diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-05 00:56:50 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-05 00:56:50 -0800 |
| commit | 23b5fb102fff6693eaf1150be5e5acbfaf6bee15 (patch) | |
| tree | 6daba216905e37b434d3d1b1e4c49a4377c0e5ee | |
| parent | 5e1062f5c9e600164d9ba64b16542bb18445af5d (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-0.txt | 10758 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-0.zip | bin | 217232 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-h.zip | bin | 330810 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-h/50370-h.htm | 14594 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 35475 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-h/images/frontispiece.jpg | bin | 58103 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-h/images/issuenumber.jpg | bin | 1395 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-h/images/line.png | bin | 191 -> 0 bytes |
11 files changed, 17 insertions, 25352 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..03c6c9e --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #50370 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50370) diff --git a/old/50370-0.txt b/old/50370-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index ee3aaae..0000000 --- a/old/50370-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10758 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume -17 (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 17 (of 20) - -Author: Charles Sumner - -Editor: George Frisbie Hoar - -Release Date: November 2, 2015 [EBook #50370] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: COMPLETE WORKS, VOL 17 *** - - - - -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) - - - - - -Transcriber’s Note: There is a printer’s error in footnote 102; the -Statutes at Large volume reference is missing from the original. - - - - - [Illustration: HAMILTON FISH] - - Statesman Edition VOL. XVII - - Charles Sumner - - HIS COMPLETE WORKS - - With Introduction - BY - HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR - - [Illustration] - - BOSTON - LEE AND SHEPARD - MCM - - COPYRIGHT, 1880, - BY - FRANCIS V. BALCH, EXECUTOR. - - COPYRIGHT, 1900, - BY - LEE AND SHEPARD. - - Statesman Edition. - - LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES. - OF WHICH THIS IS - - No. Extra - - Norwood Press: - NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A. - - - - -CONTENTS OF VOLUME XVII. - - - PAGE - - CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE. Resolution in the Senate, December 7, - 1868 1 - - THE LATE HON. THADDEUS STEVENS, REPRESENTATIVE OF PENNSYLVANIA. - Remarks in the Senate on his Death, December 18, 1868 2 - - CLAIMS OF CITIZENS IN THE REBEL STATES. Speeches in the Senate, - January 12 and 15, 1869 10 - - TRIBUTE TO HON. JAMES HINDS, REPRESENTATIVE OF ARKANSAS. Speech - in the Senate, January 23, 1869 32 - - POWERS OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT INEQUALITY, CASTE, AND OLIGARCHY - OF THE SKIN. Speech in the Senate, February 5, 1869 34 - - CLAIMS ON ENGLAND,--INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL. Speech on the - Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, in Executive Session of the Senate, - April 13, 1869 53 - - LOCALITY IN APPOINTMENT TO OFFICE. Remarks in the Senate, April - 21, 1869 94 - - NATIONAL AFFAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD. Speech at the Republican - State Convention in Worcester, Massachusetts, September 22, - 1869 98 - - THE QUESTION OF CASTE. Lecture delivered in the Music Hall, - Boston, October 21, 1869 131 - - CURRENCY. Remarks in the Senate, on introducing a Bill to amend - the Banking Act, and to promote the Return to Specie Payments, - December 7, 1869 184 - - COLORED PHYSICIANS. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, on - the Exclusion of Colored Physicians from the Medical Society of - the District of Columbia, December 9, 1869 186 - - THE LATE HON. WILLIAM PITT FESSENDEN, SENATOR OF MAINE. Remarks - in the Senate on his Death, December 14, 1869 189 - - CUBAN BELLIGERENCY. Remarks in the Senate, December 15, 1869 195 - - ADMISSION OF VIRGINIA TO REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. Speeches - in the Senate, January 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 1870 204 - - FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. Speeches in the - Senate, January 12, 26, February 1, March 2, 10, 11, 1870 234 - - MAJOR-GENERAL NATHANAEL GREENE, OF THE REVOLUTION. Speech in - the Senate, on the Presentation of his Statue, January 20, - 1870 299 - - PERSONAL RECORD ON RECONSTRUCTION WITH COLORED SUFFRAGE. - Remarks in the Senate, January 21 and February 10, 1870 303 - - - - -CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE. - -RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 7, 1868. - - -Whereas the inland postage on a letter throughout the United States -is three cents, while the ocean postage on a similar letter to -Great Britain, under a recent convention, is twelve cents, and on a -letter to France is thirty cents, being a burdensome tax, amounting -often to a prohibition of foreign correspondence, yet letters can be -carried at less cost on sea than on land; and whereas, by increasing -correspondence, and also by bringing into the mails mailable matter -often now clandestinely conveyed, cheap ocean postage would become -self-supporting; and whereas cheap ocean postage would tend to quicken -commerce, to diffuse knowledge, to promote the intercourse of families -and friends separated by the ocean, to multiply the bonds of peace and -good-will among men and nations, to advance the progress of liberal -ideas, and thus, while important to every citizen, it would become the -active ally of the merchant, the emigrant, the philanthropist, and the -friend of liberty: Therefore - -_Be it resolved_, That the President of the United States be requested -to open negotiations with the European powers, particularly with Great -Britain, France, and Germany, for the establishment of cheap ocean -postage. - - - - -THE LATE HON. THADDEUS STEVENS, REPRESENTATIVE OF PENNSYLVANIA. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE ON HIS DEATH, DECEMBER 18, 1868. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The visitor to the House of Commons, as he paces the -vestibule, stops with reverence before the marble statues of men who -for two centuries of English history filled that famous chamber. -There are twelve in all, each speaking to the memory as he spoke in -life, beginning with the learned Selden and the patriot Hampden, -with Falkland so sweet and loyal, Somers so great as defender of -constitutional liberty, and embracing in the historic group the -silver-tongued Murray, the two Pitts, father and son, masters of -eloquence, Fox, always first in debate, and that orator whose speeches -contribute to the wealth of English literature, Edmund Burke. - -In the lapse of time, as our history extends, similar monuments will -illustrate the approach to our House of Representatives, arresting the -reverence of the visitor. If our group is confined to those whose fame -has been won in the House alone, it will be small; for members of the -House are mostly birds of passage, only perching on the way to another -place. Few remain so as to become identified with the House, or their -service there is forgotten in the blaze of service elsewhere,--as was -the case with Madison, Marshall, Clay, Webster, and Lincoln. It is -not difficult to see who will find a place in this small company. -There must be a statue of Josiah Quincy, whose series of eloquent -speeches is the most complete of our history before Webster pleaded -for Greece,--and also a statue of Joshua R. Giddings, whose faithful -championship of Freedom throughout a long and terrible conflict makes -him one of the great names of our country. And there must be a statue -of THADDEUS STEVENS, who was perhaps the most remarkable character -identified with the House, unless we except John Quincy Adams; but the -fame of the latter is not of a Representative alone, for he was already -illustrious from various service before he entered the House. - -All of these hated Slavery, and labored for its overthrow. On this -account they were a mark for obloquy, and were generally in a minority. -Already compensation has begun. As the cause they upheld so bravely -is exalted, so is their fame. By the side of their far-sighted, -far-reaching, and heroic efforts, how diminutive is all that was done -by others at the time! How vile the spirit that raged against them! - -Stevens was a child of New England, as were Quincy and Adams; but, -after completing his education, he found a home in Pennsylvania, which -had already given birth to Giddings. If this great central State can -claim one of these remarkable men by adoption only, it may claim the -other by maternity. Their names are among its best glories. - -Two things Stevens did for his adopted State, by which he repaid -largely all her hospitality and favor. He taught her to cherish -Education for the People, and he taught her respect for Human Rights. -The latter lesson was slower learned than the former. In the prime -of life, when his faculties were in their highest vigor, he became -conspicuous for earnest effort, crowned by most persuasive speech, -whose echoes have not yet died away, for those Common Schools, which, -more even than railways, are handmaids of civilization, besides being -the true support of republican government. His powerful word turned -the scale, and a great cause was won. This same powerful word was -given promptly and without hesitation to that other cause, suffering -then from constant and most cruel outrage. Here he stood always -like a pillar. Suffice it to say that he was one of the earliest of -Abolitionists, accepting the name and bearing the reproach. Not a child -in Pennsylvania, conning a spelling-book beneath the humble rafters -of a village school, who does not owe him gratitude; not a citizen, -rejoicing in that security obtained only in liberal institutions -founded on the Equal Rights of All, who is not his debtor. - -When he entered Congress, it was as champion. His conclusions were -already matured, and he saw his duty plain before him. The English poet -foreshadows him, when he pictures - - “one in whom persuasion and belief - Had ripened into faith, and faith become - A passionate intuition.”[1] - -Slavery was wrong, and he would not tolerate it. Slave-masters, -brimming with Slavery, were imperious and lawless. From him they -learned to see themselves as others saw them. Strong in his cause -and in the consciousness of power, he did not shrink from encounter; -and when it was joined, he used not only argument and history, but -all those other weapons by which a bad cause is exposed to scorn -and contempt. Nobody said more in fewer words, or gave to language a -sharper bite. Speech was with him at times a cat-o’-nine-tails, and woe -to the victim on whom the terrible lash descended! - -Does any one doubt the justifiableness of such debate? Sarcasm, satire, -and ridicule are not given in vain. They have an office to perform in -the economies of life. They are faculties to be employed prudently in -support of truth and justice. A good cause is helped, if its enemies -are driven back; and it cannot be doubted that the supporters of wrong -and the procrastinators shrank often before the weapons he wielded. -Soft words turn away wrath; but there is a time for strong words as for -soft words. Did not the Saviour seize the thongs with which to drive -the money-changers from the Temple? Our money-changers long ago planted -themselves within our temple. Was it not right to lash them away? Such -an exercise of power in a generous cause must not be confounded with -that personality of debate which has its origin in nothing higher than -irritability, jealousy, or spite. In this sense Thaddeus Stevens was -never personal. No personal thought or motive controlled him. What he -said was for his country and mankind. - -As the Rebellion assumed its giant proportions, he saw clearly that -it could be smitten only through Slavery; and when, after a bloody -struggle, it was too tardily vanquished, he saw clearly that there -could be no true peace, except by new governments built on the Equal -Rights of All. And this policy he urged with a lofty dogmatism as -beneficent as uncompromising. The Rebels had burned his property in -Pennsylvania, and there were weaklings who attributed his conduct to -smart at pecuniary loss. How little they understood his nature! Injury -provokes and sometimes excuses resentment. But it was not in him to -allow private grief to influence public conduct. The losses of the -iron-master were forgotten in the duties of the statesman. He asked -nothing for himself. He did not ask his own rights, except as the -Rights of Man. - -I know not if he could be called orator. Perhaps, like Fox, he were -better called debater. And yet I doubt if words were ever delivered -with more effect than when, broken with years and decay, he stood -before the Senate and in the name of the House of Representatives -and of all the people of the United States impeached Andrew Johnson, -President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in -office. Who can forget his steady, solemn utterance of this great -arraignment? The words were few, but they will sound through the ages. -The personal triumph in his position at that moment was merged in the -historic grandeur of the scene. For a long time, against opposition of -all kinds, against misconceptions of the law, and against apologies for -transactions without apology, he had insisted on impeachment; and now -this old man, tottering to your door, dragged the Chief Magistrate of -the Republic to judgment. It was he who did this thing; and I should do -poor justice to his life, if on this occasion I failed to declare my -gratitude for the heroic deed. His merit is none the less because other -influences prevailed in the end. His example will remain forever. - -In the House, which was the scene of his triumphs, I never heard him -but once; and I cannot forget the noble eloquence of that brief speech. -I was there by accident just as he rose. He did not speak more than -ten minutes, but every sentence seemed an oration. With unhesitating -plainness he arraigned Pennsylvania for her denial of equal rights -to an oppressed race, and, rising with the theme, declared that this -State had not a republican government.[2] His explicitness was the more -striking because he was a Representative of Pennsylvania. Nobody, who -has considered with any care what constitutes a republican government, -especially since the definition supplied by our Declaration of -Independence, can doubt that he was right. His words will live as the -courageous testimony of a great character on this important question. - -The last earnest object of his life was the establishment of Equal -Rights throughout the whole country by the recognition of the -requirement of the Declaration of Independence. I have before me two -letters in which he records his convictions, which are perhaps more -weighty because the result of most careful consideration, when age -had furnished experience and tempered the judgment. “I have,” says -he, “long, and with such ability as I could command, reflected upon -the subject of the Declaration of Independence, and finally have -come to the sincere conclusion that Universal Suffrage was one of -the inalienable rights intended to be embraced in that instrument.” -It is difficult to see how there can be hesitation on this point, -when the great title-deed expressly says that governments derive -their just powers from the consent of the governed. But this is not -the only instance in which he was constrained by the habits of that -profession which he practised so successfully. A great Parliamentarian -of France has said: “The more one is a lawyer, the less he is a -Senator,”--_Plus on est avocat, moins on est Sénateur._ If Stevens -reached his conclusion slowly, it was because he had not completely -emancipated himself from that technical reasoning which is the boast -of the lawyer rather than of the statesman. The pretension that the -power to determine the “qualifications” of voters embraced the power to -exclude for color, and that this same power to exclude for color was -included in the asserted power of the States to make “regulations” for -the elective franchise, seems at first to have deceived him; as if it -were not insulting to reason and shocking to the moral sense to suppose -that any unalterable physical condition, such as color of hair, eyes, -or skin, could be a “qualification,”--and as if it were not equally -offensive to suppose, that, under a power to determine “qualifications” -or to make “regulations,” a race could be disfranchised. Of course this -whole pretension is a technicality set up against Human Rights. Nothing -can be plainer than that a technicality may be employed in favor of -Human Rights, but never against them. Stevens came to his conclusion -at last, and rested in it firmly. His final aspiration was to see it -prevail. He had seen much for which he had striven embodied in the -institutions of his country. He had seen Slavery abolished. He had seen -the freedman of the National Capital lifted to equality of political -rights by Act of Congress; he had seen the colored race throughout -the whole land lifted to equality of civil rights by Act of Congress. -It only remained that he should see them throughout the whole land -lifted to the same equality in political rights; and then the promises -of the Declaration of Independence would be all fulfilled. But he was -called away before this final triumph. A great writer of Antiquity, a -perpetual authority, tells us that “the chief duty of friends is not to -follow the departed with idle lamentation, but to remember their wishes -and to execute their commands.”[3] These are the words of Tacitus. I -venture to add that we shall best honor him we now celebrate, if we -adopt his aspiration and strive for its fulfilment. - -It is as Defender of Human Rights that Thaddeus Stevens deserves -homage. Here he is supreme. On other questions he erred. On the -finances his errors were signal. But history will forget these and -other failings, as it bends with reverence before the exalted labors -by which humanity has been advanced. Already he takes his place among -illustrious names which are the common property of mankind. I see -him now, as so often during life. His venerable form moves slowly -and with uncertain steps; but the gathered strength of years is in -his countenance, and the light of victory on his path. Politician, -calculator, timeserver, stand aside! A hero-statesman passes to his -reward. - - - - -CLAIMS OF CITIZENS IN THE REBEL STATES. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 12 AND 15, 1869. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--This discussion, so unexpectedly prolonged, has already -brought us to see two things,--first, the magnitude of the interests -involved, and, secondly, the simplicity of the principle which must -determine our judgment. It is difficult to exaggerate the amount of -claims which will be let loose to feed on the country, if you recognize -that now before us; nor can I imagine anything more authoritative than -the principle which bars all these claims, except so far as Congress in -its bounty chooses to recognize them. - - * * * * * - -By the Report of the Committee on Claims[4] it appears that the house -of Miss Sue Murphey, of Decatur, Alabama, was destroyed, so that not -a vestige remained, by order of the commander at that place, on the -19th March, 1864, under instructions from General Sherman to make it a -military post. It is also stated that Miss Murphey was loyal. These are -the important facts. Assuming the loyalty of the petitioner, which I -have been led to doubt, the simple question is, whether the Nation is -bound to indemnify a citizen, domiciled in a Rebel State, for property -in that State, taken for the building of a fort by the United States -against the Rebels. - -Here it is proper to observe three things,--one concerning the -petitioner, and two concerning the property taken: first, that the -petitioner was domiciled in a Rebel State, or, to use more technical -language, in a State declared by public proclamation to be in -rebellion; secondly, that the property was situated within the Rebel -State; and, thirdly, that the property was taken under the necessities -of war, and for the national defence. On these three several points -there can be no question. They are facts which have not been denied -in this debate. Thus far I confine myself to a statement of facts, -in order to prepare the way for the consideration of the legal -consequences. - -Bearing in mind these facts, several difficulties which have been -presented during this debate disappear. For instance, a question was -put by a learned Senator [Mr. DAVIS, of Kentucky] as to the validity -of an imagined seizure of the property of the eminent Judge Wayne, -situated in the District of Columbia. But it is obvious that the facts -in the imagined case of the eminent judge are different from those in -the actual case before us. Judge Wayne, unlike the petitioner, was -domiciled in a loyal part of the country; and his property, unlike that -of the petitioner, was situated in a loyal part of the country. This -difference between the two cases serves to illustrate the position of -the petitioner. Because property situated in the District of Columbia -and belonging to a loyal judge domiciled here could not be taken, it by -no means follows that property situated in a Rebel State and belonging -to a person domiciled there can enjoy the same immunity. - -Behind the fact of domicile, and the fact that the property -was situated in a Rebel State, is that other fact, equally -incontrovertible, that it was taken in the exigencies of war. -The military order under which the taking occurred declares that -“the necessities of the Army require the use of every building in -Decatur,”--not merely the building in question, but every building; and -the Report of the Committee says that “General Sherman had previously -issued an order to fortify Decatur for a military post.” I might quote -more to illustrate this point; but I quote enough. It is plain and -indisputable that the taking was under an exigency of war. To deny this -is to assail the military order under which it was done, and also the -Report of the Committee. - - * * * * * - -Three men once governed the mighty Roman world. Three facts govern the -present case, with the power of a triumvirate,--the domicile of the -petitioner, the situation of the property, and the exigency of war. If -I dwell on these three facts, it is because I am unwilling that either -should drop out of sight; each is important. Together they present a -case which it is easy to decide, however painful the conclusion. And -this brings me to the principle which I said at the beginning was so -simple. Indeed, let the facts be admitted, and it is difficult to see -how there can be any question in the present case. But the facts, as I -have stated them, are indubitable. - -On these facts two questions arise: first, as to the rule of -International Law applicable to property of persons domiciled in -an enemy country; and, secondly, as to the applicability of this -rule to the present case. Of the rule there can be no question; its -applicability is sustained by reason, and also by authority from which -there can be no appeal. - -In stating and enforcing the rule I might array writers, precedents, -and courts; but I content myself with a paragraph from a writer who in -expounding the Laws of War is perhaps the highest authority. I refer -to the Dutch publicist of the last century, Bynkershoek, whose work is -always quoted in the final resort on these questions. This great writer -expresses himself as follows:-- - - “Could it be doubted whether under the name of enemies may - be understood also our friends who having been conquered are - with the enemy, their city perhaps being occupied by him?… - I should think that they also were to be so understood, - certainly as regards goods which they have under the government - of the enemy.… I know upon what ground others say the - contrary,--namely, that our friends, although they are with - the enemy, have no spirit of hostility to us; for that it is - not of their free will that they are there, and that it is - only from the _animus_ that the case is to be judged. But the - case does not depend upon the _animus_ alone; because neither - are all the rest of our enemy’s subjects, at any rate very - few of them, carried away by a spirit of hostility to us; but - it depends upon the right by which those goods are with the - enemy, and upon the advantage which they afford him for our - destruction.”[5] - -Nothing could be stronger in determining the liability from domicile. -Its sweeping extent, under the exigency of war, is proclaimed by this -same writer in words of peculiar weight:-- - - “Since it is the condition of war that enemies are despoiled - and proscribed as to every right, it stands to reason that - everything found with the enemy changes its owner and goes - to the Treasury.… If we follow the mere Law of War, even - _immovable_ property may be sold and its price turned into the - Treasury, as in the case of movable property.”[6] - -Here is an austere statement; but it was adopted by Mr. Jefferson as a -fundamental principle in his elaborate letter to the British Minister, -vindicating the confiscation of the property of Loyalists during the -Revolution.[7] It was the corner-stone of his argument, as it has -since been the corner-stone of judicial decisions. To cite texts and -precedents in its support is superfluous. It must be accepted as the -rule of International Law. - -The rule, as succinctly expressed, is simply this,--that the property -of persons domiciled in an enemy country is liable to seizure and -capture without regard to the alleged friendly or loyal character of -the owner. - -Unquestionably there are limitations imposed by humanity which must not -be transcended. A country must not be wasted, or buildings destroyed, -unless under some commanding necessity. This great power must not be -wantonly employed. Men must not become barbarians. But, if, in the -pursuit of the enemy, or for purposes of defence, property must be -destroyed, then by International Law it can be done. This is the rule. -Vattel, while pleading justly and with persuasive examples for the -preservation of works of art, such as temples, tombs, and structures of -remarkable beauty, admits that even these may be sacrificed:-- - - “If for the operations of war, to advance the works in a - siege, it is necessary to destroy edifices of this nature, - one has undoubtedly the right to do so. The sovereign of the - country, or his general, destroys them indeed himself, when the - necessities or the maxims of war invite thereto. The governor - of a besieged city burns its suburbs, to prevent the besiegers - from obtaining a lodgment therein. Nobody thinks of blaming him - who lays waste gardens, vineyards, orchards, in order to pitch - his tent and intrench himself there.”[8] - -This same rule is recognized by Manning, in his polished and humane -work, less frequently quoted, but entitled always to great respect. -This interesting writer expresses himself as follows:-- - - “It is clearly a belligerent’s right to destroy the enemy’s - property _as far as necessary in making fortifications_.… - Destruction of the enemy’s property is justifiable as far as - indispensable for the purposes of warfare, but no further.”[9] - -With the limitations which I have tried to exhibit, the rule is -beyond question in the relations between nations. Do you call it -harsh? Undoubtedly it is so. It is war, which from beginning to end -is terrible harshness. Without the incidents sanctioned by this rule -war would be changed, so that it would be no longer war. It was such -individual calamities that Shakespeare had in mind, when he spoke of -“the purple testament of bleeding war”; and it was such which entered -into the vision of that other poet, when, in words of remarkable -beauty, he pictured, by way of contrast, the blessings of peace:-- - - “Straight forward goes - The lightning’s path, and straight the fearful path - Of the cannon-ball. Direct it flies, and rapid, - Shattering that it may reach, and shattering what it reaches. - My son! the road the human being travels, - That on which blessing comes and goes, doth follow - The river’s course, the valley’s playful windings, - Curves round the cornfield and the hill of vines, - Honoring the holy bounds of property; - And thus, secure, though late, leads to its end.”[10] - -It only remains now to show that this rule of International Law is -applicable to the present case. Of course, our late war was not between -two nations; therefore it was not strictly international. But it was -between the National Government, on one side, and a Rebellion which had -become “territorial” in character, with such form and body as to have -belligerent rights on land. Mark the distinction, if you please; for I -have always insisted, and still insist, that complete belligerency on -land does not imply belligerency on the ocean. As there is a dominion -of the land, so there is a dominion of the ocean; and as there is a -belligerency of the land, so there is also a belligerency of the ocean. -Therefore, while denying to our Rebels belligerent rights on the ocean, -I have no hesitation with regard to them on the land. But just in -proportion as these are admitted, is the rule of International Law made -applicable to the present case. - -Against our Rebels the Nation had two sources of power and two -arsenals of rights,--one of these being the powers and rights of -sovereignty, and the other the powers and rights of war,--the former -being determined by the Constitution, the latter by International Law. -The Nation might pursue a Rebel as traitor or as belligerent; but -whether traitor or belligerent, he was always an enemy. Pursuing him -in the courts as traitor, he was justly entitled to all the delays -and safeguards of the Constitution; but it was otherwise, if he was -treated as belligerent. Pursuing him in battle, driving him from -point to point, dislodging him from fortresses, expelling him from -towns, pushing him back from our advancing line, and then building -fortifications against him,--all this was war; and it was none the -less war because the enemy was unhappily our own countryman. A new -law supplied the rule for our conduct,--not the Constitution, with -its manifold provisions dear to the lover of Liberty, including the -solemn requirement that nobody shall “be deprived of life, liberty, -or property without due process of law,” and then again that other -requirement, that “private property shall not be taken for public use -without just compensation.” All these were silent while International -Law prevailed. The Rebellion had grown until it became a war; and as -this war was among countrymen, it was a civil war. But the rule of -conduct in a civil war is to be found in the Law of Nations. - -I do not stop to quote the familiar views of publicists, especially of -Vattel, to the effect that in a civil war the two parties are to be -treated as “two different nations.”[11] Suffice it to say, that such is -the judgment of all the authorities on International Law. But I come -directly to the decisions of our Supreme Court, which recognize the -rule of International Law as applicable to our civil war. - -In the famous cases known as the _Prize Cases_, the Court expressly -says:-- - - “All persons residing within this territory, whose property - may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power, are - in this contest liable to be treated as enemies, though not - foreigners.”[12] - -Here is the rule of International Law applied directly to our civil -war. In a later case the rule is applied with added emphasis and -particularity:-- - - “We must be governed by the principle of public law, so often - announced from this bench as applicable alike to civil and - international wars, that _all the people of each State or - district in insurrection against the United States must be - regarded as enemies_.”[13] - -Thus, according to our highest tribunal, the rule in civil war and -international war is the same. By another decision of the Court, this -same rule continues in force until the character of public enemy is -removed by competent authority. On this point the Court declares itself -as follows, in the Alexander cotton case:-- - - “All the people of each State or district in insurrection - against the United States must be regarded as enemies, - until, by the action of the Legislature and the Executive, - or otherwise, that relation is thoroughly and permanently - changed.”[14] - -If the present case is to be settled by authority, this is enough. Here -is the Supreme Court solemnly recognizing the rule of International -Law, even to the extent of embracing under its penalties _all the -people_ of the hostile community, without regard to their sentiments of -loyalty. This is decisive. You cannot decree the national liability in -the present case without reversing these decisions. You must declare -that the rule of International Law is not applicable to our civil war. -There is no ground for exception. You must reject the rule absolutely. - -Do you say that its application is harsh? Of course it is. But again -I say, this is war; or rather, it is rebellion which has assumed the -front of war. I do not make the rule. I have nothing to do with it. I -take it as I find it, affirmed by great authorities of International -Law, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. - - * * * * * - -Here I might stop; for the conclusion stands on reason and authority, -each unanswerable; but I proceed further in order to relieve the case -of all ambiguity. Of course instances may be adduced where compensation -has been made to sufferers from an army, but no case like the present. -If we glance at these instances, we shall see the wide difference. - - * * * * * - -1. The first instance is where property is taken by the Nation, or its -representative, _within its own established jurisdiction_. Of course -this is unlike that now before us. To cite it is only to perplex -and mystify, not to instruct. Thus, a Senator [Mr. WILLEY, of West -Virginia] has adduced well-known words from Vattel on the question, -“Whether subjects should be indemnified for damages sustained in war,” -“as when a field, a house, or a garden, belonging to a private person, -is taken for the purpose of erecting on the spot a town-rampart, or any -other piece of fortification.”[15] But this authority is not applicable -to the present case, where the claimant is not what Vattel calls a -“subject,” and the property was not within the established jurisdiction -of the nation. It applies only to such cases as occurred during the War -of 1812, where property was taken on the Canadian frontier or at New -Orleans for the erection of a fortress,--or such a case as that which -formed one of the military glories of the Count Rochambeau, when at the -head of the French forces in our country. The story is little known, -and therefore I adduce it now, as I find it in the Memoirs of Ségur, -one of the brilliant officers who accompanied the expedition. - -The French squadrons were quitting their camp at Crompond, near the -North River, in New York, on their way to embark for France. Their -commander, fresh from the victory of Yorktown, was at the head of the -columns, when a simple citizen approached, and, tapping him slightly on -the shoulder, said: “In the name of the law you are my prisoner.” The -glittering staff by which Count Rochambeau was surrounded broke forth -with indignation, but the General-in-Chief restrained their impatience, -and, smiling, said to the American citizen: “Take me away with you, -if you can.” “No,” replied the simple representative of the law, “I -have done my duty, and your Excellency may proceed on your march, if -you wish to set justice at defiance. Some of your soldiers have cut -down several trees, and burnt them to make their fires. The owner of -them claims an indemnity, and has obtained a warrant against you, -which I have come to execute.” The Count, on hearing this explanation, -which was translated by one of his staff, gave bail, and at once -directed the settlement of the claim on equitable grounds. The American -withdrew, and the French squadrons, which had been arrested by a -simple constable, proceeded on their march. This interesting story, so -honorable to our country and to the French commander, is disfigured by -the end, showing extortion on the part of the claimant. A judgment by -arbitration fixed the damages at four hundred dollars, being less than -the commander had at once offered, while the claimant demanded no less -than three thousand dollars.[16] - -Afterward, in the National Assembly of France, when that great country -began to throb with republican life, this instance of submission to law -was mentioned with pride.[17] But though it cannot lose its place in -history, it cannot furnish a precedent of International Law. Besides -being without any exigency of defence, the trespass was within our own -jurisdiction, in which respect it differed precisely from the case on -which we are to vote. I adduce it now because it serves to illustrate -vividly the line of law. - -2. Another instance, which I mention in order to put it aside, is -_where an army in a hostile country has carefully paid for all its -supplies_. Such conduct is exceptional. The general rule was expressed -by Mr. Marcy, during our war with Mexico, when he said that “an -invading army has the unquestionable right to draw its supplies from -the enemy without paying for them, and to require contributions for -its support,” that “the enemy may be made to feel the weight of the -war.”[18] But General Halleck, after quoting these words, says that -“the resort to forced contributions for the support of our armies in -a country like Mexico, under the particular circumstances of the war, -would have been at least impolitic, if not unjust; and the American -generals very properly declined to adopt, except to a very limited -extent, the mode indicated.”[19] According to this learned authority, -it was a question of policy rather than of law. - -The most remarkable instance of forbearance, under this head, was that -of the Duke of Wellington, as he entered France with his victorious -troops, fresh from the fields of Spain. He was peremptory that -nothing should be taken without compensation. His order on this -occasion will be found at length in Colonel Gurwood’s collection of -his “Dispatches.”[20] His habit was to give receipts for supplies, and -ready money was paid in the camp. The British historian dwells with -pride on the conduct of the commander, and records the astonishment -with which it was regarded by both soldiers and peasantry, who found -it so utterly at variance with the system by which the Spaniards -had suffered and the French had profited during the Peninsular -campaigns.[21] The conduct of the Duke of Wellington cannot be too -highly prized. It was more than a victory. I have always regarded -it as the _high-water mark_ of civilized war, so far as war can be -civilized. But I am obliged to add, on this occasion, that it was -politic also. In thus softening the rigors of war, he smoothed the way -for his conquering army. In a dispatch to one of his generals, written -in the spirit of the order, he says, in very expressive language: -“If we were five times stronger than we are, we could not venture to -enter France, if we cannot prevent our soldiers from plundering.”[22] -It was in a refined policy that this important order had its origin. -Regarding it as a generous example for other commanders, and offering -to it my homage, I must confess, that, as a precedent, it is entirely -inapplicable to the present case. - - * * * * * - -Putting aside these two several classes of cases, we are brought back -to the original principle, that there can be no legal claim to damages -for property situated in an enemy country, and belonging to a person -domiciled there, when taken for the exigencies of war. - -If the conclusion were doubtful, I should deem it my duty to exhibit -at length the costly consequences from an allowance of this claim. The -small sum which you vote will be a precedent for millions. If you pay -Miss Sue Murphey, you must pay claimants whose name will be Legion. Of -course, if justice requires, let it be done, even though the Treasury -fail. But the mere possibility of such liabilities is a reason for -caution on our part. We must consider the present case as if on its -face it involved not merely a few thousands, but many millions. Pay -it, and the country will not be bankrupt, but it will have an infinite -draft upon its resources. If the occasion were not too grave for a -jest, I would say of it as Mercutio said of his wound: “No, ’tis not so -deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough.” - -If you would have a practical idea of the extent of these claims, be -taught by the history of the British Loyalists, who at the close of -our Revolution appealed to Parliament for compensation on account -of their losses. The whole number of these claims was five thousand -and seventy-two. The whole amount claimed was £8,026,045, or about -thirty-eight million dollars, of which the commissioners allowed less -than half.[23] Our claimants would be much more numerous, and the -amount claimed vaster. - -We may also learn from England something of the spirit in which such -claimants should be treated. Even while providing for them, Parliament -refused to recognize any legal title on their part. What it did was in -compassion, generosity, and bounty,--not in satisfaction of a debt. Mr. -Pitt, in presenting the plan which was adopted, expressly denied any -right on grounds of “strict justice.” Here are his words:-- - - “The American Loyalists, in his opinion, could not call upon - the House to make compensation for their losses as a matter of - strict justice; but they most undoubtedly had strong claims on - their generosity and compassion. In the mode, therefore, that - he should propose for finally adjusting their claims, he had - laid down a principle with a view to mark this distinction.”[24] - -In the same spirit Mr. Burke said:-- - - “Such a mode of compensating the claims of the Loyalists would - do the country the highest credit. It was a new and a noble - instance of national bounty and generosity.”[25] - -Mr. Fox, who was full of ardent sympathies, declared:-- - - “They were entitled to a compensation, _but by no means to a - full compensation_.”[26] - -And Mr. Pitt, at another stage of the debate, thus denied their claim:-- - - “They certainly had _no sort of claim_ to a repayment of all - they had lost.”[27] - -So far as this instance is an example to us, it is only an incentive -to a kindly policy, which, after prudent inquiry, and full knowledge -of the extent of these claims, shall make such reasonable allowance as -humanity and patriotism may require. There must be an inquiry not only -into this individual case, but into all possible cases that may spring -into being, so that, when we act, it may be on the whole subject. - - * * * * * - -From the beginning of our national life Congress has been called to -deal with claims for losses by war. Though new in form, the present -case belongs to a long list, whose beginning is hidden in Revolutionary -history. The folio volume of State Papers, now before me, entitled -“Claims,” attests the number and variety. Even amid the struggles of -the war, as early as 1779, the Rev. Dr. Witherspoon was allowed $19,040 -for repairs of the college at Princeton damaged by the troops.[28] -There was afterward a similar allowance to the academy at Wilmington, -in Delaware, and also to the college in Rhode Island. These latter -were recommended by Mr. Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, as -“affecting the interests of literature.”[29] On this account they were -treated as exceptional. It will also be observed that they concerned -claimants within our own jurisdiction. But on a claim for compensation -for a house burnt at Charlestown for the purpose of dislodging the -enemy, by order of the American commander at that point during the -Siege of Boston, a Committee of Congress in 1797 reported, that, “as -Government has not adopted a general rule to compensate individuals -who have suffered in a similar manner, the Committee are of opinion -that the prayer of this petition cannot be granted.”[30] At a later -day, however, after successive favorable reports, the claim was finally -in 1833 allowed, and compensation made to the extent of the estimated -value of the property destroyed.[31] - -In 1815 a claimant received compensation for a house at the end of the -Potomac bridge, which was blown up to prevent certain public stores -from falling into the hands of the enemy;[32] and other claimants at -Baltimore received compensation for rope-walks burnt in the defence of -the city.[33] The report of a committee in another case says that the -course of Congress “seems to inculcate that indemnity is due to all -those _whose losses have arisen from the acts of our own Government, or -those acting under its authority_, while losses produced by the conduct -of the enemy are to be classed among the unavoidable calamities of -war.”[34] This is the most complete statement of the rule which I find. - -After the Battle of New Orleans the question of the application of -this rule was presented repeatedly, and with various results. In one -case, a claim for “a quantity of fencing” used as fuel by troops of -General Jackson was paid by Congress; so also was a claim for damages -to a plantation “upon which public works for the defence of the country -were erected.”[35] On the other hand, a claim for “an elegant and -well-furnished house” which afforded shelter to the British army and -was therefore fired on with hot shot, also a claim for damage to a -house and plantation where a battery was erected by our troops, and on -both of which claims the Committee, simultaneously with the two former, -reported favorably, were disallowed by Congress.[36] In a subsequent -case both the report and action seem to have proceeded on a different -principle from that previously enunciated. At the landing of the -enemy near New Orleans, the levee was cut in order to annoy him. As a -consequence, the plantation of the claimant was inundated, and suffered -damages estimated at $19,250. But the claim was rejected, on the ground -that “the injury was done in the necessary operations of war.”[37] -Certainly this ground may be adopted in the present case, while it must -not be forgotten that in all the foregoing cases the claimants were -citizens within our own jurisdiction, whose property had been used -against a foreign enemy. - -The multiplicity of claims arising in the War of 1812 prompted an Act -of Congress in 1816 for “the payment for property lost, captured, -or destroyed by the enemy.” In this Act it was, among other things, -provided,-- - - “That any person, who, in the time aforesaid [the late war], - has sustained damage by the destruction of his or her house - or building by the enemy, while the same was occupied as a - military deposit, under the authority of an officer or agent of - the United States, shall be allowed and paid the amount of such - damage, provided it shall appear that such occupation was the - cause of its destruction.”[38] - -Two years later it was found, that, in order to obtain the benefits -of this Act, people, especially on the frontier of the State of New -York, had not hesitated at “fraud, forgery, and perhaps perjury.”[39] -Thereupon, the law, which by its terms was limited to two years, and -which it had been proposed to extend, was permitted to expire; and it -is accordingly now marked in our Statutes, “Obsolete.” But it is not -without its lesson. It shows what may be expected, should any precedent -be adopted by Congress to quicken the claimants now dormant in the -South. “It is the duty of a good Government to attend to the morals of -the people as an affair of primary concern.”