from Illinois:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> -rule of the majority, as is explained by the same -learned authority.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The rule, thus curiously explained, continued in -Massachusetts down to a recent day; at last it yielded<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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. <i>Ubi major pars est, ibi -totum</i>: “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?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>prescribe the manner</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> -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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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; <em>whereas this rule doth give them a sway to take -the law more certainly one way</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="A_SENATOR_CANNOT_VOTE_FOR_HIMSELF" id="A_SENATOR_CANNOT_VOTE_FOR_HIMSELF"></a>A SENATOR CANNOT VOTE FOR HIMSELF.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on the Vote of Hon. John P. Stockton -affirming his Seat in the Senate, March 26, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> -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?</p> - -<p>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,—<i>Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa</i>. 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“It is a fundamental rule in the administration of justice, -that a person cannot be judge in a cause wherein he -is interested.”<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>In another place, the same learned writer says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“It is, then, a rule always observed in practice, and of -the application of which instances not unfrequently occur<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> -that, where a judge is interested in the result of a cause, -he cannot, either personally or by deputy, sit in judgment -upon it.”<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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 <i>Day</i> v. <i>Savadge</i>, where this learned magistrate -said:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent">And then he says, in memorable language, which has -made his name famous:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Even an Act of Parliament, made against natural equity, -as, to make a man judge in his own case, is void in -itself; for <i>jura naturæ sunt immutabilia</i>, and they are <i>leges -legum</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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 <i>Bonham’s</i>, -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> -of Parliament, if it undertakes to make a man judge in -his own case.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> - -<p>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 <i>The City of London</i> v. <i>Wood</i>, where -he says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent">He then explains the principle:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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 -<i>Dr. Bonham’s Case</i>, 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;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> -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.”<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>This is not all. I said that it was forbidden, not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> -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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“No member shall vote on any question in the event of -which he is immediately and particularly interested.”<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“If anything shall come in question touching the <em>return -or election</em> of any member, he is to withdraw during the -time the matter is in debate.”<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>I quote from May’s Parliamentary Law. From another -work of authority, Dwarris on Statutes, I now -read:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Then, after citing two different cases, the learned -writer proceeds:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span></p> - -<p>Again the same writer says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Where a member appeared to be ‘somewhat’ concerned -in interest,”—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent">That is the phrase, only “somewhat concerned,”—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“his voice has been disallowed after a division.”<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Cases are frequent in which votes received have been -disallowed.”<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Again he says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> -already read from Dwarris, where the vote was disallowed, -and I will read it again:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Where a member appeared to be ‘somewhat’ concerned -in interest, his voice has been disallowed after a division.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Trumbull.</span> Was that at the same or a subsequent -session?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The American authority is in harmony with the English -already quoted. I read again from Cushing.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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 <em>were so interested in the -question</em>”—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Mark those words, if you please, Sir—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="noindent">“that they ought to have withdrawn from the House.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> -has in fact taken place after the lapse of several days from -the time the votes were given.”<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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 <i>aliunde</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> -a character shall not find place hereafter in the records -of the Senate.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> -Mr. Stockton was null and void. It should be treated -as if it had not been given.</p> - -<p>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,—<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span>“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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Trumbull said:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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 <i>Habeas Corpus</i> in England will help answer -the Senator. According to the story,—it is Bishop -Burnet who tells it,<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a>—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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span></p> - -<p>“The Speaker then announced the vote to be, Yeas 78, Nays 76.</p> - -<p>“So the bill was passed; and the journal of yesterday was ordered to be -amended accordingly.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Clark</span>, 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. <span class="smcap">Poland</span>] -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:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That the vote of Mr. Stockton be not received, in determining the question -of his seat in the Senate.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner remarked:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.…</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="REMODELLING_OF_THE_SUPREME_COURT_OF" id="REMODELLING_OF_THE_SUPREME_COURT_OF"></a>REMODELLING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF -THE UNITED STATES.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill to reorganize the Judiciary -of the United States, April 2, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p> - -<p>On the present bill Mr. Sumner remarked:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> -the discharge of their duties from experience at <i>Nisi -Prius</i>. 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 -<i>Nisi Prius</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> -that the proposition of my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Howe</span>], 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Nisi Prius</i>.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_LATE_SOLOMON_FOOT_SENATOR_FROM" id="THE_LATE_SOLOMON_FOOT_SENATOR_FROM"></a>THE LATE SOLOMON FOOT, SENATOR FROM -VERMONT.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on his Death, April 12, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>] 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> -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!</p> - -<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The office of President <i>pro tempore</i> 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 <i>pro tempore</i>. -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> -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.”<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p> - -<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> -rise before them as the faithful presiding officer, by -whom the dignity of the Senate was maintained, its -business advanced, and Parliamentary Law upheld.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="COMPLETE_EQUALITY_IN_RIGHTS_AND_NOT" id="COMPLETE_EQUALITY_IN_RIGHTS_AND_NOT"></a>COMPLETE EQUALITY IN RIGHTS, AND NOT -SEMI-EQUALITY.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Letter to a Committee on the Celebration of Emancipation in -the District of Columbia, April 14, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right medium"><span class="smcap">Senate Chamber</span>, April 14, 1866.</p> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>But the work is only <em>half done</em>. The freedman, despoiled -of the elective franchise, is only <em>half a man</em>. -He must be made <em>a whole man</em>; 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;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> -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 <em>semi-equality</em>. 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.</p> - -<p>Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir, -faithfully yours,</p> - -<p class="sig"><span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.</p> - -<p class="noindent medium"><span class="smcap">Daniel G. Muse, Esq.</span></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="JUSTICE_TO_MECHANICS_IN_THE_WAR" id="JUSTICE_TO_MECHANICS_IN_THE_WAR"></a>JUSTICE TO MECHANICS IN THE WAR.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on a Bill for the Relief of certain -Contractors, April 17, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The Senate having under consideration a bill for the relief of certain -contractors for the construction of vessels of war and steam machinery, -Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—I am happy to agree with -the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>] 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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> -whether we can shut our eyes to that condition of -things. The times were exceptional; and so must the -remedy be also.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> -believe, however, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. <span class="smcap">Grimes</span>] -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.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>And yet again I ask, Are you ready to see contractors,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> -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. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>This bill, after much debate, passed the Senate. It did not pass -the House.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_COUNTERACT_THE" id="POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_COUNTERACT_THE"></a>POWER OF CONGRESS TO COUNTERACT THE -CATTLE-PLAGUE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution to print a Letter -of the Commissioner of Agriculture on the Cattle-Plague, -April 25, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Sherman of Ohio, reported the following resolution from the -Committee on Agriculture:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="URGENT_DUTY_OF_THE_HOUR" id="URGENT_DUTY_OF_THE_HOUR"></a>URGENT DUTY OF THE HOUR.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Letter to the American Antislavery Society, May 1, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right medium"><span class="smcap">Senate Chamber</span>, May 1, 1866.</p> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir, -faithfully yours,</p> - -<p class="sig"><span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.</p> - -<p class="noindent medium"><span class="smcap">The President of the American Antislavery Society.</span></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="TIME_AND_RECONSTRUCTION" id="TIME_AND_RECONSTRUCTION"></a>TIME AND RECONSTRUCTION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution to hasten Reconstruction, -May 2, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>In the debate on printing this resolution, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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. <span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>], 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Dixon.</span> Probably more than that.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_EMPEROR_OF_RUSSIA_AND_EMANCIPATION" id="THE_EMPEROR_OF_RUSSIA_AND_EMANCIPATION"></a>THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA AND EMANCIPATION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks on a Joint Resolution relative to Attempted Assassination -of the Emperor, May 8, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>May 8th, it was reported to the Senate slightly amended, so as to -read:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Resolved, &c.</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>From the public prints we learn that an attempt has -been made on the life of the Emperor of Russia by an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>In urging our own duties, I have more than once referred -to this shining example.