[40] So said the Committee -in 1818, recommending the non-extension of the Act. But this warning is -as applicable now as then. - - * * * * * - -Among the claimants of the present day there are doubtless many of -character and virtue. It is hard to vote against them. But I cannot be -controlled on this occasion by my sympathies. Everywhere and in every -household there has been suffering which mortal power cannot measure. -Sometimes it is borne in silence and solitude; sometimes it is manifest -to all. In coming into this Chamber and asking for compensation, it -invites comparison with other instances. If your allowance is to be on -account of merit, who will venture to say that this case is the most -worthy? It is before us now for judgment. But there are others, not now -before us, where the suffering has been greater, and where, I do not -hesitate to say, the reward should be in proportion. This is an appeal -for justice. Therefore do I say, in the name of justice, Wait! - - January 15th, the same bill being under discussion, Mr. Sumner - spoke as follows:-- - -There is another point, on which I forbore to dwell with sufficient -particularity when I spoke before. It is this: Assuming that this -claimant is loyal, I honor her that she kept her loyalty under the -surrounding pressure of rebellion. Of course this was her duty,--nor -more nor less. The practical question is, Shall she be paid for -it? Had she been disloyal, there would have been no proposition of -compensation. As the liability of the Nation is urged on the single -ground that she kept her regard for the flag truly and sincerely, it -is evident that this loyalty must be put beyond question; it must be -established like any other essential link of evidence. I think I do not -err in supposing that it is not established in the present case,--at -least with such certainty as to justify opening the doors of the -Treasury. - -But assuming that in fact the loyalty is established, I desire to go -further, and say that not only is the present claim without any support -in law, but it is unreasonable. The Rebel States had become one immense -prison-house of Loyalty; Alabama was a prison-house. The Nation, at -every cost of treasure and blood, broke into that prison-house, and -succeeded in rescuing the Loyalists; but the terrible effort, which -cost the Nation so dearly, involved the Loyalists in losses also. -In breaking into the prison-house and dislodging the Rebel keepers, -property of Loyalists suffered. And now we are asked to pay for this -property damaged in our efforts for their redemption. Our troops came -down to break the prison-doors and set the captives free. Is it not -unreasonable to expect us to pay for this breaking? - -If the forces of the United States had failed, then would these -Loyalists have lost everything, country, property, and all,--that is, -if really loyal, according to present professions. It was our national -forces that saved them from this sacrifice, securing to them country, -and, if not all their property, much of it. A part of the property -of the present claimant was taken in order to save to her all else, -including country itself. It was a case, such as might occur under -other circumstances, where a part--and a very small part--is sacrificed -in order to save the rest. According to all analogies of jurisprudence, -and the principles of justice itself, the claimant can look for nothing -beyond such contribution as Congress in its bounty may appropriate. It -is a case of bounty, and not of law. - -It is a mistake to suppose, as has been most earnestly argued, that -a claimant of approved loyalty in the Rebel States should have -compensation precisely like a similar claimant in a Loyal State. -To my mind this assumption is founded on a misapprehension of the -Constitution, the law, and the reason of the case,--three different -misapprehensions. By the Constitution property cannot be taken for -public use without “just compensation”; but this rule was silent in the -Rebel States. International Law stepped in and supplied a different -rule. And when we consider how much was saved to the loyal citizen in -a Rebel State by the national arms, it will be found that this rule is -only according to justice. - -I have no disposition to shut the door upon claimants. Let them be -heard; but the hearing must be according to some system, so that -Congress shall know the character and extent of these claims. Before -the motion of my colleague,[41] I had already prepared instructions -for the Committee, which I will read, as expressing my own conclusion -on this matter:-- - - “That the committee to whom this bill shall be referred, the - Committee on Claims, be instructed to consider the expediency - of providing for the appointment of a commission whose duty it - shall be to inquire into the claims of the loyal citizens of - the National Government arising during the recent Rebellion - anywhere in the United States, classifying these claims, - specifying their respective amounts, and the circumstances out - of which they originated, also, the evidence of loyalty adduced - by the claimants respectively, to the end that Congress may - know precisely the extent and character of these claims before - legislating thereupon.” - -As this is a resolution of instruction, simply to consider the -expediency of what is proposed, I presume there can be no objection to -it. - - Afterwards, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the bill, with all pending - propositions, was recommitted to the Committee on Claims. - - - - -TRIBUTE TO HON. JAMES HINDS, REPRESENTATIVE OF ARKANSAS. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 23, 1869. - - - Mr. Hinds, while engaged in canvassing the State of Arkansas on - the Republican side, was assassinated. The Senators of Arkansas - requested Mr. Sumner to speak on the resolution announcing his - death. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--It is with hesitation that I add a word on this -melancholy occasion, and I do it only in compliance with the suggestion -of others. - -I did not know Mr. Hinds personally; but I have been interested in -his life, and touched by his tragical end. Born in New York, educated -in Ohio, a settler in Minnesota, and then a citizen of Arkansas, he -carried with him always the energies and principles ripened under our -Northern skies. He became a Representative in Congress, and, better -still, a vindicator of the Rights of Man. Unhappily, that barbarism -which we call Slavery is not yet dead, and it was his fate to fall -under its vindictive assault. Pleading for the Equal Rights of All, he -became a victim and martyr. - -Thus suddenly arrested in life, his death is a special sorrow, not -only to family and friends, but to the country which he had begun to -serve so well. The void, when a young man dies, is measured less by -what he has done than by the promises of the future. Performance itself -is forgotten in the ample assurance afforded by character. Already -Mr. Hinds had given himself sincerely and bravely to the good cause. -By presence and speech he was urging those great principles of the -Declaration of Independence whose complete recognition will be the -cope-stone of our Republic, when he fell by the stealthy shot of an -assassin. It was in the midst of this work that he fell, and on this -account I am glad to offer my tribute to his memory. - -As the life he led was not without honor, so his death is not without -consolation. It was the saying of Antiquity, that it is sweet to die -for country. Here was death not only for country, but for mankind. Nor -is it to be forgotten, that, dying in such a cause, his living voice is -echoed from the tomb. There is a testimony in death often greater than -in any life. The cause for which a man dies lives anew in his death. -“If the assassination could trammel up the consequence,” then might -the assassin find some other satisfaction than the gratification of -a barbarous nature. But this cannot be. His own soul is blasted; the -cause he sought to kill is elevated; and thus it is now. The assassin -is a fugitive in some unknown retreat; the cause is about to triumph. - -Often it happens that death, which takes away life, confers what life -alone cannot give. It makes famous. History does not forget Lovejoy, -who for devotion to the cause of the slave was murdered by a fanatical -mob; and it has already enshrined Abraham Lincoln in holiest keeping. -Another is added to the roll,--less exalted than Lincoln, less early in -immolation than Lovejoy, but, like these two, to be remembered always -among those who passed out of life through the gate of sacrifice. - - - - -POWERS OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT INEQUALITY, CASTE, AND OLIGARCHY OF THE -SKIN. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 5, 1869. - - - The Senate having under consideration a joint resolution from - the House of Representatives proposing an Amendment to the - Constitution of the United States on the subject of Suffrage in - the words following, viz.:-- - - “ARTICLE ----. - - “SECTION 1. The right of any citizen of the United States - to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United - States or any State by reason of the race, color, or - previous condition of slavery of any citizen or class of - citizens of the United States. - - “SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce by proper - legislation the provisions of this Article.”-- - - Mr. Sumner offered the following bill as a substitute:-- - - SECTION 1. That the right to vote, to be voted for, and to - hold office shall not be denied or abridged anywhere in the - United States, under any pretence of race or color; and - all provisions in any State Constitutions, or in any laws, - State, Territorial, or Municipal, inconsistent herewith, - are hereby declared null and void. - - SEC. 2. That any person, who, under any pretence of race or - color, wilfully hinders or attempts to hinder any citizen - of the United States from being registered, or from voting, - or from being voted for, or from holding office, or who - attempts by menaces to deter any such citizen from the - exercise or enjoyment of the rights of citizenship above - mentioned, shall be punished by a fine not less than one - hundred dollars nor more than three thousand dollars, or by - imprisonment in the common jail for not less than thirty - days nor more than one year. - - SEC. 3. That every person legally engaged in preparing - a register of voters, or in holding or conducting an - election, who wilfully refuses to register the name or to - receive, count, return, or otherwise give the proper legal - effect to the vote of any citizen, under any pretence of - race or color, shall be punished by a fine not less than - five hundred dollars nor more than four thousand dollars, - or by imprisonment in the common jail for not less than - three calendar months nor more than two years. - - SEC. 4. That the District Courts of the United States - shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all offences against - this Act; and the district attorneys, marshals, and deputy - marshals, the commissioners appointed by the Circuit and - Territorial Courts of the United States, with powers of - arresting, imprisoning, or bailing offenders, and every - other officer specially empowered by the President of the - United States, shall be, and they are hereby, required, at - the expense of the United States, to institute proceedings - against any person who violates this Act, and cause him to - be arrested and imprisoned or bailed, as the case may be, - for trial before such court as by this Act has cognizance - of the offence. - - SEC. 5. That every citizen unlawfully deprived of any of - the rights of citizenship secured by this Act, under any - pretence of race or color, may maintain a suit against - any person so depriving him, and recover damages in the - District Court of the United States for the district in - which such person may be found. - - On this he spoke as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--In the construction of a machine the good mechanic -seeks the simplest process, producing the desired result with the -greatest economy of time and force. I know no better rule for Congress -on the present occasion. We are mechanics, and the machine we are -constructing has for its object the conservation of Equal Rights. -Surely, if we are wise, we shall seek the simplest process, producing -the desired result with the greatest economy of time and force. How -widely Senators are departing from this rule will appear before I have -done. - - * * * * * - -Rarely have I entered upon any debate in this Chamber with a sense of -sadness so heavy as oppresses me at this moment. It was sad enough -to meet the champions of Slavery, as in other days they openly -vindicated the monstrous pretension and claimed for it the safeguard -of the Constitution, insisting that Slavery was national and Freedom -sectional. But this was not so sad as now, after a bloody war with -Slavery, and its defeat on the battle-field, to meet the champions -of a kindred pretension, for which they claim the safeguard of the -Constitution, insisting also, as in the case of Slavery, upon State -Rights. The familiar vindication of Slavery in those early debates was -less sickening than the vindication now of the intolerable pretension, -that a State, constituting part of the Nation, and calling itself -“Republican,” is entitled to shut out any citizen from participation -in government simply on account of race or color. To denominate such -pretension as intolerable expresses very inadequately the extent of its -absurdity, and the utterness of its repugnance to all good principles, -whether of reason, morals, or government. - -I make no question with individual Senators; I make no personal -allusion; but I meet the odious imposture, as I met the earlier -imposture, with indignation and contempt, naturally excited by anything -unworthy of this Chamber and unworthy of the Republic. How it can enter -here and find Senators willing to assume the stigma of its championship -is more than I can comprehend. Nobody ever vindicated Slavery, who did -not lay up a store of regret for himself and his children; and permit -me to say now, nobody can vindicate Inequality and Caste, whether -civil or political, the direct offspring of Slavery, as intrenched in -the Constitution, beyond the reach of national prohibition, without -laying up a similar store of regret. Death may happily come to remove -the champion from the judgment of the world; but History will make its -faithful record, to be read with sorrow hereafter. Do not complain, if -I speak strongly. The occasion requires it. I seek to save the Senate -from participation in an irrational and degrading pretension. - -Others may be cool and indifferent; but I have warred with Slavery too -long, in all its different forms, not to be aroused when this old enemy -shows its head under an _alias_. Once it was Slavery; now it is Caste; -and the same excuse is assigned now as then. In the name of State -Rights, Slavery, with all its brood of wrong, was upheld; and now, in -the name of State Rights, Caste, fruitful also in wrong, is upheld. -The old champions reappear under other names and from other States, -each crying out, that, under the National Constitution, notwithstanding -even its supplementary Amendments, a State may, if it pleases, deny -political rights on account of race or color, and thus establish that -vilest institution, a Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin. - -This perversity, which to careless observation seems so -incomprehensible, is easily understood, when it is considered that the -present generation grew up under an interpretation of the National -Constitution supplied by the upholders of Slavery. State Rights were -exalted and the Nation was humbled, because in this way Slavery might -be protected. Anything for Slavery was constitutional. Such was the -lesson we were taught. How often I have heard it! How often it has -sounded through this Chamber, and been proclaimed in speech and law! -Under its influence the Right of Petition was denied, the atrocious -Fugitive Slave Bill was enacted, and the claim was advanced that -Slavery travelled with the flag of the Republic. Vain are all our -victories, if this terrible rule is not reversed, so that State Rights -shall yield to Human Rights, and the Nation be exalted as the bulwark -of all. This will be the crowning victory of the war. Beyond all -question, the true rule under the National Constitution, especially -since its additional Amendments, is, that _anything for Human Rights -is constitutional_. Yes, Sir; against the old rule, _Anything for -Slavery_, I put the new rule, _Anything for Human Rights_. - - * * * * * - -Sir, I do not declare this rule hastily, and I know the presence in -which I speak. I am surrounded by lawyers, and now I challenge any -one or all to this debate. I invoke the discussion. On an occasion -less important, Mr. Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, after saying that -he came not “with the statute-book doubled down in dog’s-ears to -defend the cause of Liberty,” that he relied on “a general principle, -a constitutional principle,” exclaimed: “It is a ground on which I -stand firm, on which I dare meet any man.”[42] In the same spirit I -would speak now. No learning in books, no skill acquired in courts, no -sharpness of forensic dialectics, no cunning in splitting hairs can -impair the vigor of the constitutional principle which I announce. -Whatever you enact for Human Rights is constitutional. There can be no -State Rights against Human Rights; and this is the supreme law of the -land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary -notwithstanding. - -A State exercises its proper function, when, within its own -jurisdiction, it administers local law, watches local interests, -promotes local charities, and by local knowledge brings the -guardianship of Government to the home of the citizen. Such is -the proper function of the State, by which we are saved from that -centralization elsewhere so absorbing. But a State transcends its -proper function, when it interferes with those Equal Rights, whether -civil or political, which by the Declaration of Independence and -repeated texts of the National Constitution are under the safeguard -of the Nation. The State is local in character, and not universal. -Whatever is justly local belongs to its cognizance; whatever is -universal belongs to the Nation. But what can be more universal than -the Rights of Man? They are for “all men,”--not for all white men, but -for all men. Such they have been declared by our fathers, and this -axiom of Liberty nobody can dispute. - - * * * * * - -Listening to the champions of Caste and Oligarchy under the National -Constitution, and perusing their writings, I think I understand -the position they take. With as much calmness as I can command, I -note what they have to say in speech and in print. I know it all. -I do not err, when I say that this whole terrible and ignominious -pretension is traced to direct and barefaced perversion of the National -Constitution. Search history, study constitutions, examine laws, and -you will find no perversion more thoroughly revolting. By the National -Constitution it is provided, that “the electors in each State shall -have the _qualifications_ requisite for electors of the most numerous -branch of the State Legislature,”--thus seeming to refer the primary -determination of what are called “qualifications” to the States; and -this is reinforced by the further provision, that “the times, places, -and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives -shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the -Congress may at any time by law make or alter such _regulations_.” This -is all On these simple texts, conferring plain and intelligible powers, -the champions insist that “color” may be made a “qualification,” and -that under the guise of “regulations” citizens whose only offence -is a skin not colored like our own may be shut out from political -rights,--and that in this way a monopoly of rights, being at once a -Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin, is placed under the safeguard of -the National Constitution. Such is the case of the champions; this is -their stock-in-trade. With all their learning, all their subtlety, all -their sharpness, this is what they have to say in behalf of an infamous -pretension under the National Constitution. Everything from them -begins and ends in a perversion of two words,--“qualifications” and -“regulations.” - -Now to this perversion I oppose point-blank denial. These two words -are not justly susceptible of any such signification, especially in a -National Constitution, which is to be interpreted always so that Human -Rights shall not suffer. I do not stop now for dictionaries. The case -is too plain. A “qualification” is something that can be acquired. A -man is familiarly said to “qualify” for an office. Nothing can be a -“qualification” which is not in its nature attainable,--as residence, -property, education, or character, each of which is within the possible -reach of well-directed effort. Color cannot be a “qualification.” If -the prescribed “qualification” were color of the hair or color of the -eyes, all would see its absurdity; but it is none the less absurd, when -it is color of the skin. Here is an unchangeable condition, impressed -by Providence. Are we not reminded that the leopard cannot change his -spots, or the Ethiopian his skin? These are two examples of enduring -conditions. Color is a quality from Nature. But a “quality” is very -different from a “qualification.” A quality inherent in man and part of -himself can never be a “qualification” in the sense of the National -Constitution. On other occasions I have cited authorities,[43] and -shown how this attempt to foist into the National Constitution a -pernicious meaning is in defiance of all approved definition, as it is -plainly repugnant to reason, justice, and common sense. - -The same judgment must be pronounced on the attempt to found this -outrage upon the power to make “regulations,”--as if this word had not -a limited signification which renders such a pretension impossible. -“Regulations” are nothing but rules applicable to a given matter; they -concern the manner in which a business shall be conducted, and, when -used with regard to elections, are applicable to what may be called -incidents, in contradistinction to the principal, which is nothing less -than the right to vote. A power to regulate is not a power to destroy -or to disfranchise. In an evil hour Human Rights may be struck down, -but it cannot be merely by “regulations.” The pretension that under -such authority this great wrong may be done is another illustration of -that extravagance which the champions do not shrink from avowing. - -The whole structure of Caste and Oligarchy, as founded on two words, -may be dismissed. It is hard even to think of it without impatience, -to speak of it without denouncing it as unworthy of human head or -human heart. There are honorable Senators who shrink from any direct -argument on these two words, and, wrapping themselves in pleonastic -phrase, content themselves with the general assertion, that power -over suffrage belongs to the States. But they cannot maintain this -conclusion without founding on these two words,--insisting that color -may be a “qualification,” and that under the narrow power to make -“regulations” a race may be broadly disfranchised. To this wretched -pretension are they driven. And now, if there be any such within the -sound of my voice, I ask the question directly,--Can “color,” whether -of hair, eyes, or skin, be a “qualification” under our National -Constitution? under the pretence of making “regulations” of elections, -can a race be disfranchised? With all the power derived from both these -words, can any State undertake to establish a Caste and organize an -Oligarchy of the Skin? To put these questions is to answer them. - - * * * * * - -Such is the case as presented by the champions. But looking at the -National Constitution, we shall be astonished still more at this -pretension. On other occasions I have gone over the whole case of -Human Rights vs. State Rights under the National Constitution. For the -present I content myself with allusions only to the principal points. - -It is under the National Constitution that the champions set up their -pretension; therefore to the National Constitution I go. And I begin -by appealing to the letter, which from beginning to end does not -contain one word recognizing “color.” Its letter is blameless; and its -spirit is not less so. Surely a power to disfranchise for color must -find some sanction in the Constitution. There must be some word of -clear intent under which this terrible prerogative can be exercised. -This conclusion of reason is reinforced by the positive text of our -Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly -announced that all men are equal in rights, and that just government -stands only on the consent of the governed. In the face of the National -Constitution, interpreted, first by itself, and then by the Declaration -of Independence, how can this pretension prevail? - -But there are positive texts of the National Constitution, refulgent -as the Capitol itself, which forbid it with sovereign, irresistible -power, and invest Congress with all needful authority to maintain the -prohibition. - -There is that key-stone clause, by which it is expressly declared -that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a -republican form of government”; and Congress is empowered to enforce -this guaranty. The definition of a republican government was solemnly -announced by our fathers, first, in that great battle-cry which -preceded the Revolution, “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” -and, secondly, in the great Declaration at the birth of the Republic, -that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands -only on the consent of the governed. A Republic is where taxation and -representation go hand in hand, where all are equal in rights, and -no man is excluded from participation in the government. Such is the -definition of a republican government, which it is the duty of Congress -to maintain. Here is a bountiful source of power, which cannot be -called in question. In the execution of the guaranty Congress may--nay, -must--require that there shall be no Inequality, Caste, or Oligarchy of -the Skin. - -I know well the arguments of the champions. They insist that the -definition of a Republican Government is to be found in the State -Constitutions at the adoption of the National Constitution; and as -all these, except Massachusetts, recognized Slavery, they find that -the denial of Human Rights is republican. But the champions forget -that Slavery was regarded as a temporary exception,--that the slave, -who was not represented, was not taxed,--that he was not part of the -“body-politic,”--that the difference at that time was not between -white and black, but between slave and freeman, precisely as in the -days of Magna Charta,--that in most of the States all freemen, without -distinction of color, were citizens,--and that, according to the -history of the times, there was no State which ventured to announce in -its Constitution a discrimination founded on color, except Virginia, -Georgia, and South Carolina,--this last the persevering enemy of -republican government for successive generations; so that, if we look -at the State Constitutions, we find that they also testify to the true -definition. - -There are words of authority which the champions forget also. They -forget Magna Charta, that great title-deed called “the most august -diploma and sacred anchor of English liberties,” where, after declaring -that “there shall be but _one measure_ throughout the realm,”[44] it is -announced in memorable words, that “_no freeman_ shall be disseized of -his freehold or liberties but by legal judgment of his peers or by the -law of the land,”[45] meaning, of course, the law of the whole land, -_in contradistinction to any local law_. The words with which this -great guaranty begin still resound: _Nullus liber homo_, “No freeman,” -shall be denied the liberties which belong to freemen. - -The champions also forget that “The Federalist,” in commending the -Constitution, at the time of its adoption, insisted, that, if the -slaves became free, they would be entitled to representation. I have -quoted the potent words before,[46] and now I quote them again:-- - - “It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed - the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is denied - to them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, - that, if the laws were to restore the rights which have been - taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal - share of representation with the other inhabitants.”[47] - -The champions also forget, that, in the debates on the ratification -of the National Constitution, it was charged by its opponents, and -admitted by its friends, that Congress was empowered to correct any -inequality of suffrage. I content myself with quoting the weighty words -of Madison in the Virginia Convention:-- - - “Some States might regulate the elections on the principles of - _Equality_, and others might regulate them otherwise.… Should - the people of any State by any means be deprived of the right - of suffrage, _it was judged proper that it should be remedied - by the General Government_.… If the elections be regulated - properly by the State Legislatures, the Congressional control - will very probably never be exercised. The power appears to me - satisfactory, and as unlikely to be abused as any part of the - Constitution.”[48] - -The champions also forget that Chief Justice Taney, in that very Dred -Scott decision where it was ruled that a person of African descent -could not be a citizen of the United States, admitted, that, if -he were once a citizen, that is, if he were once admitted to be a -component part of the body-politic, he would be entitled to the equal -privileges of citizenship. Here are some of his emphatic words:-- - - “There is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of - writers on Government, or in any actual experiment heretofore - tried, an exposition of the term _citizen_ which has not been - understood as conferring _the actual possession and enjoyment, - or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire - equality of privileges, civil and political_.”[49] - -Thus from every authority, early and late,--from Magna Charta, -wrung out of King John at Runnymede,--from Hamilton, writing in -“The Federalist,”--from Madison, speaking in the Convention at -Richmond,--from Taney, presiding in the Supreme Court of the United -States,--is there one harmonious testimony to the equal rights of -citizenship. - -If in the original text of the Constitution there could be any doubt, -it was all relieved by the Amendment abolishing Slavery and empowering -Congress to enforce this provision. Already Congress, in the exercise -of this power, has passed a _Civil Rights Act_. It only remains that -it should now pass a _Political Rights Act_, which, like the former, -shall help consummate the abolition of Slavery. According to a familiar -rule of interpretation, expounded by Chief Justice Marshall in his -most masterly judgment, Congress, when intrusted with any power, is -at liberty to select the “means” for its execution.[50] The Civil -Rights Act came under the head of “means” selected by Congress, and a -Political Rights Act will have the same authority. You may as well deny -the constitutionality of the one as of the other. - -The Amendment abolishing Slavery has been reinforced by another, known -as Article XIV., which declares peremptorily that “no State shall make -or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities -of citizens of the United States,” and again Congress is empowered -to enforce this provision. What can be broader? Colored persons -are citizens of the United States, and no State can abridge their -privileges or immunities. It is a mockery to say, that, under these -explicit words, Congress is powerless to forbid any discrimination -of color at the ballot-box. Why, then, were they inscribed in the -Constitution? To what end? There they stand, supplying additional and -supernumerary power, ample for safeguard against Caste or Oligarchy of -the Skin, no matter how strongly sanctioned by any State Government. - -But the champions, anxious for State Rights against Human Rights, -strive to parry this positive text, by insisting, that, in another -provision of this same Amendment, the power over the right to vote -is conceded to the States. Mark, now, the audacity and fragility of -this pretext. It is true, that, “when the right to vote … is denied -to any of the male inhabitants of a State, … or in any way abridged, -except for participation in rebellion or other crime,” the basis of -representation is reduced in corresponding proportion. Such is the -penalty imposed by the Constitution on a State which denies the right -to vote, except in a specific case. But this penalty on the State does -not in any way, by the most distant implication, impair the plenary -powers of Congress to enforce the guaranty of a republican government, -the abolition of Slavery, and that final clause guarding the rights of -citizens,--three specific powers which are left undisturbed, unless the -old spirit of Slavery is once more revived, and Congress is compelled -again to wear those degrading chains which for so long a time rendered -it powerless for Human Rights. - -The pretension, that the powers of Congress, derived from the -Constitution and its supplementary texts, were all foreclosed, and that -the definition of a republican government was dishonored, merely by the -indirect operation of the clause imposing a penalty upon a State, is -the last effort of the champions. They are driven to the assumption, -that all these beneficent powers have been taken away by indirection, -and that a provision evidently temporary and limited can have this -overwhelming consequence. They set up a technical rule of law, -“_Expressio unius est exclusio alterius_.” It is impossible to see the -application of this technicality. Because the basis of representation -is reduced in proportion to any denial of the right to vote, therefore, -it is argued, the denial of the right to vote is placed beyond the -reach of Congress, notwithstanding all its plenary powers from so many -sources. It is enough to say of this conclusion, that it is as strong -as anything founded on the “argal” of the grave-digger in “Hamlet.” -Really, Sir, it is too bad that so great a cause should be treated with -such levity. - - * * * * * - -Mr. President, I make haste to the conclusion. Unwilling to protract -this debate, I open the question in glimpses only. Even in this -imperfect way, it is clearly seen, first, that there is nothing, -absolutely nothing, in the National Constitution to sustain the -pretension of Caste or Oligarchy of the Skin, as set up by certain -States,--and, secondly, that there is in the National Constitution a -succession and reduplication of powers investing Congress with ample -authority to repress any such pretension. In this conclusion, I raise -no question on the power of States to regulate the suffrage; I do -not ask Congress to undertake any such regulation. I simply propose, -that, under the pretence of regulating the suffrage, States shall not -exercise a prerogative hostile to Human Rights, without any authority -under the National Constitution, and in defiance of its positive texts. - - * * * * * - -I am now brought directly to the proposed Amendment of the -Constitution. Of course, the question stares us in the face, Why amend -what is already sufficient? Why erect a supernumerary column? - -So far as I know, two reasons are assigned. The first is, that the -power of Congress is doubtful. It is natural that those who do not -sympathize strongly with the Equal Rights of All should doubt. Men -ordinarily find in the Constitution what is in themselves; so that -the Constitution in its meaning is little more than a reflection of -their own inner nature. As I am unable to find any ground of doubt, in -substance or even in shadow, I shrink from a proposition which assumes -that there is doubt. To my mind the power is too clear for question. As -well question the obligation of Congress to guaranty a republican form -of government, or the abolition of Slavery, or the prohibition upon -States to interfere with the rights and privileges of citizenship, each -of which is beyond question. - -Another reason assigned for a Constitutional Amendment is, its -permanent character in comparison with an Act of Congress, which may -be repealed. On this head I have no anxiety. Let this beneficent -prohibition once find place in our statute-book, and it will be lasting -as the National Constitution itself, to which it will be only a -legitimate corollary. In harmony with the Declaration of Independence, -and in harmony with the National Constitution, it will become of equal -significance, and no profane hand will touch its sacred text. It will -never be repealed. The elective franchise, once recognized, can never -be denied,--once conferred, can never be resumed. The rule of Equal -Rights, once applied by Congress under the National Constitution, will -be a permanent institution as long as the Republic endures; for it will -be a vital part of that Republican Government to which the nation is -pledged. - -Dismissing the reasons for the Amendment, I turn to those which make us -hesitate. There are two. The Amendment admits, that, under the National -Constitution as it is, with its recent additions, a Caste and an -Oligarchy of the Skin may be set up by a State without any check from -Congress; that these ignoble forms of inequality are consistent with -republican government; and that the right to vote is not an existing -privilege and immunity of citizenship. All this is plainly admitted by -the proposed Amendment,--thus despoiling Congress of beneficent powers, -and emasculating the National Constitution itself. It is only with -infinite reluctance that I consent to any such admission, which, in the -endeavor to satisfy ungenerous scruples, weakens all those texts which -are so important for Human Rights. - -The hesitation to present the Amendment is increased, when we consider -the difficulties in the way of its ratification. I am no arithmetician, -but I understand that nobody has yet been able to enumerate the States -whose votes can be counted on to assure its ratification within any -reasonable time. Meanwhile this great question, which cannot brook -delay, which for the sake of peace and to complete Reconstruction -should be settled at once, is handed over to prolonged controversy in -the States. I need not depict the evils which must ensue. A State will -become for the time a political caldron, into which will be dropped -all the poisoned ingredients of prejudice and hate, while a powerful -political party, chanting, like the Witches in “Macbeth,” - - “Double, double, toil and trouble; - Fire, burn; and, caldron, bubble,” - -will use this very Amendment as the pudding-stick with which to stir -the bubbling mass. Such a controversy should be avoided, if possible; -nor should an agitation so unwelcome and so sterile be needlessly -invited. “Let us have peace.” - -Of course, if there were no other way of accomplishing the great -result, the Amendment should be presented, even with all its delays, -uncertainties, and provocations to local strife. But happily all -these are unnecessary. The same thing may be accomplished by Act of -Congress, without any delay, without any uncertainty, and without any -provocation to local strife. The same vote of two thirds required for -the presentation of the Amendment will pass the Act over the veto of -the President. Once adopted, it will go into instant operation, without -waiting for the uncertain concurrence of State Legislatures, and -without provoking local strife so wearisome to the country. The States -will not be turned into political caldrons, and the Democratic party -will have no pudding-stick with which to stir the bubbling mass. - -I do not depart from the proprieties of this occasion, when I show how -completely the course I now propose harmonizes with the requirements of -the political party to which I belong. Believing most sincerely that -the Republican party, in its objects, is identical with country and -with mankind, so that in sustaining it I sustain these comprehensive -charities, I cannot willingly see this agency lose the opportunity of -confirming its supremacy. You need votes in Connecticut, do you not? -There are three thousand fellow-citizens in that State ready at the -call of Congress to take their place at the ballot-box. You need them -also in Pennsylvania, do you not? There are at least fifteen thousand -in that great State waiting for your summons. Wherever you most need -them, there they are; and be assured they will all vote for those who -stand by them in the assertion of Equal Rights. In standing by them you -stand by all that is most dear in the Republic. - -Pardon me,--but, if you are not moved by considerations of justice -under the Constitution, then I appeal to that humbler motive which -is found in the desire for success. Do this and you will assure the -triumph of all that you can most desire. Party, country, mankind, -will be elevated, while the Equal Rights of All will be fixed on a -foundation not less enduring than the Rock of Ages. - - The bill offered by Mr. Sumner as a substitute for the original - joint resolution was rejected; and the latter, embodying the - proposed Amendment to the Constitution, failed for want of the - requisite two-thirds of the votes cast,--these standing, Yeas - 31, Nays 27. - - - - -CLAIMS ON ENGLAND,--INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL. - -SPEECH ON THE JOHNSON-CLARENDON TREATY, IN EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE -SENATE, APRIL 13, 1869. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--A report recommending that the Senate do not advise -and consent to a treaty with a foreign power, duly signed by the -plenipotentiary of the nation, is of rare occurrence. Treaties -are often reported with amendments, and sometimes without any -recommendation; but I do not recall an instance, since I came into the -Senate, where such a treaty has been reported with the recommendation -which is now under consideration. The character of the treaty seemed to -justify the exceptional report. The Committee did not hesitate in the -conclusion that it ought to be rejected, and they have said so. - -I do not disguise the importance of this act; but I believe that in the -interest of peace, which every one should have at heart, the treaty -must be rejected. A treaty, which, instead of removing an existing -grievance, leaves it for heart-burning and rancor, cannot be considered -a settlement of pending questions between two nations. It may seem to -settle them, but does not. It is nothing but a snare. And such is the -character of the treaty now before us. The massive grievance under -which our country suffered for years is left untouched; the painful -sense of wrong planted in the national heart is allowed to remain. -For all this there is not one word of regret, or even of recognition; -nor is there any semblance of compensation. It cannot be for the -interest of either party that such a treaty should be ratified. It -cannot promote the interest of the United States, for we naturally seek -justice as the foundation of a good understanding with Great Britain; -nor can it promote the interest of Great Britain, which must also seek -a real settlement of all pending questions. Surely I do not err, when -I say that a wise statesmanship, whether on our side or on the other -side, must apply itself to find the real root of evil, and then, with -courage tempered by candor and moderation, see that it is extirpated. -This is for the interest of both parties, and anything short of it -is a failure. It is sufficient to say that the present treaty does -no such thing, and that, whatever may have been the disposition of -the negotiators, the real root of evil remains untouched in all its -original strength. - -I make these remarks merely to characterize the treaty and prepare the -way for its consideration. - - -THE PENDING TREATY. - -If we look at the negotiation which immediately preceded the treaty, -we find little to commend. You have it on your table. I think I am not -mistaken, when I say that it shows a haste which finds few precedents -in diplomacy, but which is explained by the anxiety to reach a -conclusion before the advent of a new Administration. Mr. Seward and -Mr. Reverdy Johnson unite in this unprecedented activity, using the -Atlantic cable freely. I should not object to haste, or to the freest -use of the cable, if the result were such as could be approved; but, -considering the character of the transaction, and how completely the -treaty conceals the main cause of offence, it seems as if the honorable -negotiators were engaged in huddling something out of sight. - -The treaty has for its model the Claims Convention of 1853. To take -such a convention as a model was a strange mistake. This convention -was for the settlement of outstanding claims of American citizens on -Great Britain, and of British subjects on the United States, which had -arisen since the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. It concerned individuals -only, and not the nation. It was not in any respect political; nor was -it to remove any sense of national wrong. To take such a convention as -the model for a treaty which was to determine a national grievance of -transcendent importance in the relations of two countries marked on the -threshold an insensibility to the true nature of the difference to be -settled. At once it belittled the work to be done. - -An inspection of the treaty shows how from beginning to end it is -merely for the settlement of individual claims on both sides, putting -the two batches on an equality, so that the sufferers by the misconduct -of England may be counterbalanced by British blockade-runners. It -opens with a preamble, which, instead of announcing the unprecedented -question between the two countries, simply refers to individual claims -that have arisen since 1853,--the last time of settlement,--some -of which are still pending and remain unsettled. Who would believe -that under these words of commonplace was concealed the unsettled -difference which has already so deeply stirred the American people, -and is destined, until finally adjusted, to occupy the attention of -the civilized world? Nothing here gives notice of the real question. I -quote the preamble, as it is the key-note to the treaty:-- - - “Whereas claims have at various times since the exchange of - the ratifications of the convention between Great Britain and - the United States of America, signed at London on the 8th of - February, 1853, been made upon the Government of her Britannic - Majesty on the part of citizens of the United States, and upon - the Government of the United States on the part of subjects of - her Britannic Majesty; and whereas _some of such claims are - still pending and remain unsettled_; her Majesty the Queen - of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the - President of the United States of America, being of opinion - that a speedy and equitable settlement of all such claims will - contribute much to the maintenance of the friendly feelings - which subsist between the two countries, have resolved to make - arrangements for that purpose by means of a convention.”[51] - -The provisions of the treaty are for the trial of these cases. A -commission is constituted, which is empowered to choose an arbitrator; -but, in the event of a failure to agree, the arbitrator shall be -determined “by lot” from two persons, one named by each side. Even -if this aleatory proceeding were a proper device in the umpirage of -private claims, it is strangely inconsistent with the solemnity which -belongs to the present question. The moral sense is disturbed by -such a process at any stage of the trial; nor is it satisfied by the -subsequent provision for the selection of a sovereign or head of a -friendly state as arbitrator. - -The treaty not merely makes no provision for the determination of -the great question, but it seems to provide expressly that it shall -never hereafter be presented. A petty provision for individual claims, -subject to a set-off by the individual claims of England, so that in -the end our country may possibly receive nothing, is the consideration -for this strange surrender. I borrow a term from an English statesman -on another occasion, if I call it a “capitulation.”[52] For the -settlement of a few individual claims, we condone the original -far-reaching and destructive wrong. Here are the plain words by which -this is done:-- - - “The high contracting parties engage to consider the result - of the proceedings of this commission as a full and final - settlement of every claim upon either Government arising out - of any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the - ratifications of the present convention; and further engage - that every such claim, whether or not the same may have been - presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the - said commission, shall, from and after the conclusion of the - proceedings of the said commission, be considered and treated - as finally settled and barred, and thenceforth inadmissible.” - -All this I quote directly from the treaty. It is Article V. The -national cause is handled as nothing more than a bundle of individual -claims, and the result of the proceedings under the proposed treaty -is to be “a full and final settlement,” so that hereafter all claims -“shall be considered and treated as finally settled and barred, and -thenceforth inadmissible.” Here is no provision for the real question, -which, though thrust out of sight, or declared to be “finally settled -and barred,” according to the terms of the treaty, must return to -plague the two countries. Whatever the treaty may say in terms, there -is no settlement in fact; and until this is made, there will be -constant menace of discord. Nor can it be forgotten that there is no -recognition of the rule of international duty applicable to such cases. -This, too, is left unsettled. - -While doing so little for us, the treaty makes ample provision for -all known claims on the British side. As these are exclusively -“individual,” they are completely covered by the text, which has no -limitations or exceptions. Already it is announced in England that -even those of “Confederate bondholders” are included. I have before -me an English journal which describes the latter claims as founded -on “immense quantities of cotton, worth at the time of their seizure -nearly two shillings a pound, which were then in the legal possession -of those bondholders”; and the same authority adds, “These claims -will be brought, indifferently with others, before the designed joint -commission, whenever it shall sit.” From another quarter I learn that -these bondholders are “very sanguine of success _under the treaty as -it is worded_, and certain it is that the loan went up from 0 to 10 as -soon as it was ascertained that the treaty was signed.” I doubt if the -American people are ready just now to provide for any such claims. That -they have risen in the market is an argument against the treaty. - - -THE CASE AGAINST ENGLAND. - -Passing from the treaty, I come now to consider briefly, but with -proper precision, the true ground of complaint; and here again we -shall see the constant inadequacy of the remedy now applied. It is with -reluctance that I enter upon this statement, and I do it only in the -discharge of a duty which cannot be postponed. - -Close upon the outbreak of our troubles, little more than one month -after the bombardment of Fort Sumter, when the Rebellion was still -undeveloped, when the National Government was beginning those gigantic -efforts which ended so triumphantly, the country was startled by the -news that the British Government had intervened by a Proclamation -which accorded belligerent rights to the Rebels. At the early date -when this was done, the Rebels were, as they remained to the close, -without ships on the ocean, without prize courts or other tribunal -for the administration of justice on the ocean, _without any of those -conditions which are the essential prerequisites to such a concession_; -and yet the concession was general, being applicable to the ocean and -the land, so that by British fiat they became ocean belligerents as -well as land belligerents. In the swiftness of this bestowal there was -very little consideration for a friendly power; nor does it appear that -there was any inquiry into those _conditions-precedent_ on which it -must depend. Ocean belligerency, being a “fact,” and not a “principle,” -can be recognized only on evidence showing its _actual existence_, -according to the rule first stated by Mr. Canning and afterward -recognized by Lord John Russell.