<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_PROVIDE_AGAINST_CHOLERA" id="POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_PROVIDE_AGAINST_CHOLERA"></a>POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE AGAINST CHOLERA -FROM ABROAD.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">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.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—I must say, that, reflecting -upon this question, I find that I travelled with -my friend from Maine [Mr. <span class="smcap">Morrill</span>] through his inquiries -and his doubts, but it was only to arrive substantially -at the conclusion of my friend from Vermont -[Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>]. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>May 11th, Mr. Sumner spoke again.</p> - -</div> - -<p>I should not say anything now, but for the remarks -of my friend from New York [Mr. <span class="smcap">Harris</span>], -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce -with foreign nations and among the several States.”</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Grimes.</span> Will the Senator be kind enough to look -at the second clause of the amended proposition, where it -says,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That he”—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent">that is, the Secretary of War—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="noindent">“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”:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent">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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Grimes.</span> Any time will do, so that we get it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> You will have it all.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> 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?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> Will my friend allow me to answer him -right there?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> 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.</p> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I think the Senator goes beyond the decision -of the Supreme Court. He overrules that decision.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> I am precisely on a line with the License -cases, in which the principle was applied to the importation -of liquors.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> I do not deny that; I agree to that.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Very well.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Chandler.</span> To the Rocky Mountains.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>But as Senators have such scruples about the second -clause of the resolution,—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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,”—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> -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!</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>And this brings me, Sir, to the proposed amendment -of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>]. -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:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span></p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>May 15th, Mr. Reverdy Johnson replied, when Mr. Sumner rejoined:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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 <i>The United States</i> v. <i>Coombs</i>, 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The power to regulate commerce includes the power to -regulate navigation, as connected with the commerce with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> -foreign nations and among the States. It was so held and -decided by this court, after the most deliberate consideration, -in the case of <i>Gibbons</i> v. <i>Ogden</i>, 9 Wheaton, 189 to -198.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Those are the pointed words of Mr. Justice Story.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> Will the Senator allow me to ask him a -question?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> That is, to regulate commerce.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> To regulate commerce.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> Does the Senator mean to be understood -that a regulation in regard to cholera, a disease, is a regulation -of commerce?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I do, certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> Then the cholera is commerce?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> No; cholera is not commerce, but cholera -comes from passengers.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> Then is the regulation of it commerce, or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> -is it the treatment of a disease? Is it a regulation of health, -or a regulation of commerce?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> It is connected with commerce, and must -be treated in its appropriate connection.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>If I understand the argument of the Senator, it is -that all quarantine regulations belong to the States -exclusively. Am I right in that?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> Most of them.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> The Senator, I understand, says they belong -exclusively to the States.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morrill.</span> Yes.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment of Mr. Sumner was agreed to without a division. -The substitute of the Committee, thus amended, was lost,—Yeas 17,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> -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.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="RANK_OF_DIPLOMATIC_REPRESENTATIVES" id="RANK_OF_DIPLOMATIC_REPRESENTATIVES"></a>RANK OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES -ABROAD.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">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.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Provided</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner then said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> He can do it now.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, and Mr. -Grimes, of Iowa. Mr. Sumner replied:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> Governments are not; men may be.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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. <span class="smcap">Grimes</span>], -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.</p> - -<p>The Senator has just induced us to send the Assistant -Secretary of the Navy to Europe, because in that -way he might give more <i>éclat</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment was rejected,—Yeas 15, Nays 17.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>May 17th, Mr. Sumner renewed his effort, by moving the amendment -in the following form:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>And be it further enacted</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>After explaining it, Mr. Sumner said, especially in reply to Mr. -Grimes:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> -Ohio [Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>] 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment was adopted,—Yeas 18, Nays 16.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="OFFICE_OF_ASSISTANT_SECRETARY_OF_STATE" id="OFFICE_OF_ASSISTANT_SECRETARY_OF_STATE"></a>OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, -AND MR. HUNTER.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">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.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> -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. <span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>] 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?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>May 17th, after conversation and discussion, Mr. Sumner changed -his motion, so as to read:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>And be it further enacted</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner then said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>There was a division, and the amendment was adopted,—Yeas 18, -Nays 17.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="DELAY_IN_THE_REMOVAL_OF_DISABILITIES" id="DELAY_IN_THE_REMOVAL_OF_DISABILITIES"></a>DELAY IN THE REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Letter to an Applicant, May, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>This letter was originally published in a Southern paper, but without -the date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right medium"><span class="smcap">Senate Chamber</span> [May, 1866].</p> - -<p class="dropcap">DEAR SIR,—I have your letter of the 19th in -reference to the removal of your political disabilities.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="sig">Yours truly,</p> - -<p class="sig2"><span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="INTERRUPTION_OF_RIGHT_OF_PETITION" id="INTERRUPTION_OF_RIGHT_OF_PETITION"></a>INTERRUPTION OF RIGHT OF PETITION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on the Withdrawal of a Petition -from Citizens of Virginia, May 24, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="OFFICIAL_HISTORY_OF_THE_REBELLION" id="OFFICIAL_HISTORY_OF_THE_REBELLION"></a>OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution to provide for -the Publication of the Official History of the Rebellion, -May 24, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> -refused his assent to any further publication, and the -collection, originally ordered by Act of Congress,<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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. -<span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>], 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> And the larger it is, the worse it will -be.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Johnson</span> [of Maryland]. You might find him in -Boston.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> In Boston, if anywhere, perhaps. [<i>Laughter.</i>] -But I do not know him there, I am free to say.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> Resign, and take charge of it yourself. -[<i>Laughter.</i>]</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I do not know but that is the best thing -I could do [<i>laughter</i>]; but then I should despair of getting -through the work.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> I would agree to serve as your clerk.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Then the work would surely be done. -[<i>Laughter.</i>]</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="EQUAL_RIGHTS_A_CONDITION_OF_RECONSTRUCTION" id="EQUAL_RIGHTS_A_CONDITION_OF_RECONSTRUCTION"></a>EQUAL RIGHTS A CONDITION OF RECONSTRUCTION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Amendment in the Senate to a Reconstruction Bill, May 29, -1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>May 29th, Mr. Sumner introduced the following amendment as a -substitute for the first section of the bill:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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: -<i>Provided</i>, that nothing in this section shall be so construed -as to require the disfranchisement of any loyal -person who is now allowed to vote.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The bill was never called up after the printing of this amendment.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="INTER-STATE_INTERCOURSE_BY_RAILWAY" id="INTER-STATE_INTERCOURSE_BY_RAILWAY"></a>INTER-STATE INTERCOURSE BY RAILWAY.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill to facilitate Commercial, -Postal, and Military Communication in the several States, -May 29, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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,”<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>May 29th, the following additional proviso, moved by Mr. Clark, of -New Hampshire, was adopted,—Yeas 24, Nays 15:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Cowan</span>], 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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>]. Were the bill<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The bill passed the Senate,—Yeas 22, Nays 19,—and was approved -by the President.<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="ATTITUDE_OF_JUSTICE_TOWARDS_ENGLAND" id="ATTITUDE_OF_JUSTICE_TOWARDS_ENGLAND"></a>ATTITUDE OF JUSTICE TOWARDS ENGLAND.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill for the Relief of the -Owners of the British Vessel Magicienne, June 26, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Conness, of California, said:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner replied:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> -country should be kept firm and constant in the attitude -of justice.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The bill passed both Houses without a division, and was approved -by the President.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_MAKE_A_SHIP-CANAL" id="POWER_OF_CONGRESS_TO_MAKE_A_SHIP-CANAL"></a>POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAKE A SHIP-CANAL -AT NIAGARA.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on a Bill to incorporate the Niagara -Ship-Canal, June 28, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Section 28.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—The Senator from Kentucky -[Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>] 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>I confess, however, Sir, that what fell from the Senator -from Iowa [Mr. <span class="smcap">Grimes</span>] 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> And there is the water power.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> -ambition, and I ask the Senate without delay to do -what it can for the great result.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="HONOR_TO_A_CONSTANT_UNION-MAN_OF_SOUTH" id="HONOR_TO_A_CONSTANT_UNION-MAN_OF_SOUTH"></a>HONOR TO A CONSTANT UNION-MAN OF SOUTH -CAROLINA.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">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.