[53] But no such evidence was adduced; -for it did not exist, and never has existed. - -Too much stress cannot be laid upon the rule, that belligerency is -a “fact,” and not a “principle.” It is perhaps the most important -contribution to this discussion; and its original statement, on -the occasion of the Greek Revolution, does honor to its author, -unquestionably the brightest genius ever directed to this subject. -According to this rule, belligerency must be proved to exist; it must -be shown. It cannot be imagined, or divined, or invented; it must exist -as a “fact” within the knowledge of the world, or at least as a “fact” -susceptible of proof. Nor can it be inferred on the ocean merely from -its existence on the land. From the beginning, when “God called the dry -land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas,” -the two have been separate, and power over one has not necessarily -implied power over the other. There is a dominion of the land, and a -dominion of the ocean. But, whatever power the Rebels possessed on the -land, they were always without power on the ocean. Admitting that they -were belligerents on the land, they were never belligerents on the -ocean. - - “The oak leviathans, whose huge ribs make - Their clay creator the vain title take - Of lord of thee, _and arbiter of war_,”-- - -these they never possessed. Such was the “fact” that must govern -the present question. The rule, so simple, plain, and intelligible, -as stated by Mr. Canning, is a decisive touchstone of the British -concession, which, when brought to it, is found to be without support. - -Unfriendly in the precipitancy with which it was launched, this -concession was more unfriendly in substance. It was the first stage in -the depredations on our commerce. Had it not been made, no Rebel ship -could have been built in England: every step in her building would -have been piracy. Nor could any munitions of war have been furnished: -not a blockade-runner, laden with supplies, could have left the English -shores, except under a kindred penalty. The direct consequence of this -concession was to place the Rebels on an equality with ourselves in -all British markets, whether of ships or munitions of war. As these -were open to the National Government, so they were open to the Rebels. -The asserted neutrality between the two began by this tremendous -concession, when the Rebels, at one stroke, were transformed not only -into belligerents, but into customers. - -In attributing to that bad Proclamation this peculiar influence I -follow the authority of the Law Lords of England, who, according to -authentic report, announced that without it the fitting out of a ship -in England to cruise against the United States would have been an act -of piracy. This conclusion was clearly stated by Lord Chelmsford, -ex-Chancellor, speaking for himself and others, when he said: “If the -Southern Confederacy had not been recognized by us as _a belligerent -power_, he agreed with his noble and learned friend [Lord Brougham], -that any Englishman aiding them by fitting out a privateer against the -Federal Government _would be guilty of piracy_.”[54] This conclusion is -only according to analogies of law. It is criminal for British subjects -to forge bombs or hand-grenades to be employed in the assassination of -a foreign sovereign at peace with England, as when Bernard supplied -from England the missiles used by Orsini against the life of the -French Emperor,--all of which is illustrated by Lord Chief-Justice -Campbell, in his charge to the jury on the trial of Bernard, and also -by contemporaneous opinions of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord -Truro, and at an earlier day by Lord Ellenborough in a case of libel -on the First Consul. That excellent authority, Sir George Cornewall -Lewis, gives a summary drawn from all these opinions, when he says: -“The obligation incumbent upon a state of preventing her soil from -being used _as an arsenal_, in which the means of attack against a -foreign government may be collected and prepared for use, is wholly -independent of the form and character of that government.”[55] As every -government is constrained by this rule, so every government is entitled -to its safeguards. There can be no reason why the life of our Republic -should be less sacred than the life of an Emperor, or should enjoy less -protection from British law. That England became an “arsenal” for the -Rebels we know; but this could not have been, unless the Proclamation -had prepared the way. - -The only justification that I have heard for this extraordinary -concession, which unleashed upon our country the Furies of War to -commingle with the Furies of Rebellion at home, is, that President -Lincoln undertook to proclaim a _blockade_ of the Rebel ports. By the -use of this word “blockade” the concession is vindicated. Had President -Lincoln proclaimed a _closing_ of the Rebel ports, there could have -been no such concession. This is a mere technicality; lawyers might -call it an _apex juris_; and yet on this sharp point England hangs -her defence. It is sufficient that in a great case like the present, -where the correlative duties of a friendly power are in question, -an act fraught with such portentous evil cannot be vindicated on a -technicality. In this debate there is no room for technicality on -either side. We must look at the substance, and find a reason in -nothing short of overruling necessity. War cannot be justified merely -on a technicality; nor can the concession of ocean belligerency to -rebels without a port or prize court. Such a concession, like war -itself, must be at the peril of the nation making it. - -The British assumption, besides being offensive from mere technicality, -is inconsistent with the Proclamation of the President, taken as a -whole, which, while appointing a blockade, is careful to reserve -the rights of sovereignty, thus putting foreign powers on their -guard against any premature concession. After declaring an existing -insurrection in certain States, and the obstruction of the laws for -the collection of the revenue, as the motive for action, the President -invokes not only the Law of Nations, but “the laws of the United -States,” and, in further assertion of the national sovereignty, -declares Rebel cruisers to be pirates.[56] Clearly the Proclamation -must be taken as a whole, and its different provisions so interpreted -as to harmonize with each other. If they cannot stand together, then it -is the “blockade” which must be modified by the national sovereignty, -and not the national sovereignty by the blockade. Such should have -been the interpretation of a friendly power, especially when it is -considered that there are numerous precedents of what the great German -authority, Heffter, calls “Pacific Blockade,” or blockade without -concession of ocean belligerency,--as in the case of France, England, -and Russia against Turkey, 1827; France against Mexico, 1837-39; -France and Great Britain against the Argentine Republic, 1838-48; -Russia against the Circassians, 1831-36, illustrated by the seizure of -the Vixen, so famous in diplomatic history.[57] Cases like these led -Heffter to lay down the rule, that “_blockade_” does not necessarily -constitute _a state of regular war_,[58] as was assumed by the British -Proclamation, even in the face of positive words by President Lincoln -asserting the national sovereignty and appealing to “the laws of the -United States.” The existence of such cases was like a notice to the -British Government against the concession so rashly made. It was an -all-sufficient warning, which this power disregarded. - -So far as is now known, the whole case for England is made to stand -on the use of the word “Blockade” by President Lincoln. Had he used -any other word, the concession of belligerency would have been without -justification, even such as is now imagined. It was this word which, -with magical might, opened the gates to all those bountiful supplies by -which hostile expeditions were equipped against the United States: it -opened the gates of war. Most appalling is it to think that one little -word, unconsciously used by a trusting President, could be caught up by -a friendly power and made to play such a part. - -I may add that there is one other word often invoked for apology. -It is “Neutrality,” which, it is said, was proclaimed between two -belligerents. Nothing could be fairer, always provided that the -“neutrality” proclaimed did not begin with a concession to one party -without which this party would be powerless. Between two established -Nations, both independent, as between Russia and France, there may -be neutrality; for the two are already equal in rights, and the -proclamation would be precisely equal in its operation. But where one -party is an established Nation, and the other is nothing but an odious -combination of Rebels, the proclamation is most unequal in operation; -for it begins by a solemn investiture of Rebels with all the rights of -war, saying to them, as was once said to the youthful knight, “Rise; -here is a sword; use it.” To call such an investiture a proclamation -of neutrality is a misnomer. It was a proclamation of equality between -the National Government on the one side and Rebels on the other, and no -plausible word can obscure this distinctive character. - -Then came the building of the pirate ships, one after another. While -the Alabama was still in the ship-yard, it became apparent that she -was intended for the Rebels. Our Minister at London and our Consul at -Liverpool exerted themselves for her arrest and detention. They were -put off from day to day. On the 24th July, 1862, Mr. Adams “completed -his evidence,” accompanied by an opinion from the eminent barrister, -Mr. Collier, afterward Solicitor-General, declaring the plain duty of -the British Government to stop her.[59] Instead of acting promptly by -the telegraph, five days were allowed to run out, when at last, too -tardily, the necessary order was dispatched. Meanwhile the pirate ship -escaped from the port of Liverpool by a stratagem, and her voyage -began with music and frolic. Here, beyond all question, was negligence, -or, according to the language of Lord Brougham on another occasion, -“crass negligence,” making England justly responsible for all that -ensued. - -The pirate ship found refuge in an obscure harbor of Wales, known as -Moelfra Bay, where she lay in British waters _from half-past seven -o’clock, P. M., July 29th, to about three o’clock, A. M., July 31st_, -being upward of thirty-one hours, and during this time she was supplied -with men from the British steam-tug Hercules, which followed her from -Liverpool. These thirty-one hours were allowed to elapse without any -attempt to stop her. Here was another stage of “crass negligence.” - -Thus was there negligence in allowing the building to proceed, -negligence in allowing the escape from Liverpool, and negligence in -allowing the final escape from the British coast. - -Lord Russell, while trying to vindicate his Government, and repelling -the complaints of the United States, more than once admitted that the -escape of the Alabama was “a scandal and a reproach,”[60] which to -my mind is very like a confession. Language could not be stronger. -Surely such an act cannot be blameless. If damages are ever awarded to -a friendly power for injuries received, it is difficult to see where -they could be more strenuously claimed than in a case which the First -Minister of the offending power did not hesitate to characterize so -strongly. - -The enlistment of the crew was not less obnoxious to censure than the -building of the ship and her escape. It was a part of the transaction. -The evidence is explicit. Not to occupy too much time, I refer only -to the deposition of William Passmore, who swears that he was engaged -with the express understanding that “the vessel was going out to the -Government of the Confederate States of America,” “to fight for the -Southern Government”; that he joined her at Laird’s yard at Birkenhead, -near Liverpool, remaining there several weeks; that there were about -thirty men on board, most of them old man-of-war’s men, among whom -it was “well known that the vessel was going out as a privateer for -the Confederate Government, to act against the United States, under -a commission from Mr. Jefferson Davis.”[61] In a list of the crew, -now before me, there is a large number said to be from the “Royal -Naval Reserve.”[62] I might add to this testimony. The more the case -is examined, the more clearly do we discern the character of the -transaction. - -The dedication of the ship to the Rebel service, from the very laying -of the keel and the organization of her voyage, with England as her -_naval base_, from which she drew munitions of war and men, made her -departure as much _a hostile expedition_ as if she had sailed forth -from her Majesty’s dock-yard. At a moment of profound peace between the -United States and England there was a hostile expedition against the -United States. It was in no just sense a commercial transaction, but an -act of war. - -The case is not yet complete. The Alabama, whose building was in -defiance of law, international and municipal, whose escape was “a -scandal and a reproach,” and whose enlistment of her crew was a fit -sequel to the rest, after being supplied with an armament and with a -Rebel commander, entered upon her career of piracy. Mark now a new -stage of complicity. Constantly the pirate ship was within reach of -British cruisers, and from time to time within the shelter of British -ports. For five days, unmolested, she enjoyed the pleasant hospitality -of Kingston, in Jamaica, obtaining freely the coal and other supplies -so necessary to her vocation. But no British cruiser, no British -magistrate ever arrested the offending ship, whose voyage was a -continuing “scandal and reproach” to the British Government. - -The excuse for this strange license is a curious technicality,--as if a -technicality could avail in this case at any stage. Borrowing a phrase -from that master of admiralty jurisprudence, Sir William Scott, it is -said that the ship “deposited” her original sin at the conclusion of -her voyage, so that afterward she was blameless. But the Alabama never -concluded her voyage until she sank under the guns of the Kearsarge, -because she never had a port of her own. She was no better than the -Flying Dutchman, and so long as she sailed was liable for that original -sin, which had impregnated every plank with an indelible dye. No -British cruiser could allow her to proceed, no British port could give -her shelter, without renewing the complicity of England. - -The Alabama case begins with a fatal concession, by which the Rebels -were enabled to build ships in England, and then to sail them, without -being liable as pirates; it next shows itself in the building of the -ship, in the armament, and in the escape, with so much of negligence -on the part of the British Government as to constitute sufferance, if -not connivance; and then, again, the case reappears in the welcome -and hospitality accorded by British cruisers and by the magistrates -of British ports to the pirate ship, when her evasion from British -jurisdiction was well known. Thus at three different stages the -British Government is compromised: first, in the concession of ocean -belligerency, on which all depended; secondly, in the negligence which -allowed the evasion of the ship, in order to enter upon the hostile -expedition for which she was built, manned, armed, and equipped; -and, thirdly, in the open complicity which, after this evasion, gave -her welcome, hospitality, and supplies in British ports. Thus her -depredations and burnings, making the ocean blaze, all proceeded from -England, which by three different acts lighted the torch. To England -must be traced, also, all the wide-spread consequences which ensued. - -I take the case of the Alabama because it is the best known, and -because the building, equipment, and escape of this ship were under -circumstances most obnoxious to judgment; but it will not be forgotten -that there were consort ships, built under the shelter of that fatal -Proclamation, issued in such an eclipse of just principles, and, like -the ships it unloosed, “rigged with curses dark.” One after another, -ships were built; one after another, they escaped on their errand; -and, one after another, they enjoyed the immunities of British ports. -Audacity reached its height when iron-clad rams were built, and the -perversity of the British Government became still more conspicuous by -its long refusal to arrest these destructive engines of war, destined -to be employed against the United States. This protracted hesitation, -where the consequences were so menacing, is a part of the case. - -It is plain that the ships which were built under the safeguard of this -ill-omened Proclamation, which stole forth from the British shores -and afterward enjoyed the immunities of British ports, were not only -British in origin, but British in equipment, British in armament, and -British in crews. They were British in every respect, except in their -commanders, who were Rebel; and one of these, as his ship was sinking, -owed his safety to a British yacht, symbolizing the omnipresent support -of England. British sympathies were active in their behalf. The cheers -of a British passenger-ship crossing the path of the Alabama encouraged -the work of piracy; and the cheers of the House of Commons encouraged -the builder of the Alabama, while he defended what he had done, and -exclaimed, in taunt to him who is now an illustrious member of the -British Cabinet, John Bright, that he “would rather be handed down -to posterity as the builder of a dozen Alabamas” than be the author -of the speeches of that gentleman “crying up” the institutions of -the United States, which the builder of the Alabama, rising with his -theme, denounced as “of no value whatever,” and as “reducing the very -name of Liberty to an utter absurdity,”[63] while the cheers of the -House of Commons echoed back his words. Thus from beginning to end, -from the fatal Proclamation to the rejoicing of the accidental ship -and the rejoicing of the House of Commons, was this hostile expedition -protected and encouraged by England. The same spirit which dictated -the swift concession of belligerency, with all its deadly incidents, -ruled the hour, entering into and possessing every pirate ship. - -There are two circumstances by which the whole case is aggravated. One -is found in the date of the Proclamation which lifted the Rebels to an -equality with the National Government, opening to them everything that -was open to us, whether ship-yards, foundries, or manufactories, and -giving to them a flag on the ocean coëqual with the flag of the Union. -This extraordinary manifesto was signed on the very day of the arrival -of our Minister in England,--so that, when, after an ocean voyage, he -reached the British Government, to which he was accredited, he found -this great and terrible indignity to his country already perpetrated, -and the floodgates opened to infinite woes. The Minister had been -announced; he was daily expected; the British Government knew of his -coming;--but in hottest haste they did this thing. - -The other aggravation is found in its flagrant, unnatural departure -from that Antislavery rule which, by manifold declarations, -legislative, political, and diplomatic, was the avowed creed of -England. Often was this rule proclaimed, but, if we except the great -Act of Emancipation, never more pointedly than in the famous circular -of Lord Palmerston, while Minister of Foreign Affairs, announcing -to all nations that England was pledged to the Universal Abolition -of Slavery.[64] And now, when Slaveholders, in the very madness of -barbarism, broke away from the National Government and attempted -to found a new empire with Slavery as its declared corner-stone, -Antislavery England, without a day’s delay, without even waiting the -arrival of our Minister at the seat of Government, although known to -be on his way, made haste to decree that this shameful and impossible -pretension should enjoy equal rights with the National Government in -her ship-yards, foundries, and manufactories, and equal rights on the -ocean. Such was the decree. Rebel Slaveholders, occupied in a hideous -attempt, were taken by the hand, and thus, with the official protection -and the God-speed of Antislavery England, commenced their accursed work. - -I close this part of the argument with the testimony of Mr. Bright, -who, in a speech at Rochdale, among his neighbors, February 3, 1863, -thus exhibits the criminal complicity of England:-- - - “I regret, more than I have words to express, this painful - fact, that, of all the countries in Europe, this country is the - only one which has men in it who are willing to take active - steps in favor of this intended Slave Government. We supply the - ships; we supply the arms, the munitions of war; _we give aid - and comfort to this foulest of all crimes. Englishmen only do - it._”[65] - -In further illustration, and in support of Mr. Bright’s allegation, -I refer again to the multitudinous blockade-runners from England. -Without the manifesto of belligerency they could not have sailed. All -this stealthy fleet, charged with hostility to the United States, was -a part of the great offence. The blockade-runners were kindred to the -pirate ships. They were of the same bad family, having their origin and -home in England. From the beginning they went forth with their cargoes -of death;--for the supplies which they furnished contributed to the -work of death. When, after a long and painful siege, our conquering -troops entered Vicksburg, they found Armstrong guns from England in -position;[66] and so on every field where our patriot fellow-citizens -breathed a last breath were English arms and munitions of war, all -testifying against England. The dead spoke, also,--and the wounded -still speak. - - -REPARATION FROM ENGLAND. - -At last the Rebellion succumbed. British ships and British supplies -had done their work, but they failed. And now the day of reckoning -has come,--but with little apparent sense of what is due on the part -of England. Without one soothing word for a friendly power deeply -aggrieved, without a single regret for what Mr. Cobden, in the House of -Commons, called “the cruel losses”[67] inflicted upon us, or for what -Mr. Bright called “aid and comfort to the foulest of all crimes,”[68] -or for what a generous voice from Oxford University denounced as a -“flagrant and maddening wrong,”[69] England simply proposes to submit -the question of liability for individual losses to an anomalous -tribunal where chance plays its part. This is all. Nothing is -admitted, even on this question; no rule for the future is established; -while nothing is said of the indignity to the nation, nor of the -damages to the nation. On an earlier occasion it was otherwise. - -There is an unhappy incident in our relations with Great Britain, which -attests how in other days individual losses were only a minor element -in reparation for a wrong received by the nation. You all know from -history how in time of profound peace, and only a few miles outside the -Virginia Capes, the British frigate Leopard fired into the national -frigate Chesapeake, pouring broadside upon broadside, killing three -persons and wounding eighteen, some severely, and then, boarding her, -carried off four others as British subjects. This was in the summer of -1807. The brilliant Mr. Canning, British Minister of Foreign Affairs, -promptly volunteered overtures for an accommodation, by declaring his -Majesty’s readiness to take the whole of the circumstances of the -case into consideration, and “to make reparation for _any alleged -injury to the sovereignty of the United States_, whenever it should be -clearly shown that such injury has been actually sustained and that -such reparation is really due.”[70] Here was a good beginning. There -was to be reparation for an injury to the national sovereignty. After -years of painful negotiation, the British Minister at Washington, -under date of November 1, 1811, offered to the United States three -propositions: first, the disavowal of the unauthorized act; secondly, -the immediate restoration, so far as circumstances would permit, of -the men forcibly taken from the Chesapeake; and, thirdly, a suitable -pecuniary provision for the sufferers in consequence of the attack on -the Chesapeake; concluding with these words:-- - - “These honorable propositions are made with the sincere desire - that they may prove satisfactory to the Government of the - United States, and I trust they will meet with that amicable - reception which their conciliatory nature entitles them to. I - need scarcely add how cordially I join with you in the wish - that they might prove introductory to a removal of all the - differences depending between our two countries.”[71] - -I adduce this historic instance to illustrate partly the different -forms of reparation. Here, of course, was reparation to individuals; -but there was also reparation to the nation, whose sovereignty had been -outraged. - -There is another instance, which is not without authority. In 1837 an -armed force from Upper Canada crossed the river just above the Falls of -Niagara, and burned an American vessel, the Caroline, while moored to -the shores of the United States. Mr. Webster, in his negotiation with -Lord Ashburton, characterized this act as “of itself a wrong, and an -offence to the sovereignty and the dignity of the United States, … for -which, to this day, no atonement, or even apology, has been made by her -Majesty’s Government,”[72]--all these words being strictly applicable -to the present case. Lord Ashburton, in reply, after recapitulating -some mitigating circumstances, and expressing a regret “that some -explanation and apology for this occurrence was not immediately made,” -proceeds to say:-- - - “Her Majesty’s Government earnestly desire that a reciprocal - respect for the independent jurisdiction and authority of - neighboring states may be considered among the first duties of - all Governments; and I have to repeat the assurance of regret - they feel that the event of which I am treating should have - disturbed the harmony they so anxiously wish to maintain with - the American people and Government.”[73] - -Here again was reparation for a wrong done to the nation. - -Looking at what is due to us on the present occasion, we are brought -again to the conclusion that the satisfaction of individuals whose -ships have been burnt or sunk is only a small part of what we may -justly expect. As in the earlier cases where the national sovereignty -was insulted, there should be an acknowledgment of wrong, or at least -of liability, leaving to the commissioners the assessment of damages -only. The blow inflicted by that fatal Proclamation which insulted our -national sovereignty and struck at our unity as a nation, followed by -broadside upon broadside, driving our commerce from the ocean, was -kindred in character to those earlier blows; and when we consider -that it was in aid of Slavery, it was a blow at Civilization itself. -Besides degrading us and ruining our commerce, its direct and constant -influence was to encourage the Rebellion, and to prolong the war waged -by Slaveholders at such cost of treasure and blood. It was a terrible -mistake, which I cannot doubt that good Englishmen must regret. And -now, in the interest of peace, it is the duty of both sides to find -a remedy, complete, just, and conciliatory, so that the deep sense -of wrong and the detriment to the Republic may be forgotten in that -proper satisfaction which a nation loving justice cannot hesitate to -offer. - - -THE EXTENT OF OUR LOSSES. - -_Individual losses_ may be estimated with reasonable accuracy. Ships -burnt or sunk with their cargoes may be counted, and their value -determined; but this leaves without recognition the vaster damage to -commerce driven from the ocean, and that other damage, immense and -infinite, caused by the prolongation of the war, all of which may be -called _national_ in contradistinction to _individual_. - -Our _national losses_ have been frankly conceded by eminent Englishmen. -I have already quoted Mr. Cobden, who did not hesitate to call them -“cruel losses.” During the same debate in which he let drop this -testimony, he used other words, which show how justly he comprehended -the case. “_You have been_,” said he, “_carrying on hostilities from -these shores against the people of the United States_, and have been -inflicting an amount of damage on that country greater than would -be produced by many ordinary wars. It is estimated that the loss -sustained by the capture and burning of American vessels has been -about $15,000,000, or nearly £3,000,000 sterling. _But that is a small -part of the injury which has been inflicted on the American marine._ -We have rendered the rest of her vast mercantile property for the -present valueless.”[74] Thus, by the testimony of Mr. Cobden, were -those individual losses which are alone recognized by the pending -treaty only “a small part of the injury inflicted.” After confessing -his fears with regard to “the heaping up of a _gigantic material -grievance_” such as was then accumulating, he adds, in memorable -words:-- - - “You have already done your worst towards the American - mercantile marine. What with the high rate of insurance, - what with these captures, and what with the rapid transfer - of tonnage to British capitalists, you have virtually made - valueless that vast property. Why, if you had gone and helped - the Confederates by bombarding all the accessible seaport towns - of America, a few lives might have been lost, which, as it is, - have not been sacrificed; but you could hardly have done more - injury in the way of destroying property than you have done by - these few cruisers.”[75] - -With that clearness of vision which he possessed in such rare degree, -this statesman saw that England had “virtually made valueless a vast -property,” as much as if this power had “bombarded all the accessible -seaport towns of America.” - -So strong and complete is this statement, that any further citation -seems superfluous; but I cannot forbear adducing a pointed remark in -the same debate, by that able gentleman, Mr. William E. Forster:-- - - “There could not,” said he, “be a stronger illustration of - the damage which had been done to the American trade by these - cruisers than the fact, that, so completely was the American - flag driven from the ocean, the Georgia, on her second cruise, - did not meet a single American vessel in six weeks, though she - saw no less than seventy vessels in a very few days.”[76] - -This is most suggestive. So entirely was our commerce driven from the -ocean, that for six weeks not an American vessel was seen! - -Another Englishman, in an elaborate pamphlet, bears similar testimony. -I refer to the pamphlet of Mr. Edge, published in London by Ridgway in -1863, and entitled “The Destruction of the American Carrying-Trade.” -After setting forth at length the destruction of our commerce by -British pirates, this writer thus foreshadows the damages:-- - - “Were we,” says he, “the sufferers, we should certainly - demand compensation for the loss of the property captured or - destroyed, for the interest of the capital invested in the - vessels and their cargoes, and, maybe, a fair compensation - in addition for all and any injury accruing to our business - interests from the depredations upon our shipping. _The - remuneration may reach a high figure in the present case; but - it would be a simple act of justice_, and might prevent an - incomparably greater loss in the future.”[77] - -Here we have the damages assessed by an Englishman, who, while -contemplating remuneration at a high figure, recognizes it as “a simple -act of justice.” - -Such is the candid and explicit testimony of Englishmen, pointing the -way to the proper rule of damages. How to authenticate the extent of -national loss with reasonable certainty is not without difficulty; but -it cannot be doubted that such a loss occurred. It is folly to question -it. The loss may be seen in various circumstances: as, in the rise of -insurance on all American vessels; the fate of the carrying-trade, -which was one of the great resources of our country; the diminution -of our tonnage, with the corresponding increase of British tonnage; -the falling off in our exports and imports, with due allowance for -our abnormal currency and the diversion of war. These are some of the -elements; and here again we have British testimony. Mr. W. E. Forster, -in the speech already quoted, announces that “the carrying-trade of -the United States was transferred to British merchants”;[78] and Mr. -Cobden, with his characteristic mastery of details, shows, that, -according to an official document laid on the table of Parliament, -American shipping had been transferred to English capitalists as -follows: in 1858, 33 vessels, 12,684 tons; 1859, 49 vessels, 21,308 -tons; 1860, 41 vessels, 13,638 tons; 1861, 126 vessels, 71,673 tons; -1862, 135 vessels, 64,578 tons; and 1863, 348 vessels, 252,579 tons; -and he adds, “I am told that this operation is now going on as fast -as ever”; and this circumstance he declares to be “the _most serious -aspect_ of the question of our relations with America.”[79] But this -“most serious aspect” is left untouched by the pending treaty. - -Our own official documents are in harmony with these English -authorities. For instance, I have before me now the Report of the -Secretary of the Treasury for 1868, with an appendix by Mr. Nimmo, on -shipbuilding in our country. From this Report it appears that in the -New England States, during the year 1855, the most prosperous year -of American shipbuilding, 305 ships and barks and 173 schooners were -built, with an aggregate tonnage of 326,429 tons, while during the last -year only 58 ships and barks and 213 schooners were built, with an -aggregate tonnage of 98,697 tons.[80] I add a further statement from -the same Report:-- - - “During the ten years from 1852 to 1862 the aggregate tonnage - of American vessels entered at seaports of the United States - from foreign countries was 30,225,475 tons, and the aggregate - tonnage of foreign vessels entered was 14,699,192 tons, while - during the five years from 1863 to 1868 the aggregate tonnage - of American vessels entered was 9,299,877 tons, and the - aggregate tonnage of foreign vessels entered was 14,116,427 - tons,--showing that American tonnage in our foreign trade - had fallen from two hundred and five to sixty-six per cent. - of foreign tonnage in the same trade. Stated in other terms, - during the decade from 1852 to 1862 sixty-seven per cent. - of the total tonnage entered from foreign countries was in - American vessels, and during the five years from 1863 to 1868 - only thirty-nine per cent. of the aggregate tonnage entered - from foreign countries was in American vessels,--a relative - falling off of nearly one half.”[81] - -It is not easy to say how much of this change, which has become -chronic, may be referred to British pirates; but it cannot be doubted -that they contributed largely to produce it. They began the influences -under which this change has continued. - -There is another document which bears directly upon the present -question. I refer to the interesting Report of Mr. Morse, our consul at -London, made during the last year, and published by the Secretary of -State. After a minute inquiry, the Report shows that on the breaking -out of the Rebellion in 1861 the entire tonnage of the United States, -coasting and registered, was 5,539,813 tons, of which 2,642,628 tons -were registered and employed in foreign trade, and that at the close of -the Rebellion in 1865, notwithstanding an increase in coasting tonnage, -our registered tonnage had fallen to 1,602,528 tons, being a loss -during the four years of more than a million tons, amounting to about -forty per cent. of our foreign commerce. During the same four years -the total tonnage of the British empire rose from 5,895,369 tons to -7,322,604 tons, the increase being especially in the foreign trade. The -Report proceeds to say that as to the cause of the decrease in America -and the corresponding increase in the British empire “there can be no -room for question or doubt.” Here is the precise testimony from one -who at his official post in London watched this unprecedented drama, -with the outstretched ocean as a theatre, and British pirates as the -performers:-- - - “Conceding to the Rebels the belligerent rights of the sea, - when they had not a solitary war-ship afloat, in dock, or in - the process of construction, and when they had no power to - protect or dispose of prizes, made their sea-rovers, when - they appeared, the instruments of terror and destruction to - our commerce. From the appearance of the first corsair in - pursuit of their ships, American merchants had to pay not only - the marine, but the war risk also, on their ships. After the - burning of one or two ships with their neutral cargoes, the - ship-owner had to pay the war risk on the cargo his ship had - on freight, as well as on the ship. Even then, for safety, the - preference was, as a matter of course, always given to neutral - vessels, and American ships could rarely find employment on - these hard terms as long as there were good neutral ships in - the freight markets. Under such circumstances there was no - course left for our merchant ship-owners but to take such - profitless business as was occasionally offered them, let their - ships lie idle at their moorings or in dock with large expense - and deterioration constantly going on, to sell them outright - when they could do so without ruinous sacrifice, or put them - under foreign flags for protection.”[82] - -Beyond the actual loss in the national tonnage, there was a further -loss in the arrest of our natural increase in this branch of industry, -which an intelligent statistician puts at five per cent. annually, -making in 1866 a total loss on this account of 1,384,953 tons, -which must be added to 1,229,035 tons actually lost.[83] The same -statistician, after estimating the value of a ton at forty dollars -gold, and making allowance for old and new ships, puts the sum-total of -national loss on this account at $110,000,000. Of course this is only -an item in our bill. - -To these authorities I add that of the National Board of Trade, which, -in a recent report on American Shipping, after setting forth the -diminution of our sailing tonnage, says that it is nearly all to be -traced to the war on the ocean; and the result is summed up in the -words, that, “while the tonnage of the nation was rapidly disappearing -_by the ravages of the Rebel cruisers_ and by sales abroad, in -addition to the usual loss by the perils of the sea, there was no -construction of new vessels going forward to counteract the decline -even in part.”[84] Such is the various testimony, all tending to one -conclusion. - -This is what I have to say for the present on _national losses_ through -the destruction of commerce. These are large enough; but there is -another chapter, where they are larger far: I refer, of course, to the -national losses caused by the prolongation of the war, and traceable -directly to England. Pardon me, if I confess the regret with which -I touch this prodigious item; for I know well the depth of feeling -which it is calculated to stir. But I cannot hesitate. It belongs to -the case. No candid person, who studies this eventful period, can -doubt that the Rebellion was originally encouraged by hope of support -from England,--that it was strengthened at once by the concession -of belligerent rights on the ocean,--that it was fed to the end by -British supplies,--that it was encouraged by every well-stored British -ship that was able to defy our blockade,--that it was quickened into -frantic life with every report from the British pirates, flaming -anew with every burning ship; nor can it be doubted that without -British intervention the Rebellion would have soon succumbed under -the well-directed efforts of the National Government. Not weeks or -months, but years, were added in this way to our war, so full of costly -sacrifice. The subsidies which in other times England contributed to -Continental wars were less effective than the aid and comfort which -she contributed to the Rebellion. It cannot be said too often that the -_naval base_ of the Rebellion was not in America, but in England. The -blockade-runners and the pirate ships were all English. England was the -fruitful parent, and these were the “hell-hounds,” pictured by Milton -in his description of Sin, which, “when they list, would creep into her -womb and kennel there.” Mr. Cobden boldly said in the House of Commons -that England made war from her shores on the United States, with “an -amount of damage to that country greater than would be produced by many -ordinary wars.”[85] According to this testimony, the conduct of England -was war; but it must not be forgotten that this war was carried on at -our sole cost. The United States paid for a war waged by England upon -the National Unity. - -There was one form that this war assumed which was incessant, most -vexatious, and costly, besides being in itself a positive alliance with -the Rebellion. It was that of blockade-runners, openly equipped and -supplied by England under the shelter of that baleful Proclamation. -Constantly leaving English ports, they stole across the ocean, and -then broke the blockade. These active agents of the Rebellion could be -counteracted only by a network of vessels stretching along the coast, -at great cost to the country. Here is another distinct item, the amount -of which may be determined at the Navy Department. - -The sacrifice of precious life is beyond human compensation; but there -may be an approximate estimate of the national loss in treasure. -Everybody can make the calculation. I content myself with calling -attention to the elements which enter into it. Besides the blockade, -there was the prolongation of the war. The Rebellion was suppressed -at a cost of more than four thousand million dollars, a considerable -portion of which has been already paid, leaving twenty-five hundred -millions as a national debt to burden the people. If, through British -intervention, the war was doubled in duration, or in any way extended, -as cannot be doubted, then is England justly responsible for the -additional expenditure to which our country was doomed; and whatever -may be the final settlement of these great accounts, such must be the -judgment in any chancery which consults the simple equity of the case. - -This plain statement, without one word of exaggeration or aggravation, -is enough to exhibit the magnitude of the national losses, whether -from the destruction of our commerce, the prolongation of the war, or -the expense of the blockade. They stand before us mountain-high, with -a base broad as the Nation, and a mass stupendous as the Rebellion -itself. It will be for a wise statesmanship to determine how this -fearful accumulation, like Ossa upon Pelion, shall be removed out of -sight, so that it shall no longer overshadow the two countries. - - -THE RULE OF DAMAGES. - -Perhaps I ought to anticipate an objection from the other side, to the -effect that these national losses, whether from the destruction of our -commerce, the prolongation of the war, or the expense of the blockade, -are indirect and remote, so as not to be a just ground of claim. This -is expressed at the Common Law by the rule that “damages must be for -the natural and proximate consequence of an act.”[86] To this excuse -the answer is explicit. The damages suffered by the United States -are twofold, individual and national, being in each case direct and -proximate, although in the one case individuals suffered, and in the -other case the nation. It is easy to see that there may be occasions, -where, overtopping all individual damages, are damages suffered by the -nation, so that reparation to individuals would be insufficient. Nor -can the claim of the nation be questioned simply because it is large, -or because the evidence with regard to it is different from that in -the case of an individual. In each case the damage must be proved by -the best possible evidence, and this is all that law or reason can -require. In the case of the nation the evidence is historic; and this -is enough. Impartial history will record the national losses from -British intervention, and it is only reasonable that the evidence of -these losses should not be excluded from judgment. Because the case is -without precedent, because no nation ever before received such injury -from a friendly power, this can be no reason why the question should -not be considered on the evidence. - -Even the rule of the Common Law furnishes no impediment; for our -damages are the natural consequence of what was done. But the rule -of the Roman Law, which is the rule of International Law, is broader -than that of the Common Law. The measure of damages, according to -the Digest, is, “Whatever may have been lost or might have been -gained,”--_Quantum mihi abest, quantumque lucrari potui_;[87] and this -same rule seems to prevail in the French Law, borrowed from the Roman -Law.[88] This rule opens the door to ample reparation for all damages, -whether individual or national. - -There is another rule of the Common Law, in harmony with strict -justice, which is applicable in the case. I find it in the law -relating to _Nuisances_, which provides that there may be two distinct -proceedings,--first, in behalf of individuals, and, secondly, in -behalf of the community. Obviously, reparation to individuals does -not supersede reparation to the community. The proceeding in the one -case is by action at law, and in the other by indictment. The reason -assigned by Blackstone for the latter is, “Because, the damage being -common to all the king’s subjects, no one can assign his particular -proportion of it.”[89] But this is the very case with regard to damages -sustained by the nation. - -A familiar authority furnishes an additional illustration, which is -precisely in point:-- - - “No person, natural or corporate, can have an action for a - _public nuisance_, or punish it,--but only the king, in his - public capacity of supreme governor and _paterfamilias_ of the - kingdom. Yet this rule admits of one exception: where a private - person suffers some extraordinary damage beyond the rest of the - king’s subjects.”[90] - -Applying this rule to the present case, the way is clear. Every British -pirate was _a public nuisance_, involving the British Government, which -must respond in damages, not only to the individuals who have suffered, -but also to the National Government, acting as _paterfamilias_ for the -common good of all the people. - -Thus by an analogy of the Common Law in the case of a Public Nuisance, -also by the strict rule of the Roman Law, which enters so largely into -International Law, and even by the rule of the Common Law relating -to Damages, all losses, whether individual or national, are the just -subject of claim. It is not I who say this; it is the Law. The colossal -sum-total may be seen not only in the losses of individuals, but in -those national losses caused by the destruction of our commerce, the -prolongation of the war, and the expense of the blockade, all of which -may be charged directly to England:-- - - “illud ab uno - Corpore, et ex una pendebat origine bellum.”[91] - -Three times is this liability fixed: first, by the concession of -ocean belligerency, opening to the Rebels ship-yards, foundries, and -manufactories, and giving to them a flag on the ocean; secondly, by -the organization of hostile expeditions, which, by admissions in -Parliament, were nothing less than piratical war on the United States -with England as the naval base; and, thirdly, by welcome, hospitality, -and supplies extended to these pirate ships in ports of the British -empire. Show either of these, and the liability of England is complete; -show the three, and this power is bound by a triple cord. - - -CONCLUSION. - -MR. PRESIDENT, in concluding these remarks, I desire to say that I -am no volunteer. For several years I have carefully avoided saying -anything on this most irritating question, being anxious that -negotiations should be left undisturbed to secure a settlement which -could be accepted by a deeply injured nation. The submission of the -pending treaty to the judgment of the Senate left me no alternative. -It became my duty to consider it carefully in committee, and to review -the whole subject. If I failed to find what we had a right to expect, -and if the just claims of our country assumed unexpected proportions, -it was not because I would bear hard on England, but because I wish -most sincerely to remove all possibility of strife between our two -countries; and it is evident that this can be done only by first -ascertaining the nature and extent of difference. In this spirit I -have spoken to-day. If the case against England is strong, and if our -claims are unprecedented in magnitude, it is only because the conduct -of this power at a trying period was most unfriendly, and the injurious -consequences of this conduct were on a scale corresponding to the -theatre of action. Life and property were both swallowed up, leaving -behind a deep-seated sense of enormous wrong, as yet unatoned and even -unacknowledged, which is one of the chief factors in the problem now -presented to the statesmen of both countries. The attempt to close this -great international debate without a complete settlement is little -short of puerile. - -With the lapse of time and with minuter consideration the case -against England becomes more grave, not only from the questions of -international responsibility which it involves, but from better -comprehension of the damages, which are seen now in their true -proportions. During the war, and for some time thereafter, it was -impossible to state them. The mass of a mountain cannot be measured at -its base; the observer must occupy a certain distance; and this rule -of perspective is justly applicable to damages which are vast beyond -precedent. - -A few dates will show the progress of the controversy, and how the -case enlarged. Going as far back as 20th November, 1862, we find our -Minister in London, Mr. Adams, calling for redress from the British -Government on account of the Alabama.[92] This was the mild beginning. -On the 23d October, 1863, in another communication, the same Minister -suggested to the British Government any “fair and equitable form of -conventional arbitrament or reference.”[93] This proposition slumbered -in the British Foreign Office for nearly two years, during which the -Alabama was pursuing her piratical career, when, on the 30th August, -1865, it was awakened by Lord Russell only to be knocked down in these -words:-- - - “In your letter of the 23d of October, 1863, you were pleased - to say that the Government of the United States is ready to - agree to any form of arbitration.… Her Majesty’s Government - must, therefore, decline either to make reparation and - compensation for the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer - the question to any foreign state.”[94] - -Such was our repulse from England, having at least the merit of -frankness, if nothing else. On the 17th October, 1865, our Minister -informed Lord Russell that the United States had finally resolved -to make no effort for arbitration.