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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. <span class="smcap">Howe</span>], and I hesitate -to vote against it.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> -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?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The joint resolution passed both Houses, and was approved by the -President.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="OPEN_VOTING_IN_THE_ELECTION_OF_SENATORS" id="OPEN_VOTING_IN_THE_ELECTION_OF_SENATORS"></a>OPEN VOTING IN THE ELECTION OF SENATORS; -SECRET VOTING AT POPULAR ELECTIONS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on the Bill concerning the Election of -Senators, July 11, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>July 11th, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved an amendment to the -bill, allowing every Legislature to settle the manner of voting, whether -<i>viva voce</i> or by ballot. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—I was impressed by a remark -of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>], 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>viva voce</i>.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> We do not do it here in the election of -a President of the Senate.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> But I am disposed to believe that in -not doing it we fail to follow the best example. There<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> -beans: so we are told by Lucian, in his Dialogues.<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> In -other places voting was by black and white pebbles.<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> -These instances, besides showing a curious parallel with -our New England way, illustrate the history of secret -voting.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,—Yeas 6, Nays 28.</p> - -<p>The bill passed the Senate,—Yeas 25, Nays 11,—also the House of -Representatives, and was approved by the President.<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="MAIL_SERVICE_BETWEEN_THE_UNITED_STATES" id="MAIL_SERVICE_BETWEEN_THE_UNITED_STATES"></a>MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES -AND THE SANDWICH ISLANDS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">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.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The Senate having under consideration a joint resolution 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>While declaring this desire, with my reasons for it,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>The testimony presented by the report is positive. -Here, for instance, is what is said by that eminent authority, -Admiral Davis:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>This concerns the voyage from Japan to San Francisco. -But Admiral Davis is also against stopping at -the islands on the outward voyage.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In releasing the Company from this service, I am<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="TENNESSEE_NOT_SUFFICIENTLY_RECONSTRUCTED" id="TENNESSEE_NOT_SUFFICIENTLY_RECONSTRUCTED"></a>TENNESSEE NOT SUFFICIENTLY RECONSTRUCTED.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution declaring Tennessee -again entitled to Senators and Representatives in -Congress, July 21, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="noindent">“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Trumbull.</span> Yes, Sir; I am willing those words -should go out.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner then moved his proviso, already moved in the Louisiana -bill and the Colorado bill,<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span>” -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.</p> - -<p>The bill passed the Senate,—Yeas 28, Nays 4,—and was approved -by the President.<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_SENATE_CHAMBER_ITS_VENTILATION" id="THE_SENATE_CHAMBER_ITS_VENTILATION"></a>THE SENATE CHAMBER: ITS VENTILATION -AND SIZE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on an Amendment to the Civil Appropriation -Bill, July 23, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Buckalew.</span> I have no distaste for the name. I -claim to be very radical on some subjects.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Very well. I hope he will be radical -now,—in other words, that he will be thorough in his -remedy for the present case.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> -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”:<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> -houses ought to be proportioned to ordinary, and not -extraordinary occasions. In these concurring sayings -I find practical sense.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment was agreed to.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="A_SHIP-CANAL_THROUGH_THE_ISTHMUS_OF" id="A_SHIP-CANAL_THROUGH_THE_ISTHMUS_OF"></a>A SHIP-CANAL THROUGH THE ISTHMUS OF -DARIEN.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on an Amendment to the Civil Appropriation -Bill, July 25, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner remarked:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>The Senate will easily see not only its practical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment was agreed to,—Yeas 22, Nays 13.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="INQUIRY_INTO_THE_TITLE_OF_A_SENATOR_TO" id="INQUIRY_INTO_THE_TITLE_OF_A_SENATOR_TO"></a>INQUIRY INTO THE TITLE OF A SENATOR TO -HIS SEAT.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on the Credentials of the Senator -from Tennessee, July 26, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> -In remarks on this motion, Mr. Sumner referred to the case of Mr. -Stark, of Oregon.<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> Afterwards, in reply to Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, he -said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The motion prevailed,—Yeas 20, Nays 14.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="NO_MORE_STATES_WITH_THE_WORD_WHITE" id="NO_MORE_STATES_WITH_THE_WORD_WHITE"></a>NO MORE STATES WITH THE WORD “WHITE” -IN THE CONSTITUTION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speeches in the Senate, on the Admission of Nebraska as a -State, July 27, December 14 and 19, 1866, and January 8, -1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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. -<span class="smcap">Wade</span>] 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Nye.</span> But my conscientious friend from Massachusetts, I am terribly -afraid, mistakes twinges of dyspepsia for constitutional scruples. -[<i>Laughter.</i>]</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I never had the dyspepsia in my life.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Nye.</span> I am glad to hear it; it is some other disease, then. [<i>Laughter.</i>] -This word “white” is the nightmare of his mind.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span></p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Wade replied with some warmth, when the following passage -occurred.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> Yes, I think I did.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> When you said you did not, I gave it up.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.”</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> You voted for the Constitutional Amendment.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Yes, I did vote for the Constitutional -Amendment, in its final form;<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> but does the Senator -consider himself bound to admit a Rebel State refusing -the suffrage to freedmen? I wish my friend to answer -that.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> No, I do not.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I knew he did not.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Even with the word “white” in a constitution?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> Without regard to that.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Without regard to the rights of the freedman?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> On complying with the requisitions of the -Constitutional Amendment, I should vote for them.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Doolittle.</span> The Senator from Massachusetts will -allow me?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Doolittle.</span> The Committee on Reconstruction reported -a resolution, that, if each State should adopt this -Amendment, and the Amendment should become a part<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> -of the Constitution, be adopted by a sufficient number of -States, then the States might be accepted. That was what -they reported.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Johnson.</span> It was a bill.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> That was the understanding I alluded to.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Brown.</span> That was not acted upon.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> It was not acted on. I suppose that -those who had it in charge did not venture to invite a -vote upon it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Doolittle.</span> It was laid on the table by a vote in -the House of Representatives, upon the yeas and nays.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> 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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>December 19th, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>] 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Kirkwood.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I made no such comparison.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Kirkwood.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> No doubt about it. I never said otherwise.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Kirkwood.</span> But he said our constitution was offensive.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I made no allusion to the constitution of Iowa.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Kirkwood.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Summer.</span> May I ask the Senator if he considers that provision in -the constitution of Iowa right or wrong?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Kirkwood.</span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>assumpsit</i>.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> A common count in <i>assumpsit</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> A common count.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 8th, after the holidays, the question was resumed, when -Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Here Mr. Sumner read letters against the admission of Nebraska -with her present constitution, and then proceeded.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> 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. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>] 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.</p> - -<p>The other Senator from Ohio [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>] 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>” -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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>], -not many years ago, confronting the representatives of -Slavery, bravely vindicated these principles as “self-evident<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> -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!</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Thus, for instance, the Enabling Act for Nebraska -requires three things of the new State as conditions -precedent.</p> - -<p><i>First.</i> That Slavery shall be forever prohibited.</p> - -<p><i>Secondly.</i> That no inhabitant shall be molested in -person or property on account of religious worship.</p> - -<p><i>Thirdly.</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Read the Act, and you will find these conditions. -Does any Senator doubt their validity? Impossible.</p> - -<p>But this is not all. In addition to these three conditions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> -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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Consider this clause: you will find it contains three -conditions, each of vital force.</p> - -<p><i>First.</i> The constitution must be “republican.” It -does not say “in form” merely, but “republican”: -of course “republican” in substance and reality.</p> - -<p><i>Secondly.</i> 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.</p> - -<p><i>Thirdly.</i> 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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The persistence of Mr. Sumner was encountered by Mr. Wade, who -said:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, dealt with the question of Equality, -but with pleasantry.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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”——</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> And a half. [<i>Laughter.</i>]</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Cowan.</span> 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. [<i>Laughter.</i>] He rode triumphantly upon the popular wave; and I -was overwhelmed, and came out with eyes and nose suffused, and hardly -able to gasp.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> You ought to have followed my counsel.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Cowan.</span> 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. [<i>Laughter.</i>]</p> - -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span></p> -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Edmunds then moved the following amendment:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> Colorado was less fortunate.<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_METRIC_SYSTEM_OF_WEIGHTS_AND_MEASURES" id="THE_METRIC_SYSTEM_OF_WEIGHTS_AND_MEASURES"></a>THE METRIC SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on two Bills and a Joint Resolution -relating to the Metric System, July 27, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“A Bill to authorize the use of the metric system of weights and measures.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“A Bill to authorize the use in post-offices of weights of the denomination -of grams.