[95] Again the whole question -slumbered until 27th August, 1866, when Mr. Seward presented a list -of individual claims on account of the pirate Alabama and other Rebel -cruisers.[96] From that time negotiation has continued, with ups and -downs, until at last the pending treaty was signed. Had the early -overtures of our Government been promptly accepted, or had there been -at any time a just recognition of the wrong done, I doubt not that -this great question would have been settled; but the rejection of our -very moderate propositions, and the protracted delay, which afforded -an opportunity to review the case in its different bearings, have -awakened the people to the magnitude of the interests involved. If our -demands are larger now than at our first call, it is not the only time -in history when such a rise has occurred. The story of the Sibyl is -repeated, and England is the Roman king. - -Shall these claims be liquidated and cancelled promptly, or allowed to -slumber until called into activity by some future exigency? There are -many among us, who, taking counsel of a sense of national wrong, would -leave them to rest without settlement, so as to furnish a precedent -for retaliation in kind, should England find herself at war. There are -many in England, who, taking counsel of a perverse political bigotry, -have spurned them absolutely; and there are others, who, invoking the -point of honor, assert that England cannot entertain them without -compromising her honor. Thus there is peril from both sides. It is not -difficult to imagine one of our countrymen saying, with Shakespeare’s -Jew, “The villany you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard -but I will better the instruction”; nor is it difficult to imagine an -Englishman firm in his conceit that no apology can be made and nothing -paid. I cannot sympathize with either side. Be the claims more or less, -they are honestly presented, with the conviction that they are just; -and they should be considered candidly, so that they shall no longer -lower, like a cloud ready to burst, upon two nations, which, according -to their inclinations, can do each other such infinite injury or such -infinite good. I know it is sometimes said that war between us must -come sooner or later. I do not believe it. But if it must come, let it -be later, and then I am sure it will never come. Meanwhile good men -must unite to make it impossible. - -Again I say, this debate is not of my seeking. It is not tempting; -for it compels criticism of a foreign power with which I would have -more than peace, more even than concord. But it cannot be avoided. The -truth must be told,--not in anger, but in sadness. England has done -to the United States an injury most difficult to measure. Considering -when it was done and in what complicity, it is truly unaccountable. At -a great epoch of history, not less momentous than that of the French -Revolution or that of the Reformation, when Civilization was fighting -a last battle with Slavery, England gave her name, her influence, -her material resources to the wicked cause, and flung a sword into -the scale with Slavery. Here was a portentous mistake. Strange that -the land of Wilberforce, after spending millions for Emancipation, -after proclaiming everywhere the truths of Liberty, and ascending to -glorious primacy in the sublime movement for the Universal Abolition -of Slavery, could do this thing! Like every departure from the rule of -justice and good neighborhood, her conduct was pernicious in proportion -to the scale of operations, affecting individuals, corporations, -communities, and the nation itself. And yet down to this day there is -no acknowledgment of this wrong,--not a single word. Such a generous -expression would be the beginning of a just settlement, and the best -assurance of that harmony between two great and kindred nations which -all must desire. - - - - -LOCALITY IN APPOINTMENT TO OFFICE. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, APRIL 21, 1869. - - - The Senate having under consideration a resolution requesting - from the heads of Departments “information of the names, age, - and compensation of all inferior officers, clerks, and employés - in their respective Departments at Washington, showing from - what States they were respectively appointed,” &c., Mr. Abbott, - of North Carolina, moved the following addition:-- - - “_Resolved further_, That in the opinion of the Senate the - distribution of the official patronage of the Government - not embraced in local offices in the States should be made - as nearly equal among all the States, according to their - representation and population, as may be practicable; and - that to confine such patronage to particular States or - sections, either wholly or partially, is both unjust and - injudicious.” - - On the latter resolution Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--If I have rightly read the history of my country, -there was before Vicksburg an army commanded by three generals from -Ohio,--General Grant, General Sherman, and General McPherson. Now, if I -rightly understand the proposition of the Senator from North Carolina, -he would require that the generals in command of our Army should be -taken geographically,--not according to their merits, not according to -their capacity to defend this Republic and to maintain with honor its -flag, but simply according to the place of their residence,--and no -three generals should be in command from one State. Do I understand the -Senator aright? - - MR. ABBOTT. My amendment reads, “as far as practicable.” - -MR. SUMNER. Very well,--“as far as practicable.” I would inquire of my -friend whether fitness for office or service in other departments of -the Government does not depend upon capacity, talent, preparation, as -much as in the Army? I ask the Senator if it is not so? - - MR. ABBOTT. The purpose of this amendment was not to override - all such considerations; it was to give an expression of the - sense of the Senate that States should not be ignored in the - distribution of this sort of patronage. Nothing in it prevents - three generals from Ohio being in the command of one army, or - the appointment of three Cabinet officers from Ohio; but it is - simply to express the sense of the Senate that these things - ought to be done with something like fairness and justice, as - between the different States. - -MR. SUMNER. I take it there is no Senator who does not accept the -general idea of the Senator from North Carolina, that all things should -be done in fairness, and that all parts of the country, every portion -of this great Republic, should be treated with equal respect and honor. -That is clear. But first and foremost above all is the public service: -that must be maintained; it must not be sacrificed; and how can it be -maintained, unless you advance to prominent posts in this service those -who are the most meritorious, and who can best discharge the duties of -the post? - -I merely throw out this remark, and call attention to this point, that -Senators may see to what this proposition tends. If it were fully -carried out, it would reduce the public service of this country to one -dead level. Men would go into it merely because they lived in certain -places, not because they had a fitness for the posts to which they were -advanced. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I see no reason why there should -be three Ohio generals in command before Vicksburg, and not three Ohio -citizens in eminent civil service. To my mind the attainments and the -talents required in civil service are as well worthy to be recognized -as those that are required in military service, and I see no reason -for a rule that shall allow talent to be taken without any reference -to geographical limit in the military service which is not equally -applicable to the civil service. - -Now, as to our friends who have recently come into this Chamber, I -beg them to understand, that, so far as I am concerned, there is no -disposition to deny or to begrudge them anything to which, according -to geographical proportions, they may be entitled; but I beg them to -consider that time is an essential element of this transition through -which we are passing. - - MR. FESSENDEN. Will my friend allow me to make a suggestion to - him? - -MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. FESSENDEN. I merely wish to allude to the notorious fact - that for half a century before the Rebellion the proportion of - persons in civil office in the Departments in Washington from - the Southern States was very nearly, if not quite, two to one - to those from all the other States. They had the control, and - had pretty much all the offices, for years and years. - -MR. SUMNER. We are now in a process of transition, and I was observing -that time is an essential element in that process. What the Senator -from North Carolina aims at cannot be accomplished at once. The change -cannot be made instantly. The men are not presented from the States -lately in rebellion in sufficient numbers, in sufficient proportion, -with competency for these posts. I know that there are gentlemen there -fit to grace many of these posts, but I know also that there is not -relatively the same proportion of persons fit for the civil service as -there is in the other parts of the country; and our friends from the -South, it seems to me, must take this into consideration kindly, and -wait yet a little longer. - - - - -NATIONAL AFFAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD. - -SPEECH AT THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION IN WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, -SEPTEMBER 22, 1869. - - - Mr. Sumner was selected as President of the Convention. On - taking the chair he spoke as follows:-- - -FELLOW-CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS:-- - -While thanking you for the honor conferred upon me, I make haste to say -that in my judgment Massachusetts has one duty, at the coming election, -to which all local interests and local questions must be postponed, as -on its just performance all else depends; and this commanding duty is, -to keep the Commonwealth, now as aforetime, an example to our country -and a bulwark of Human Rights. Such was Massachusetts in those earlier -days, when, on the continent of Europe, the name of “Bostonians” was -given to our countrymen in arms against the mother country,[97] making -this designation embrace all,--and when, in the British Parliament, the -great orator, Edmund Burke, exclaimed, “The cause of Boston is become -the cause of all America; every part of America is united in support -of Boston; … you have made Boston the Lord Mayor of America.”[98] -I quote these words from the Parliamentary Debates. But Boston was -at that time Massachusetts, and it was her stand for Liberty that -made her name the synonym for all. And permit me to add, that, in -choosing a presiding officer entirely removed from local issues, I find -assurance of your readiness to unite with me in that _National Cause_ -which concerns not Massachusetts only, but every part of America, and -concerns also our place and name as a nation. - -The enemy here in Massachusetts would be glad to divert attention -from the unassailable principles of the Republican Party; they would -be glad to make you forget that support we owe to a Republican -Administration,--also that support we owe to the measures of -Reconstruction, and our constant abiding persistence for all essential -safeguards not yet completely established. These they would hand over -to oblivion, hoping on some local appeal to disorganize our forces, -or, perhaps, obtain power to be wielded against the National Cause. -Massachusetts cannot afford to occupy an uncertain position. Therefore -I begin by asking you to think of our country, our whole country,--in -other words, of _National Affairs at Home and Abroad_. - - * * * * * - -It is now four years since I had the honor of presiding at our annual -Convention, and I do not forget how at that time I endeavored to remind -you of this same National Cause, then in fearful peril.[99] The war -of armies was ended; no longer was fellow-citizen arrayed against -fellow-citizen; on each side the trumpet was hushed, the banner furled. -But the defection of Andrew Johnson had then begun, and out of that -defection the Rebellion assumed new life, with new purposes and new -hopes. If it did not spring forth once more fully armed, it did spring -forth filled with hate and diabolism towards all who loved the Union, -whether white or black. There were exceptions, I know; but they were -not enough to change the rule. And straightway the new apparition, -acting in conjunction with the Northern Democracy, aboriginal allies -of the Rebellion, planned the capture of the National Government. Its -representatives came up to Washington. Then was the time for a few -decisive words in the name of the Republic, on which for four years -they had waged bloody war. The great dramatist, who has words for every -occasion, anticipated this, when he said,-- - - “Return thee, therefore, with a flood of tears, - And wash away thy country’s stained spots.” - -Such a mood would have been the beginning of peace. How easy to see -that these men should have been admonished frankly and kindly to return -home, there to plant, plough, sow, reap, buy, sell, and be prosperous, -but not to expect any place in the copartnership of government until -there was completest security for all! Instead of this, they were sent -back plotting how to obtain ascendency at home as the stepping-stone -to ascendency in the nation. Such was the condition of things in the -autumn of 1865, when, sounding the alarm from this very platform, -I insisted upon irreversible guaranties against the Rebellion, and -especially on security to the national freedman and the national -creditor. It was upon security that I then insisted,--believing, -that, though the war of armies was ended, this was a just object of -national care, all contained in the famous time-honored postulate of -war, _Security for the Future_, without which peace is no better than -armistice. - -To that security one thing is needed,--simply this: All men must -be safe in their rights, so that affairs, whether of government or -business, shall have a free and natural course. But there are two -special classes still in jeopardy, as in the autumn of 1865,--the -National Freedman and the National Creditor,--each a creditor of the -nation and entitled to protection, each under the guardianship of the -public faith; and behind these are faithful Unionists, now suffering -terribly from the growing reaction. - - * * * * * - -For the protection of the national freedman a Constitutional Amendment -is presented for ratification, placing his right to vote under the -perpetual safeguard of the nation; but I am obliged to remind you that -this Amendment has not yet obtained the requisite number of States, -nor can I say surely when it will. The Democratic Party is arrayed -against it, and the Rebel interest unites with the Democracy. Naturally -they go together. They are old cronies. Here let me say frankly that I -have never ceased to regret,--I do now most profoundly regret,--that -Congress, in its plenary powers under the Constitution, especially in -its great unquestionable power to guaranty a republican government in -the States, did not summarily settle this whole question, so that it -should no longer disturb the country. It was for Congress to fix the -definition of a republican government; nor need it go further than -our own Declaration of Independence, where is a definition from which -there is no appeal. There it is, as it came from our fathers, in lofty, -self-evident truth; and Congress should have applied it. Or it might -have gone to the speech of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, where again -is the same great definition. There was also a decisive precedent. As -Congress made a Civil Rights Law, so should it have made a Political -Rights Law. In each case the power is identical. If it can be done in -the one, it can be done in the other. To my mind nothing is clearer. -Thus far Congress has thought otherwise. There remains, then, the slow -process of Constitutional Amendment, to which the country must be -rallied. - - * * * * * - -But this is not enough. No mere text of Constitution or Law is -sufficient. Behind these must be a prevailing Public Opinion and -a sympathetic Administration. Both are needed. The Administration -must reinforce Public Opinion, and Public Opinion must reinforce the -Administration. Such is all experience. Without these the strongest -text and most cunning in its requirements is only a phantom, it may be -of terror, as was the case with the Fugitive Slave Bill,--but not a -living letter. It is not practically obeyed; sometimes it is evaded, -sometimes openly set at nought. And now it is my duty to warn you -that the national freedman still needs your care. His ancient master -is already in the field conspiring against him. That traditional -experience, that infinite audacity, that insensibility to Human Rights, -which so long upheld Slavery, are aroused anew. No longer able to hold -him as slave, the ancient master means to hold him as dependant, and to -keep him in his service, personal and political,--thus substituting a -new bondage for the old. Unhappily, he finds at the North a political -party which the Rebellion has not weaned from that unnatural Southern -breast whence it drew its primitive nutriment; and this political -party now fraternizes in the dismal work by which peace is postponed: -for until the national freedman is safe in Equal Rights there can be -no peace. You may call it peace, but I tell you it is not peace. It is -peace only in name. Who does not feel that he treads still on smothered -fires? Who does not feel his feet burn as he moves over the treacherous -ashes? If I wished any new motive for opposition to the Democracy, I -should find it in this hostile alliance. Because I am for peace so that -this whole people may be at work, because I desire tranquillity so that -all may be happy, because I seek reconciliation so that there shall be -completest harmony, therefore I oppose the Democracy and now denounce -it as Disturber of the National Peace. - -The information from the South is most painful. Old Rebels are -crawling from hiding-places to resume their former rule; and what a -rule! Such as might be expected from the representatives of Slavery. -It is the rule of misrule, where the “Ku-Klux-Klan” takes the place -of missionary and schoolmaster. Murder is unloosed. The national -freedman is the victim; and so is the Unionist. Not one of these States -where intimidation, with death in its train, does not play its part. -Take that whole Southern tier from Georgia to Texas, and add to it -Tennessee, and, I fear, North Carolina and Virginia also,--for the -crime is contagious,--and there is small justice for those to whom you -owe so much. That these things should occur under Andrew Johnson was -natural; that Reconstruction should encounter difficulties after his -defection was natural. Andrew Johnson is now out of the way, and in his -place a patriot President. Public Opinion must come to his support in -this necessary work. There is but one thing these disturbers feel; it -is power; and this they must be made to feel: I mean the power of an -awakened people, directed by a Republican Administration, vigorously, -constantly, surely, so that there shall be no rest for the wicked. - - * * * * * - -If I could forget the course of the Democracy on these things,--as I -cannot,--there is still another chapter for exposure; and the more -it is seen, the worse it appears. It is that standing menace of -Repudiation, by which the national credit at home and abroad suffers -so much, and our taxes are so largely increased. It will not do to say -that no National Convention has yet announced this dishonesty. I charge -it upon the Party. A party which repudiates the fundamental principles -of the Declaration of Independence, which repudiates Equality before -the Law, which repudiates the self-evident truth that government is -founded only on the consent of the governed, which repudiates what is -most precious and good in our recent history, and whose chiefs are now -engaged in cunning assault upon the national creditor, is a party of -Repudiation. This is its just designation. A Democrat is a Repudiator. -What is Slavery itself but an enormous wholesale repudiation of all -rights, all truths, and all decencies? How easy for a party accepting -this degradation to repudiate pecuniary obligations! These are -small, compared with the other. Naturally the Democracy is once more -in conjunction with the old Slave-Masters. The Repudiation Gospel -according to Mr. Pendleton is now preaching in Ohio; and nothing is -more certain than that the triumph of the Democracy would be a fatal -blow not only at the national freedman, but also at the national -creditor. There would be repudiation for each. - -The word “Repudiation,” in its present sense, is not old. It first -appeared in Mississippi, a Democratic State intensely devoted to -Slavery. If the thing were known before, never before did it assume the -same hardihood of name. It was in 1841 that a Mississippi Governor, in -a Message to the Legislature, used this word with regard to certain -State bonds, and thus began that policy by which Mississippi was first -dishonored and then kept poor: for capital was naturally shy of such a -State. Constantly, from that time, Mississippi had this “bad eminence”; -nor is the State more known as the home of Jefferson Davis than as the -home of Repudiation. Unhappily, the nation suffered also; and even -now, as I understand, it is argued in Europe, to our discredit, that, -because Mississippi repudiated, the nation may repudiate also. If I -refer to this example, it is because I would illustrate the mischief -of the Democratic policy and summon Mississippi to tardy justice. A -regenerated State cannot afford to bear the burden of Repudiation; -nor can the nation and the sisterhood of States forget misconduct so -injurious to all. - -I have pleasure, at this point, in reference to an early effort in the -“North American Review,” by an able lawyer, for a time an ornament of -the Supreme Court of the United States, Hon. B. R. Curtis, who, after -reviewing the misconduct of Mississippi, argues most persuasively, -that, where a State repudiates its obligations, to the detriment of -foreigners, there is a remedy through the National Government. This -suggestion is important for Mississippi now. But the article contains -another warning, applicable to the nation at the present hour, which I -quote:-- - - “The conduct of a few States has not only destroyed their own - credit and left their sister States very little to boast of, - but has so materially affected the credit of the whole Union - that it was found impossible to negotiate in Europe any part - of the loan authorized by Congress in 1842. It was offered - on terms most advantageous to the creditor, terms which in - former times would have been eagerly accepted; and after going - a-begging through all the exchanges of Europe, the agent gave - up the attempt to obtain the money, in despair.”[100] - -As the fallen drunkard illustrates the evils of intemperance, so -does Mississippi illustrate the evils of Repudiation. Look at her! -But there are men who would degrade our Republic to this wretched -condition. Forgetting what is due to our good name as a nation -at home and abroad,--forgetting that the public interests are -bound up with the Public Faith, involving all economies, national -and individual,--forgetting that our transcendent position has -corresponding obligations, and that, as Nobility once obliged to great -duty, (“_Noblesse oblige_,”) so does Republicanism now,--there are men -who, forgetting all these things, would carry our Republic into this -terrible gulf, so full of shame and sacrifice. They begin by subtle -devices; but already the mutterings of open Repudiation are heard. I -denounce them all, whether device or muttering; and I denounce that -political party which lends itself to the outrage. - - * * * * * - -Repudiation means Confiscation, and in the present case confiscation -of the property of loyal citizens. With unparalleled generosity -the nation has refused to confiscate Rebel property; and now it is -proposed to confiscate Loyal property. When I expose Repudiation -as Confiscation, I mean to be precise. Between two enactments, one -requiring the surrender of property without compensation, and the other -declaring that the nation shall not and will not pay an equal amount -according to solemn promise, there can be no just distinction. The two -are alike. The former might alarm a greater number, because on its -face more demonstrative. But analyze the two, and you will see that -in each private property is taken by the nation without compensation, -and appropriated to its own use. Therefore do I say, Repudiation is -Confiscation. - - * * * * * - -A favorite device of Repudiation is to pay the national debt in -“greenbacks,”--in other words, to pay bonds bearing interest with mere -promises not bearing interest,--violating, in the first place, a rule -of honesty, which forbids such a trick, and, in the second place, a -rule of law, which refuses to recognize an inferior obligation as -payment of a superior. Here, in plain terms, is repudiation of the -interest and indefinite postponement of the principal. This position, -when first broached, contemplated nothing less than an infinite -issue of greenbacks, flooding the country, as France was flooded by -_assignats_, and utterly destroying values of all kinds. Although, in -its present more moderate form, it is limited to payment by existing -greenbacks, yet it has the same radical injustice. Interest-bearing -bonds are to be paid with non-interest-bearing bits of paper. The -statement of the case is enough. Its proposer would never do this thing -in his own affairs; but how can he ask his country to do what honesty -forbids in private life? - -Another device is to tax the bonds, when the money was lent on the -positive condition that the bonds should not be taxed. This, of course, -is to break the contract in another way. It is Repudiation in another -form. - - * * * * * - -To argue these questions is happily unnecessary, and I allude to them -only because I wish to exhibit the loss to the country from such -attempts. This can be made plain as a church-door. - -The total debt of our country on the 1st September, aside from -the sixty millions of bonds issued to the Pacific Railway, was -$2,475,962,501; and here I mention, with great satisfaction, that since -the 1st March last the debt has been reduced $49,500,758. The surplus -revenue now accruing is not less than $100,000,000 a year, and will -be, probably, not less than $125,000,000 a year, of which large sum -not less than $75,000,000 must be attributed to the better enforcement -of the laws and the economy now prevailing under a Republican -Administration. And here comes the practical point. Large as is our -surplus revenue, it should have been more, and would have been more but -for the Repudiation menaced by the Democracy. - -If we look at our bonded debt, we find it is now $2,107,936,300, -upon which we pay not less than $124,000,000 in annual interest, the -larger part at six per cent., the smaller at five per cent., gold. -The difference between this interest and that paid by other powers is -the measure of our annual loss. English three per cents. and French -fours are firm in the market; but England and France have not the -same immeasurable resources that are ours, nor is either so secure -in its government. It is easy to see that our debt could have been -funded without paying more than four per cent., but for the doubt cast -upon our credit by the dishonest schemes of Repudiation. “Payment in -Greenbacks” and “Taxation of Bonds” are costly cries. Without these -there would have been $40,000,000 annually to swell our surplus -revenue. But this sum, if invested in a sinking fund at four per cent. -interest, would pay the whole bonded debt in less than thirty years. -Such is our annual loss. - -The sum-total of this loss directly chargeable upon the Repudiators -is more than one hundred millions, already paid in taxes; and much I -fear, fellow-citizens, that, before the nation can recover from the -discredit inflicted upon it, another hundred millions will be paid in -the same way. It is hard to see this immense treasure wrung by taxation -from the toil of the people to pay these devices of a dishonest -Democracy. Do not forget that the cost of this experiment is confined -to no particular class. Wherever the tax-gatherer goes, there it is -paid. Every workman pays it in his food and clothing; every mechanic -and artisan, in his tools; every housewife, in her cooking-stove and -flat-iron; every merchant, in the stamp upon his note; every man of -salary, in the income tax; ay, every laborer, in his wood, his coal, -his potatoes, and his salt. Many of these taxes, imposed under duress -of war, will be removed soon, I trust; but still the enormous sum -of forty millions annually must be contributed by the labor of the -country, until the world is convinced, that, in spite of Democratic -menace, the Republic will maintain its plighted faith to the end. - -People wish to reduce taxation. I tell you how. Let no doubt rest upon -the Public Faith. Then will the present burdensome taxation grow “fine -by degrees and beautifully less.” _It is the doubt which costs._ It is -with our country, as with an individual,--the doubt obliges the payment -of _extra interest_. To stop that extra interest we must keep faith. - - * * * * * - -As we look at the origin of the greenback, we shall find a new motive -for fidelity. I do not speak of that patriotic character which -commends the national debt, but of the financial principle on which -the greenback was first issued. It came from the overruling exigencies -of self-defence. The national existence depended upon money, which -could be had only through a forced loan. The greenback was the agency -by which it was collected. The disloyal party resisted the passage of -the original Act, prophesying danger and difficulty; but the safety -of the nation required the risk, and the Republican Party assumed it. -And now this same disloyal party, once against the greenback, insist -upon continuing in peace what was justified only in war,--insist upon -a forced loan, when the overruling exigencies of self-defence have -ceased, and the nation is saved. To such absurdity is this party now -driven. - -The case is aggravated, when we consider the boundless resources of -the country, through which in a short time even this great debt will -be lightened, if the praters of Repudiation are silenced. Peace, -financially as well as politically, is needed. Let us have peace. -Nowhere will it be felt more than at the South, which is awakening to -a consciousness of resources unknown while Slavery ruled. With these -considerable additions to the national capital, five years cannot pass -without a sensible diminution of our burdens. A rate of taxation, _per -capita_, equal to only one half that of 1866, will pay even our present -interest, all present expenses, and the entire principal, in less than -twenty years. But to this end we must keep faith. - - * * * * * - -The attempt is aggravated still further, when it is considered that -Repudiation is impossible. Try as you may, you cannot succeed. You may -cause incalculable distress, and postpone the great day of peace, but -you cannot do this thing. The national debt never can be repudiated. It -will be paid, dollar for dollar, in coin, with interest to the end. - -How little do these Repudiators know the mighty resisting power which -they encounter! how little, the mighty crash which they invite! As -well undertake to move Mount Washington from its everlasting base, or -to shut out the ever-present ocean from our coasts. It is needless to -say that the crash would be in proportion to the mass affected, being -nothing less than the whole business of the country. Now it appears -from investigations making at this moment by Commissioner Wells, whose -labors shed such light on financial questions, that _our annual product -reaches the sum of seven thousand millions of dollars_.[101] But this -prodigious amount depends for its value upon exchange, which in turn -depends upon credit. Destroy exchange, and even these untold resources -would be an infinite chaos, without form and void. Employment would -cease, capital would waste, mills would stop, the rich would become -poor,--the poor, I fear, would starve. Savings banks, trust companies, -insurance companies would disappear. Such would be the mighty crash; -but here you see also the mighty resisting power. Therefore, again do I -say, Repudiation is impossible. - -Mr. Boutwell is criticized by the Democracy because he buys up -bonds, paying the current market rates, when he should pay the face -in greenbacks. I refer to this Democratic criticism because I would -show how little its authors look to consequences while forgetting the -requirements of Public Faith. Suppose the Secretary, yielding to these -wise suggestions, should announce his purpose to take up the first ten -millions of five-twenties, paying the face in greenbacks. What then? -“After us the deluge,” said the French king; and so, after such notice -from our Secretary, would our deluge begin. At once the entire bonded -debt would be reduced to greenbacks. The greenback would not be raised; -the bond would be drawn down. All this at once,--and in plain violation -of the solemn declaration of both Houses of Congress pledging payment -in coin. But who can measure the consequences? Bonds would be thrown -upon the market. From all points of the compass, at home and abroad, -they would come. Business would be disorganized. Prices would be -changed. Labor would be crushed. The fountains of the great deep would -be broken up, and the deluge would be upon us. - - * * * * * - -Among the practical agencies to which the country owes much already -are the National Banks. Whatever may be the differences of opinion -with regard to them, they cannot fail to be taken into account in all -financial discussions. As they have done good where they are now -established, I would gladly see them extended, especially at the South -and West, where they are much needed, and where abundant crops already -supply the capital. It is doubtful if this can be brought about without -removing the currency limitation in the existing Bank Act.[102] In this -event I should like the condition that for every new bank-note issued -a greenback should be cancelled, thus substituting the bank-note for -the greenback. In this way greenbacks would be reduced in volume, while -currency is supplied by the banks. Such diminution of the national -paper would be an important stage toward specie payments, while the -national banks in the South and West, founded on the bonds of the -United States, would be a new security for the national credit. - -In making this suggestion, I would not forget the necessity of specie -payments at the earliest possible moment; nor can I forbear to declare -my unalterable conviction that by proper exertion this supreme object -may be accomplished promptly,--always provided the national credit -is kept above suspicion, or, like the good knight, “without fear and -without reproach.” - - * * * * * - -Thus, fellow-citizens, at every turn are we brought back to one single -point, the Public Faith, which cannot be dishonored without infinite -calamity. The child is told not to tell a lie; but this injunction is -the same for the full-grown man, and for the nation also. We cannot -tell a lie to the national freedman or the national creditor; we -cannot tell a lie to anybody. That word of shame cannot be ours. But -falsehood to the national freedman and the national creditor is a -national lie. Breaking promise with either, you are dishonored, and -_Liar_ must be stamped upon the forehead of the nation. Beyond the -ignominy, which all of us must bear, will be the influence of such a -transgression in discrediting Republican Government and the very idea -of a Republic. For weal or woe, we are an example. Mankind is now -looking to us, and just in proportion to the eminence we have reached -is the eminence of our example. Already we have shown how a Republic -can conquer in arms, offering millions of citizens and untold treasure -at call. It remains for us to show how a Republic can conquer in a -field more glorious than battle, where all these millions of citizens -and all this untold treasure uphold the Public Faith. Such an example -will elevate Republican Government, and make the idea of a Republic -more than ever great and splendid. Helping here, you help not only your -own country, but help Humanity also,--help liberal institutions in all -lands,--help the down-trodden everywhere, and all who struggle against -the wrong and tyranny of earth. - -The brilliant Frenchman, Montesquieu, in that remarkable work which -occupied so much attention during the last century, “The Spirit of -Laws,” pronounces _Honor_ the animating sentiment of Monarchy, but -_Virtue_ the animating sentiment of a Republic.[103] It is for us to -show that he was right; nor can we depart from this rule of Virtue -without disturbing the order of the universe. Faith is nothing less -than a part of that sublime harmony by which the planets wheel surely -in their appointed orbits, and nations are summoned to justice. -Nothing too lofty for its power, nothing too lowly for its protection. -It is an essential principle in the divine Cosmos, without which -confusion reigns supreme. All depends upon Faith. Why do you build? -Because you have faith in those laws by which you are secured in person -and property. Why do you plant? why do you sow? Because you have -faith in the returning seasons, faith in the generous skies, faith in -the sun. But faith in this Republic must be fixed as the sun, which -illumines all. I cannot be content with less. Full well I see that -every departure from this great law is only to our ruin, and from the -height we have reached the tumble will be like that of the Grecian god -from the battlements of Heaven:-- - - “From morn - To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve, - A summer’s day, and with the setting sun - Dropped from the zenith like a falling star.”[104] - -It only remains, come what may, that we should at all hazards preserve -this Public Faith,--never forgetting that honesty is not only the best -policy, but the Golden Rule. For myself, I see nothing more practical, -at this moment, than, first, at all points to oppose the Democracy, -and, secondly, to insist that yet awhile longer ex-Rebels shall be -excused from copartnership in government. Do not think me harsh; do -not think me austere. I am not. I will not be outdone by anybody in -clemency; nor at the proper time will I be behind any one in opening -all doors of office and trust. But the proper time has not yet come. -There must be security for the future, unquestionable and ample, -before I am ready; and this I would require not only for the sake of -the national freedman and the national creditor, but for the sake of -the country containing the interests of all, and also of the ex-Rebel -himself, whose truest welfare is in that peace where all controversy -shall be extinguished forever. In this there is nothing but equity -and prudence according to received precedents. The ancient historian -declares that the ancestors of Rome, the most religious of men, took -nothing from the vanquished but the license to do wrong: “_Nostri -majores, religiosissimi mortales, … neque victis quicquam præter -injuriæ licentiam eripiebant_.”[105] These are the words of Sallust. I -know no better example for our present guidance. Who can object, if men -recently arrayed against their country are told to stand aside yet a -little longer, until all are secure in their rights? Here is no fixed -exclusion,--nothing of which there can be any just complaint,--nothing, -which is not practical, wise, humane,--nothing which is not born of -justice rather than victory. In the establishment of Equal Rights -conquest loses its character, and is no longer conquest;-- - - “For then both parties nobly are subdued, - And neither party loser.”[106] - -Even in the uncertainty of the future it is easy to see that the -national freedman and the national creditor have a common fortune. In -the terrible furnace of war they were joined together, nor can they be -separated until the rights of both are fixed beyond change. Therefore, -could my voice reach them, I would say, “Freedman, stand by the -creditor! Creditor, stand by the freedman!” And to the people I would -say, “Stand by both!” - - * * * * * - -From affairs at home I turn to affairs abroad, and here I wish to speak -cautiously. In speaking at all I break a vow with myself not to open -my lips on these questions except in the Senate. I yield to friendly -pressure. And yet I know no reason why I should not speak. It was -Talleyrand who, to somebody apologizing for what might be an indiscreet -question, replied, that an answer might be indiscreet, but not a -question. My answer shall at least be frank. - -In our foreign relations there are with me two cardinal principles, -which I have no hesitation to avow at all times: first, peace with -all the world; and, secondly, sympathy with all struggling for Human -Rights. In neither of these would I fail; for each is essential. Peace -is our all-conquering ally. Through peace the whole world will be ours. -“Still in the right hand carry gentle peace,” and there is nothing we -cannot do. Filled with the might of peace, the sympathy we extend will -have a persuasive power. Following these plain principles, we should be -open so that foreign nations shall know our sentiments, and in such way -that even where there is a difference there shall be no just cause for -offence. - - * * * * * - -In this spirit I would now approach Spain. Who can forget that great -historic monarchy, on whose empire, encircling the globe, the sun never -set? Patron of that renowned navigator through whom she became the -discoverer of this hemisphere, her original sway within it surpassed -that of any other power. At last her extended possessions on the -main, won by Cortés and Pizarro, loosed themselves from her grasp, to -take their just place in the Family of Nations. Cuba and Porto Rico, -rich islands of the Gulf, remained. And now Cuban insurgents demand -independence also. For months they have engaged in deadly conflict with -the Spanish power. Ravaged provinces and bloodshed are the witnesses. -The beautiful island, where sleeps Christopher Columbus, with the -epitaph that he gave to Castile and Leon a new world,[107] is fast -becoming a desert, while the nation to which he gave the new world is -contending for its last possession there. On this simple statement two -questions occur: first, as to the duty of Spain; and, secondly, as to -the duty of the United States. - -Unwelcome as it may be to that famous Castilian pride which has played -so lofty a part in modern Europe, Spain must not refuse to see the -case in its true light; nor can she close her eyes to the lesson of -history. She must recall how the Thirteen American Colonies achieved -independence against all the power of England,--how all her own -colonies on the American main achieved independence against her own -most strenuous efforts,--how at this moment England is preparing to -release her Northern colonies from their condition of dependence; and -recalling these examples, it will be proper for her to consider if they -do not illustrate a tendency of all colonies, which was remarked by -an illustrious Frenchman, even before the independence of the United -States. Never was anything more prophetic in politics than when Turgot, -in 1750, speaking of the Phœnician colonies in Greece and Asia Minor, -said: “Colonies are like fruits, which hold to the tree only until -their maturity: when sufficient for themselves, they did that which -Carthage afterwards did,--_that which some day America will do_.”[108] -These most remarkable words of the philosopher-statesman will be found -in his Discourse at the Sorbonne; and now for their application. Has -not Cuba reached his condition of maturity? Is it not sufficient -for itself? At all events, is victory over a colony contending for -independence worth the blood and treasure it will cost? These are -serious questions, which can be answered properly only by putting -aside all passion and prejudice of empire, and calmly confronting the -actual condition of things. Nor must the case of Cuba be confounded -for a moment with our wicked Rebellion, having for its object the -dismemberment of a Republic, to found a new power with Slavery as its -vaunted corner-stone. For myself, I cannot doubt, that, in the interest -of both parties, Cuba and Spain, and in the interest of humanity also, -the contest should be closed. This is my judgment on the facts, so far -as known to me. Cuba must be saved from its bloody delirium, or little -will be left for the final conqueror. Nor can the enlightened mind -fail to see that the Spanish power on this island is an anachronism. -The day of European colonies has passed,--at least in this hemisphere, -where the rights of man were first proclaimed and self-government first -organized. A governor from Europe, nominated by a crown, is a constant -witness against these fundamental principles. - -As the true course of Spain is clear, so to my mind is the true course -of the United States equally clear. It is to avoid involving ourselves -in any way. Enough of war have we had, without heedlessly assuming -another; enough has our commerce been driven from the ocean, without -heedlessly arousing another enemy; enough of taxation are we compelled -to bear, without adding another mountain. Two policies were open to us -at the beginning of the insurrection. One was to unite our fortunes -with the insurgents, assuming the responsibilities of such an alliance, -with the hazard of letters-of-marque issued by Spain and of public -war. I say nothing of the certain consequences in expenditure and in -damages. A Spanish letter-of-marque would not be less destructive than -the English Alabama. The other policy was to make Spain feel that we -wish her nothing but good,--and that, especially since the expulsion of -her royal dynasty, we cherish for her a cordial and kindly sympathy. -It is said that republics are ungrateful; but I would not forget that -at the beginning of our Revolutionary struggle our fathers were aided -by her money, as afterwards by her arms, and that her great statesman, -Florida Blanca, by his remarkable energies determined the organization -of that Armed Neutrality in Northern Europe which turned the scale -against England,[109]--so that John Adams declared, “We owe the -blessings of peace to the Armed Neutrality.”