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>July 27th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, these were taken up and -passed.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> -even at this time, to present a plain and simple account -of the great change which is now proposed.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> Then again in a -speech to the next Congress he went further, in expressing -a desire for “a standard at once <em>invariable and -universal</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> 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”!</p> - -<p>I shall not occupy time in developing the history<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> -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.”<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The great utility of a standard <em>fixed in its nature and -founded on the easy rule of decimal proportions</em> 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.”<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“This system approaches to the ideal perfection of uniformity -applied to weights and measures, and, whether destined<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> -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.”<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This was in 1821, when the metric system, already -invented, was still struggling for adoption in France.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The earliest measures were derived from the several -parts of the human body. Such was the cubit, which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>Even in Greece, where Art prevailed in the most -beautiful forms, the famous <i>stadium</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Our own standards, derived from England, are of -an equally fanciful character. The unit of <i>length</i> 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 <i>weight</i> 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 <i>capacity</i> is -derived from the weight of grains of wheat. Eight -pounds of these make one gallon of wine measure.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>ten</em> 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 -<em>octaval</em> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span> -number <em>eight</em> is capable of indefinite bisection. The -progression beginning with two would proceed to four, -eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, and so on.</p> - -<p>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 <em>ten</em> 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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> -magnitude, the same in all countries and in all times, -as Cicero pictured the great principles of Natural -Law,<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>metre</i>, from -the Greek, signifying <i>measure</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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 <i>length</i>; 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.</p> - -<p>The unit of <i>surface measure</i>, or land measure, is the -<i>are</i>, from the Latin <i>area</i>, and is the square of ten metres,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> -or, in other words, a square of which each side is -ten metres in length.</p> - -<p>The unit of <i>solid measure</i> is the <i>stere</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>The unit of <i>liquid measure</i> is the <i>litre</i>, from the -Greek, and is the cube of the tenth part of the metre, -which is the <i>decimetre</i>; or, in other words, it is -a vessel where by interior measurement each side and -the bottom are square <i>decimetres</i>.</p> - -<p>The unit of <i>weight</i> is the <i>gram</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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, -<i>deca</i>, ten, <i>hecto</i>, hundred, <i>kilo</i>, thousand, and <i>myria</i>, ten -thousand, prefixed to <i>metre</i>, signify ten metres, one -hundred metres, one thousand metres, and ten thousand -metres. The subdivisions are from the Latin. Thus, -<i>deci</i>, <i>centi</i>, <i>milli</i>, prefixed to <i>metre</i>, signify one tenth, -one hundredth, and one thousandth of a metre. All -this appears in the following table.</p> - -<table summary="Metric and imperial" style="width: 45em; margin: auto;"> - <tr> - <th>Metric Denominations and Values.</th><th>Equivalents in Denominations in use.</th> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>Myriametre, 10,000 metres,</td><td><span class="space-by-2">6.2137 miles.</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>Kilometre, 1,000 metres,</td><td><span class="space-by-3">.62137 mile, or 3,280 feet and 10 inches.</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>Hectometre, 100 metres,</td><td>328 feet and 1 inch.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>Decametre, 10 metres,</td><td>393.7 inches.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td><span class="smcap">Metre</span>, 1 metre,</td><td><span class="space-by-1">39.37 inches.</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>Decimetre, ⅒ of a metre,</td><td><span class="space-by-2">3.937 inches.</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>Centimetre, ¹⁄₁₀₀ of a metre,</td><td><span class="space-by-3">.3937 inch.</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td>Millimetre, ¹⁄₁₀₀₀ of a metre,</td><td><span class="space-by-3">.0394 inch.</span></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span></p> - -<p>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, <i>deca</i>gram, -<i>hecto</i>gram, <i>kilo</i>gram, and <i>myria</i>gram,—and in the -descending scale, <i>deci</i>gram, <i>centi</i>gram, <i>milli</i>gram.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>toises</i>.” 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 -<i>kilos</i>.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>For instance, we may say <i>met</i>, <i>ar</i>, <i>lit</i>, and <i>gram</i>; -and, in describing the denomination, we may say, in -the ascending scale, <i>dec</i>, <i>hec</i>, <i>kil</i>, and in the descending -scale, <i>dec</i>, <i>cen</i>, and <i>mil</i>,—indicating respectively 10, 100, -1000, and ⅒, ¹⁄₁₀₀ and ¹⁄₁₀₀₀. Compounding these, we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> -should have, for example, <i>kilmet</i>, <i>killit</i>, <i>kilgram</i>, and -<i>cenmet</i>, <i>cenlit</i>, <i>cengram</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>multiples</em>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> -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 <em>permissive</em>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="ART_IN_THE_NATIONAL_CAPITOL" id="ART_IN_THE_NATIONAL_CAPITOL"></a>ART IN THE NATIONAL CAPITOL.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution authorizing a -Contract with Vinnie Ream for a Statue of Abraham Lincoln, -July 27, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conness.</span> This will only occupy a moment.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> It will be debated.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conness.</span> Not, if you do not debate it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> It must be debated.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conness.</span> Will you debate it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I shall debate it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conness.</span> Let the Senator debate it now. I shall not give way, -in that case.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I merely wish to put a joint resolution upon its passage -that will take no time.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conness.</span> That is asking too much.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Resolved, &c.</i>, That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he hereby is, -authorized and directed to contract with Miss Vinnie Ream for a life-size<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span> -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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Wade.</span> I move to take up the joint resolution authorizing a contract -with Vinnie Ream for a statue of Abraham Lincoln.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I hope that will not be taken up.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Several Senators.</span> Oh, let us vote.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Senators say, “Oh, let us vote.” The question is about -giving away $10,000.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conness.</span> Taking it up is not giving money away, I hope.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> The question is, I say, about giving away $10,000: -that is the proposition involved in this joint resolution.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conness.</span> For a statue.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span> -You treated the motion to augment compensation in -the State Department very gravely. I but follow your -example.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> -are the works of Crawford,—the <i>alto-rilievo</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p>I think this amendment had better be adopted. It -is only a reasonable precaution. The Senator from -Wisconsin [Mr. <span class="smcap">Howe</span>] 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span> -case there is nothing but chance, if there be not the -certainty of failure.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Conness.</span> How was it in the case of Mr. Powell?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>] is wise, when -he proposes, that, before the nation pays $5,000 on account, -it shall have some assurance that the work is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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——</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Howe.</span> Will the Senator allow me to ask him one -question, for information?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Howe.</span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> -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. <span class="smcap">Nesmith</span>] seemed to riot in -the business. The Senator from California [Mr. <span class="smcap">Conness</span>], -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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> -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——</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Howard.</span> Who was educated in Michigan.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Morgan</span>], 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment of Mr. Edmunds was voted down,—Yeas 7, Nays -22,—and the joint resolution passed the Senate,—Yeas 23, Nays 9.<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span> -person who was born and raised in the wilds of the West, and who is able -to copy its great works.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>And much more in a worse vein.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Mr. Conness, of California, adopted another style:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Yates, of Illinois, bore his testimony:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I almost feel that the Senator from Massachusetts is a barbarian [<i>laughter</i>] -of the highest order, in attacking this young lady.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, said:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>], who I think is infinitely -superior.” [<i>Laughter.</i>]</p> - -</div> - -<p>On the other hand, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, said:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> The feelings of artists found expression in words -of Hiram Powers, the eminent American sculptor, at Florence, which -appeared in the New York <i>Evening Post</i>:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span> -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.”</p> - -</div> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_ONE_MAN_POWER_vs_CONGRESS" id="THE_ONE_MAN_POWER_vs_CONGRESS"></a>THE ONE MAN POWER <i>vs.</i> CONGRESS.<br /> -<small>THE PRESENT SITUATION.</small></h2> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Address at the Opening of the Annual Lectures of the Parker -Fraternity, at the Music Hall, Boston, October 2, 1866.</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a><br /><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span></p> - -<h3>ADDRESS.</h3> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span></p> - -<p>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 -<i>The One Man Power</i> vs. <i>Congress</i>. 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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span> -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:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“I hear a lion in the lobby roar:</div> -<div class="verse">Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door,</div> -<div class="verse">And keep him there? or shall we let him in,</div> -<div class="verse">To try if we can turn him out again?”<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>I am against letting the monster in, until he is no -longer terrible in mouth or paw.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span></p> - -<p>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, <em>even to the extent of enfranchising -the freedmen and providing for them homesteads</em>. -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.”</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the same vein another officer testifies from Texas:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“There is one thing, however, that is making against -the speedy return of quietness, not only in this State, but -throughout the entire South, <em>and that is the Reconstruction -policy of President Johnson</em>. 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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: <i>first</i>, in setting up the One Man Power -as the source of jurisdiction over this great question; -and, <i>secondly</i>, in using the One Man Power for the -restoration of Rebels to place and influence, so that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>when the military power has expired</em>. 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.</p> - -<p>But this illegitimacy becomes still more manifest,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 “<em>the United States</em> 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 <em>the United States</em> guaranty to each -State a republican government, <em>Congress must necessarily -decide what government is established in the State</em>, 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.”<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 “<em>I</em>” vs. <em>The People of the United States -in Congress assembled</em>. 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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Here the evidence is constant and cumulative. It<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> And there is another enactment of Congress, providing -that all officers, civil or military, before entering<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span> -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.<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Partisans of the Presidential “policy” are in the -habit of declaring it a continuation of the policy of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span> -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 <em>revived</em> State -government, constructed in whole or <em>in preponderating -part</em> from <em>the very element</em> against whose hostility and -violence it is to be protected, is <em>simply absurd</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> But -this is the very thing the President is now attempting. -He is constructing State governments, not merely in -preponderating part, but <em>in whole</em>, from the hostile element. -Therefore he departs openly from the policy of -the martyred Lincoln.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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 -<em>will be subject to the will of Congress</em>.” 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 <em>eternal justice</em>,” 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span> -to know the Presidential mood at that time, and also -what your representative attempted.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span></p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right medium">“<span class="smcap">Boston</span>, November 12, 1865.</p> - -<p class="noindent">“<span class="smcap">To the President of the United States, Washington.</span></p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p class="sig">“<span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>,<br /> -“<i>Senator of the United States</i>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Reaching Washington Saturday evening, immediately<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">The President.</span> Are there no murders in Massachusetts?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Unhappily, yes,—sometimes.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">The President.</span> Are there no assaults in Boston? Do -not men there sometimes knock each other down, so that -the police is obliged to interfere?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Unhappily, yes.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">The President.</span> Would you consent that Massachusetts, -on this account, should be excluded from Congress?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> No, Mr. President, I would not.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“Ah! what avails it, …</div> -<div class="verse">If the gulled conqueror receives the chain,</div> -<div class="verse">And flattery subdues, when arms are vain?”</div> -</div> -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span></p> -<p>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.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span> -heard, and a guilty President may suffer the retribution -which followed a guilty king.</p> - -<p>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!</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span> -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.<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> Acting directly, it may, by Constitutional -Amendment, or by simple legislation, fix all -these forever.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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 <em>the necessity of the case</em>. 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>extirpation</em> -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.</p> - -<p>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, -<em>to vote</em>, and <em>to enjoy the advantages of education</em>. All this -by the same power which decreed Emancipation.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span> -the intuitions of the statesman, and expressed himself -with the eloquence of the orator. Here are his words, -uttered in 1792:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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,—<em>for it is -totally destitute of an executory principle</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Should we leave this question to the States, we, too, -should find all they did “arrant trifling,” and wanting -“an executory principle.”</p> - -<p>Edmund Burke was followed shortly afterwards by -Canning, who, in 1799, exclaimed:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Then again he says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> -unsure executor even of its own provisions in favor of the -objects of its power.”<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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 <em>the executory principle</em>,—it fails to execute itself.”<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Such is the concurring authority of three statesmen -orators, whose eloquent voices unite to warn against -trusting the freedmen to their old masters.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> -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!”<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> In -similar spirit our Presidential convert now yearns for -a taste of those odious pretensions which were a part -of Slavery.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> -to trust old masters, under no responsibility and no -pledge, with the power of legislating for freedmen? I -protest against it.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>civil</em> rights -and <em>political</em> 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 <em>city</em> or <em>citizen</em>. 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 <em>civil</em> -rights, is equally strong for their protection in what -are called <em>political</em> 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.</p> - -<p>2. There is also that distinct clause of the Constitution -requiring the United States to “guaranty to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span> -every State in this Union <em>a republican form of government</em>.” -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span> -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.”<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span> -which govern the moral and material world, binding -men together in society and keeping the planets wheeling -in their orbits.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span> -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,”<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a>—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!”</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_OCEAN_TELEGRAPH_BETWEEN_EUROPE" id="THE_OCEAN_TELEGRAPH_BETWEEN_EUROPE"></a>THE OCEAN TELEGRAPH BETWEEN EUROPE -AND AMERICA.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Answer to Invitation to attend a Banquet at New York, in -Honor of Cyrus W. Field, November 14, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right medium"><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, November 14, 1866.</p> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In this work Mr. Field has been pioneer and discoverer. -As such his name will be remembered with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span> -that gratitude which is bestowed upon the world’s benefactors. -Already his fame has begun.</p> - -<p>Accept my thanks, and believe me, Gentlemen, faithfully -yours,</p> - -<p class="sig"><span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.</p> - -<p class="noindent medium"><span class="smcap">The Committee, &c.</span></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="ENCOURAGEMENT_TO_COLORED_FELLOW-CITIZENS" id="ENCOURAGEMENT_TO_COLORED_FELLOW-CITIZENS"></a>ENCOURAGEMENT TO COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Letter to a Convention of Colored Citizens, December 2, -1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right medium">December 2, 1866.</p> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span> -suggest it. The fountain-head is pure: the waters -which flow from it must be equally pure.</p> - -<p>Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir, -faithfully yours,</p> - -<p class="sig"><span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.</p> - -<p class="noindent medium"><span class="smcap">J. M. Langston, Esq.</span></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_TRUE_PRINCIPLES_OF_RECONSTRUCTION" id="THE_TRUE_PRINCIPLES_OF_RECONSTRUCTION"></a>THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF RECONSTRUCTION.<br /> - -<small>ILLEGALITY OF EXISTING GOVERNMENTS IN THE -REBEL STATES.</small></h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Resolutions and Remarks in the Senate, December 5, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="hanging">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.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap"><i>RESOLVED</i>, (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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span> -of the National Constitution, must therefore be the essential -aim of Reconstruction itself.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. McDougall</span> [of California]. Allow me to ask the Senator to read -the signature. Let the name of the writer be given.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I shall not read the signature——</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. McDougall.</span> Ah! ha!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> And for a very good reason,—that I could not read -the signature without exposing the writer to violence, if not to death.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Davis</span> [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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">The President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>. 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Davis.</span> I ask whether it is in order for the Senator from Massachusetts -to make a speech at this time.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">The President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>. The Chair sees nothing disorderly in it.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner then read the letter, and remarked:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="FEMALE_SUFFRAGE_AND_AN_EDUCATIONAL_TEST" id="FEMALE_SUFFRAGE_AND_AN_EDUCATIONAL_TEST"></a>FEMALE SUFFRAGE, AND AN EDUCATIONAL TEST -OF MALE SUFFRAGE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on Amendments to the Bill conferring -Suffrage without Distinction of Color in the District of -Columbia, December 13, 1866.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>December 10th, the Suffrage Bill for the District of Columbia, -considered in the former session of Congress,<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>The following amendment was then moved by Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Provided</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>December 13th, at this stage of the debate, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span> -by which the Union will be consolidated forever.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="PROHIBITION_OF_PEONAGE" id="PROHIBITION_OF_PEONAGE"></a>PROHIBITION OF PEONAGE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, January 3, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 3d, in the Senate, Mr. Sumner introduced the following -resolution:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner then called attention to facts showing the necessity of -action. He said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span> -Inspector General in New Mexico to aid in the rendition of -fugitive peons to their masters, and then remarked:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>The special Indian agent who reports this correspondence -very aptly adds:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The aid of Congress is invoked to stop the practice.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="PRECAUTION_AGAINST_THE_REVIVAL_OF" id="PRECAUTION_AGAINST_THE_REVIVAL_OF"></a>PRECAUTION AGAINST THE REVIVAL OF -SLAVERY.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution and the Report of the -Judiciary Committee, January 3 and February 20, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 3, 1867, in the Senate, Mr. Sumner introduced the following -resolution:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>In its consideration, he called attention to cases like the following:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Public Sale.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>“Terms of sale, cash.</p> - -<p class="sig">“<span class="smcap">Wm. Bryan</span>,<br /> -“<i>Sheriff Anne Arundel County</i>.</p> - -<p class="noindent">“December 3, 1866.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>He then remarked:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>After remarks by Mr. Reverdy Johnson and Mr. Creswell, of Maryland, -Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>The remarks of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Johnson</span>] 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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——</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Trumbull</span> [of Illinois]. That is the very thing the -statute guards against.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> But the statute was not effective to -prevent those incidents.