[110] I say nothing of the -motives by which Spain was then governed. It is something that in our -day of need she lent us a helping hand. - -It is evident, that, adopting the first policy, we should be powerless, -except as an enemy. The second policy may enable us to exercise an -important influence. - -The more I reflect upon the actual condition of Spain, the more I am -satisfied that the true rule for us is non-intervention, except in the -way of good offices. This ancient kingdom is now engaged in comedy and -tragedy. You have heard of _Hunting the Slipper_. The Spanish comedy -is _Hunting a King_. The Spanish tragedy is sending armies against -Cuba. I do not wish to take part in the comedy or the tragedy. If Spain -is wise, she will give up both. Meanwhile we have a duty which is -determined by International Law. To that venerable authority I repair. -What that prescribes I follow. - - * * * * * - -By that law, as I understand it, nations are not left to any mere -caprice. There is a rule of conduct which they must follow, subject -always to just accountability where they depart from it. On ordinary -occasions there is no question; for it is with nations as with -individuals. It is only where the rule is obscure or precedents are -uncertain that doubt arises, as with some persons now. Here I wish -to be explicit. Belligerence is a “fact,” attested by evidence. If -the “fact” does not exist, there is nothing to recognize. The fact -cannot be invented or imagined; it must be proved. No matter what our -sympathy, what the extent of our desires, we must look at the fact. -There may be insurrection without reaching this condition, which is -at least the half-way house to independence. The Hungarians, when -they rose against Austria, obtained no such recognition, although -they had large armies in the field, and Kossuth was their governor; -the Poles, in repeated insurrections against Russia, obtained no such -recognition, although the conflict made Europe vibrate; the Sepoys -and Rajahs of India failed also, although for a time the English -empire hung trembling; nor, in my opinion, were our slave-mad Rebels -ever entitled to such recognition,--for, whatever the strength of the -Rebellion on land, it remained, as in the case of Hungary, of Poland, -of India, without those Prize Courts which are absolutely essential -to recognition by foreign powers. _A cruiser without accountability -to Prize Courts is a lawless monster which civilized nations cannot -sanction._ Therefore the Prize Court is the condition-precedent; nor is -this all. If the Cuban insurgents have come within any of the familiar -requirements, I have never seen the evidence. They are in arms, I know. -But where are their cities, towns, provinces? where their government? -where their ports? where their tribunals of justice? and where their -Prize Courts? To put these questions is to answer them. How, then, is -the “fact” of belligerence? - -There is another point in the case, which is with me final. Even -if they come within the prerequisites of International Law, I am -unwilling to make any recognition of them so long as they continue -to hold human beings as slaves, which I understand they now do. I am -told that there was a decree in May last, purporting to be signed -by Cespedes, abolishing slavery; then I am told of another decree in -July, maintaining slavery. There is also the story of a pro-slavery -constitution to be read at home, and an anti-slavery constitution to be -read abroad. Nor is there any evidence that any decree or constitution -has had any practical effect. In this uncertainty I shall wait, -even if all other things are propitious. In any event there must be -Emancipation. - -On the recognition of belligerence there is much latitude of -opinion,--some asserting that a nation may take this step whenever it -pleases; but this pretension excludes the idea that belligerence is -always a question of fact on the evidence. Undoubtedly an independent -nation may do anything in its power, whenever it pleases,--but -subject always to just accountability, if another suffers from what -it does. This may be illustrated in the three different cases of war, -independence, and belligerence. In each case the declaration is an -exercise of high prerogative, inherent in every nation, and kindred to -that of eminent domain; but a nation declaring war without just cause -becomes a wrong-doer; a nation recognizing independence where it does -not exist in fact becomes a wrong-doer; and so a nation recognizing -belligerence where it does not exist in fact becomes a wrong-doer also. -Any present uncertainty on this last point I attribute to the failure -of precedents sufficiently clear and authoritative; but with me there -is one rule in such a case which I cannot disobey. In the absence of -any precise injunction, I do not hesitate to adopt that interpretation -of International Law which most restricts war and all that makes for -war,--believing that in this way I shall best promote civilization and -obtain new security for international peace. - - * * * * * - -From the case of Spain I pass to the case of England, contenting myself -with a brief explanation. On this subject I have never spoken except -with pain, as I have been obliged to expose a great transgression. I -hope to say nothing now which shall augment difficulties,--although, -when I consider how British anger was aroused by an effort in another -place,[111] judged by all who heard it most pacific in character, I do -not know that even these few words may not be misinterpreted. - -There can be no doubt that we received from England incalculable -wrong,--greater, I have often said, than was ever before received -by one civilized power from another, short of unjust war. I do not -say this in bitterness, but in sadness. There can be no doubt, that, -through English complicity, our carrying-trade was transferred to -English bottoms,--our foreign commerce sacrificed, while our loss was -England’s gain,--our blockade rendered more expensive,--and generally, -that our war, with all its fearful cost of blood and treasure, was -prolonged indefinitely. This terrible complicity began with the -wrongful recognition of Rebel belligerence, under whose shelter pirate -ships were built and supplies sent forth. All this was at the very -moment of our mortal agony, in the midst of a struggle for national -life; and it was done in support of Rebels whose single declared object -of separate existence as a nation was Slavery, being in this respect -clearly distinguishable from an established power where slavery is -tolerated without being made the vaunted corner-stone. Such is the -case. Who shall fix the measure of this great accountability? For the -present it is enough to expose it. I make no demand,--not a dollar of -money, not a word of apology. I show simply what England has done to -us. It will be for her, on a careful review of the case, to determine -what reparation to offer; it will be for the American people, on a -careful review of the case, to determine what reparation to require. -On this head I content myself with the aspiration that out of this -surpassing wrong, and the controversy it has engendered, may come some -enduring safeguard for the future, some landmark of Humanity. Then will -our losses end in gain for all, while the Law of Nations is elevated. -But I have little hope of any adequate settlement, until our case, in -its full extent, is heard. In all controversies the first stage of -justice is to understand the case; and sooner or later England must -understand ours. - -The English arguments, so far as argument can be found in the recent -heats, have not in any respect impaired the justice of our complaint. -Loudly it is said that there can be no sentimental damages, or damages -for wounded feelings; and then our case is dismissed, as having -nothing but this foundation. Now, without undertaking to say that -there is no remedy in the case supposed, I wish it understood that our -complaint is for damages traced directly to England. If the amount is -unprecedented, so also is the wrong. The scale of damages is naturally -in proportion to the scale of operations. Who among us doubts that -these damages were received? Call them what you please, to this extent -the nation lost. The records show how our commerce suffered, and -witnesses without number testify how the blockade was broken and the -war prolonged. Ask any of our great generals,--ask Sherman, Sheridan, -Thomas, Meade, Burnside,--ask Grant. In view of this transcendent -wrong, it is a disparagement of International Law to say that there is -no remedy. An eminent English judge once pronounced from the bench that -“the law is astute to find a remedy”; but no astuteness is required -in this case,--nothing but simple justice, which is always the object -of a true diplomacy. How did the nation suffer? To what extent? These -are the practical questions. No technicality can be set up on either -side. _Damages_ are _damages_, no matter by what artificial term -they may be characterized. Opposing them as _consequential_ shows -the disposition to escape by technicality, even while confessing an -equitable liability,--since England is bound for _all the consequences_ -of her conduct, bound under International Law, which is a Law of Equity -always, and bound, no matter how the damages occurred, _always provided -they proceeded from her_. Because the damages are national, because all -suffered instead of one, this is no reason for immunity on her part. - -Then it is said, “Why not consider our good friends in England, and -especially those noble working-men who stood by us so bravely?” We -do consider them always, and give them gratitude for their generous -alliance. They belong to what our own poet has called “the nobility -of labor.” But they are not England. We trace no damages to them, nor -to any class, high or low, but to England, corporate England, through -whose Government we suffered. - -Then, again, it is said, “Why not exhibit an account against France?” -For the good reason, that, while France erred with England in -recognition of Rebel belligerence, no pirate ships or blockade-runners -were built under shelter of this recognition to prey upon our -commerce. The two cases are wide asunder, and they are distinguished -by two different phrases of the Common Law. The recognition of Rebel -belligerence in France was wrong without injury; but that same -recognition in England was wrong with injury, and it is of this -unquestionable injury that we complain. - -Fellow-citizens, it cannot be doubted that this great question, so long -as it continues pending, will be a cloud always upon the relations of -two friendly powers, when there should be sunshine. Good men on both -sides should desire its settlement, and in such way as most to promote -good-will, and make the best precedent for civilization. But there can -be no good-will without justice, nor can any “snap judgment” establish -any rule for the future. Nothing will do now but a full inquiry, -without limitation or technicality, and a candid acceptance of the -result. There must be equity, which is justice without technicality. - - * * * * * - -Sometimes there are whispers of territorial compensation, and Canada -is named as the consideration. But he knows England little, and little -also of that great English liberty from Magna Charta to the Somerset -case, who supposes that this nation could undertake any such transfer. -And he knows our country little, and little also of that great liberty -which is ours, who supposes that we could receive such a transfer. On -each side there is impossibility. Territory may be conveyed, but not -a people. I allude to this suggestion only because, appearing in the -public press, it has been answered from England. - -But the United States can never be indifferent to Canada, nor to the -other British provinces, near neighbors and kindred. It is well known -historically, that, even before the Declaration of Independence, our -fathers hoped that Canada would take part with them. Washington was -strong in this hope; so was Franklin. The Continental Congress, by -solemn resolution, invited Canada, and then appointed a Commission, -with Benjamin Franklin at its head, “to form an Union between the -United Colonies and the people of Canada.” In the careful instructions -of the Congress, signed in their behalf by John Hancock, President, -the Commissioners are, among other things, enjoined “in the strongest -terms to assure the people of Canada that it is our earnest desire to -adopt them into our Union as a sister Colony, and to secure the same -general system of mild and equal laws for them and for ourselves, -with only such local differences as may be agreeable to each Colony -respectively”; and further, that in the judgment of the Congress “their -interest and ours are inseparably united.”[112] - -Long ago the Continental Congress passed away, living only in its -deeds. Long ago the great Commissioner rested from his labors, to -become a star in our firmament. But the invitation survives, not only -in the archives of our history, but in all American hearts, constant -and continuing as when first issued, believing, as we do, that such -a union, in the fulness of time, with the good-will of the mother -country and the accord of both parties, must be the harbinger of -infinite good. Nor do I doubt that this will be accomplished. Such a -union was clearly foreseen by the late Richard Cobden, who, in a letter -to myself, bearing date, London, 7th November, 1849, wrote:-- - - “I agree with you that Nature has decided that _Canada and - the United States must become one_ for all purposes of - intercommunication. Whether they also shall be united in the - same Federal Government must depend upon the two parties to the - union. I can assure you that there will be no repetition of - the policy of 1776 on our part, to prevent our North American - colonies from pursuing their interests in their own way. If the - people of Canada are tolerably unanimous in wishing to sever - the very slight thread which now binds them to this country, - I see no reason why, if good faith and ordinary temper be - observed, it should not be done amicably.” - -Nearly twenty years have passed since these prophetic words, and enough -has already taken place to give assurance of the rest. “Reciprocity,” -once established by treaty, and now so often desired on both sides, -will be transfigured in Union, while our Plural Unit is strengthened -and extended. - -The end is certain; nor shall we wait long for its mighty fulfilment. -Its beginning is the establishment of peace at home, through which the -national unity shall become manifest. This is the first step. The rest -will follow. In the procession of events it is now at hand, and he is -blind who does not discern it. From the Frozen Sea to the tepid waters -of the Mexican Gulf, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the whole vast -continent, smiling with outstretched prairies, where the coal-fields -below vie with the infinite corn-fields above,--teeming with iron, -copper, silver, and gold,--filling fast with a free people, to whom -the telegraph and steam are constant servants,--breathing already with -schools, colleges, and libraries,--interlaced by rivers which are great -highways,--studded with inland seas where fleets are sailing, and -“poured round all old Ocean’s” constant tides, with tributary commerce -and still expanding domain,--such will be the Great Republic, One and -Indivisible, with a common Constitution, a common Liberty, and a common -Glory. - - - - -THE QUESTION OF CASTE. - -LECTURE DELIVERED IN THE MUSIC HALL, BOSTON, OCTOBER 21, 1869. - - - Man is a name of honor for a king; - Additions take away from each chief thing. - - CHAPMAN, _Bussy d’Ambois_, Act IV. Sc. 1. - - * * * * * - - All men have the same rational nature and the same powers of - conscience, and all are equally made for indefinite improvement - of these divine faculties, and for the happiness to be found - in their virtuous use. Who that comprehends these gifts - does not see that the diversities of the race vanish before - them?--CHANNING, _Slavery_: Works, Vol. II. p. 21. - - * * * * * - - The Christian philosopher sees in every man a partaker of - his own nature and a brother of his own species.--CHALMERS, - _Utility of Missions_: Works, Vol. XI. p. 244. - - -LECTURE. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--In asking you to consider the Question of Caste, I -open a great subject of immediate practical interest. Happily, Slavery -no longer exists to disturb the peace of our Republic; but it is not -yet dead in other lands, while among us the impious pretension of this -great wrong still survives against the African because he is black and -against the Chinese because he is yellow. Here is nothing less than the -claim of hereditary power from color; and it assumes that human beings -cast in the same mould with ourselves, and in all respects _men_, with -the same title of manhood that we have, may be shut out from Equal -Rights on account of the skin. Such is the pretension, plainly stated. - -On other occasions it has been my duty to show how inconsistent is this -pretension with our character as a Republic, and with the promises of -our fathers,--all of which I consider it never out of order to say and -to urge. But my present purpose is rather to show how inconsistent it -is with that sublime truth, being part of God’s law for the government -of the world, which teaches the Unity of the Human Family, and its -final harmony on earth. In this law, which is both commandment and -promise, I find duties and hopes,--perpetual duties never to be -postponed, and perpetual hopes never to be abandoned, so long as Man is -Man. - -Believing in this law, and profoundly convinced that by the blessing -of God it will all be fulfilled on earth, it is easy to see how -unreasonable is a claim of power founded on any unchangeable physical -incident derived from birth. Because man is black, because man is -yellow, he is none the less Man; because man is white, he is none the -more Man. By this great title he is universal heir to all that Man can -claim. Because he is Man, and not on account of color, he enters into -possession of the promised dominion over the animal kingdom,--“over the -fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living -thing that moveth upon the earth.” But this equal copartnership without -distinction of color symbolizes equal copartnership in all the Rights -of Man. - - * * * * * - -As I enter upon this important theme, I confess an unwelcome -impediment, partly from the prevailing prejudice of color, which has -become with many what is sometimes called a second nature, and partly -from the little faith among men in the future development of the race. -The cry, “A white man’s government,” which is such an insult to human -nature, has influence in the work of degradation. Accustomed to this -effrontery, people do not see its ineffable absurdity, which is made -conspicuous, if they simply consider the figure our fathers would -have cut, had they declared the equal rights of _white_ men, and not -the equal rights of _men_. The great Declaration was axiomatic and -self-evident because universal; confined to a class, it would have -been neither. Hearkening to this disgusting cry, people close the soul -to all the quickening voices, whether of prophet, poet, or philosopher, -by which we are encouraged to persevere; nor do they heed the best -lessons of science. - -I begin by declaring an unalterable faith in the Future, which nothing -can diminish or impair. Other things I may renounce, but this I cannot. -Throughout a life of controversy and opposition, frequently in a small -minority, sometimes almost alone, I have never for a moment doubted -the final fulfilment of the great promises for Humanity without which -this world would be a continuing chaos. To me it was clear from the -beginning, even in the early darkness, and then in the bloody mists -of war, that Slavery must yield to well-directed efforts against it; -and now it is equally clear that every kindred pretension must yield -likewise, until all are in the full fruition of those equal rights -which are the crown of life on earth. Nor can this great triumph be -restricted to our Republic. Wherever men are gathered into nations, -wherever Civilization extends her beneficent sway, there will it be -manifest. Against this lofty truth the assaults of the adversary are no -better than the arrows of barbarians vainly shot at the sun. Still it -moves, and it will move until all rejoice in its beams. The “all-hail -Hereafter,” in which the poet pictures personal success, is a feeble -expression for that transcendent Future where man shall be conqueror, -not only over nations, but over himself, subduing pride of birth, -prejudice of class, pretension of Caste. - - * * * * * - -The assurances of the Future are strengthened, when I look at -Government and see how its character constantly improves as it comes -within the sphere of knowledge. Men must know before they can act -wisely; and this simple rule is applicable alike to individuals and -communities. “Go, my son,” said the Swedish Chancellor, “and see -with what little wisdom the world is governed.”[113] Down to his day -government was little more than an expedient, a device, a trick, for -the aggrandizement of a class, of a few, or, it may be, of one. Calling -itself Commonwealth, it was so in name only. There were classes always, -and egotism was the prevailing law. Macchiavelli, the much-quoted -herald of modern politics, insisted that all governments, whether -monarchical or republican, owed their origin or reformation to a -single lawgiver, like Lycurgus or Solon.[114] If this was true in his -day, it is not in ours. In the presence of an enlightened people, a -single lawgiver, or an aristocracy of lawgivers, is impossible, while -government becomes the rule of all for the good of all,--not the One -Man Power, so constant in history,--not the Triumvirate, sometimes -occurring,--not an Oligarchy, which is the rule of a few,--not an -Aristocracy, which is the rule of a class,--not any combination, -howsoever accepted, sanctioning exclusions,--but the whole body of -the people, without exclusion of any kind, or, in the great words -of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, “government of the people, by the -people, and for the people.”[115] - -Thus far government has been at best an Art, like alchemy or astrology, -where ministers exercised a subtle power, or speculators tried -imaginative experiments, seeking some philosopher’s-stone at the -expense of the people. Though in many respects still an Art only, it is -fast becoming a Science founded on principles and laws from which there -can be no just departure. As a science, it is determined by knowledge, -like any other science, aided by that universal handmaid, the -philosophy of induction. From a succession of particulars the general -rule is deduced; and this is as true of government as of chemistry or -astronomy. Nor do I see reason to doubt, that, in the evolution of -events, the time is at hand when government will be subordinated to -unquestionable truth, making diversity of opinion as impossible in -this lofty science as it is now impossible in other sciences already -mastered by man. Science accomplishes part only of its beneficent work, -when it brings physical nature within its domain. That other nature -found in Man must be brought within the same domain. And is it true -that man can look into the unfathomable Universe, there to measure suns -and stars, that he can penetrate the uncounted ages of the earth’s -existence, reading everywhere the inscriptions upon its rocks, but that -he cannot look into himself, or penetrate his own nature, to measure -human capacities and read the inscriptions upon the human soul? I do -not believe it. What is already accomplished in such large measure -for the world of matter will yet be accomplished for that other world -of Humanity; and then it will appear, by a law as precise as any in -chemistry or astronomy, that just government stands only on the consent -of the governed, that all men must be equal before the law of man as -they are equal before the law of God, and that any discrimination -founded on the accident of birth is inconsistent with that true science -of government which is simply the science of justice on earth. - -One of our teachers, who has shed much light on the science of -government,--I refer to Professor Lieber, of New York,--shows that the -State is what he calls “a _jural_ society,” precisely as the Church is -a religious society, and an insurance company a financial society.[116] -The term is felicitous as it is suggestive. Above the State rises the -image of Justice, lofty, blindfold, with balance in hand. There it -stands in colossal form with constant lesson of Equal Rights for All, -while under its inspiration government proceeds according to laws which -cannot be disobeyed with impunity, and Providence is behind to sustain -the righteous hand. In proportion as men are wise, they recognize these -laws and confess the exalted science. - -“Know thyself” is the Heaven-descended injunction which ancient piety -inscribed in letters of gold in the temple at Delphi.[117] The famous -oracle is mute, but the divine injunction survives; nor is it alone. -Saint Augustine impresses it in his own eloquent way, when he says, -“Men go to admire the heights of mountains, and the great waves of -the sea, and the widest flow of rivers, and the compass of the ocean, -and the circuits of the stars, _and leave themselves behind_.”[118] -Following the early mandate, thus seconded by the most persuasive of -the Christian Fathers, man will consider his place in the universe and -his relations to his brother man. Looking into his soul, he will there -find the great irreversible Law of Right, universal for the nation as -for himself, commanding to do unto others as we would have them do -unto us; and under the safeguard of this universal law I now place the -rights of all mankind. It is little that I can do; but, taking counsel -of my desires, I am not without hope of contributing something to that -just judgment which shall blast the effrontery of Caste as doubly -offensive, not only to the idea of a Republic, but to Human Nature -itself. - - * * * * * - -Already you are prepared to condemn Caste, when you understand its real -character. To this end, let me carry you to that ancient India, with -its population of more than a hundred and eighty millions, where this -artificial discrimination, born of impossible fable, was for ages the -dominating institution of society,--being, in fact, what Slavery was in -our Rebellion, the corner-stone of the whole structure. - -The Portuguese were the first of European nations to form -establishments in India, and therefore through them was the civilized -world first acquainted with its peculiar institutions. But I know no -monument of their presence there, and no contribution from them to our -knowledge of the country, so enduring as the word Caste, or, in the -Portuguese language, _Casta_, by which they designated those rigid -orders or ranks into which the people of India were divided. The term -originally applied by them has been adopted in the other languages of -Europe, where it signifies primarily the orders or ranks of India, -but by natural extension any separate and fixed order of society. In -the latter sense Caste is now constantly employed. The word is too -modern, however, for our classical English literature, or for that most -authentic record of our language, the Dictionary of Dr. Johnson, when -it first saw the light in 1755. - -Though the word was unknown in earlier times, the hereditary -discrimination it describes entered into the political system of -modern Europe, where people were distributed into classes, and the -son succeeded to the condition of his father, whether of privilege or -disability,--the son of a noble being a noble with great privileges, -the son of a mechanic being a mechanic with great disabilities. And -this inherited condition was applicable even to the special labor of -the father; nor was there any business beyond its tyrannical control. -According to Macaulay, “the tinkers formed an hereditary caste.”[119] -The father of John Bunyan was a tinker, and the son inherited the -position. The French Revolution did much to shake this irrational -system; yet in many parts of Europe, down to this day, the son -emancipates himself with difficulty from the class in which he is -born. But just in proportion to the triumph of Equality does Caste -disappear. - -This institution is essentially barbarous, and therefore appears -in barbarous ages, or in countries not yet relieved from the early -incubus. It flourished side by side with the sculptured bulls and -cuneïform characters of Assyria, side by side with the pyramids and -hieroglyphics of Egypt. It showed itself under the ambitious sway of -Persia, and even in the much-praised Cecropian era of Attica. In all -these countries Caste was organized, differing somewhat in divisions, -but hereditary in character. And the same phenomenon arrested the -attention of the conquering Spaniards in Peru. The system had two -distinct elements: first, separation, with rank and privilege, or their -opposite, with degradation and disability; secondly, descent from -father to son, so that it was perpetual separation from generation to -generation.[120] - - * * * * * - -In Hindustan, this dreadful system, which, under the name of Order, -is the organization of disorder, has prolonged itself to our day, so -as to be a living admonition to mankind. That we may shun the evil it -entails, in whatever shape, I now endeavor to expose its true character. - -The regular castes of India are four in number, called in Sanscrit -_varnas_, or _colors_, although it does not appear that by nature they -were of different colors. Their origin will be found in the sacred -law-book of the Hindoos, the “Ordinances of Menu,” where it is recorded -that the Creator caused the Brahmin, the Cshatriya, the Vaisya, -and the Sudra, so named from _Scripture_, _Protection_, _Wealth_, -and _Labor_, to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thigh, and his -foot, appointing separate duties for each class. To the Brahmin, -proceeding from the mouth, was allotted the duty of reading the Veda -and of teaching it; to the Cshatriya, proceeding from the arm, the -duty of soldier; to the Vaisya, proceeding from the thigh, the duty of -cultivating the land and keeping herds of cattle; and to the Sudra, -proceeding from the foot, was appointed the chief duty of serving the -other classes without depreciating their worth. Such was the original -assignment of parts; but, under the operation of natural laws, those -already elevated increased their importance, while those already -degraded sank lower. Ascent from an inferior class was absolutely -impossible: as well might a vegetable become a man. The distinction was -perpetuated by the injunction that each should marry only in his own -class, with sanguinary penalties upon any attempted amalgamation. - -The Brahmin was child of rank and privilege; the Sudra, child of -degradation and disability. Omitting the two intermediate classes, -soldiers and husbandmen, look for one moment at the two extremes, as -described by the sacred volume. - -The Brahmin is constantly hailed as first-born, and, by right, chief -of the whole creation. This eminence is declared in various terms. -Thus it is said, “When a Brahmin springs to light, he is born above -the world”; and then again, “Whatever exists in the universe is all -in effect the wealth of the Brahmin.” As he engrosses the favor of -the Deity, so is he entitled to the veneration of mortals; and thus, -“whether learned or ignorant, he is a powerful divinity, even as fire -is a powerful divinity, whether consecrated or common.” Immunities -of all kinds cluster about him. Not for the most insufferable crime -can he be touched in person or property; nor can he be called to pay -taxes, while all other classes must bestow their wealth upon him. Such -is the Brahmin, with these privileges crystallized in his blood from -generation to generation. - -On the other hand is the Sudra, who is the contrast in all particulars. -As much as the Brahmin is object of constant veneration, so is the -Sudra object of constant contempt. As one is exalted above Humanity, -so is the other degraded below it. The life of the Sudra is servile, -but according to the sacred volume he was created by the Self-Existent -especially to serve the Brahmin. Everywhere his degradation is -manifest. He holds no property which a Brahmin may not seize. The -crime he commits is visited with the most condign punishment, beyond -that allotted to other classes subject to punishment. The least -disrespect to a Brahmin is terribly avenged. For presuming to sit -on a Brahmin’s carpet, the penalty is branding and banishment, or -maiming; for contumelious words to a Brahmin, it is an iron style -ten fingers long thrust red-hot into the mouth; and for offering -instruction to a Brahmin, it is nothing less than hot oil poured into -mouth and ears. Such is the Sudra; and this fearful degradation, with -all its disabilities, is crystallized in his blood from generation to -generation. - -Below these is another more degraded even than the Sudra, being the -outcast, with no place in either of the four regular castes, and known -commonly as the Pariah. Here is another term imported into familiar -usage to signify generally those on whom society has set its ban. -No person of the regular castes holds communication with the Pariah. -His presence is contaminating. Milk, and even water, is defiled by -his passing shadow, and cannot be used until purified. The Brahmin -sometimes puts him to death at sight. In well-known language of our -country, once applied to another people, he has no rights which a -Brahmin is bound to respect.[121] - -Such a system, so shocking to the natural sense, has been denounced -by all who have considered it, whether on the spot or at a -distance,--unless I except the excellent historian Robertson, who seems -to find apologies for it, as men among us find apologies for the caste -which sends its lengthening shadow across our Republic. I might take -your time until late in the evening unfolding its obvious evil, as -exposed by those who have witnessed its operation. This testimony is -collected in a work entitled “Caste opposed to Christianity,” by Rev. -Joseph Roberts, and published in London in 1847. I give brief specimens -only. A Hindoo converted to Christianity exposes its demoralizing -influence, when he says, “Caste is the stronghold of pride, which makes -a man think of himself more highly than he ought to think”; and so also -another converted Hindoo, when he says, “Caste makes a man think that -he is holier than another, and that he has some inherent virtue which -another has not”; and still another converted Hindoo, when he says, -“Caste is part and parcel of idolatry and all heathen abomination.” -But no testimony surpasses that of the eminent Reginald Heber, the -Bishop of Calcutta, when he declares that it is “a system which tends, -more than anything else the Devil has yet invented, to destroy the -feelings of general benevolence, and to make nine tenths of mankind -the hopeless slaves of the remainder.”[122] Under these protests, and -the growing influence of Christianity, the system is so far mitigated, -that, according to an able writer whose soul is enlisted against it, -“the distinctions are felt on certain limited occasions only.”[123] -These are the words of James Mill, interesting always as the author -of the best work on India, and the father of John Stuart Mill. It is -now admitted, that, under constraint of necessity, the member of a -superior caste may descend to the pursuits of an inferior caste. The -lofty Brahmin engages in traffic, yet he cannot touch “leather”; for -contact with this article of commerce is polluting. But I am obliged to -add that no modification leaving “distinctions” transmissible with the -blood can be adequate. So long as these continue, the natural harmonies -of society are disturbed and man is degraded. The system in its mildest -form can have nothing but evil; for it is a constant violation of -primal truth, and a constant obstruction to that progress which is the -appointed destiny of man. - - * * * * * - -Change now the scene,--from ancient India, and the shadow of unknown -centuries, to our Republic, born on yesterday. How unlike in venerable -antiquity! How like in the pretension of Caste! Here the caste -claiming hereditary rank and privilege is white, the caste doomed -to hereditary degradation and disability is black or yellow; and it -is gravely asserted that this difference of color marks difference -of race, which in itself justifies the discrimination. To save this -enormity of claim from indignant reprobation, it is insisted that the -varieties of men do not proceed from a common stock,--that they are -different in origin,--that this difference is perpetuated in their -respective capacities; and the apology concludes with the practical -assumption, that the white man is a superior caste not unlike the -Brahmin, while the black man is an inferior caste not unlike the -Sudra, sometimes even the Pariah; nor is the yellow man exempted from -this same insulting proscription. When I consider how for a long time -the African was shut out from testifying in court, even when seeking -redress for the grossest outrage, and how at this time in some places -the Chinese is also shut out from testifying in court, each seems to -have been little better than the Pariah. In stating this assumption of -superiority, which I do not exaggerate, I open a question of surpassing -interest, whether in science, government, or religion. - -Here I must not forget that some, who admit the common origin of all -men, insist that the African is descended from Ham, son of Noah, -through Canaan, cursed by Noah to be servant of his brethren, and that -therefore he may be degraded even to slavery. But this apology is not -original with us. Nobles in Poland seized upon it to justify their -lordly pretensions, calling their serfs, though white, descendants of -Ham.[124] But whether employed by Pole or American, it is worthy only -of derision. I do not know that this apology is invoked for maltreating -the Chinese, although he is descended from Ham as much as the Pole. - - * * * * * - -Two passages of Scripture, one in the Old Testament and the other in -the New, both governing this question, attest the Unity of the Human -Family. The first is in that sublime chapter of Genesis, where, amidst -the wonders of Creation, it is said: “So God created man in His own -image; in the image of God created He him; male and female created -He them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful -and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”[125] The other -passage is from that great sermon of Saint Paul, when, standing in the -midst of Mars Hill, he proclaimed to the men of Athens, and through -them to all mankind, that God “hath made of _one blood_ all nations -of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.”[126] If, as is -sometimes argued, there be ambiguity in the account of the Creation, or -if in any way its authority has been impaired by scientific criticism, -there is nothing of the kind to detract from the sermon of Saint Paul, -which must continue forevermore venerable and beautiful. - - * * * * * - -Appealing from these texts, the apologists hurry to Science; and there -I follow. But I must compress into paragraphs what might fill volumes. - -Ethnology, to which we repair, is a science of recent origin, -exhibiting the different races or varieties of Man in their relations -with each other, as that other science, Anthropology, exhibits Man -in his relation to the animal world. Nature and History are our -authorities, but all science and all knowledge are tributary. Perhaps -no other theme is grander; for it is the very beginning of human -history, in which all nations and men have a common interest. Its -vastness is increased, when we consider that it embraces properly not -only the origin, distribution, and capacity of Man, but his destiny on -earth,--stretching into the infinite past, stretching also into the -infinite future, and thus spanning Humanity. - -The subject is entirely modern. Hippocrates, one of our ancient -masters, has left a treatise on “Air, Water, and Place,” where -climatic influences are recognized; but nobody in Antiquity studied -the varieties of our race, or regarded its origin except mythically. -The discovery of America, and the later circumnavigation of the globe, -followed by the development of the sciences generally, prepared the way -for this new science. - - * * * * * - -It is obvious to the most superficial observer that there are divisions -or varieties in the Human Family, commonly called Races; but the most -careful explorations of Science leave the number uncertain. These -differences are in Color and in Skull,--also in Language. Of these -the most obvious is Color; but here, again, the varieties multiply -in proportion as we consider transitional or intermediate hues. Two -great teachers in the last century--Linnæus, of whom it was said, “God -created, Linnæus classified,” _Deus creavit, Linnæus disposuit_,[127] -and Kant, a sincere and penetrating seeker of truth--were content -with four,--white, copper, tawny or olive, and black,--corresponding -geographically to European, American, Asiatic, and African. Buffon, -in his eloquent portraiture, recognizes five, with geographical -designations. He was followed by Blumenbach, who also recognizes -five, with the names which have become so famous since,--Caucasian, -Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Here first appears the -popular, but deceptive term, Caucasian; for nobody supposes now -that the white cradle was on Caucasus, which is best known to -English-speaking people by the verse of Shakespeare, making it anything -but Eden,-- - - “Oh, who can hold a fire in his hand - By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?”[128] - -Blumenbach was an able and honest inquirer; and if his nomenclature is -defective, it is only another illustration of the adage, that nothing -is at the same time invented and perfected. - -If I mention other attempts, it is only to show how Science hesitates -before this great problem. Cuvier reduces the Family to three, -with branches or subdivisions, and lends his great authority to -the term Caucasian, which he adopts from Blumenbach. Lesson began -with three, according to color,--white, yellow, and black; but -afterwards recognized six,--white, bistre, orange, yellow, red, -black,--represented respectively by European, Hindoo, Malay, Mongolian, -American, and Negro, African and Asiatic. Desmoulins makes eleven. -Bory de Saint-Vincent adds to Desmoulins. Broc adds to Saint-Vincent. -The London “Ethnological Journal” makes no less than sixty-three, -of which twenty-eight varieties are intellectual and thirty-five -physical; and we are told[129] that thirty varieties of Caucasian alone -are recognized on the monuments of ancient Egypt, as they appear in -the magnificent works of Rosellini and Lepsius. Our own countryman, -Pickering,--whose experience was gained on the Exploring Expedition -of Captain Wilkes,--in his work on “The Races of Man and their -Geographical Distribution,” enumerates eleven varieties of Man, divided -into four groups, according to color,--white, brown, blackish-brown, -and black. In his opinion, “there is no middle ground between the -admission of eleven distinct species in the Human Family and the -reduction to one.”[130] - -The Dutch anatomist, Camper, distinguishes the Human Family by the -facial angle, ranging from eighty degrees, in the European, down to -seventy degrees, in the Negro.[131] This attempt was continued by -Virey, who divides Man into two species: the first with a facial angle -of 85° to 90°, including Caucasian, Mongolian, and copper-colored -American; and the second with a facial angle of 75° to 82°, including -dark-brown Malay, blackish Hottentot and Papuan, and the Negro. -Prichard, whose voluminous works constitute an ethnological mine, -finds, chiefly from the skull, seven varieties, which he calls (1.) -Iranian, from Iran, the primeval seat in Persia of the Aryan race, -embracing the Caucasian of Blumenbach with some Asiatic and African -nations; (2.) Turanian or Mongolian; (3.) American, including -Esquimaux; (4.) Hottentot and Bushman; (5.) Negro; (6.) Papuan, or -woolly-haired Polynesian; (7.) Australian. The same industrious -observer finds three principal varieties in the conformation of the -head, corresponding respectively to Savage, Nomadic, and Civilized Man. -In the savage African and Australian the jaw is prolonged forward, -constituting what he calls, by an expressive term, _prognathous_. In -the nomadic Mongolian the skull is pyramidal and the face broad. In -Civilized Man the skull is oval or elliptical. But the naturalist -records that there are forms of transition, as nations approach to -civilization or relapse into barbarism. - -Thus does the Human Skull refuse any definitive answer. There are -varieties of skull, as of color; but the question remains, to what -extent they attest original diversity. Equally vain is the attempt to -obtain a guide in the form of the human pelvis. But every such attempt -and its failure have their lesson. - -There remains one other criterion: I mean Language. And here the -testimony is such as to disturb all divisions founded on Color or -Skull; for it is ascertained that people differing in these respects -speak languages having a common origin. The ancient Sanscrit, sometimes -called the most elaborate of human dialects, has yielded its secret to -philological research, and now stands forth the mother tongue of the -European nations. It is difficult to measure the importance of this -revelation; for, while not decisive on the main question, it increases -our difficulty in accepting any postulate of original diversity.[132] - -And now the question arises, How are these varieties to be regarded in -the light of science? Are they aboriginal and from the beginning,--or -are they super-induced by secondary causes, of which the record is lost -in the extended night preceding our historic day? Here the authorities -are divided. On the one side, we are reminded that within the period -of recognized chronology no perceptible change has occurred in any of -these varieties,--that on the earliest monuments of Egypt the African -is pictured precisely as we see him now, even to that servitude from -which among us he is happily released,--and it is insisted that no -known influences of climate or place are sufficient to explain such -transformations from an aboriginal type, while plural types are in -conformity with the analogies of the animal and vegetable world. On the -other side, we are reminded, that, whatever may be the difficulties -from supposing a common centre of Creation, there are greater still -in supposing plural centres,--that it is easier to understand one -creation than many,[133]--that geographical science makes us acquainted -with intermediate gradations of color and conformation in which the -great contrasts disappear,--that, even within the last half-century -and in Europe, people have tended to lose their national physiognomy -and run into a common type, thus attesting subjection to transforming -influences,--that, after accepting the races already described, there -are other varieties, national, family, and individual, not less -difficult of explanation,--and it is insisted, that, whatever these -varieties, be they few or many, there is among them all _an overruling -Unity_, by which they are constituted one and the same cosmopolitan -species, endowed with speech, reason, conscience, and the hope of -immortality, knitting all together in a common Humanity, and, amidst -all seeming differences, making all as near to each other as they are -far apart from every other created thing, while to every one is given -that great first instrument of civilization, the human hand, by which -the earth is tilled, cities built, history written, and the stars -measured;--and this unquestionable Unity is pronounced all-sufficient -evidence of a common origin. - -In considering this great question, do all inquirers sufficiently -recognize the element of Time? Obviously the sphere of operation is -enlarged in proportion to the time employed. Everything is possible -with time. Confining ourselves to recognized chronology, existing -varieties cannot be reconciled with that unity found in a common -origin. What are the six thousand years of Hebrew time, what are -the twenty-two thousand years of human annals sanctioned by the -learning and piety of Bunsen,[134] for the consummation of these -transformations? And this longest period, how brief for the completion -of those two marvellous languages, Sanscrit and Greek, which at the -earliest dawn of authentic history were already so perfect! Considering -the infinitudes of astronomy, and those other infinitudes of geology, -it is not unreasonable to claim an antiquity for Primeval Man compared -with which all the years of authentic history are a span. With such -incalculable opportunity, amidst unknown changes of Nature where heat -and cold strove for mastery, no transformation consistent with the -preservation of the characteristic species was impossible. Egypt is -not alone in its Sphinx, perplexing mortals with perpetual enigma. -Science is our Sphinx, and its enigma is Man and his varieties on -earth: to which I answer, “Time.” - -Nor is it unreasonable to suppose that at the Creation conditions were -stamped upon man, making transformations natural. Because unnatural -according to observation during the brief period of historic time, it -does not follow that they are not strictly according to law. The famous -Calculating Engine of Charles Babbage, the distinguished mathematician, -as described in his remarkable “Bridgewater Treatise,” where Science -vindicates anew the ways of Providence to man, supplies an illustration -which is not without instruction. This machine, with a power almost -miraculous, was so adjusted as to produce a series of natural numbers -in regular order from unity to a number expressed by one hundred -millions and one,--100,000,001,--when another series was commenced, -regulated by a different law, which continued until at a certain number -the series was again changed; and all these changes in the immense -progression proceeded from a propulsion at the beginning.[135] Any -simple observer, finding that the series stretched onwards through -successive millions, would have no hesitation in concluding from the -vast induction that it must proceed always according to the same law; -and yet it was not so. But the Calculating Engine is only a contrivance -of human skill. And cannot the Creator do as much? That is a very -inadequate conception of the Almighty Power creating the universe and -placing man in it, which supposes, according to the language of Sir -John Herschel, the eminent astronomer, that “His combinations are -exhausted upon any one of the theatres of their former exercise.”[136] -Thus far we know not the law of the series which governed Primeval Man. -Who can say that after lapse of time changes did not occur, always in -obedience to conditions stamped upon him at the Creation? - -A simpler illustration carries us to the same result. A cog-wheel, -so common in machinery, operates ordinarily by the cogs on its rim; -but the wheel may be so constructed, that, after a certain series of -rotations, another set of cogs is presented, inducing a different -motion. All can see how, in conformity with preëxisting law, a change -may occur in the operations of the machine. But it was not less easy -for the Creator to fix His law at the beginning, according to which the -evolutions of this world proceed. And thus are we brought back to the -conclusion, so often announced, that unity of origin must not be set -aside simply because existing varieties of Man cannot be sufficiently -explained by known laws, operating during that brief period which we -call History. - -In considering this great question, there are authorities which cannot -be disregarded. Count them or weigh them, it is the same. I adduce a -few only, beginning with Latham, the ethnologist, who insists,-- - - “(1.) That, as a matter of fact, the languages of the earth’s - surface are referable to one common origin; (2.) that, as a - matter of logic, this common origin of language is _primâ - facie_ evidence of a common origin for those who speak it.”[137] - -The great French geographer and circumnavigator, Dumont d’Urville, -testifies thus:-- - - “I see on the whole surface of the globe only three types or - divisions of mankind which seem to me to merit the title of - distinct races: the white, more or less colored with red; the - yellow, inclining to different tints of copper or bronze; and - the black.--I share in the opinion which refers these three - races to one and the same primitive stock, and which places - their common cradle on the central plateau of Asia.”[138] - -Buffon, the brilliant naturalist, whose work is one of the French -classics, thus records his judgment:-- - - “All concurs to prove that the human race is not composed of - species essentially different among themselves,--that, on - the contrary, there was originally but a single species of - men, who, in multiplying and spreading over all the surface - of the globe, have undergone different changes through the - influence of climate, difference of food, difference in the - manner of living, epidemic maladies, and the infinitely varied - intermixture of individuals more or less alike.”[139] - -Another authority, avoiding the question of origin, has given a summary -full of instruction and beauty. I refer to Alexander von Humboldt, -the life-long companion of every science, to whom all science was -revealed,--who studied Man in both hemispheres, and ever afterwards, -throughout his long and glorious career, continued the pursuit. -Adopting the words of the great German anatomist, Johannes Müller, -that “the different races of mankind are forms of one sole species, by -the union of two individuals of which descendants are propagated,”[140] -and criticizing the popular classifications of Blumenbach and Prichard -as wanting “typical sharpness” or “well-established principle,” the -author of “Cosmos” insists that “the distribution of mankind is only -a distribution into _varieties_, which are commonly designated by -the somewhat indefinite term _races_,” and then announces the grand -conclusion:-- - - “Whilst we maintain the unity of the human species, we at the - same time repel the depressing assumption of superior and - inferior races of men. There are nations more susceptible of - cultivation, more highly civilized, more ennobled by mental - cultivation, than others, _but none in themselves nobler than - others_.”