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Trumbull.</span> Will any statute, if it is not executed?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> But when apprised of an evasion, I -ask whether it is not expedient to counteract that evasion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="PROTECTION_AGAINST_THE_PRESIDENT" id="PROTECTION_AGAINST_THE_PRESIDENT"></a>PROTECTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speeches in the Senate, on an Amendment to the Tenure of -Office Bill, January 15, 17, and 18, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>January 15th, Mr. Sumner moved to amend this bill by adding a -new section:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>And be it further enacted</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, who reported the pending bill, opposed -the amendment. Mr. Sumner followed.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The Senator is mistaken, if he supposes that the -amendment would endanger the bill. Just the contrary. -It would give the bill strength.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Howe.</span> Merit.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Cragin.</span> Inspectors under the internal revenue laws.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span> -we shall be obliged to deal with many thousands; but -I say, nevertheless, they can all be counted.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>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,—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“New occasions teach new duties.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 17th, after an earnest debate, Mr. Sumner spoke again.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—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. <span class="smcap">Hendricks</span>]; but he has already been answered -by the Senator from California [Mr. <span class="smcap">Conness</span>]. -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>As I shall recall the Senate precisely to the question, -I begin by asking the Secretary to read the amendment.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The Secretary read the amendment, when Mr. Sumner continued.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>], -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Anthony</span>, -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.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>These were my words when suddenly interrupted. By -those words, Sir, I stand.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Doolittle</span> [of Wisconsin]. I raise a question of order, -whether these words are in order, as stated by the Senator.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">The Presiding Officer.</span> The Chair has already decided -a similar point of order. The Chair will submit this question -to the Senate.</p> - -<p>The Presiding Officer decided that Mr. Sumner was in order. Mr. -Doolittle appealed from this decision. Debate ensued on the appeal,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>January 18th, Mr. Sumner, having the floor, continued.</p> - -</div> - -<p>It is only little more than a year ago that I felt it -my duty to characterize a message of the President as -“whitewashing.”<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> 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.”<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span> -weak,—these are not only invaluable liberties, but -commanding duties.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>But there is a reason which is ample. The President -has usurped the powers of Congress on a colossal scale,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span> -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 <em>he alone</em> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The question, then, recurs, Are you ready to apply<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Hendricks</span>], 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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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. [<i>Cheers.</i>] How are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span> -these men to be got out [<i>A voice, ‘Kick ’em out!’—cheers -and laughter</i>], 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 [<i>cheers</i>],—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. [<i>Great cheering.</i>]”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The bill before the Senate, which the Senator from -Vermont [Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>] 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.</p> - -<p>The amendment goes further in the same direction.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Edmunds.</span> And so they are yet.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Edmunds.</span> I do not think they would.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> But even if the Senator does not accept -the view which I present on the probable course<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Something has been said about the curtailment of -the Executive power, and the Senator from Maine [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>] 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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span> -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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>These are the words of Abraham Lincoln.<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Sumner here changed his amendment by striking out the limitation -of $1,000 and inserting $1,500. He then said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>I make the change in deference to Senators about -me, and especially yielding to the earnest argument of -the Senator from Vermont [Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>], 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span> -by their number, but, whether humble or numerous, embrace -them within the protecting arms of the Senate.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="DENUNCIATION_OF_THE_COOLIE_TRADE" id="DENUNCIATION_OF_THE_COOLIE_TRADE"></a>DENUNCIATION OF THE COOLIE TRADE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Resolution in the Senate, from the Committee on Foreign -Relations, January 16, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The following resolution was reported by Mr. Sumner, who asked -the immediate action of the Senate upon it.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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;</p> - -<p>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</p> - -<p><i>Be it resolved</i>, 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The resolution was adopted.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="CHEAP_BOOKS_AND_PUBLIC_LIBRARIES" id="CHEAP_BOOKS_AND_PUBLIC_LIBRARIES"></a>CHEAP BOOKS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on Amendments to the Tariff Bill -reducing the Tariff on Books, January 24, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The Senate having under consideration the bill to provide increased -revenue from imports, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved to retain the -following articles on the free list:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Hendricks.</span> Will the Senator allow me to ask -whether he regards this bill as a mitigation of the taxes -upon goods brought from foreign countries?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I am not discussing the bill as a general -measure.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Hendricks.</span> I thought the Senator spoke of the -present effort to mitigate taxation.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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!</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted,—Yeas 22, -Nays 13; so the amendment was adopted.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In reply to Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr. Sumner again spoke.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Then, again, in reply to Mr. Conness, of California, Mr. Sumner remarked:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The motion to exempt maps, charts, and engravings was rejected.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> Now it were better, -if, instead of hunting up these several articles for taxation,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="CHEAP_COAL" id="CHEAP_COAL"></a>CHEAP COAL.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on an Amendment to the Tariff Bill, -January 29, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The effect of this amendment would be to reduce the duty from $1.50 -to 50 cents a ton.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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?</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span> -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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span></p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>In reply especially to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, and Mr. -Sherman, of Ohio, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>Now, without following the Senator from Kentucky -[Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span>] 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Grimes</span> [of Iowa]. Why should it be cheap?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Because it enters into the necessaries of -life, and because it is a motive power that works our manufactories.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Hendricks</span> [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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Creswell</span> [of Maryland, to Mr. Sumner]. That is -the application of your argument.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Creswell replied warmly, criticizing Mr. Sumner, saying, among -other things,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, united with Mr. Sumner.</p> - -<p>The amendment was lost,—Yeas 11, Nays 25.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="A_SINGLE_TERM_FOR_THE_PRESIDENT_AND_CHOICE" id="A_SINGLE_TERM_FOR_THE_PRESIDENT_AND_CHOICE"></a>A SINGLE TERM FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND CHOICE -BY DIRECT VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on an Amendment of the National -Constitution, February 11, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The Senate had under consideration an Amendment to the National -Constitution, reported by the Judiciary Committee, as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“No person elected President or Vice-President, who has once served as -President, shall afterward be eligible to either office.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">I agree with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Johnson</span>], 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span></p> - -<p>But allow me to go a little further, and there I -should like the attention of my friend opposite [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Johnson</span>]. 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>], -whether it should be applicable to a Vice-President -in the providence of God called to be President. On<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span> -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. -<span class="smcap">Poland</span>] is not taken as a substitute, that the words -of the Committee will be preserved.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>After debate, the question was dropped without any vote.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="RECONSTRUCTION_AT_LAST_WITH_COLORED_SUFFRAGE" id="RECONSTRUCTION_AT_LAST_WITH_COLORED_SUFFRAGE"></a>RECONSTRUCTION AT LAST WITH COLORED SUFFRAGE -AND PROTECTION AGAINST REBEL INFLUENCE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speeches in the Senate, on the Bill to provide for the more -Efficient Government of the Rebel States, February 14, 19, -and 20, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The subject of Reconstruction was uppermost during the present -session, sometimes in Constitutional Amendments and sometimes in -measures of legislation.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The amendment of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. <span class="smcap">Blaine</span>] 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.”</p> - -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span></p> -<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> 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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>February 14th, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>] 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> the Colorado Bill,<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> the Nebraska Bill,<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> and the Constitutional -Amendment,<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> attested his endeavor to apply this requirement.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—In what the Senator from Illinois -[Mr. <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>] 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.</p> - -<p>Therefore I am in favor of some measure of Reconstruction, -the best we can secure, the more thorough<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span> -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 <i>Lex Parliamentaria</i> -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.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>I differ from the Senator [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>] -was right in asking more. I agree with him. -I ask more. All the good of the bill cannot make me<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>illegal</em>. Strangely, you would not say<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The Senator from Illinois [Mr. <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>] 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span> -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 <em>may be</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>may be</em> disfranchised; you must say -<em>must</em>. Without this is surrender.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Sherman followed in an earnest speech, in the course of which -the following passage occurred.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> The Senator from Massachusetts now for the first time -in the Senate has stated his opposition to this bill.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> He now states that the ground of his opposition is, that -the bill does not disfranchise the whole Rebel population of the Southern -States.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>February 20th, in the Senate, Mr. Williams moved concurrence -with the House amendments. After brief remarks by Mr. Sherman, -Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>I differ from the Senator [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>], when he -calls this a small matter. It is a great matter.</p> - -<p>I should not say another word but for the singular -speech of the Senator yesterday. He made something<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Cowan</span> [of Pennsylvania]. Excelsior!</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> And I hope the word may be applicable -to my friend from Pennsylvania also. [<i>Laughter.</i>]</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> He -then continued:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Let it be understood, then, that I am not compromised -by this bill, or by blandishments of Senators over the -way [Messrs. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span> and <span class="smcap">Stewart</span>]. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span> -course which seems to me inconsistent with the national -security, they must not expect me to follow.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_DEPARTMENT_OF_EDUCATION" id="THE_DEPARTMENT_OF_EDUCATION"></a>THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill to establish a Department -of Education, February 26, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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. <span class="smcap">Dixon</span>] 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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The bill passed both Houses of Congress, and became a law.<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="MONUMENTS_TO_DECEASED_SENATORS" id="MONUMENTS_TO_DECEASED_SENATORS"></a>MONUMENTS TO DECEASED SENATORS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution directing the Erection -of such Monuments, February 27, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Contingent Expenses -of the Senate.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="A_VICTORY_OF_PEACE" id="A_VICTORY_OF_PEACE"></a>A VICTORY OF PEACE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution giving the Thanks -of Congress to Cyrus W. Field, March 2, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>March 2d, the joint resolution was considered. After a speech from -Mr. Morgan, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>It is not easy to exaggerate the difficulty or the value -of the new achievement.</p> - -<p>The enterprise was original in its beginning and in -every stage of its completion. It began by a telegraph<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The joint resolution passed both Houses without a division, and was -approved by the President.<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="FURTHER_GUARANTIES_IN_RECONSTRUCTION" id="FURTHER_GUARANTIES_IN_RECONSTRUCTION"></a>FURTHER GUARANTIES IN RECONSTRUCTION.<br /> - -<small>LOYALTY, EDUCATION, AND A HOMESTEAD FOR FREEDMEN; -MEASURES OF RECONSTRUCTION NOT -A BURDEN OR PENALTY.</small></h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Resolutions and Speeches in the Senate, March 7 and 11, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>March 7th, the following resolutions were introduced by Mr. Sumner, -and on his motion ordered to lie on the table and be printed.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="center">“<span class="smcap">Resolutions</span> declaring certain further guaranties required in the Reconstruction -of the Rebel States.</p> - -<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, That among things remaining to be done are the five following.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Fourthly. As the education of the people is essential to the national -welfare, and especially to the development of those principles of justice<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden</span> [of Maine]. I should like to ask my -friend a question, with his permission.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Yes.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> Now I should like to know if he puts -the possession by every man of a piece of land on the same -ground.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I do not.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> No; the homestead stands on the necessity -of the case, to complete the work of the ballot.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Grimes</span> [of Iowa]. Have we not done that under -the Homestead Law?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> The freedmen are not excluded from the -Homestead Law; but I would provide them with a piece -of land where they are.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> That is more than we do for white men.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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. <span class="smcap">Grimes</span>] asks,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</a></span> -“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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</a></span> -time I may try to call up for discussion,—and that is, -the substitution of the vote by ballot for the vote <i>viva -voce</i>. Letters from Virginia, and also from other parts -of the South, all plead for this change. They say, that, -so long as the vote <i>viva voce</i> 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.</p> - -<p class="center">…</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</a></span> -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 <i>viva voce</i>.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Sumner’s</span>] 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. <span class="smcap">Fessenden</span>] 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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</a></span> -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, thought the resolutions “unfair -to Congress and unfair to the country.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said in reply:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> 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.</p> - -<p>But, in doing it, you have unhappily failed to make -proper provision for enforcing this essential security.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>After remarks by Mr. Howard, of Michigan, the resolutions, on -motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen, were laid on the table,—Yeas 36, -Nays 10.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>July 3d, Mr. Sumner made another attempt to have them considered, -speaking specially upon the importance of a homestead for freedmen.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="GENEROSITY_FOR_EDUCATION" id="GENEROSITY_FOR_EDUCATION"></a>GENEROSITY FOR EDUCATION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution giving the Thanks -of Congress to George Peabody, March 8, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="center">“<span class="smcap">Joint Resolution</span> presenting the thanks of Congress to George Peabody.</p> - -<p>“<i>Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United -States of America in Congress assembled</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>March 8th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the joint resolution was taken -up for consideration, when the latter said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>I recall no instance in history where a private person -during life has bestowed so large a sum in charity.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="RECONSTRUCTION_AGAIN" id="RECONSTRUCTION_AGAIN"></a>RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN.<br /> -<small>THE BALLOT AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPEN TO ALL.</small></h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speeches in the Senate, on the Supplementary Reconstruction -Bill, March 15 and 16, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</a></span></p> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,—Yeas 14, Nays 33.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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. <span class="smcap">Drake</span>], and also of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Morton</span>], to the effect that the government might be -founded on a majority of those who actually vote, although<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">[Pg 325]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">[Pg 326]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The Secretary read the proposed amendment, as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Provided</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner proceeded to say:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—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.</p> - -<p>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. <i>Cedant arma togæ</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">[Pg 327]</a></span> -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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The practice of calling out troops to quell civil disturbances -is exceedingly objectionable; <em>but it must not be forgotten -that the initiative in such cases is always taken by the -civil authorities themselves</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This declaration, though confined to a particular case, -embodies an important rule of conduct, which to my -mind is of special application now.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">[Pg 328]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The principles on which this bill proceeds appear in -its preamble, which, with the permission of the Senate, -I will read.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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;</p> - -<p>“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;</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">[Pg 329]</a></span> -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;</p> - -<p>“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;</p> - -<p>“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”——</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">[Pg 330]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">[Pg 331]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">[Pg 332]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>The bill does what it can for education by requiring—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Such are the provisional governments.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The constitution must contain in substance certain -fundamental conditions, never to be changed without -consent of Congress:—</p> - -<p>First, That the Union is perpetual;</p> - -<p>Secondly, That Slavery is abolished;</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">[Pg 333]</a></span></p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Fourthly, That the National debt, including pensions -and bounties to Union soldiers, shall never be repudiated -or postponed;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Sixthly, That public schools shall be established, open -to all without distinction of race or color;</p> - -<p>Seventhly, That all persons excluded from office under -this Act shall be excluded by the constitution, until -relieved from disability by Act of Congress.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">[Pg 334]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">[Pg 335]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">[Pg 336]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">[Pg 337]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> 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 <em>there are no free schools</em>, 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!”<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> Thus spoke Massachusetts, and thus -spoke Virginia, in that ancient day. The conflict of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">[Pg 338]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">[Pg 339]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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!</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">[Pg 340]</a></span> -laid on all the States of the Union, if it were not unconstitutional. -But he wished to ask him [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sumner</span>] 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?”</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I do.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Patterson.</span> You think it is possible?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I do, certainly,—most clearly.</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner replied:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">[Pg 341]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> Therefore from the -beginning I have asked this guaranty, believing, as I -do most clearly, that under the National Constitution<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">[Pg 342]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">[Pg 343]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">[Pg 344]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="PROHIBITION_OF_DIPLOMATIC_UNIFORM" id="PROHIBITION_OF_DIPLOMATIC_UNIFORM"></a>PROHIBITION OF DIPLOMATIC UNIFORM.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution concerning the -Uniform of Persons in the Diplomatic Service of the United -States, March 20, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>March 20th, Mr. Summer, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, -reported the following joint resolution:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Resolved, &c.</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">[Pg 345]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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!”