[141] - -Such is the testimony of Science by one of its greatest masters. -Rarely have better words been uttered. Nor should it be said longer -that Science is silent. Humboldt has spoken. And what he said is much -in little,--most simple, but most comprehensive; for, while asserting -the Unity of the Human Family, he repels that disheartening pretension -of Caste which I insist shall find no place in our political system. -Through him Science is enlisted for the Equal Rights of All. - -Whatever the judgment on the unity of origin, where, from the nature -of the case, there can be no final human testimony, it is a source of -infinite consolation that we can anchor to that other unity found in -a common organization, a common nature, and a common destiny, being -at once physical, moral, and prophetic. This is the true Unity of the -Human Family. In all essentials constituting Humanity, in all that -makes Man, all varieties of the human species are one and the same. -There is no real difference between them. The variance, whether of -complexion, configuration, or language, is external and superficial -only, like the dress we wear. Here all knowledge and every science -concur. Anatomy, physiology, psychology, history, the equal promises to -all men, testify. Look at Man on the dissecting table, and he is always -the same, no matter in what color he is clad,--same limbs, same bones, -same proportions, same structure, same upright stature. Look at Man in -the world, and you will find him in nature always the same,--modified -only by the civilization about him. There is no human being, black or -yellow, who may not apply to himself the language of Shakespeare’s -Jew:-- - - “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, - senses, affections, passions?--fed with the same food, hurt - with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed - by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and - summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If - you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not - die?”[142] - -Look at Man in his destiny here or hereafter, so far as it can be -penetrated by mortal vision, and who will venture to claim for any -variety or class exclusive prerogatives on earth or in heaven? Where is -this preposterous pretender? God has given to all the same longevity, -marking a common mortality,--the same cosmopolitan character, marking -citizenship everywhere,--and the same capacity for improvement, -marking that tendency sometimes called the perfectibility of the race; -and He has given to all alike the same promise of immortal life. By -these tokens is Man known everywhere to be Man, and by these tokens is -he everywhere entitled to the Rights of Man. - - * * * * * - -There is a lesson in the Dog,--is there not? Who does not admire that -fidelity which makes this animal ally and friend of man, following -him over the whole earth, in every climate, under all influences of -sky, cosmopolitan as himself, in prosperity and adversity always -true,--and then, by beautiful fable, transported to another world, -where the association of life is prolonged to man, while “his faithful -dog shall bear him company”?[143] The dog of Ulysses dying for joy at -his master’s return, when all Ithaca had forgotten the long-absent -lord, is not the only instance. But who has heard that this wonderful -instinct makes any discrimination of manhood? It is to Man that the dog -is faithful; nor does it matter of what condition, whether the child -of wealth or the rough shepherd tending his flocks; nor does it matter -of what complexion, whether Caucasian white, or Ethiopian black, or -Mongolian yellow. It is enough that the master is Man; and thus, even -through the instincts of a brute, does Nature testify to that Unity of -the Human Family by virtue of which all are alike in rights. - - * * * * * - -Experts in Ethnology are earnest to recognize this other Unity on -which I now insist. Our own Agassiz, who is the most illustrious of -the masters not accepting the unity of origin, is careful to add, -“that the moral question of Brotherhood among men” is not affected by -this dissent; and he announces “that Unity is not only compatible with -diversity of origin, but that it is the universal law of Nature.”[144] -This other Unity found an eloquent representative in William von -Humboldt, not less eminent as philologist than his brother as -naturalist, who proclaims our Common Humanity to be the dominant idea -of history, more and more extending its empire, “striving to remove the -barriers which prejudice and limited views of every kind have erected -amongst men, and to treat all mankind, without reference to religion, -nation, or color, as one Fraternity, one great community”; and he -concludes by announcing “the recognition of the bond of Humanity” as -“one of the noblest leading principles in the history of mankind.”[145] -And these grand words are adopted by Alexander von Humboldt,[146] so -that the philologist and the naturalist unite in this cause. Thus in -every direction do we find new testimony against the pretension of -Caste. - -We are told that “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” If this be -ever true, it cannot be better illustrated than by that sciolism which -from the varieties of the human species would overthrow that sublime -Unity which is the first law of Creation. As well overthrow Creation -itself. There is no great intelligence which does not witness to this -law. Bacon, Newton, Leibnitz, Descartes all testify. Laplace, from -the heights of his knowledge, teaches that the curve described by a -simple particle of air or vapor is regulated by a law as certain as -the orbits of the planets; and is not Man the equal subject of certain -law? God rejoices in Unity. It is with Him a universal law, applicable -to all above and below, from the sun in the heavens to the soul of -man. Not one law for one group of stars, and one law for one group of -men,--but one law for all stars, and one law for all men. The saying of -Plato, that “God geometrizes,”[147] is only another expression for the -certainty and universality of this law. Aristotle follows Plato, when, -borrowing an illustration from the well-known requirements of the Greek -drama, he announces, that “in Nature nothing is unconnected or out of -place, as in a bad tragedy.”[148] But Caste is unconnected and out of -place. It is a perpetual discord, a prolonged jar,--contrary to the -first principle of the Universe. - -Only when we consider the universality of the Moral Law can we -fully appreciate the grandeur of this Unity. The great philosopher -of Germany, Kant, declared that there were two things filling him -always with admiration,--the starry heavens above, and the moral law -within.[149] Well might the two be joined together; for in that moral -law, with a home in every bosom, is a vastness and beauty commensurate -with the Universe. Every human being carries a universe in himself; but -here, as in that other universe, is the same prevailing law of Unity, -in harmony with which the starry heavens move in their spheres and men -are constrained to the duties of life. The stars must obey; so must -men. This obedience brings the whole Human Family into harmony with -each other, and also with the Creator. And here, again, we behold the -grandeur of the system, while new harmonies unfold. Religion takes up -the lesson, and the daily prayer, “Our Father who art in Heaven,” is -the daily witness to the Brotherhood of Man. God is Universal Father; -then are we all brothers. If not all children of Adam, we are all -children of God,--if not all from the same father on earth, we are all -from the same Father in Heaven; and this affecting relationship, which -knows no distinction of race or color, is more vital and ennobling than -any monopoly. Here, once more, is that universal law which forbids -Caste, speaking not only with the voice of Science, but of Religion -also,--praying, pleading, protesting, in the name of a Common Father, -against such wrong and insult to our brother man. In beautiful harmony -are those words of promise, “I will make a _man_ more precious than -fine gold, even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.”[150] Against -this lofty recognition of a common humanity, how mean the pretension of -Caste! - - * * * * * - -Assuming this common humanity, it is difficult to see how reason -can resist the conclusion, that in the lapse of time there must -be a common, universal civilization, which every nation and every -people will share. None too low, none too inaccessible for its -kindred embrace. Amidst the differences which now exist, and in the -contemplation of nations and peoples infinitely various in condition, -with the barbarian still claiming an extensive empire, with the savage -still claiming a whole continent and islands of the sea, I cannot -doubt the certain triumph of this great law. Believing in God, I -believe also in Man, through whose God-given energies all this will be -accomplished. Was he not told at the beginning, with the blessing of -God upon him, “_Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, -and subdue it_”? All of which I am sure will be done. Why this common -humanity, why this common brotherhood, if the inheritance is for -Brahmins only? Why the injunction to multiply and subdue the earth, -if there are to be Sudras and Pariahs always? Why this sublime law of -Unity, holding the universe in its grasp, if Man alone is left beyond -its reach? - -I have already founded the Unity of the Human Family partly on the -common destiny, and I now insist that this common destiny is attested -by the unquestionable Unity of the Human Family. They are parts of -one system, complements of each other. Why this unity, if there be no -common destiny? How this common destiny, if there be no unity? Assuming -the unity, then is the common destiny a necessary consequence, under -the law appointed for man. - -The skeptic is disturbed, because thus far in our brief chronology this -common civilization has not been developed; but to my mind it is plain -that much has been done, making the rest certain, through the same -incessant influences, under the great law of Human Progress. - -That European civilization which has already pushed its conquests in -every quarter of the globe is a lesson to mankind. Beginning with small -communities, it has proceeded stage by stage, extending to larger, -until it embraced nations and distant places,--and now stamps itself -ineffaceably upon increasing multitudes, making them, under God, -pioneers in the grand march of Humanity. - - * * * * * - -Europe had her dark ages when there was a night with “darkness -visible,” and there was an earlier period in the history of each nation -when Man was not less savage than now in the very heart of Africa; but -the European has emerged, and at last stands in a world of light. Take -any of the nations whose development belongs to modern times, and the -original degradation can be exhibited in authentic colors. There is -England, whose present civilization is in many respects so finished; -but when the conquering Cæsar, only fifty-five years before the birth -of Christ, landed on this unknown island, her people were painted -savages, with a cruel religion, and a conjugal system which was an -incestuous concubinage.[151] His authentic report places this condition -beyond question; and thus knowing her original degradation and her -present transformation after eighteen centuries, we have the terms -for a question in the Rule of Three. Given the original degradation -and present transformation of England, how long will it take for the -degradation of other lands to experience a similar transformation? -Add also present agencies of civilization, to which England was for -centuries a stranger. - -This instance is so important as to justify details. When Britain -was first revealed to the commercial enterprise of Tyre, her people, -according to Macaulay, “were little superior to the natives of -the Sandwich Islands.”[152] The historian must mean, when those -islands were first discovered by Captain Cook. Prichard, our best -authority, supposes them “nearly on a level with the New-Zealanders -or Tahitians of the present day, or perhaps not very superior to the -Australians,”[153] which is very low indeed. There was but little -change, if any, when they became known to the Romans. They are -pictured as large and tall, excelling the Gauls in stature, but less -robust, and, according to the geographer Strabo, with crooked legs -and unshapely figures.[154] Northward were the Caledonians,--also -Britons,--tattooing their bodies, dwelling in tents, savage in -manners, and with a moral degradation kindred to that of the Southern -Britons.[155] Across the Channel were the Irish, whose reported -condition was even more terrible.[156] According to Cæsar, most in -the interior of Britain never sowed corn, but lived on milk and -flesh, and were clad in skins; but he notes that all colored their -bodies with a cerulean dye, “making them more horrid to the sight -in battle”; and he then relates, that societies of ten or twelve, -brothers and brothers, parents and children, had wives in common.[157] -Their religious observances were such as became this savage life. -Here was the sanctuary of the Druids, whose absolute and peculiar -power was sustained by inhuman rites. On rude, but terrible altars, -in the gloom of the forest, human victims were sacrificed,--while -from the blood, as it coursed under the knife of the priest, there -was a divination of future events.[158] There was no industry, and -no production, except slaves too illiterate for the Roman market. -Imagination pictured strange things. One province was reported where -“the ground was covered with serpents, and the air was such that no man -could inhale it and live.”[159] In the polite circles of the Empire the -whole region excited a fearful horror, which has been aptly likened to -that of the early Ionians for “the Straits of Scylla and the city of -the Læstrygonian cannibals.”[160] The historian records with a sigh, -that “no magnificent remains of Latian porches and aqueducts are to be -found” here,--that “no writer of British birth is reckoned among the -masters of Latian poetry and eloquence.”[161] - -And this was England at the beginning. Long afterwards, when centuries -had intervened, the savage was improved into the barbarian. But from -one authentic instance learn the rest. The trade in slaves was active, -and English peddlers bought up children throughout the country, while -the people, greedy of the price, sold their own relations, sometimes -their own offspring.[162] In similar barbarism, all Jews and their -gains were the absolute property of the king; and this law, beginning -with Edward the Confessor, was enforced under successive monarchs, one -of them making a mortgage of all Jews to his brother as security for a -debt.[163] Nothing worse is now said of Africa. - -Progress was slow. When in 1435 the Italian Æneas Sylvius, -afterwards Pope Pius the Second, visited this island, it was to -his eyes most forlorn. Houses in cities were in large part built -without lime. Cottages had no other door than a bull-hide. Food was -coarse,--sometimes, in place of bread, the bark of trees; and white -bread was such a rarity among the people as to be a curiosity.[164] -When afterwards, under Henry the Eighth, civilization had begun, the -condition of the people was deplorable. There was no such thing among -them as comfort, while plague and sweating-sickness prevailed. The -learned and ingenious Erasmus, who was an honored guest in England at -this time, refers much to the filthiness of the houses. The floors he -describes as commonly of clay strewn with rushes, in the renewal of -which those at the bottom sometimes remained undisturbed for twenty -years, retaining filth unmentionable,--“_sputa, vomitus, mictum canum -et hominum, projectam cervisiam et piscium reliquias, aliasque sordes -non nominandas_.”[165] I quote the words of this eminent observer. The -traveller from the interior of Africa would hardly make a worse report. - -Such was England. But this story of savagery and barbarism is not -peculiar to that country. I might take other countries, one by one, and -exhibit the original degradation and the present elevation. I might -take France. I content myself with one instance only. An authentic -incident of French history, recorded by a contemporary witness, and -associated with famous names in the last century, shows the little -recognition at that time of a common humanity. And this story concerns -a lady, remarkable among her sex for various talent, and especially -as a mathematician, and the French translator of Newton,--Madame -Duchâtelet. This great lady, the friend of Voltaire, found no -difficulty in undressing before the men-servants of her household, not -considering it well-proved that such persons were of the Human Family. -This curious revelation of manners, which arrested the attention of -De Tocqueville in his remarkable studies on the origin of the French -Revolution,[166] if reported from Africa, would be recognized as -marking a most perverse barbarism. - - * * * * * - -These are illustrations only, which might be multiplied and extended -indefinitely, but they are sufficient. Here, within a limited sphere, -obvious to all, is the operation of that law which governs Universal -Man. Progress here prefigures progress everywhere; nay, progress here -is the first stage in the world’s progress. Nobody doubts the progress -of England; nobody doubts the progress of France; nobody doubts the -progress of the European Family, wherever distributed, in all quarters -of the globe. But must not the same law under which these have been -elevated exert its equal influence on the whole Family of Man? Is it -not with people as with individuals? Some arrive early, others tardily. -Who has not observed, that, independently of original endowment, the -progress of the individual depends upon the influences about him? -Surrounded by opportunity and trained with care, he grows into the type -of Civilized Man; but, on the other hand, shut out from opportunity and -neglected by the world, he remains stationary, always a man, entitled -from his manhood to Equal Rights, but an example of inferiority, if -not of degradation. Unquestionably it is the same with a people. Here, -again, opportunity and a training hand are needed. - -To the inquiry, How is this destiny to be accomplished? I answer, -Simply by recognizing the law of Unity, and acting accordingly. The law -is plain; obey it. Let each people obey the law at home; its extension -abroad will follow. The standard at home will become the standard -everywhere. The harmony at home will become the harmony of mankind. -Drive Caste from this Republic, and it will be, like Cain, “a fugitive -and a vagabond in the earth.” - - * * * * * - -Therefore do I now plead for our Common Humanity in all lands. -Especially do I plead for the African, not only among us, but in his -own vast, mysterious home, where for unknown centuries he has been the -prey of the spoiler. He may be barbarous, perhaps savage; but so have -others been, who are now in the full enjoyment of civilization. If you -are above him in any respect, then by your superiority are you bound to -be his helper. Where much is given much is required; and this is the -law for a nation, as for an individual. - -The unhappy condition of Africa, a stranger to civilization, is often -invoked against a Common Humanity. Here again is that sciolism which -is the inseparable ally of every ignoble pretension. It is easy to -explain this condition without yielding to a theory inconsistent with -God’s Providence. The key is found in her geographical character, -affording few facilities for intercommunication abroad or at home. -Ocean and river are the natural allies of civilization, as England will -attest; for such was their early influence, that Cæsar, on landing, -remarked the superior condition of the people on the coast.[167] -Europe, indented by seas on the south and north, and penetrated -by considerable rivers, will attest also. The great geographer, -Carl Ritter, who has placed the whole globe in the illumination of -geographical science, shows that the relation of interior spaces to the -extent of coast has a measurable influence on civilization: and here is -the secret of Africa. While all Asia is five times as large as Europe, -and Africa more than three times as large, the littoral margins have a -different proportion. Asia has 30,800 miles of coast; Europe 17,200; -and Africa only 14,000. For every 156 square miles of the European -continent there is one mile of coast, while in Africa one mile of coast -corresponds to 623 square miles of continent. The relative extension of -coast in Europe is four times greater than in Africa. Asia is in the -middle between the two extremes, having for every 459 square miles one -mile of coast; and so also is Asia between the two in civilization. -There is still another difference, with corresponding advantage to -Europe. One third part of Europe is in the nature of ramification from -the mass, furnishing additional opportunities; whereas Africa is a -solid, impenetrable continent, without ramifications, without opening -gulfs or navigable rivers, except the Nile, which once witnessed the -famous Egyptian civilization.[168] And now, in addition to all these -opportunities by water, Europe has others not less important from a -reticulation of railways, bringing all parts together, while Africa is -without these new-born civilizers. All these things are apparent and -beyond question; nor can their influence be doubted. And thus is the -condition of Africa explained without an insult to her people or any -new apology for Caste. - -The attempt to disparage the African as inferior to other men, except -in present condition, shows that same ever-present sciolism. Does -Humboldt repel the assumption of superiority, and beautifully insist -that no people are “in themselves nobler than others”?[169] Then all -are men, all are brothers, of the same Human Family, with superficial -and transitional differences only. Plainly, no differences can make -one color superior to another. And looking carefully at the African, -in the seclusion and isolation of his native home, we see sufficient -reason for that condition which is the chief argument against him. -It is doubtful if any people has become civilized without extraneous -help. Britain was savage when Roman civilization intervened; so was -Gaul. Cadmus brought letters to Greece; and what is the story of -Prometheus, who stole fire from Heaven, but an illustration of this -law? The African has not stolen fire; no Cadmus has brought letters -to him; no Roman civilization has been extended over his continent. -Meanwhile left to savage life, he has been a perpetual victim, hunted -down at home to feed the bloody maw of Slavery, and then transported -to another hemisphere, always a slave. In such condition Nature has -had small opportunity for development. No kindly influences have -surrounded his home; no voice of encouragement has cheered his path; -no prospect of trust or honor has awakened his ambition. His life has -been a Dead Sea, where apples of Sodom floated. And yet his story is -not without passages which quicken admiration and give assurance for -the Future,--at times melting to tenderness, and at times inspiring -to rage, that these children of God, with so much of His best gifts, -should be so wronged by their brother man. - -The ancient poet tells us that there were heroes before -Agamemnon,[170]--that is, before the poet came to praise. Who knows -the heroes of those vast unvisited recesses where there is no history -and only short-lived tradition? But among those transported to this -hemisphere heroes have not been wanting. Nowhere in history was the -heroical character more conspicuous than in our fugitive slaves. Their -story, transferred to Greece or Rome, would be a much-admired chapter, -from which youth would derive new passion for Liberty. The story of the -African in our late war would be another chapter, awakening kindred -emotion. But it is in a slave of the West Indies, whose parents were -stolen from Africa, that we find an example of genius and wisdom, -courage and character, with all the elements of general and ruler. -The name borne by this remarkable person as slave was Toussaint, but -his success in forcing an _opening_ everywhere secured for him the -addition of “l’Ouverture,” making his name Toussaint l’Ouverture, -Toussaint _the Opening_, by which he takes his place in history. He was -opener for his people, whom he advanced from Slavery to Freedom, and -then sank under the power of Napoleon, who sent an army and fleet to -subdue him.[171] More than Agamemnon, or any chief before Troy,--more -than Spartacus, the renowned leader of the servile insurrection which -made Rome tremble,--he was a hero, endowed with a higher nature and -better faculties; but he was an African, jet black in complexion. The -height that he reached is the measure of his people. Call it high-water -mark, if you will; but this is the true line for judgment, and not the -low-water mark of Slavery, which is always adopted by the apologists -for Caste. Toussaint l’Ouverture is the actual standard by which the -African must be judged. - -When studied where he is chiefly seen,--not in the affairs of -government, but in daily life,--the African awakens attachment and -respect. The will of Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State under President -Tyler, describes a typical character. Here are the remarkable words:-- - - “I emancipate and set free my servant, David Rich, and direct - my executors to give him _one hundred dollars_. I recommend - him, in the strongest manner, to the respect, esteem, and - confidence of any community in which he may happen to live. - He has been my slave for twenty-four years, during which time - he has been trusted to every extent, and in every respect. - My confidence in him has been unbounded; his relation to - myself and family has always been such as to afford him daily - opportunities to deceive and injure us, and yet he has never - been detected in a serious fault, nor even in an intentional - breach of the decorums of his station. His intelligence is - of a high order, his integrity above all suspicion, and his - sense of right and propriety always correct and even delicate - and refined. I feel that he is justly entitled to carry this - certificate from me into the new relations which he now must - form. It is due to his long and most faithful services, and - to the sincere and steady friendship which I bear him. In the - uninterrupted and confidential intercourse of twenty-four - years, I have never given, nor had occasion to give him, an - unpleasant word. I know no man who has fewer faults or more - excellences than he.”[172] - -The man thus portrayed was an African, whose only school was Slavery. -Here again is the standard of this people. - -Nor is there failure in loftiness of character. With heroism more -beautiful than that of Mutius Scævola, a slave in Louisiana, as long -ago as 1753, being compelled to be executioner, cut off his right -hand with an axe, that he might avoid taking the life of his brother -slave.[173] - -The apologist for Caste will be astonished to know, but it is none the -less true, that the capacity of the African in scholarship and science -is better attested than that of anybody claiming to be his master. -What modern slave-master has taught the Latin like Juan Latino at -Seville, in Spain,--written it like Capitein at the Hague, or Williams -at Jamaica,--gained academic honors like those accorded to Amo by -the University of Wittenberg? What modern slave-master has equalled -in science Banneker of Maryland, who, in his admirable letter to -Jefferson, avows himself “of the African race, and in that color which -is natural to them, of the deepest dye”?[174] These instances are all -from the admirable work of the good Bishop Grégoire, “De la Littérature -des Nègres.”[175] Recent experience attests the singular aptitude of -the African for knowledge, and his delight in its acquisition. Nor is -there any doubt of his delight in doing good. The beneficent system -of Sunday Schools in New York is traced to an African woman, who -first attempted this work, and her school was for all alike, without -distinction of color.[176] - -To the unquestionable capacity of the African must be added simplicity, -amenity, good-nature, generosity, fidelity. Mahometans, who know -him well, recognize his superior fidelity. And such also is the -report of travellers not besotted by Slavery, from Mungo Park to -Livingstone, who testify also to tenderness for parents, respect for -the aged, hospitality, and patriarchal virtues reviving the traditions -of primitive life. “Strike me, but do not curse my mother,” said -an African slave to his master.[177] And Leo Africanus, the early -traveller, describes a chief at Timbuctoo, “very black in complexion, -but most fair in mind and disposition.”[178] Others dwell on his -Christian character, and especially his susceptibility to those -influences which are peculiarly Christian,--so that Saint Bernard could -say of him, “_Felix Nigredo, quæ mentis candorem parit_.”[179] Of all -people he is the mildest and most sympathetic. Hate is a plant of -difficult growth in his bosom. How often has he returned the harshness -of his master with care and protection! The African, more than the -European, is formed by Nature for the Christian graces. - -It is easy to picture another age, when the virtues which ennoble -the African will return to bless the people who now discredit him, -and Christianity will receive a new development. In the Providence -of God the more precocious and harder nature of the North is called -to make the first advance. Civilization begins through knowledge. An -active intelligence performs the part of opening the way. But it may -be according to the same Providence, that the gentler people, elevated -in knowledge, will teach their teachers what knowledge alone cannot -impart, and the African shall more than repay all that he receives. -The pioneer intelligence of Europe going to blend with the gentleness -of Africa will be a blessed sight, but not more blessed than the -gentleness of Africa returning to blend with that same intelligence at -home. Under such combined influences men will not only know and do, but -they will feel also; so that knowledge in all its departments, and life -in all its activities, will have the triumphant inspiration of Human -Brotherhood. - - * * * * * - -In this work there is no room for prejudice, timidity, or despair. -Reason, courage, and hope are our allies, while the bountiful -agencies of Civilization open the way. Time and space, ancient tyrants -keeping people apart, are now overcome. There is nothing of aspiration -for Universal Man which is not within the reach of well-directed -effort,--no matter in what unknown recess of continent, no matter on -what distant island of the sea. Wherever Man exists, there are the -capacities of manhood, with that greatest of all, the capacity for -improvement; and the civilization we have reached supplies the means. - -As in determining the function of Government, so here again is the -necessity of knowledge. Man must know himself, and that law of Unity -appointed for the Human Family. Such is the true light for our steps. -Here are guidance and safety. Who can measure the value of knowledge? -What imagination can grasp its infinite power? As well measure the sun -in its glory. The friendly lamp in our streets is more than the police. -Light in the world is more than armies or navies. Where its rays -penetrate, there has civilization begun. Not the earth, but the sun, is -the centre of our system; and the noon-day effulgence in which we live -and move symbolizes that other effulgence which is found in knowledge. - -Great powers are at hand, ministers of human progress. I name -two only: first, the printing-press; and, secondly, the means of -intercommunication, whether by navigation or railways, represented -by the steam-engine. By these civilization is extended and secured. -It is not only carried forward, but fixed so that there can be no -return,--like the wheel of an Alpine railway, which cannot fall back. -Every rotation is a sure advance. Here is what Greece and Rome never -knew, and more than Greece and Rome have contributed to man. By the -side of these two simple agencies how small all that has come to us -from these two politest nations of Antiquity! We can better spare -Greece and Rome than the printing-press and steam-engine. Not a triumph -in literature, art, or jurisprudence, from the story of Homer and the -odes of Horace to the statue of Apollo and the bust of Augustus, from -the eloquence of Demosthenes and Cicero to that Roman Law which has -become the law of the world, that must not yield in value to these -two immeasurable possessions. To the printing-press and steam-engine -add now their youthful handmaid, the electric telegraph, whose swift -and delicate fingers weave the thread by which nations are brought -into instant communion, while great cities, like London and Paris, New -York and San Francisco, become suburbs to each other, and all mankind -feel together the throb of joy or sorrow. Through these incomparable -agencies is knowledge made coextensive with space and time on earth. No -distance of place or epoch it will not pervade. Thus every achievement -in thought or science, every discovery by which Man is elevated, -becomes the common property of the whole Human Family. There can be -no monopoly. Sooner or later all enjoy the triumph. Standing on the -shoulders of the Past, Man stands also on the shoulders of every -science discovered, every art advanced, every truth declared. There is -no height of culture or of virtue--if virtue itself be not the highest -culture--which may not be reached. There is no excellence of government -or society which may not be grasped. Where is the stopping-place? -Where the goal? One obstacle is overcome only to find another, which -is overcome, and then another also, in the ascending scale of human -improvement. - -And then shall be fulfilled the great words of prophecy, which men have -read so long with hope darkened by despair: “The earth shall be full -of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea”; “it shall -come that I will gather all nations and tongues, and they shall come -and see my glory.”[180] The promises of Christianity, in harmony with -the promises of Science, and more beautiful still, will become the -realities of earth; and that precious example wherein is the way of -life will be another noon-day sun for guidance and safety. - - * * * * * - -The question _How?_ is followed by that other question _When?_ The -answer is easy. Not at once; not by any sudden conquest; not in -the lifetime of any individual man; not in any way which does not -recognize Nature as co-worker. It is by constant, incessant, unceasing -activity in conformity with law that Nature works; and so in these -world-subduing operations Man can be successful only in harmony with -Nature. Because in our brief pilgrimage we are not permitted to witness -the transcendent glory, it is none the less certain. The peaceful -conquest will proceed, and every day must contribute its fruits. - -At the beginning of the last century Russia was a barbarous country, -shut out from opportunities of improvement. Authentic report attests -its condition. Through contact with Europe it was vitalized. The -life-giving principle circulated, and this vast empire felt the change. -Exposed to European contact at one point only, here the influence -began; but the native energies of the people, under the guidance of a -powerful ruler, responded to this influence, and Russia came within the -widening circle of European civilization. Why may not this experience -be repeated elsewhere, and distant places feel the same beneficent -power? - -To help in this work it is not necessary to be emperor or king. -Everybody can do something, for to everybody is given something to do; -and it is by this accumulation of activities, by this succession of -atoms, that the result is accomplished. I use trivial illustrations, -when I remind you that the coral-reef on which navies are wrecked -is the work of the multitudinous insect,--that the unyielding stone -is worn away by drops; but this is the law of Nature, under which -no influence is lost. Water and air both testify to the slightest -movement. Not a ripple stirred by the passing breeze or by the -freighted ship cleaving the sea, which is not prolonged to a thousand -shores, leaving behind an endless progeny, so long as ocean endures. -Not a wave of air set in motion by the human voice, which is not -prolonged likewise into unknown space. But these watery and aërial -pulses typify the acts of Man. Not a thing done, not a word said, -which does not help or hinder the grand, the beautiful, the holy -consummation. And the influence is in proportion to the individual or -nation from whom it proceeds. God forbid that our nation should send -through all time that defiance of human nature which is found in Caste! - -There are two passages of the New Testament which are to me of infinite -significance. We read them often, perhaps, without comprehending their -value. The first is with regard to leaven, when the Saviour said, -“The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven”;[181] and then Saint Paul, -taking up the image, on two different occasions, repeats, “A little -leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”[182] In this homely illustration we -see what is accomplished by a small influence. A little changes all. -Here again are the acts of Man typified. All that we do is leaven; all -that our country does is leaven. Everybody in his sphere contributes -leaven, and helps his country to contribute that mighty leaven which -will leaven the whole mighty lump. The other passage--difficult to -childhood, though afterwards recognized as a faithful record of human -experience--is where we are told, “For whosoever hath, to him shall -be given, and he shall have more abundance.”[183] Here to me is a -new incentive to duty. Because the world inclines to those who have, -therefore must we study to serve those who have not, that we may -counteract the worldly tendency. Give to the poor and lowly, give to -the outcast, give to those degraded by their fellow-men, that they may -be elevated in the scale of Humanity,--assured that what we give is not -only valuable in itself, but the beginning of other acquisitions,--that -the knowledge we convey makes other knowledge easy,--that the right we -recognize helps to secure all the Rights of Man. Give to the African -only his due, and straightway the promised abundance will follow. - - * * * * * - -In leaving this question, which I have opened to you so imperfectly, I -am impressed anew with its grandeur. The best interests of our country -and the best interests of mankind are involved in the answer. Let -Caste prevail, and Civilization is thwarted. Let Caste be trampled -out, and there will be a triumph which will make this Republic more -than ever an example. The good influence will extend in prolonged -pulsations, reaching the most distant shores. Not a land which will -not feel the spread, just in proportion to its necessities. Above all, -Africa will feel it; and the surpassing duty which Civilization owes to -this whole continent, where man has so long degraded his fellow-man, -will begin to be discharged, while the voice of the Great Shepherd is -heard among its people. - -In the large interests beyond, I would not lose sight of the practical -interests at home. It is important for our domestic peace, not to speak -of our good name as a Republic, that this question should be settled. -Long enough has its shadow rested upon us, and now it lowers from an -opposite quarter. How often have I said in other places that nothing -can be settled which is not right! And now I say that there can be no -settlement here except in harmony with our declared principles and with -universal truth. To this end Caste must be forbidden. “Haply for I am -black,” said Othello; “Haply for I am yellow,” repeats the Chinese: all -of which may be ground for personal like or dislike, but not for any -denial of rights, or any exclusion from that equal copartnership which -is the promise of the Republic to all men. - -Here, as always, the highest safety is in doing right. Justice is ever -practical, ever politic; it is the best practice, the best policy. -Whatever reason shows to be just cannot, when reduced to practice, -produce other than good. And now I simply ask you to be just. To -those who find peril in the growing multitudes admitted to citizenship -I reply, that our Republic assumed these responsibilities when it -declared the equal rights of all men, and that just government stands -only on the consent of the governed. Hospitality of citizenship is -the law of its being. This is its great first principle; this is the -talisman of its empire. Would you conquer Nature, follow Nature; and -here, would you conquer physical diversities, follow that moral law -declared by our fathers, which is the highest law of Nature, and -supreme above all men. Welcome, then, to the stranger hurrying from -opposite shores, across two great oceans,--from the East, from the -West,--with the sun, against the sun! Here he cannot be stranger. -If the Chinese come for labor only, we have the advantage of their -wonderful and docile industry. If they come for citizenship, then do -they offer the pledge of incorporation in our Republic, filling it -with increase. Nor is there peril in the gifts they bring. As all -rivers are lost in the sea, which shows no sign of their presence, so -will all peoples be lost in the widening confines of our Republic, -with an ocean-bound continent for its unparalleled expanse, and one -harmonious citizenship, where all are equal in rights, for its gentle -and impartial sway. - - - - -CURRENCY. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON INTRODUCING A BILL TO AMEND THE BANKING ACT, -AND TO PROMOTE THE RETURN TO SPECIE PAYMENTS, DECEMBER 7, 1869. - - - The bill having been read twice by its title, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -At the proper time I shall ask the reference of this bill to the -Committee on Finance; and if I can have the attention of my honorable -friend, the Chairman of that Committee [Mr. SHERMAN], I should like -now, as I have ventured to introduce the bill, to specify for his -consideration seven different reasons in favor of it. It will take me -only one minute. - - MR. SHERMAN. I should like to have the bill read, if the - Senator has no objection. - - * * * * * - - The Secretary accordingly read the bill in full, as follows:-- - - _Be it enacted, &c._, That so much of the Banking Act - as limits the issue of bills to $300,000,000 is hereby - repealed, and existing banks may be enlarged and new banks - may be organized at the discretion of the Secretary of the - Treasury; but no more bills than are now authorized by the - Banking Act shall hereafter be issued, unless the Secretary - of the Treasury, at the time of their issue, can and does - cancel and destroy a like amount of legal-tenders; and the - increase of bank-bills hereby authorized shall not exceed - $50,000,000 a year, which amount shall be so distributed by - the Secretary of the Treasury as to equalize, as near as - possible, the banking interest of the different States. - -MR. SUMNER. Now, Mr. President, I wish at this moment merely to -indicate the reasons in favor of that proposition. - -1. It will create a demand for national bonds, and to this extent -fortify the national credit. - -2. It will tend to satisfy those parts of the country, especially at -the South and West, where currency and banks are wanting, and thus -arrest a difficult question. - -3. It will not expand or contract the currency; so that the opposite -parties on these questions may support it. - -4. Under it the banks will gradually strengthen themselves and prepare -to resume specie payments. - -5. It will give the South and West the opportunity to organize banks, -and will interest those parts of the country to this extent in the -national securities and the national banking system, by which both will -be strengthened. - -6. It will within a reasonable time relieve the country of the whole -greenback system, and thus dispose of an important question. - -7. It will hasten the return to specie payments. - -Now I believe every one of these reasons is valid, and I commend them -to my excellent friend from Ohio. - - The bill was then laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. - - - - -COLORED PHYSICIANS. - -RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE EXCLUSION OF COLORED -PHYSICIANS FROM THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, -DECEMBER 9, 1869. - - -I offer the following resolution, and ask for its immediate -consideration:-- - - _Resolved_, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be - directed to consider the expediency of repealing the charter of - the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, and of such - other legislation as may be necessary in order to secure for - medical practitioners in the District of Columbia equal rights - and opportunities without distinction of color. - -I hope there can be no objection to this proposition, which has become -necessary from a recent incident. A medical practitioner in Washington, -Dr. Augusta, who had served as a surgeon in the Army of the United -States and was brevetted as a Lieutenant-Colonel, who had enjoyed -office and honor under the National Government, has been excluded from -the Medical Society of the District of Columbia on that old reason -so often and persistently urged, merely of color. It is true that -Dr. Augusta is guilty of a skin which is a shade different from that -prevailing in the Medical Society, but nobody can impeach his character -or his professional position. Dr. Purvis, another practitioner, -obnoxious only from the skin, was excluded at the same time. There is -no doubt that this was accomplished by an organized effort, quickened -by color-phobia. - -This exclusion, besides its stigma on a race, is a practical injury -to these gentlemen, and to their patients also, who are thus shut out -from valuable opportunities and advantages. By a rule of the Medical -Society, “No member of this association shall consult with or meet in a -professional way any resident practitioner of the District who is not a -member thereof, after said practitioner shall have resided six months -in said District.” Thus do members of the Society constitute themselves -a medical oligarchy. When asked to consult with Dr. Augusta, some of -them have replied: “We would like to consult with Dr. Augusta; we -believe him to be a good doctor; but he does not belong to our Society, -and therefore we must decline; but we will take charge of the case”: -and this has been sometimes done. Is not this a hardship? Should it be -allowed to exist? - -Details illustrate still further the character of this wrong. These -colored practitioners are licensed, like members of the Society; but -this license does not give them the privilege of attending the meetings -of the Society, where medical and surgical subjects are discussed, and -where peculiar and interesting cases with their appropriate treatment -are communicated for the benefit of the profession; so that they are -shut out from this interesting source of information, which is like a -constant education, and also from the opportunity of submitting the -cases in their own practice. - -I confess, Sir, that I cannot think of the medical profession at the -National Capital engaged in this warfare on their colored brethren -without sentiments which it is difficult to restrain. Their conduct, -in its direct effect, degrades a long-suffering and deeply injured -race; but it also degrades themselves. Nobody can do such a meanness -without degradation. In my opinion these white oligarchs ought to -have notice, and I give them notice now, that this outrage shall not -be allowed to continue without remedy, if I can obtain it through -Congress. The time has passed for any such pretension. - -I hope, Sir, there can be no objection to the resolution. It ought to -pass unanimously. Who will array himself on the side of this wrong? - - The resolution was agreed to, and the Committee proceeded to a - full investigation, of which they made extended report,[184] - accompanied by a bill for the repeal of the Society’s charter; - but adverse influence, continued through two sessions to the - expiration of the Congress, succeeded in preventing action. - - - - -THE LATE HON. WILLIAM PITT FESSENDEN, SENATOR OF MAINE. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE ON HIS DEATH, DECEMBER 14, 1869. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--A seat in this Chamber is vacant. But this is a very -inadequate expression for the present occasion. Much more than a -seat is vacant. There is a void difficult to measure, as it will be -difficult to fill. Always eminent from the beginning, Mr. Fessenden -during these latter years became so large a part of the Senate that -without him it seems to be a different body. His guiding judgment, his -ready power, his presence so conspicuous in debate, are gone, taking -away from this Chamber that identity which it received so considerably -from him. - -Of all the present Senate, one only besides myself witnessed his entry -into this Chamber. I cannot forget it. He came in the midst of that -terrible debate on the Kansas and Nebraska Bill by which the country -was convulsed to its centre, and his arrival had the effect of a -reinforcement on a field of battle. Those who stood for Freedom then -were few in numbers,--not more than fourteen,--while thirty-seven -Senators in solid column voted to break the faith originally plighted -to Freedom, and to overturn a time-honored landmark, opening that vast -Mesopotamian region to the curse of Slavery. Those anxious days are -with difficulty comprehended by a Senate where Freedom rules. One -more in our small number was a sensible addition. We were no longer -fourteen, but fifteen. His reputation at the bar and his fame in the -other House gave assurance which was promptly sustained. He did not -wait, but at once entered into the debate with all those resources -which afterwards became so famous. The scene that ensued exhibited -his readiness and courage. While saying that the people of the North -were fatigued with the threat of Disunion, that they considered it as -“mere noise and nothing else,” he was interrupted by Mr. Butler, of -South Carolina, always ready to speak for Slavery, exclaiming, “If -such sentiments as yours prevail, I want a dissolution right away,”--a -characteristic intrusion doubly out of order,--to which the new-comer -rejoined, “Do not delay it on my account; do not delay it on account -of anybody at the North.” The effect was electric; but this instance -was not alone. Douglas, Cass, and Butler interrupted only to be worsted -by one who had just ridden into the lists. The feelings of the other -side were expressed by the Senator from South Carolina, who, after -one of the flashes of debate which he had provoked, exclaimed: “Very -well, go on; I have no hope for you.” All this will be found in the -“Globe,”[185] precisely as I give it; but the “Globe” could not picture -the exciting scene,--the Senator from Maine erect, firm, immovable as -a jutting promontory against which the waves of Ocean tossed and broke -in dissolving spray. There he stood. Not a Senator, loving Freedom, who -did not feel on that day that a champion had come. - -This scene, so brilliant in character, illustrates Mr. Fessenden’s -long career in the Senate. All present were moved, while those at a -distance were less affected. His speech, which was argumentative, -direct, and pungent, exerted more influence on those who heard it than -on those who only read it, vindicating his place as debater rather than -orator. This place he held to the end, without a superior,--without a -peer. Nobody could match him in immediate and incisive reply. His words -were swift, and sharp as a cimeter,--or, borrowing an illustration -from an opposite quarter, he “shot flying” and with unerring aim. But -while this great talent secured for him always the first honors of -debate, it was less important with the country, which, except in rare -instances, is more impressed by ideas and by those forms in which truth -is manifest. - -The Senate has changed much from its original character, when, shortly -after the formation of the National Government, a Nova Scotia paper, -in a passage copied by one of our own journals, while declaring that -“the habits of the people here are very favorable to oratory,” could -say, “There is but one assembly in the whole range of the Federal -Union in which eloquence is deemed unnecessary, and, I believe, even -absurd and obtrusive,--to wit, the Senate, or upper house of Congress. -They are merely a deliberative meeting, in which every man delivers -his concise opinion, one leg over the other, as they did in the first -Congress, where an harangue was a great rarity.”[186] Speech was -then for business and immediate effect in the Chamber. Since then -the transformation has proceeded, speech becoming constantly more -important, until now, without neglect of business, the Senate has -become a centre from which to address the country. A seat here is a -lofty pulpit with a mighty sounding-board, and the whole wide-spread -people is the congregation. - -As Mr. Fessenden rarely spoke except for business, what he said was -restricted in its influence, but it was most effective in this Chamber. -Here was his empire, and his undisputed throne. Of perfect integrity -and austerest virtue, he was inaccessible to those temptations which -in various forms beset the avenues of public life. Most faithfully and -constantly did he watch the interests intrusted to him. Here he was -a model. Holding the position of Chairman of the Finance Committee, -while it yet had those double duties which are now divided between -two important committees, he became the guardian of the National -Treasury, both in its receipts and its expenditures, so that nothing -was added to it or taken from it without his knowledge; and how truly -he discharged this immense trust all will attest. Nothing could leave -the Treasury without showing a passport. This service was the more -momentous from the magnitude of the transactions involved; for it was -during the whole period of the war, when appropriations responded to -loans and taxes,--all being on a scale beyond precedent in the world’s -history. On these questions, sometimes so sensitive and difficult and -always so grave, his influence was beyond that of any other Senator and -constantly swayed the Senate. All that our best generals were in arms -he was in the financial field. - -Absorbed in his great duties, and confined too much by the training of -a profession which too often makes its follower slave where he is not -master, he forgot sometimes that championship which shone so brightly -when he first entered the Senate. Ill-health came with its disturbing -influence, and, without any of the nature of Hamlet, his conduct at -times suggested those words by which Hamlet pictures the short-comings -of life. Too often, in his case, “the native hue of resolution was -sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought”; and perhaps I might -follow the words of Shakespeare further, and picture “enterprises of -great pith and moment,” which, “with this regard, their currents turned -awry and lost the name of action.” - -Men are tempted by the talent which they possess; and he could -not resist the impulse to employ, sometimes out of place, those -extraordinary powers which he commanded so easily. More penetrating -than grasping, he easily pierced the argument of his opponent, and, -once engaged, he yielded to the excitement of the moment and the joy -of conflict. His words warmed, as the Olympic wheel caught fire in the -swiftness of the race. If on these occasions there were sparkles which -fell where they should not have fallen, they cannot be remembered now. -Were he still among us, face to face, it were better to say, in the -words of that earliest recorded reconciliation,-- - - “Let us no more contend nor blame - Each other, blamed enough elsewhere, but strive - In offices of love how we may lighten - Each other’s burden in our share of woe.”[187] - -Error and frailty checker the life of man. If this were not so, earth -would be heaven; for what could add to the happiness of life free -from error and frailty? The Senator we mourn was human; but the error -and frailty which belonged to him often took their color from virtue -itself. On these he needs no silence, even if the grave which is now -closing over him did not refuse its echoes except to what is good. - - - - -CUBAN BELLIGERENCY. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 15, 1869. - - - Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, having moved to proceed to the - consideration of a resolution previously introduced by him, - setting forth,-- - - “That in the opinion of the Senate the thirty gun-boats - purchased or contracted for in the United States by or on - behalf of the Government of Spain, to be employed against - the revolted district of Cuba, should not be allowed to - depart from the United States during the continuance of - that rebellion,”-- - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -I shall interpose no objection to that; but I feel it my duty to -suggest that it does seem to me that a discussion of that question is -premature, and for this reason: there is no information with regard to -those gun-boats now before the Senate, except what we derive from the -newspapers. I understand that the Department of State will in a few -days, as soon as the documents can be copied, communicate to the Senate -all that it has with reference to our relations with Cuba, which will -probably cover the question of the gun-boats. There is a question of -fact and of law, and I for one am indisposed to approach its discussion -until I have all the information now in the possession of the -Government. At the same time my friend from Wisconsin will understand -that I have no disposition to interfere with any desires he may have. -If he wishes, therefore, to go on, I shall content myself with the -suggestions that I have made. - - Mr. Carpenter’s motion prevailing, he proceeded with an - argument in support of the resolution in question, to which Mr. - Sumner replied as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Wisconsin closed by saying that he -understood that eighteen of the gun-boats would leave to-morrow. I have -had put into my hands a telegram received last night from New York, -which I will read, as it relates to that subject:-- - - “The vessels delivered by Delamater to the representatives of - the Spanish Navy have their officers and crews on board and - fly the flag of Spain. They are now as completely the property - of that Government as is the Pizarro. Unless something not - foreseen occurs, they will be at sea to-morrow morning, if not - already gone.” - -“To-morrow morning” is this morning. - -But there are eight other boats, that are still unfinished, on the -stocks, to which the resolution of the Senator from Wisconsin is -applicable. - - * * * * * - -I have no disposition now to discuss the great question involved in -the speech of the Senator from Wisconsin; but the Senator will pardon -me, if I venture to suggest that he has misapprehended the meaning of -the statute on which he relies. Certainly he has misapprehended it or -I have. He has misapprehended it or the Administration has. I do not -conceive that the question which he has presented can arise under the -statute. The language on which he relies is as follows:-- - - “If any person shall within the limits of the United States - fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to - be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly be concerned in - the furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel, - with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the - service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, - district, or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against - the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or - state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the - United States are at peace,” &c.[188] - -The operative words on which the Senator relies being “any colony, -district, or people,” I understand the Senator to insist that under -these words Spain cannot purchase ships in the United States to cruise -against her Cuban subjects now in revolt. That is the position of the -Senator. He states it frankly. To that I specifically reply, that the -language of the statute is entirely inapplicable. Those words, if the -Senator will consult their history, were introduced for a specific -purpose. It was to meet the case of the revolted Spanish colonies -already for eight years in arms against the parent Government, having -ships in every sea, largely possessing the territories on the Spanish -main, and with independence nearly achieved. - -There was no question of belligerence. It was admitted by all the -civilized world. Nation after nation practically recognized it. Our -Government, our courts, every department of the Government, recognized -the belligerence of those Spanish colonies. Their independence -was recognized more tardily, after ample discussion in these two -Chambers as late as 1820; but their belligerence was a fact perfectly -established and recognized by every branch of the Government. To meet -their case, and for no other object, as I understand it, Mr. Miller, a -Representative of South Carolina, on the 30th day of December, 1817, -introduced the following resolution:-- - - “_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the - expediency of so amending the fourth section of the Act passed - on the 3d of March, 1817, entitled ‘An Act more effectually to - preserve the neutral relations of the United States,’ as to - embrace within the provisions thereof the armed vessels of a - Government at peace with the United States and at war with any - colony, district, or people with whom the United States are or - may be at peace.”[189] - -The important words “any colony, district, or people” were introduced -to cover the precise case of the revolted Spanish colonies and -their precise condition at that moment, there being no question of -belligerence. Now the practical question is, whether these words, -introduced originally for a specific purpose, having an historic -character beyond question, can be extended so as to be applied to -insurgents who have not yet achieved a corporate existence,--who have -no provinces, no cities, no towns, no ports, no prize courts. Such is -the fact. I cannot supply the fact, if it does not exist; nor can the -Senator, with his eloquence and with his ardor enlisted in this cause. -We must seek the truth. The truth is found in the actual facts. Now do -those facts justify the concession which the Senator requires? - -The Cuban insurgents, whatever the inspiration of their action, have -not reached the condition of belligerents. Such, I repeat, is the fact, -and we cannot alter the fact. Here we must rely upon the evidence, -which, according to all the information within my reach, is adverse. -They do not come within any of the prerequisites. They have no -provinces, no towns, no ports, no prize courts. Without these I am at a -loss to see how they can be treated as belligerents by foreign powers. -Before this great concession there must be assurance of their capacity -to administer justice. Above all, there must be a Prize Court. But -nobody pretends that there is any such thing. - - MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator now allow me to ask him one - question? - -MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. CARPENTER. My question is, if it be not the most favorable - opportunity to obtain the facts to libel those boats and get - proof on the question? - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator will pardon me, if I say I do not think it is. -I think that the better way of ascertaining the facts is to send to -our authorized agents in Cuba,--we have consuls at every considerable -place,--and direct them to report on the facts. I understand such -reports have been received by the Department of State. They will be -communicated to the Senate. They are expected day by day, and they are -explicit, unless I have been misinformed, on this single point,--that, -whatever may be the inspiration of that insurrection, it has not yet -reached that condition of maturity, that corporate character, which in -point of fact makes it belligerent in character. - - MR. HOWARD. I do not wish to interrupt the Senator, but I - should like to ask a question at this point. - -MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. HOWARD. I wish for information on this subject, and I - think we all stand in need of it; and I should be very much - obliged to the Senator from Massachusetts, if he is able to do - so, if he would give us a statement of the amount of military - force actually in the field in Cuba, or the amount of force - that is available; and whether the insurgents have established - a civil government for themselves,--whether it be or be not - in operation as a government. On these subjects I confess my - ignorance. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator confesses we are in the dark, and on this -account I consider the debate premature. We all need information, and -I understand it will be supplied by the Department of State. There is -information on the precise point to which the Senator calls attention, -and that is as to the number of the forces on both sides. I understand -on the side of the insurgents it has latterly very much diminished; and -I have been told that they are now little more than _guerrilleros_, -and that the war they are carrying on is little more than a guerrilla -contest,--that they are not in possession of any town or considerable -place. Such is my information. - - MR. HOWARD. Have they any government? - -MR. SUMNER. I understand they have the government that is in a camp. -With regard to that the Senator knows as well as I; but that brings us -back again to the necessity of information. - - MR. HOWARD. Any civil government, any legislative power for the - actual exercise of legislative functions? - -MR. SUMNER. I think there is no evidence that there is a legislative -body; and I must say I await with great anxiety the evidence of -their action on the subject of Slavery itself. What assurance have we -that slavery will be terminated by these insurgents? Have they the -will? Have they the power? I know the report that they have abolished -slavery, but this report leaves much to be desired. I wish it to be -authenticated and relieved from all doubt. It is said that there are -two decrees,--one to be read at home, and another to be read abroad. -Is this true? And even if not true, is there any assurance that the -insurrectionists are able to make this decree good? But while I require -the surrender of slavery from the insurrectionists, I make the same -requirement of Spain. Why has this power delayed? - - MR. MORTON. I ask the Senator if Spain has not recently - affirmed the existence of slavery in Cuba and Porto Rico, - especially in Porto Rico, by publishing a new constitution - guarantying the existence of slavery? - -MR. SUMNER. I am not able to inform the Senator precisely on that -point. I do know enough, however, to satisfy me that Spain is a laggard -on this question; and if my voice could reach her now, it would plead -with her to be quick, to make haste to abolish slavery, not only in -Cuba, but in Porto Rico. Its continued existence is a shame, and it -should cease. - - * * * * * - -I have no disposition to go into this subject at length. There is, -however, one other remark that the Senator from Wisconsin made to which -I shall be justified in replying. He alludes to the case of the Hornet, -and the proceedings against that vessel.[190] It is not for me now -to vindicate those proceedings. They may have been proper under the -statute, or may not; but it is very clear to me that the cases of the -Hornet and the Spanish gun-boats are plainly distinguishable, and, if -the Senate will pardon me one moment, I will make the distinction, I -think, perfectly apparent. We all know that two or three or four or a -dozen persons may levy war against the Government, may levy war against -the king. A traitor levies war against the king. The king, when he -proceeds against the traitor, does not levy war. He simply proceeds -in the exercise of his executive functions in order to establish -his authority. And in the spirit of this illustration I am disposed -to believe that the United States were perfectly justifiable, even -under this statute, in arresting the Hornet; but they would not be -justifiable in arresting the Spanish gun-boats. The Hornet was levying -war against Spain, and therefore subject to arrest. The gun-boats are -levying no war, simply because the insurrection against which they are -to be used has not reached the condition of war. - - MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to ask one other - question? - - MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. CARPENTER. What I want to know is this: whether the - condition of neutrality does not necessarily depend upon the - fact that war is progressing between two parties? Can there - be any neutrality, unless there is a contest of arms going - on between two somebodies? Now, if it be a violation of our - Neutrality Act for one of those bodies to come in and fit out - vessels in the United States, is it not equally so for the - other?--or is our pretence of neutrality a falsehood, a cheat, - and a delusion? - -MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, I do not regard it as a question of -neutrality. Until the belligerence of these people is recognized, they -are not of themselves a power, they are not a people. Therefore there -can be no neutrality on the part of our Government between Spain and -her revolted subjects, until they come up to the condition of a people. -They have not reached that point; and therefore I submit that there is -at this moment no question of neutrality, and that the argument of the -Senator in that respect was inapplicable. When the belligerence of the -insurgents is recognized there will be a case for neutrality, and not -before. - - - - -ADMISSION OF VIRGINIA TO REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 1870. - - - January 10, 1870, the Senate proceeded to the consideration - of a Joint Resolution reported from the Committee on the - Judiciary, declaring, “That the State of Virginia is entitled - to representation in the Congress of the United States,”--she - having, as was said, “complied in all respects with the - Reconstruction Acts.” - - Mr. Sumner, apprehending that this compliance had been merely - formal, and that the Rebel spirit was still the dominant - influence in Virginia, urged postponement of the measure for a - few days, to afford opportunity for information, remarking:-- - -I am assured that there are resolutions of public meetings in different -parts of Virginia, that there are papers, letters, communications, -all tending to throw light on the actual condition of things in that -State, which in the course of a short time, of a few days at furthest, -will be presented to the Senate. Under these circumstances, I submit -most respectfully, and without preferring any request with reference -to myself, that the measure should be allowed to go over for a few -days, perhaps for a week, till Monday next, and that it then should be -taken up and proceeded with to the end. My object is, that, when the -Senate acts on this important measure, it may act wisely, with adequate -knowledge, and so that hereafter it may have no occasion to regret -its conclusion. How many are there now, Sir, who, on the information -in our papers to-day, would not recall the vote by which Tennessee -was declared entitled to her place as a State! You, Sir, have read -that report signed by the Representatives of Tennessee, and by her -honored Senator here on my right [Mr. BROWNLOW]. From that you will -see the condition of things in that State at this moment. Is there not -a lesson, Sir, in that condition of things? Does it not teach us to -be cautious before we commit this great State of Virginia back to the -hands of the people that have swayed it in war against the National -Government? Sir, this is a great responsibility. I am anxious that the -Senate should exercise it only after adequate knowledge and inquiry. I -do not believe that they have the means at this moment of coming to a -proper determination. - - After extended debate, Mr. Sumner’s proposition finally took - shape in a motion by his colleague [Mr. WILSON] to postpone - the further consideration of the resolution for three days. - In response to Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, who had charge of the - measure, and who insisted that “no one had been able to find a - reason worthy of consideration why they should not proceed and - act affirmatively at once,” Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--It seems to me that this discussion to-day tends -irresistibly to one conclusion,--that the Senate is not now prepared to -act. I do not say that it will not be prepared in one, two, or three -days, or in a week; but it is not now prepared to act. Not a Senator -has spoken, either on one side or the other, who has not made points -of law, some of them presented for the first time in this Chamber. -Hardly a Senator has spoken who has not presented questions of fact. -How are we to determine these? Time is essential. We must be able to -look into the papers, to examine the evidence, and, if my friend will -pardon me, to examine also the law, to see whether the conclusion on -which he stands so firmly is one on which the Senate can plant itself -forevermore. The Senator must bear in mind that what we do now with -reference to Virginia we do permanently and irrepealably, and that we -affect the interests of that great State, and I submit also the safety -of a large portion of its population. Sir, I am not willing to go -forward in haste and in ignorance to deal with so great a question. Let -us consider it, let us approach it carefully, and give to it something -of that attention which the grandeur of the interest involved requires. - -I think, therefore, the suggestion of my colleague, that this matter -be postponed for several days, is proper; it is only according to -the ordinary course of business of the Senate, and it is sustained -by manifest reason in this particular case. I should prefer that the -postponement were till next Monday, and I will be precise in assigning -my reason. It is nothing personal to myself. My friend from New York -said, or intimated, that, if the Senator from Massachusetts wished to -be accommodated, he would be ready, of course, to consent to gratify -him. Now I would not have it placed on that ground; I present it as a -question of business; and I, as a Senator interested in the decision of -this business, wish to have time to peruse these papers and to obtain -that knowledge which will enable me to decide ultimately on the case. I -have not now the knowledge that I desire with reference to the actual -condition of things in Virginia. I am assured by those in whom I place -confidence that in the course of a few days that evidence will be -forthcoming. Will not the Senate receive it? Will it press hastily, -heedlessly, recklessly, to a conclusion, which, when reached, it may -hereafter find occasion to regret? Let us, Sir, so act that we shall -have hereafter no regrets; let us so act that the people of Virginia -hereafter may be safe, and that they may express their gratitude to the -Congress of the United States which has helped to protect them. - -The Senator from Nevada said, that, if we oppose the present bill, we -sacrifice the Legislature of the State. I suggest to that Senator, -that, if we do not oppose this bill, we sacrifice the people of the -State. What, Sir, is a Legislature chosen as this recent Legislature -has been chosen in Virginia, composed of recent Rebels still filled and -seething with that old Rebel fire,--what is that Legislature in the -scale, compared with the safety of that great people? Sir, I put in -one scale the welfare of the State of Virginia, the future security of -its large population, historic and memorable in our annals, and in the -other scale I put a Legislature composed of recent Rebels. To save that -Legislature the Senator from Nevada presses forward to sacrifice the -people of the State. - - The motion to postpone was rejected,--Yeas 25, Nays 26,--and - the debate on the Joint Resolution proceeded: the first - question being on an amendment offered by Mr. Drake, of - Missouri, providing that the passage by the Legislature of - Virginia, at any time thereafter, of any act or resolution - rescinding or annulling its ratification of the Fifteenth - Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States - should operate to exclude the State from representation in - Congress and remand it to its former provisional government. - - January 11th, Mr. Sumner, following Mr. Morton, of Indiana, - in support of Mr. Drake’s proposed amendment, and, with him, - maintaining the continued power of Congress over a State after - reconstruction, said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I have but one word to say, and it is one of gratitude -to the Senator from Indiana for the complete adhesion he now makes to a -principle of Constitutional Law which I have no doubt is unassailable. -The Congress of the United States will have forevermore the power to -protect Reconstruction. No one of these States, by anything that it -may do hereafter, can escape from that far-reaching power. I call it -far-reaching: it will reach just as far as the endeavor to counteract -it; it is coextensive with the Constitution itself. I have no doubt of -it, and I am delighted that the distinguished Senator from Indiana has -given to it the support of his authority. - -While I feel so grateful to my friend from Indiana for what he has -said on this point, he will allow me to express my dissent from -another proposition of his. He says that we are now bound under our -Reconstruction Acts to admit Virginia. I deny it. - - MR. MORTON. Will the Senator allow me one moment? - -MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. MORTON. I do not pretend that there is any clause in the - Reconstruction Acts which in express words requires us to admit - Virginia upon the compliance with certain conditions; but what - I mean to say is, that there went forth with those laws an - understanding to the country, as clear and distinct as if it - had been written in the statute, that upon a full and honorable - compliance with them those States should be admitted. I will - ask my friend from Massachusetts if that understanding did not - exist? - -MR. SUMNER. My answer to the Senator is found in the last section of -the Act authorizing the submission, of the Constitutions of these -States, as follows:-- - - “That the proceedings in any of said States shall not be deemed - final, or operate as a complete restoration thereof, until - their action respectively shall be approved by Congress.”[191] - -What is the meaning of that? The whole case is brought before -Congress for consideration. We are to look into it, and consider -the circumstances under which these elections have taken place, and -see whether we can justly give to them our approval. Is that vain -language? Was it not introduced for a purpose? Was it merely for show? -Was it for deception? Was it a cheat? No, Sir; it was there with a -view to a practical result, to meet precisely the case now before the -Senate,--that is, a seeming compliance with the requirements of our -Reconstruction policy, but a failure in substance. - -Now I will read what was in the bill of March 2, 1867, entitled -“An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel -States.”[192] It declares in the preamble that “it is necessary that -peace and good order should be enforced in said States,”--strong -language that!--“until loyal and republican State governments can be -legally established.” That is what Congress is to require. To that end -Congress must look into the circumstances of the case; it must consider -what the condition of the people there is,--whether this new government -is loyal, whether it is in the hands of loyal people. To that duty -Congress is summoned by its very legislation; the duty is laid down in -advance. - -And so you may go through all these Reconstruction statutes, and you -will find that under all of them the whole subject is brought back -ultimately to the discretion of Congress. This whole subject now is in -the discretion of Congress. I trust that Congress will exercise it so -that life and liberty and property shall be safe. - - January 12th, Mr. Sumner presented a memorial from citizens of - Virginia then in Washington, claiming to represent the loyal - people of that State, in which they declare themselves “anxious - for the prompt admission of the State to representation upon - such terms that a loyal civil government may be maintained - and the rights of loyal men secured; which,” they say, “we - feel assured cannot be the case, if any condition less - than the application of the test oath to the Legislature - shall be imposed by the Congress.” As the grounds of this - conviction, they point, among other matters, to the continued - manifestations of the Rebel spirit in the community,--the - ascendency of the Rebel party in the recently elected - Legislature, gained, as they insist, “by intimidation, fraud, - violence, and prevention of free speech,”--and particularly - to the evidences of disloyalty, and of meditated bad faith - in regard to the new State Constitution, exhibited in - speeches and other utterances of the Governor and Members of - Assembly,--utterances, on the part of some of the latter, - accompanied with gross contumely of a distinguished Member of - Congress from Massachusetts: all of which, the memorialists - say, “if a hearing can now be had, and which we respectfully - request may be granted, we pledge ourselves to show by sworn - witnesses of irreproachable character, residing in Virginia.” - - The memorial was received with denunciation, as - “disrespectful,” “unjust and abusive,” “merely the wailing - of those who were defeated,” “originating with the view of - keeping out Virginia,” “trifling with our own plighted faith - and honor,”--and its presentation criticized with corresponding - severity,--the Senators from Nevada leading the assault. Mr. - Sumner responded:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--Has it come to this, that the loyal people of Virginia -cannot be heard on this floor? that a petition presented by a member -of this body, proceeding from them, is to have first the denunciation -of the Senator from Nevada on my right [Mr. NYE], and then the -denunciation of the Senator from Nevada on my left [Mr. STEWART]? -Why are the loyal people of Virginia to be thus exposed? What have -they done? Sir, in what respect is that petition open to exception? -The Senator says it is disrespectful. To whom? To this body? To the -other Chamber? To the President of the United States? To any branch of -this Government? Not in the least. It is disrespectful, according to -the Senator from Nevada, to the present Governor of Virginia, and he -undertakes to state his case. - -Now, Sir, I have nothing to say of the present Governor of Virginia. -I am told that he is on this floor; but I have not the honor of his -acquaintance, and I know very little about him. I make no allegation, -no suggestion, with regard to his former course. He may have been as -sound always as the Senator from Nevada himself; but the petitioners -from Virginia say the contrary. They are so circumstanced as to know -more about him than the Senator from Nevada, or than myself; and they -are so circumstanced as to have a great stake in his future conduct. -Thus circumstanced, they send their respectful petition to this -Chamber, asking a hearing; and what is the answer? Denunciation from -one Senator of Nevada echoed by denunciation from the other Senator of -Nevada. The voice of Nevada on this occasion is united, it is one, to -denounce a loyal petition from Virginia. - -Was I not right in presenting the petition? Shall these people be -unheard? The Committee which the Senator represents, led by the Senator -from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL], and now led by himself, are pressing this -measure to a precipitate conclusion. These petitioners, having this -great interest in the result, ask for a hearing. Several days ago I -presumed, respectfully, deferentially, to ask that this measure should -be postponed a few days in order to give an opportunity for such a -hearing. I was refused. The Senator from Nevada would not consent, and -with the assistance of Democrats he crowds this measure forward. Sir, -it is natural, allow me to say, that one acting in this new conjunction -should trifle with the right of petition. When one begins to act with -such allies, I can well imagine that he loses something of his original -devotion to the great fundamental principles of our Government. - -Something was said by my friend, the other Senator from Nevada [Mr. -NYE], on another passage of the petition, referring to a distinguished -colleague of my own. Why, Sir, that very passage furnishes testimony -against the cause represented by the Senator from Nevada. It shows how -little to be trusted are these men. It shows the game of treachery -which they have undertaken. It shows how they are intending to press -this measure through Congress so as to obtain for Virginia the -independence of a State. Are you ready for that conclusion? Are you -ready to part with this great control which yet remains to Congress, -through which security may be maintained for the rights of all? - -Something has been said by different Senators of plighted faith. -Sir, there is a faith that is plighted, and by that I will stand, -God willing, to the end. It is nothing less than this: to secure -the rights of all, without distinction of color, in the State of -Virginia. When I can secure those rights, when I can see that they -are firmly established beyond the reach of fraud, beyond the violence -of opposition, then I am willing that that State shall again assume -its independent position. But until then I say, Wait! In the name -of Justice, in the name of Liberty, for the sake of Human Rights, I -entreat the Senate to wait. - - January 13th, in response to criticisms by Mr. Trumbull, of - Illinois, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -It was in pursuance of the effort I made on the first day of this week -that yesterday I presented a memorial from loyal citizens of Virginia -here in Washington. I presented it as a memorial, and asked to have it -read. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART], in the remarks which he -so kindly made with regard to me later in the day, said that in asking -to have it read I adopted it. I can pardon that remark to the Senator -from Nevada, who is less experienced in this Chamber than the Senator -from Illinois; but the latter Senator has repeated substantially the -same remark. Sir, this is a new position, that in presenting a memorial -one adopts it, especially when he asks to have it read. Why, Sir, what -is the right of petition? Is it reduced to this, that no petition can -be presented unless the Senator approves it, or that no petition can -be read at the request of a Senator unless he approves it? Such a -limitation on the right of petition would go far to cut it down to its -unhappy condition in those pro-slavery days which some of us remember. -Sir, I was right in presenting the memorial, and right in asking to -have it read. - -And now what is its character? It sets forth a condition of things in -Virginia which might well make the Senate pause. I think no candid -person can have listened to that memorial without seeing that it -contains statements with regard to which the Senate ought to be -instructed before it proceeds to a vote. Do you consider, Sir, that -when you install this Legislature you consign the people of Virginia -to its power? Do you consider that to this body belongs the choice of -judges? The whole judiciary of the State is to be organized by it. This -may be done in the interests of Freedom and Humanity, or in the ancient -interests of the Rebellion. I am anxious that this judiciary should -be pure and devoted to Human Rights. But if the policy is pursued -which finds such strenuous support, especially from the Senator from -Illinois, farewell then to such a judiciary!--that judiciary which is -often called the Palladium of the Commonwealth, through which justice -is secured, rights protected, and all men are made safe. Instead of -that, you will have a judiciary true only to those who have lately -been in rebellion. You will have a judiciary that will set its face -like flint against those loyalists that find so little favor with the -Senator from Illinois. You will have a judiciary that will follow out -the spirit which the Senator has shown to-day, and do little else than -pursue vindictively these loyalists. - - * * * * * - -There has been allusion to the Governor of Virginia. The Senator says I -have made an assault upon him. Oh, no! How have I assaulted him? I said -simply that I understood he was on the floor, as the member-elect from -Richmond was on the floor. That is all that I said. But now there is -something with regard to this Governor to which I should like to have -an answer: possibly the Senator may be able to answer it. I have here a -speech purporting to have been made by him at an agricultural fair in -the southwest part of Virginia after the election, from which, with -your permission, but, Sir, without adopting it at all or making myself -in any way responsible for its contents, I will read. - -Mr. Walker, addressing the audience, says:-- - - “A little talking sometimes does a great deal of good; and that - expended in the late canvass I heard in a voice of thunder on - the 6th of July, when the people of your noble old Commonwealth - declared themselves against vandalism, fraud, and treachery. - Virginia has freed herself from the tyranny of a horde of - greedy cormorants and unprincipled carpet-baggers, who came - to sap her very vitals. I have no other feeling but that of - pity for the opposition party, who were deceived and led by - adventurers having only their own personal aggrandizement - and aims in view, with neither interest, character, nor - self-respect at stake; for this a majority of them never had.” - -Now, Sir, what are the operative words of this remarkable speech? That -this very Governor Walker, who finds a vindicator--I may say, adopting -a term of the early law, a compurgator--in the Senator from Illinois, -announces that by this recent election Virginia has “declared against -vandalism, fraud, and treachery,--has freed herself from the tyranny of -a horde of greedy cormorants and unprincipled carpet-baggers, who came -to sap her very vitals.” - -Such is the language by which this Governor characterizes loyal people -from the North, from the West, from all parts of the country, who since -the overthrow of the Rebellion have gone there with their household -gods, with their energies, with their character, with their means, -to contribute to the resources of the State! Sir, what does all this -suggest? To my mind unhappy days in the future; to my mind anything but -justice for the devoted loyal people and Unionists of that State. And -now, Sir, while I make this plea for them, again let me say I present -no exclusive claim to represent them; I speak now only because others -do not speak; and as in other days when I encountered the opposition of -the Senator from Illinois I was often in a small minority, sometimes -almost alone, I may be so now; but I have a complete conviction that -the course I am now taking will be justified by the future. Sad enough, -if it be so! I hope it may be otherwise. - - Mr. Drake’s amendment was rejected. Another, thereupon offered - by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, and as subsequently amended, - requiring members of the Legislature before taking or resuming - their seats, and State officers before entering upon office, - to make oath to past loyalty or removal of disabilities, was - adopted. Other provisions, against exclusion from civil rights - on account of race or color, either by future amendments of - the existing State Constitution or by rescinding the State’s - ratification of any amendment to the National Constitution, - were moved as “fundamental conditions” of admission. In an - argument, January 14th, maintaining the validity of such - conditions, the pending question being on a provision of this - character offered by Mr. Drake, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--Something has been said of the term by which this -proposition should be designated. One will not call it “compact,” -finding in this term much danger, but at the same time he refuses to -the unhappy people in Virginia now looking to us for protection such -safeguard as may be found in this proposition. For myself, Sir, I make -no question of terms. Call it one thing or another, it is the same, -for it has in it protection. Call it a compact, I accept it. Call -it a law, I accept it. Call it a condition, I accept it. It is all -three,--condition, law, compact,--and, as all three, binding. The old -law-books speak of a triple cord. Here you have it. - -My friend from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER] falls into another -mistake,--he will pardon me, if I suggest it,--which I notice with -regret. He exalts the technical State above the real State. He -knows well what is the technical State, which is found in form, in -technicality, in privilege, if you please,--for he has made himself -to-night the advocate of privilege. To my mind the State is the people, -and its highest office is their just safeguard; and when it is declared -that a State hereafter shall not take away the right of any of its -people, here is no infringement of anything that belongs to a State. I -entreat my friend to bear the distinction in mind. A State can have no -right or privilege to do wrong; nor can the denial of this pretension -disparage the State, or in any way impair its complete equality with -other States. The States have no power except to do justice. Any power -beyond this is contrary to the Harmonies of the Universe. - -Since the Senator spoke, I sent into the other room for the Declaration -of Independence, in order to read a sentence which is beyond question -the touchstone of our institutions, to which all the powers of a State -must be brought. Here it is:-- - - “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of - America in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme - Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, - in the name and by the authority of the good people of these - Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United - Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent - States.” - -And then it proceeds to say that-- - - “They have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract - alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and - things which independent States may of right do.” - -Here is the claim, with its limitation,--the great claim, and its great -limitation. The claim was Independence; the limitation was Justice. - -“Which independent States may of right do”: nothing else, nothing which -a State may not of right do. Now, Sir, bear in mind, do not forget, -that there is not one thing prohibited by these fundamental conditions -that a State may of right do. Therefore, Sir, in the name of Right, do -I insist that it is binding upon the State. It is binding, even if not -there; and it is binding, being there. Its insertion is like notice or -proclamation of the perpetual obligation. - - MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? - -MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. CARPENTER. In speaking of a State of this Union, does not - the Senator understand the term to apply to the corporation, so - to speak,--the Government of the State? - -MR. SUMNER. I do not. - - MR. CARPENTER. I ask the Senator, then, in what way the State - of Virginia got out of the Union, except by destroying the - State Government which was a member of the Union? Her territory - was always in; her people were always subject to the laws of - the United States. - -MR. SUMNER. There I agree with the Senator. Her people were always in; -her territory was always in. - - MR. CARPENTER. But her Government was not. - -MR. SUMNER. Not out. Her Government was destroyed. - - MR. CARPENTER. Yes, and thereby she ceased to be a member of - the Union. - -MR. SUMNER. Rather than say that she had ceased to be a member of the -Union, I would say that her Government was destroyed. She never was -able to take one foot of her soil or one of her people beyond the -jurisdiction of the Nation. The people constitute the State in the just -sense, and it has been always our duty to protect them, and this I now -propose to do. - - * * * * * - -I return to the point, that what it is proposed to prohibit by these -fundamental conditions no State can of right do. Therefore to require -that Virginia shall not do these things is no infringement of anything -that belongs to a State, for a State can have no such privilege. My -friend made himself, I said, the advocate of privilege. He complained, -that, if we imposed these conditions, we should impair the “privileges” -of a State. No such thing. The State can have no such thing. The -Senator would not curtail a State of its fair proportions. When will it -be apparent that the license to do wrong is only a barbarism? - -Then, again, the Senator says, if this is already forbidden, why repeat -the prohibition in the form of a new condition? Why, Sir, my friend is -too well read in the history of Liberty and of its struggles to make -that inquiry seriously. Does he not remember how in English history -Liberty has been won by just such repetitions? It began with Magna -Charta, followed shortly afterward by a repetition; then again, in the -time of Charles the First, by another repetition; and then again, at -the Revolution of 1688, by still another repetition. But did anybody -at either of those great epochs say that the repetition was needless, -because all contained in Magna Charta? True, it was all there; but the -repetition was needed in order to press it home upon the knowledge and -the conscience of the people. - - MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me? - -MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. CARPENTER. Is not the great distinction in this fact, that - England has no written Constitution,--that the Great Charter - is a mere Act of Parliament, which may be repealed to-morrow? - With us we have a written Constitution; and when its terms and - provisions are once clear, do we not weaken, do we not show our - lack of faith, that is, our lack of confidence in the value of - the provisions, by reënacting it in the form of a statute? - -MR. SUMNER. I must say I cannot follow my friend to that conclusion, -nor do I see the difference he makes between Magna Charta in England -and our Constitution. I believe they are very much alike. And I believe -that the time is at hand when another document of our history will -stand side by side with the Constitution, and enjoy with it coëqual -authority, as it has more than the renown of the Constitution: I mean -the Declaration of Independence. This is the first Constitution of our -history. It is our first Magna Charta. Nor can any State depart from -it; nor can this Nation depart from it. To all the promises and the -pledges of that great Declaration are we all pledged, whether as Nation -or as State. The Nation, when it bends before them, exalts itself; and -when it requires their performance of a State, again exalts itself, and -exalts the State also. - -So I see it. Full well, Sir, I know that in other days, when -Slavery prevailed in this Chamber, there was a different rule of -interpretation; but I had thought that our war had changed all that. -Sir, to my mind the greatest victory in that terrible conflict was -not at Appomattox: oh, no, by no means! Nor was it in the triumphal -march of Sherman: oh, no, by no means! This greatest victory was the -establishment of a new rule of interpretation by which the institutions -of our country are dedicated forevermore to Human Rights, and the -Declaration of Independence is made a living letter instead of a -promise. Clearly, unquestionably, beyond all doubt, that, Sir, was -the greatest victory of our war,--greater than any found on any field -of blood: as a victory of ideas is above any victory of the sword; -as the establishment of Human Rights is the end and consummation of -government, without which government is hard to bear, if not a sham. - - January 17th, the Joint Resolution as amended was laid on - the table, and the Senate took up the House bill, which - admitted the State to representation clear of all conditions; - immediately whereupon Mr. Edmunds moved the proviso concerning - the oath to be taken by members of the Legislature and State - officers which had been attached to the former measure. - - The renewal of this proviso gave rise to renewed and protracted - debate, in the course of which, Mr. Sumner, in speeches on the - 18th and 19th, in reply to an elaborate defence of Governor - Walker by Mr. Stewart against the charges of disloyalty and - meditated bad faith, adduced copious extracts from speeches - of the Governor and others, together with numerous letters - from various parts of the State, all serving to show, as he - conceived, that the late election was “one huge, colossal - fraud.” - - Meanwhile Mr. Sumner’s colleague, Mr. Wilson, with a view to - “a bill in which all could unite,” moved the reference of - the pending bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, “for the - purpose of having the whole question thoroughly examined,”--a - motion which on the part of the Committee itself was - strenuously opposed. - - Upon this posture of the case, January 19th, Mr. Morton, of - Indiana, remarked, that “there seemed to be an obstinate - determination that Virginia must come in according to the bill - reported by the Committee or not come in at all,”--that “the - Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART], with all his zeal and his - good intentions, was standing as substantially in the way of - the admission of Virginia as the Senator from Massachusetts - [Mr. SUMNER]”; and turning to the latter, he said: “It seems - that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is unwilling - that Virginia shall come in now upon any terms; and the Senator - has developed more clearly this morning than he has done before - what his desire is. It is that there shall be a new election in - Virginia. Am I right in regard to that?” - - MR. SUMNER. I have not said that. - - MR. MORTON. Then what does the Senator’s argument mean, - that the last election was a monstrous fraud? What is the - object in proving that the last election was a monstrous - fraud, unless the Senator wants a new election? Let us have - an understanding about that. - - MR. SUMNER. I wish to purge the Legislature of its Rebels. - I understand that three-fourths of the Legislature, if - not more, cannot take the test oath. That is what I first - propose to do. - - After further remarks by Mr. Morton, Mr. Sumner spoke as - follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--In what the Senator from Indiana has said in reply to -the Senator from Nevada I entirely sympathize. I unite with the Senator -from Indiana in his amendments. I unite with him in his aspirations -for that security in the future which I say is the first great object -now of our legislation in matters of Reconstruction. Without security -in the future Reconstruction is a failure; and that now should be -our first, prime object. But while I unite with the Senator on those -points, he will pardon me, if I suggest to him that he has not done me -justice in his reference to what I said. And now, Sir, before I comment -on his remarks, I ask to have the pending motion read. - - THE PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. ANTHONY, of Rhode Island, in the - chair.) The pending motion is the motion of the Senator from - Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] to refer the bill to the Committee - on the Judiciary. - -MR. SUMNER. So I understood, Sir, and it was to that motion that I -spoke. I argued that the bill and all pending questions should be -referred to the Committee,--and on what ground? That the election was -carried by a colossal fraud. The Senator complains because I did not -go further, and say whether I would have a new election or not. The -occasion did not require it. I am not in the habit, the Senator knows -well, of hesitating in the expression of my opinions; but logically -the time had not come for the expression of any opinion on that point. -My argument was, that there must be inquiry. To that point the Senate -knows well I have directed attention from the beginning of this -debate. I have said: “Why speed this matter? Why hurry it to this -rash consummation? Why, without inquiry, hand over the loyalists of -Virginia, bound hand and foot, as victims?” That is what I have said; -and it is no answer for my friend to say that I do not declare whether -I would have a new election or not. - -When an inquiry has been made, and we know officially and in authentic -form the precise facts, I shall be ready to meet all the requirements -of the occasion,--so, at least, I trust. My friend, therefore, was -premature in his proposition to me. May I remind him of that incident -in the history of our profession, when a very learned and eminent -chief-justice of England said to a counsellor at the bar, “Do not -leap before you come to the stile,”--in other words, Do not speak to -a point until the point has arisen?