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">[Pg 346]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">[Pg 347]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> If entitled under our laws, there could be -no difficulty.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> It was promptly communicated -to our ministers abroad by a circular from the Department of -State.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">[Pg 348]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="VIGILANCE_AGAINST_THE_PRESIDENT" id="VIGILANCE_AGAINST_THE_PRESIDENT"></a>VIGILANCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on Resolutions adjourning Congress, -March 23, 26, 28, and 29, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">[Pg 349]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">[Pg 350]</a></span> -scale, and sometimes by wholesale. Witness Memphis; -witness New Orleans; ay, Sir, witness the whole broad -country from the Potomac to the Rio Grande.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>An admirable and most suggestive engraving has -been placed on our tables to-day, in “Harper’s Weekly,”<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">[Pg 351]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The resolution of Mr. Trumbull was agreed to,—Yeas 29, Nays 16.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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 <i>pro tempore</i> 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>On motion of Mr. Fessenden, this resolution was referred to the -Committee on the Judiciary.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">[Pg 352]</a></span> -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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Provided</i>, That the President of the Senate <i>pro tempore</i> 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Here he said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">[Pg 353]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">[Pg 354]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>I believe it is settled that we shall not adjourn to-morrow. -Am I right?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Edmunds.</span> Yes, Sir.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Sumner then called attention to measures deserving consideration, -and continued:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">[Pg 355]</a></span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">[Pg 356]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">[Pg 357]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Sumner then referred again to the bill securing the elective franchise -throughout the country, vindicating its constitutionality and necessity.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>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.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">[Pg 358]</a></span></p> - -<h2><a name="LOYALTY_AND_REPUBLICAN_GOVERNMENT_CONDITIONS" id="LOYALTY_AND_REPUBLICAN_GOVERNMENT_CONDITIONS"></a>LOYALTY AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS -OF ASSISTANCE TO THE REBEL STATES.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution authorizing Surveys -for the Reconstruction of the Levees of the Mississippi, -March 29, 1867.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Provided</i>, 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.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>On this he remarked:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">[Pg 359]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p>This is no common survey of a river or harbor. -The Senator from Maine [Mr. <span class="smcap">Morrill</span>] 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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Stewart</span> [of Nevada]. And principally by the swamp -lands donated by Congress.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">[Pg 360]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>No vote was reached, and the joint resolution was never considered -again.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> - -<div class="footnotes"> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Commentaries on American Law (4th edit.), Vol. I. p. 226.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Stansbury, Report of the Trial of Judge Peck, Appendix, p. 499.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States (2d -edit.), § 126, p. 47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States (2d -edit.), Appendix, IV., p. 996.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Savigny, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, § 97, Band II. p. 329.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Maxims, Reg. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Broom, Legal Maxims, (3d edit.,) p. 111.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Broom, Legal Maxims, (3d edit.,) p. 116.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Hobart, R., 86, 87.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> 8 Coke, R., 118.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> 12 Modern Reports, 687, 688.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> “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.”—<i>De -Republica</i>, Lib. III. c. 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Rules and Orders of the House of Representatives: Rule 28 [29].</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> May, Treatise on the Law, etc., of Parliament, (5th edit.,) p. 598.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Dwarris, Treatise on Statutes, (2d edit.,) Part I. p. 220.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Dwarris, Treatise on Statutes, (2d edit.,) Part I. p. 245.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies (2d edit.), p. 711.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Ibid., p. 713.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies (2d edit.), pp. 712, 713.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> History of His Own Times (fol. edit.), Vol. I. p. 485.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Act of April 10, 1869: Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI. pp. 44, 45.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, § 1573, Vol. III. pp. 437, seqq., -note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Essays: Of Wisdom for a Man’s Self.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> 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.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Constitutional History of England (London, 1829), Vol. I. p. 358, note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 312-314; Vol. XIII. pp. 57-60.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Narrative, p. 265.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 357.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Act, March 2, 1833: Statutes at Large, Vol. IV. p. 654.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> Act, March 3, 1843: Ibid., Vol. V. p. 641.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 369.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> See, <i>ante</i>, Vol. XII. p. 105.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 66.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 601.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 365.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> The Sale of Philosophers: Works, tr. Francklin, (London, 1781,) Vol. I. -p. 412.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“Mos erat antiquus, niveis atrisque lapillis,</div> -<div class="verse">His damnare reos, illis absolvere culpâ.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Ovid</span>, <i>Metam.</i>, Lib. XV. 41, 42.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 243, 244.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 343, 344.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. p. 185; Vol. XIII. p. 352.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 364.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Holy State: Of Building.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. X. pp. 273, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. VIII. pp. 208, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> The Fourteenth Amendment.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, p. 130.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Total vote, 7776: for the constitution, 3938; against, 3838: majority, 100.—<i>Congressional -Globe</i>, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 126, 852.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 391.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. p. 374.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., col. 933, January 8, 1790.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Ibid., 2d Cong. 1st Sess., col. 15, October 25, 1791.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Plan for establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures -of the United States, July 13, 1790: Writings, Vol. VII. p. 488.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Annals of Congress, 14th Cong. 2d Sess., col. 14, December 3, 1816.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> Report upon Weights and Measures, p. 48.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> See, <i>ante</i>, p. 19, note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 370.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Speech at the Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865: <i>Ante</i>, -Vol. XII. pp. 305, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Bramston, Art of Politics, 162-165. See, <i>ante</i>, Vol. VIII. p. 212.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Luther <i>v.</i> Borden et al., 7 Howard, R., 42, 45.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> Act, February 9, 1863: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 646.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Act, July 2, 1862: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 502.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Annual Message, December 8, 1863.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, April 22, 1861: Executive Documents, 37th -Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. I. p. 198.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> This was done in part. Mr. Sumner’s efforts to make education a condition -failed. See, <i>post</i>, pp. 304-316, 326-343.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Letter to the Right Hon. Henry Dundas, April 9, 1792: Works (Boston, -1865-67), Vol. VI. p. 261.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Speech in the House of Commons, on the Abolition of the Slave-Trade, -March 1, 1799: Speeches (4th edit.), Vol. I. p. 192.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Speech in the House of Commons, on the Abolition of the Slave-Trade, -March 1, 1799: Speeches (4th edit.), Vol. I. pp. 193, 194.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Speech in the House of Lords, on Negro Apprenticeship, February 20, -1838: Speeches (Edinburgh, 1838), Vol. II. pp. 218, 219.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> History of Brazil (London, 1810), Vol. I. p. 223, note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Boston, 1855), Chap. LII. Vol. -VI. p. 387.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Speeches, February 22 and August 18, 1866: McPherson’s History of -the United States during Reconstruction, pp. 61, 127.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 5-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 375.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 546.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 47, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Areopagitica; A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing: Works -(London, 1851), Vol. IV. p. 442.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Histoire de la Révolution Française (13me édit.), Tom. X. p. 357.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Annual Message, December 1, 1862: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. -3d Sess., House, No. 1, p. 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 430-432.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse indent4">“Lucri bonus est odor, ex re</div> -<div class="verse">Qualibet.”—<span class="smcap">Juvenal</span>, <i>Sat.</i> XIV. 204, 205.</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>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.’”—<span class="smcap">Suetonius</span>, <i>Vespasianus</i>, c. 23. -See the Commentators generally.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 21, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 179, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 346, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, pp. 128, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 115, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 337-339.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 428-430.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 434.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 574.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> Speech on “The Equal Rights of All,” February 5, 6, 1866: <i>ante</i>, -Vol. XIII. pp. 115, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775: -Wirt’s Life of Henry (3d edit.), p. 120.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 20.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Speech in the House of Lords, on Troops at Elections, March 1, 1867: -Times, March 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> See “Barbarism of Slavery,” <i>ante</i>, Vol. VI. p. 157.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, November -11, 1647, Vol. II. p. 203.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia, Vol. II. p. 517.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> Speech entitled “The National Security and the National Faith”: -<i>ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 325, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. pp. 2-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> March 30, 1867.</p> - -</div> - -</div> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -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-h.htm or 50160-h.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. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> |