[193] The point which the Senator -presents to me had not yet arisen; the question was not before the -Senate, whether there should be a new election or not. There was no -such motion; nor did the occasion require its consideration. My aim was -in all simplicity to show the reasons for inquiry. Now it may be, that, -when that inquiry is made, it will appear that I am mistaken,--that -this election is not the terrible fraud that I believe it,--that the -loyal people, black and white, will hereafter be secure in the State of -Virginia under the proposed Constitution. It may be that all that will -become apparent on the report of your Committee. It is not apparent -now. On the contrary, just the opposite is apparent. It is apparent -that loyalists will not be secure, that freedmen will suffer unknown -peril, unless you now throw over them your protecting arm. - -That is my object. I wish to secure safety. I wish to surround all my -fellow-citizens in that State with an impenetrable ægis. Is not that an -honest desire? Is it not a just aspiration? I know that my friend from -Indiana shares it with me; I claim no monopoly of it, but I mention it -in order to explain the argument which I have made. - - * * * * * - -In the course of this debate there has been an iteration of assertion -on certain points. I mention two,--one of fact, and the other of law. -It has been said that we are pledged to admit Virginia, and this -assertion has been repeated in every variety of form; and then it is -said that in point of law the test oath is not required. Now to both -these assertions, whether of fact or law, I reply, “You are mistaken.” -The pledge to admit Virginia cannot be shown, and the requirement of -the test oath can be shown. - -It is strange to see the forgetfulness of great principles into which -Senators have been led by partisanship. Certain Senators forget the -people, forget the lowly, only to remember Rebels. They forget that -our constant duty is to protect our fellow-citizens in Virginia at all -hazards. This is our first duty, which cannot be postponed. In the -reconstruction of Virginia it must be an ever-present touchstone. - -Look at the text of the Reconstruction Acts, or their spirit, and it -is the same. By their text the first and commanding duty is, “that -peace and good order should be enforced in said States _until loyal -and republican State governments can be legally established_”; and -until then “any civil governments which may exist therein shall be -deemed _provisional_ only, and in all respects subject to the paramount -authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, -or supersede the same.” Such are the duties and powers devolved upon -Congress by the very terms of the first Reconstruction Act.[194] -The duty is to see that “loyal and republican State governments” -be established; and the power is “to abolish, modify, control, or -supersede” the provisional governments. - -It is not enough to say that Virginia has performed certain things -required by the statute. This is not enough. The Senate must be -satisfied that her government is loyal and republican. This opens the -question of fact. Is Virginia loyal? Is her Legislature loyal? Is the -new Government loyal? These questions must be answered. How is the -fact? Do not tell me that Virginia has complied with certain formal -requirements. Behind all these is the great requirement of Loyalty. Let -Senators who insist upon her present swift admission show this loyalty. -There is no plighted faith of Congress which can supersede this duty. -Disloyalty is like fraud; it vitiates the whole proceeding. Such is the -plain meaning of the text in its words. - -But if we look at the spirit of the Acts, the conclusion becomes still -more irresistible. It is contrary to reason and to common sense to -suppose that Congress intended to blind its eyes and tie its hands, so -that it could see nothing and do nothing, although the State continued -disloyal to the core. And yet this is the argument of Senators who -set up the pretension of plighted faith. There is Virginia with -a Constitution dabbled in blood, with a Legislature smoking with -Rebellion, and with a Governor commending himself to Rebels throughout -a long canvass by promising to strike at common schools; and here is -Congress blindfold and with hands tied behind the back. Such is the -picture. To look at it is enough. - -Sir, the case is clear,--too clear for argument. Congress is not -blindfold, nor are its hands tied. Congress must see, and it must act. -But the loyalty of a State should be like the sun in the heavens, so -that all can see it. At present we see nothing but disloyalty. - - * * * * * - -The next assertion concerns the test oath; and on this point I desire -to be precise. - -General Canby, the military commander in Virginia, thought that the -test oath, or “iron-clad,” should be required in the organization -of the Virginia Legislature. This opinion was given after careful -examination of the statutes, and was reaffirmed by him at different -times. According to him, the test oath must be applied until the -Constitution has been approved by Congress; and in one of his letters -the commander says, “Its application to the seceded States before -they were represented in Congress appears to be the natural result of -their political relation to the Union, independent of the requirements -of the ninth section of the law of July 19, 1867.”[195] To my mind -this opinion is unanswerable, and it is reinforced by the reason -assigned. Nothing could be more natural than that the test oath, which -was expressly required of the Boards of Registration and of other -functionaries, should be required of the Legislature, so long as the -same was within the power of Congress. The reason for it in one case -was equally applicable in the other case; nay, it was stronger, if -possible, in the case of the Legislature, inasmuch as the powers of the -latter are the most vital. It is this Legislature which is to begin the -new State government. Two essential parts of the system depend upon -it,--the courts of justice, which are to be reorganized, and the common -schools. To my mind it is contrary to reason that the establishment -and control of these two great agencies should be committed to a -disloyal Legislature,--in other words, to a Legislature that cannot -take the test oath. The requirement of this oath is only a natural and -reasonable precaution, without harshness or proscription. It is simply -for the sake of security. Therefore is General Canby clearly right on -grounds of reason. - -Looking at the text of the Reconstruction Acts, the conclusion of -reason is confirmed by a positive requirement. By the ninth section of -the Act of July 19, 1867,[196] it is provided,-- - - “That all members of said Boards of Registration, and all - persons hereafter elected or appointed to office in said - military districts, _under any so-called State or municipal - authority_, … shall be required to take and to subscribe the - oath of office prescribed by law for officers of the United - States.” - -Senators find ambiguity in the terms “under any _so-called State_ -or municipal authority”; but I submit, Sir, that this is because -they do not sufficiently regard the whole series of Reconstruction -Acts and construe these words in their light. If there be any -ambiguity, it is removed by other words, which furnish a precise and -unassailable definition of the term “so-called State authority.” By the -Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, it is provided, “that, until the -people of said Rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation -in the Congress of the United States, any civil governments which may -exist therein shall be deemed _provisional only_, and in all respects -subject to the paramount authority of the United States.”[197] This is -clear and precise. Until the people are admitted to representation, -the State government is “provisional only,”--or, in other words, it is -a “so-called State authority.” Now the Legislature was elected under -“so-called State authority,”--that is, under a State constitution which -was “provisional only.” Therefore, according to the very text of the -Reconstruction Acts, one interpreting another, must this test oath be -required. - -If it be insisted that the Legislature was not elected under “so-called -State authority,” pray under what authority was it elected? Perhaps it -will be said, of the United States. Then surely it would fall under the -general requirement of the Act of July 2, 1862,[198] prescribing the -test oath to all officers of the United States. But I insist upon this -application of the statute only in reply to those who would exclude the -Legislature from the requirement of the Reconstruction Act. I cannot -doubt that it comes precisely and specifically within this requirement. - -This conclusion is enforced by three additional arguments. - -1. By a resolution of Congress bearing date February 6, 1869, -“respecting the provisional governments of Virginia and Texas,”[199] -it is declared “that the persons now holding civil offices in the -provisional governments of Virginia and Texas, who cannot take and -subscribe the oath prescribed by the Act entitled ‘An Act to prescribe -an Oath of Office, and for other Purposes,’ approved July 2, 1862, -shall, on the passage of this Resolution, be removed therefrom.” -By these plain words is the purpose of Congress manifest. The test -oath is prescribed for all persons “holding civil offices in the -provisional government of Virginia.” But, by requirement in the first -Reconstruction Act, the provisional government lasts until the State is -admitted to representation. - -2. Then comes a well-known rule of interpretation, requiring that -words shall be construed _ut res magis valeat quam pereat_,--in other -words, so that the object shall prevail rather than perish. But the -very object of the Reconstruction Act on which this question arises was -to keep Rebels from the State government. This object is apparent from -beginning to end. But this object is defeated by any interpretation -disallowing the test oath. - -3. Then comes another rule of interpretation, which is of equal -obligation. It is, that we are always to incline so as to protect -Liberty and Right; and this rule, for double assurance, is embodied in -the very text of the statute whose meaning is now under consideration, -being the last section, as follows:-- - - “That all the provisions of this Act, and of the Acts to which - this is supplementary, shall be construed liberally, to the end - that all the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly carried - out.”[200] - -Following this rule, we find still another reason for so interpreting -the statute as to require the test oath. - -Thus by the reason of the case, by the natural signification of the -text, by the light furnished from the supplementary statute, by the -rule of interpretation that the object must prevail rather than -perish, and by that other commanding rule which requires a liberal -interpretation favorable to Liberty and Human Rights,--by all these -considerations, any one of which alone is enough, while the whole make -a combination of irresistible, infinite force, are we bound to require -the test oath. - -There is one remark of Andrew Johnson, just, wise, and patriotic, for -which I can forget many derelictions of duty, when he said, “For the -Rebels back seats.” I borrow this language. The time will come when -Rebels will be welcome to the full copartnership of government; but -this can be only when all are secure in their rights. Until then, “for -the Rebels back seats.” - - January 21st, the long debate terminated with an arraignment - by Mr. Trumbull of Mr. Sumner’s course in reference not only - to the pending bill, but to former measures of Reconstruction, - and an answer of similar scope by Mr. Sumner, concluding with - regard to Virginia[201] as follows:-- - -The next count in the Senator’s indictment was, that I had called -the late election in Virginia a fraud; and how did he encounter -this truthful allegation? He proceeded to show that General Canby -designated only five counties in which there were cases of fraud. Is -that an answer to my entirely different allegation? Does the Senator -misunderstand me, or is it an unintentional change of issue? My -statement was entirely different from that which he attributes to me. I -made no allegation of frauds in different counties, be they few or many. - -I said that the election in the whole State was carried by a conspiracy -reaching from one end of the State to the other, of which the candidate -for Governor was the head, to obtain the control of the State, and -by this means take the loyalists away from the protecting arms of -Congress. That was my allegation. Is that met by saying to me that I -do not adduce evidence of fraud in districts, or that there were only -five districts with regard to which we have such evidence? How do I -know, that, if you should go into an inquiry, you might not find that -very evidence with regard to all the districts? The Senator sets his -face against inquiry, as we all know. But I did not intend to open this -question. My object was entirely different: it was to show that from -beginning to end the whole canvass was a gigantic fraud; that Walker by -a fraudulent conspiracy imposed himself upon the State; that by appeals -to the Rebels he obtained their votes and thus installed himself in -power, with the understanding that when once installed he should -administer the State in their interest. - -Then, Sir, farewell the equal rights of all! farewell an equal -judiciary, which is the Palladium of just government! farewell trial by -jury! farewell suffrage for all! farewell that system of public schools -which is essential to the welfare of the community!--all sacrificed to -this conspiracy. Such, Sir, is my allegation; and it was in making this -allegation I challenged reply. I challenge it now. When I first made -it, I looked about the Senate, I looked at those who are most strenuous -for this sacrifice, and none answered. None can answer. The evidence is -before the Senate in the speeches of the Governor and in the election. - -Sir, shall I follow the Senator in other things? I hesitate. I began by -saying I would not follow him in his personalities. I began by saying -that I would meet the counts of his indictment, one by one, precisely -on the facts. Have I not done so, turning neither to the right nor to -the left? I have no taste for controversy; much rather would I give -the little of strength that now remains for me to the direct advocacy -of those great principles to which my life in humble measure has been -dedicated, not forgetting any of my other duties as a Senator. If I -have in any respect failed, I regret it. Let me say in all simplicity, -I have done much less than I wish I had. I have failed often,--oh, how -often!--when I wish I had prevailed. No one can regret it more than I. -But I have been constant and earnest always. Such, God willing, such I -mean to be to the end. - -And now, Sir, as I stand before the Senate, trying by a last effort -to prevent the sacrifice of Unionists, white and black, in Virginia, -I feel that I am discharging only a simple duty. To do less would be -wretched failure. I must persevere. This cause I have at heart; this -people I long to save; this great State of Virginia I long to secure -as a true and loyal State in the National Union. Show that such is her -character, and no welcome shall surpass mine. - - Mr. Wilson’s motion for a reference of the bill having been - withdrawn, the Senate proceeded to vote on the various - amendments offered. Mr. Edmunds’s Proviso was carried by - Yeas 45, Nays 16. Other amendments, imposing “fundamental - conditions,” to secure equality in suffrage, in eligibility - to office, and in school rights and privileges, passed by - small majorities. A Preamble, moved by Mr. Morton, declaring - “good faith” in the framing and adoption of a republican State - Constitution and in the ratification of the Fourteenth and - Fifteenth Amendments to the National Constitution “a condition - precedent to representation of the State in Congress,” was - adopted by Yeas 39, Nays 20. The bill as thus amended then - passed by Yeas 47, Nays 10. Mr. Sumner voted for all the - amendments, but did not vote upon the bill itself,--it being - his opinion, as shown by his speeches during the debates, that - the admission of Virginia at that time, with its legislative - and executive departments as then constituted, would endanger - the rights and security of her loyal people. - - - - -FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 12, 26, FEBRUARY 1, MARCH 2, 10, 11, -1870. - - - January 12, 1870, Mr. Sumner, in accordance with previous - notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce the following - bill:-- - - A Bill to authorize the refunding and consolidation of - the national debt, to extend banking facilities, and to - establish specie payments. - - SECTION 1. _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of - Representatives in Congress assembled_, That, for the - purpose of refunding the debt of the United States and - reducing the interest thereon, the Secretary of the - Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to issue, on the - credit of the United States, coupon or registered bonds, - of such denominations not less than fifty dollars as he - may think proper, to an amount not exceeding $500,000,000, - redeemable in coin, at the pleasure of the Government, at - any time after ten years, and payable in coin at forty - years from date, and bearing interest at the rate of five - per cent. per annum, payable semiannually in coin; and the - bonds thus authorized may be disposed of at the discretion - of the Secretary, under such regulations as he shall - prescribe, either in the United States or elsewhere, at - not less than their par value, for coin; or they may be - exchanged for any of the outstanding bonds, of an equal - aggregate par value, heretofore issued under the Act of - February 25, 1862, and known as the Five-Twenty bonds of - 1862, and for no other purpose; and the proceeds of so much - thereof as may be disposed of for coin shall be placed in - the Treasury, to be used for the redemption of such six per - cent. bonds at par as may not be offered in exchange, or to - replace such amount of coin as may have been used for that - purpose. - - SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the Secretary of - the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to issue, on - the credit of the United States, coupon or registered bonds - to the amount of $500,000,000, of such denominations not - less than fifty dollars as he may think proper, redeemable - in coin, at the pleasure of the Government, at any time - after fifteen years, and payable in coin at fifty years - from date, and bearing interest not exceeding four and one - half per cent. per annum, payable semiannually in coin; and - the bonds authorized by this section may be disposed of - under such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe, - in the United States or elsewhere, at not less than par, - for coin; or they may be exchanged at par for any of the - outstanding obligations of the Government bearing a higher - rate of interest; and the proceeds of such bonds as may be - sold for coin shall be deposited in the Treasury, to be - used for the redemption of such obligations as by the terms - of issue may be or may become redeemable or payable, or to - replace such coin as may have been used for that purpose. - - SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the Secretary of - the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to issue, - on the credit of the United States, from time to time, - coupon or registered bonds, of such denominations not less - than fifty dollars as he may think proper, to the amount - of $500,000,000, redeemable in coin, at the pleasure - of the Government, at any time after twenty years, and - payable in coin at sixty years from date, and bearing - interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum, payable - semiannually in coin; and such bonds may be disposed of - at the discretion of the Secretary, either in the United - States or elsewhere, at not less than their par value, for - coin, or for United States notes, national-bank notes, or - fractional currency; or may be exchanged for any of the - obligations of the United States, of whatever character, - that may be outstanding at the date of the issue of such - bonds. And if in the opinion of the Secretary of the - Treasury it is thought advisable to issue a larger amount - of four per cent. bonds for any of the purposes herein or - hereinafter recited than would be otherwise authorized by - this section of this Act, such further issues are hereby - authorized: _Provided_, That there shall be no increase in - the aggregate debt of the United States in consequence of - any issues authorized by this Act. - - SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That the bonds - authorized by this Act shall be exempt from all taxation by - or under national, State, or municipal authority. Nor shall - there be any tax upon, or abatement from, the interest or - income thereof. - - SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That the present - limit of $300,000,000 as the aggregate amount of issues - of circulating notes by national banks be, and the same - is hereby, extended, so that the aggregate amount issued - and to be issued may amount to, but shall not exceed, - $500,000,000; and the additional issue hereby authorized - shall be so distributed, if demanded, as to give to each - State and Territory its just proportion of the whole amount - of circulating notes according to population, subject to - all the provisions of law authorizing national banks, in - so far as such provisions are not modified by this Act: - _Provided_, That for each dollar of additional currency - issued under the provisions of this Act there shall be - withdrawn and cancelled one dollar of legal-tender issues. - - SEC. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That the Secretary - of the Treasury shall require the national banks, to whom - may be awarded any part or portion of the additional - circulating notes authorized by the fifth section of - this Act, to deposit, before the delivery thereto of any - such notes, with the Treasurer of the United States, as - security for such circulation, registered bonds of the - description authorized by the third section of this Act, - in the proportion of not less than one hundred dollars of - bonds for each and every eighty dollars of notes to be - delivered; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall require - from existing national banks, in substitution of the bonds - already deposited with the Treasurer of the United States - as security for their circulating notes, a deposit of - registered bonds authorized by the third section of this - Act to an amount not less than one hundred dollars of bonds - for every eighty dollars of notes that have been or may - hereafter be delivered to such banks, exclusive of such - amounts as have been cancelled. And if any national bank - shall not furnish to the Treasurer of the United States the - new bonds, as required by this Act, within three months - after having been notified by the Secretary of the Treasury - of his readiness to deliver such bonds, it shall be the - duty of the Treasurer, so long as such delinquency exists, - to retain from the interest, as it may become due and - payable, on the bonds belonging to such delinquent banks - on deposit with him as security for circulating notes, so - much of such interest as shall be in excess of four per - cent. per annum on the amount of such bonds, which excess - shall be placed to the credit of the sinking fund of the - United States; and all claims thereto on the part of such - delinquent banks shall cease and determine from that date; - and the percentage of currency delivered or to be delivered - to any bank shall in no case exceed eighty per cent. of the - face value of the bonds deposited with the Treasurer as - security therefor. - - SEC. 7. _And be it further enacted_, That, whenever the - premium on gold shall fall to or within five per cent., - it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to - give public notice that the outstanding United States - notes, or other legal-tender issues of the Government, - will thereafter be received at par for customs duties; - and the interest on the issues known as three per cent. - legal-tender certificates shall cease from and after the - date of such notice; and all such legal-tender obligations, - when so received, shall not again be uttered, but shall - forthwith be cancelled and destroyed. And so much of the - Act of February 25, 1862, and of all subsequent Acts, as - creates or declares any of the issues of the United States, - other than coin, a legal tender, be, and the same is - hereby, repealed; such repeal to take effect on and after - the first day of January, 1871. - - SEC. 8. _And be it further enacted_, That all the - provisions of existing laws in relation to forms, - inscriptions, devices, dies, and paper, and the printing, - attestation, sealing, signing, and counterfeiting, as may - be applicable, shall apply to the bonds issued under this - Act; and a sum not exceeding one per cent. of the amount of - bonds issued under this Act is hereby appropriated to pay - the expense of preparing and issuing the same and disposing - thereof. - - SEC. 9. _And be it further enacted_, That all Acts or parts - of Acts inconsistent with this Act be, and the same are - hereby, repealed. - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I have already during this session introduced a -bill providing for the extension of the national banking system and -the withdrawal of greenbacks in proportion to the new bank-notes -issued,[202] thus preparing the way for specie payments. The more I -reflect upon this simple proposition, the more I am satisfied of its -value. It promises to be as efficacious as it is unquestionably simple. -But it does not pretend to deal with the whole financial problem. - -The bill which I now introduce is more comprehensive in character. -While embodying the original proposition of substituting bank-notes -for greenbacks, it provides for the refunding and consolidation of the -national debt in such a way as to make it easy to bear, while it brings -the existing currency to a par with coin. In making this attempt I -am moved by the desire to do something for the business interests of -the country, which suffer inconceivably from the derangement of the -currency. Whether at home or abroad, it is the same. At home values -are uncertain; abroad commerce is disturbed and out of gear. Political -Reconstruction is not enough; there must be Financial Reconstruction -also. The peace which we covet must enter into our finances; the -reconciliation which we long for must embrace the disordered business -of the country. - -In any measure having this object there are two things which must -not be forgotten: first, the preservation of the national credit; -and, secondly, the reduction of existing taxation. Happily, there is -a universal prevailing sentiment for the national credit, showing -itself in a fixed determination that it shall be maintained at all -hazards. Nobody can exaggerate the value of this determination, which -is the corner-stone of Financial Reconstruction. On the reduction of -taxation there is at present more difference of opinion; but I cannot -doubt that here, too, there will be a speedy harmony. The country is -uneasy under the heavy burden. Willingly, gladly, patriotically, it -submitted to this burden while the Republic was in peril; but now there -is a yearning for relief. War taxes should not be peace taxes; and so -long as the present system continues, there is a constant and painful -memento of war, while business halts in chains and life bends under the -load. - -The national credit being safe, relief from the pressure of existing -taxation is the first practical object in our finances. But so entirely -natural and consistent is this object, that it harmonizes with all -other proper objects, especially with the refunding of the national -debt, and with specie payments. As the people feel easy in their -affairs, they will be ready for the work of Reconstruction. Therefore -do I say, as an essential stage in what we all desire, _Down with the -taxes!_ - -The proper reduction of taxation involves two other things: first, the -reduction of the present annual interest on the national debt, thus -affording immense relief; and, secondly, the spread or extension of -the national debt over succeeding generations, for whom, as well as -for ourselves, it was incurred. The practical value of the first is -apparent on the simple statement. The second may be less apparent, as -it opens a question of policy, on both sides of which much has been -already said. - -Nobody doubts the brilliancy of the movement to pay off the national -debt,--calling to mind the charge of the six hundred at Balaclava -riding into the jaws of Death, so that the beholder exclaimed, in -memorable words, “It is magnificent, but it is not war.”[203] In -other words, it was a feat of hardihood and immolation, abnormal, -eccentric, and beyond even the terrible requirements of battle. In -similar spirit might a beholder, witnessing the present sacrifice -of our people in the redemption of a debt so large a part of which -justly belongs to posterity, exclaim, “It is magnificent, but it is -not business.” Unquestionably business requires that we should meet -existing obligations according to their letter and spirit; but it does -not require payment in advance, nor payment of obligations resting upon -others. To do this is magnificent, but beyond the line of business. - -President Lincoln, in one of his earliest propositions of Emancipation, -before he had determined upon the great Proclamation, contemplated -compensation to slave-masters, and, in order to commend this large -expenditure, went into an elaborate calculation to show how easy it -would be, if proportioned upon the giant shoulders of posterity. -Dismissing the idea of payment by the existing generation, he proceeded -to exhibit the growing capacity of the country,--how from the beginning -there had been a decennial increase in population of 34.60 per -cent.,--how during a period of seventy years the ratio had never been -two per cent. below or two per cent. above this average, thus attesting -the inflexibility of this law of increase. Assuming its continuance, he -proceeded to show that in 1870 our population would be 42,323,341,--in -1880 it would be 56,967,216,--in 1890 it would be 76,677,872,--and -in 1900 it would be 103,208,415,--while in 1930 it would amount to -251,680,914.[204] Nobody has impeached these estimates. There they -stand in that Presidential Message as colossal mile-stones of the -Republic. - -The increase in material resources is beyond that of population. The -most recent calculation, founded on the last census, shows that for the -previous decade it was at the rate of eighty per cent.,[205] although -other calculations have placed it as high as one hundred and twenty-six -per cent.[206] Whether the one or the other, the rate of increase is -enormous, and, unless arrested in some way not now foreseen, it must -carry our national resources to a fabulous extent. What is a burden now -will be scarcely a feather’s weight in the early decades of the next -century, when a population counted by hundreds of millions will wield -resources counted by thousands of millions. On this head details are -superfluous. All must see at once the irresistible conclusion. - -It is much in this discussion, when we have ascertained how easy it -will be for posterity to bear this responsibility. But the case is -strengthened, when it is considered that the war was for the life of -the Republic, so that throughout all time, so long as the Republic -endures, all who enjoy its transcendent citizenship will share the -benefits. Should they not contribute to the unparalleled cost? Recent -estimates, deemed to be moderate and reasonable, show an aggregate -destruction of wealth or diversion of wealth-producing industry in -the United States since 1861 approximating nine thousand millions of -dollars, being the cost of the war, or, in other words, the cost of -the destruction of Slavery.[207] If from this estimate be dropped -the item for expenditures and loss of property in the Rebel States, -amounting to $2,700,000,000,[208] we shall have $6,300,000,000 as the -sum-total of cost to the loyal people, of which the existing national -debt represents less than half. Thus, besides precious blood beyond -any calculation of arithmetic, the present generation has already -contributed immensely to that result in which succeeding generations -have a stake even greater than theirs. - -Assuming, then, that there is to be no considerable taxation for the -immediate payment of the debt, we have one economy. If to this be added -another economy from the reduction of the interest, we shall be able to -relieve materially all the business interests of the country. Two such -economies will be of infinite value to the people, whose riches will be -proportionally increased. In the development of wealth, next to making -money is saving money. - - * * * * * - -Bearing these things in mind, Financial Reconstruction is relieved -of its difficulties. It only remains to find the proper machinery or -process. And here we encounter the propositions of the Secretary of the -Treasury in his Annual Report,[209] which are threefold:-- - -1. To refund twelve hundred millions of six per cent. -Five-Twenty bonds in four and a half per cent. Fifteen-Twenties, -Twenty-Twenty-Fives, and Twenty-Five-Thirties. - -2. To make our exports equal in value with our imports, and to restore -our commercial marine. - -3. To regard these as essential conditions of reduced taxation and -specie payments. - -Considering these propositions with the best attention I could give -to them, I have been impressed by their inadequacy as a system at the -present moment. I cannot easily consent to the postponement which they -imply. They hand over to the future what I wish to see accomplished -at once, and what I cannot doubt with a firm will can be accomplished -at an early day. But besides this capital defect, apparent on the -face, I find in the system proposed no assurance of success. Will it -work? I doubt. Here I wish to be understood as expressing myself with -proper caution; and I wish further to declare my anxiety to obtain -the substituted loans at the smallest rate of interest, and also my -conviction that within a short time, at some slight present cost, this -may be accomplished. - -Looking at this question in the light of business, I am driven to -the conclusion that twelve hundred millions of six per cents. cannot -be refunded either now or hereafter in four or four and a half per -cents. without offering compensation in an additional running period -of the bonds which is not found in the Fifteen-Twenties nor in the -Twenty-Five-Thirties proposed by the Secretary. With such bonds there -would be a practical difficulty in the way of any such refunding to -any considerable amount, from the inability to command a sufficient -amount of coin under the “option of coin,” which must accompany the -offer; nor is there any fund applicable to the purchase of coin in -open market, were such a course desirable. Obviously, to induce the -voluntary relinquishment of bonds at a high rate of interest for other -bonds at a less rate, the holders must be offered something preferable -to the coin tendered as an alternative. - -The time has passed when holders can be menaced with payment in -greenbacks. Whatever we do must be in coin, or in some bond which will -be taken rather than coin. The attempt at too low a rate of interest -would cause the coin to be taken rather than the bond, if we had the -article at command,--and would end in a deluge of coin, sweeping away -the premium on gold. A return to specie payments, thus precipitated, -would be of doubtful value, if not illusive, without other and -sustaining measures. - -In the suggestion that our exports must be augmented, and our -commercial marine restored, I sympathize cordially; but I do not -see how this can be accomplished so long as the present taxation is -maintained, exercising such a depressing influence on all industry, -making the necessaries of life dearer, adding to the cost of raw -material, and generally enhancing the price of our products so as to -prevent them from competing in foreign markets with the products of -other nations. - -The proposition to make the interest on the new bonds payable -at various points in Europe, at the option of the holder, seems -unnecessary, while it is open to objections. Such agencies would be -onerous and cumbersome. At London, Paris, Frankfort, and Berlin, there -must be a machinery, with constant complications, continuing through -the lifetime of the bonds, to secure the transfers from point to point -and the obligatory remittances in gold; nor am I sure that in this -way foreign powers might not obtain a certain jurisdiction over our -monetary transactions. But I confess that the ruling objection with -me is of a different character. New York is our commercial centre, -designated by Providence and confirmed by man. Already it has made a -great advance, but it is not yet quoted abroad as one of the clearing -points of the world. At New York quotations are obtained daily on -London and Paris; but in these places no such recognized quotations can -be now obtained on New York. That the agencies proposed will tend to -postpone this condition is a sufficient objection. - - * * * * * - -I have made these remarks with hesitation, but in order to prepare -the way for the bill which I have introduced. It was my duty to show -why the propositions of the Secretary were not sufficient for the -occasion, and this I have tried to do simply and frankly. It is long -since I avowed my conviction that specie payments should be resumed; -and I should now do less than my duty, if I did not at least attempt to -show the way which seems to me so natural and easy. While the present -system continues, we are poor. The payment of the national debt and -the accumulation of coin in the Treasury are the signs of unparalleled -national wealth, but our financial condition is not in harmony with -these signs. The latest figures from the Treasury are such as no other -nation can exhibit. From these it appears that the amount of bonds -purchased since March 1, 1869, for the sinking fund was $22,000,000, -and the amount purchased subject to Congress $64,000,000, being in -all $86,000,000.[210] The same proportion of purchase for January and -February would be $23,000,000, making a sum-total of $109,000,000 for -one year. And notwithstanding this outlay, we find in the Treasury, -January 1, 1870, in coin no less than $109,159,000, and in currency -$12,773,000, making a sum-total of $121,932,000. And yet, with these -tokens of national resources manifest to the world, our bonds are -below par, and our currency is inconvertible paper. This should not be -permitted longer. With all these resources there must be a way, even if -we were not taught that a will always finds a way. - - * * * * * - -The refunding of an existing loan implies two distinct and independent -transactions: first, the extinction, by payment in some form, of the -existing loan; and, secondly, the negotiation of a new loan to an -amount equal to that extinguished. - -The bill now before the Senate contemplates the prompt extinguishment -of the Five-Twenties of 1862. But I would not have this important work -entered upon until the Government is fully prepared to say, that, after -a certain period of notice, say six months, in order that distant -holders in Europe may be advised, interest on the Five-Twenties of -1862 shall cease, and the bonds be forthwith redeemed in coin. There -should be no coercion of any kind upon any holder, at home or abroad, -to induce the acceptance of a substitute bond. I am happy to believe, -that, with the judicious use of five per cent. Ten-Forties, all the -coin necessary for such independent action may be assured in advance. -Believing that such five per cent. bonds will be regarded by investors -as preferable to coin, I would give the holders of the old bonds the -first opportunity to subscribe for the new. Those who elect coin will -make room for others ready to give coin in exchange for such bonds. - -If we look at the practical consequences, we shall be encouraged in -this course. The refunding of the sixes of 1862, being upward of five -hundred millions, in fives, as authorized by the first section of the -bill, contemplates the payment from present funds of little more than -fourteen millions, being the excess of Five-Twenties above the five -hundred millions provided for. The annual reduction of interest on that -loan will be $5,886,296. The substitution of three hundred millions of -fours for a like amount of sixes, as provided in the bill, will operate -a further saving of $6,000,000, making a sum-total of $11,886,296, or -near twelve millions. There will then remain but $129,443,800, subject -to redemption, being Five-Twenties of 1864. - -During the year 1870 the further sum of $536,326,200, being -Five-Twenties of 1865, will fall within the control of the Government, -when, as it seems to me, and according to the contemplation of the -bill, the credit of the Government will be at such a pitch that five -hundred millions can be refunded in four and a half per cents., with -the addition of thirty-six millions paid from the Treasury,--thus -insuring a further annual reduction of $9,679,572, or a total annual -saving of $21,565,868, of which about twelve millions may be saved -during the current year. - -Here for the present we stop. Our interest-paying debt cannot be -further ameliorated before 1872, when three hundred and seventy-nine -millions, being Five-Twenties of 1867, will become redeemable, and -then in 1873, when forty-two millions, being Five-Twenties of 1868, -and constituting the balance of our optional sixes, will become -redeemable,--all of which I gladly believe may be refunded in the four -per cents. provided by the present bill, to be followed in 1874 by a -reduction of the original Ten-Forties into similar bonds. - -I would remark here that the bill undertakes to deal with the whole -disposable national debt. The amounts which I have given will be found -in the Treasury tables of January 1st, and are irrespective of the -sinking fund and invested surplus. - -From these details I pass to consider the bill in its aims and -principles. - - * * * * * - -The proposition with which I begin is to refund our six per cent. -Five-Twenties of 1862, amounting to upward of five hundred millions, in -five per cent. Ten-Forties. In taking the term “Ten-Forties,” I adopt -the description of a bond well known and popular at home and abroad, -whose payment “in coin” is expressly stipulated by the original Act -authorizing the issue.[211] The bond begins with a good name, which -will commend it. The interest which I propose is larger than I would -propose for any late bond. It is important, if not necessary, in order -to counteract the suspicion which has been allowed to fall upon our -national credit. Even our sixes are now below par in Europe. But they -will unquestionably share the elevation of the new fives substituted. -Our first attempt should be with the latter. Let these be carried to -par, and we shall have par everywhere. - -In this process the first stage is the conviction that all our bonds -will be paid in the universal money of the world. All bonds, whether -fives or sixes, will then advance. I know no way in which this -conviction can be created so promptly and easily as by redeeming in -gold some one of our six per cent. loans; and that most naturally -selected is the first, which is already so noted from the discussion to -which it has been subjected. But this can be done only by offering to -holders the option of coin or a satisfactory substitute bond. With a -new issue of five per cent. Ten-Forties, limited in amount to about the -aggregate of the six per cent. Five-Twenties of 1862,--say five hundred -millions,--I cannot doubt that every foreign holder of such sixes will -accept the fives in lieu of coin; and so much of that loan as is held -at home may be paid in coin, if preferred by the holders, from the -proceeds of an equal amount of fives placed in Europe at par for coin. - -Then will follow the advantage of this positive policy. The national -credit will be beyond question. Nobody will doubt it. The public -faith will be vindicated. The time will have come, which is the -condition-precedent named by the Secretary of the Treasury, when “the -want of faith in the Government” will be removed, and the door will be -open to cheap loans. This will be of course: it cannot be otherwise, if -we only do our duty. Our fives, being limited in amount, after being -taken at par in preference to coin, will advance in value, so that the -investment will become popular. People will desire more, but there will -be no more; so that, without difficulty or delay, we may hope to refund -five hundred millions of our subsequent sixes, or so much as may be -desirable, at four and a half per cent. in Fifteen-Fifties, if not at -four per cent. in Twenty-Sixties. - -In this operation the _initial point_ is the national credit. With -this starting-point all is easy. Our fives will at once ascend above -par, while a market is opened for four and a half or four per cents. -The stigma of Repudiation, whether breathed in doubt or hurled in -taunt, will be silenced. There are other fields of glory than in war, -and such a triumph will be among the most important in the annals -of finance. But to this end there must be no hesitation. The offer -must be plain,--“Bonds or coin,”--giving the world assurance of our -determination. The answer will be as prompt as the offer,--“Bonds, and -not coin.” - - * * * * * - -In the process of Financial Reconstruction we cannot forget the -National Banks, which have already done so much. The uniform currency -which they supply throughout the country commends them to our care. -Accustomed to the facilities this currency supplies, it is difficult to -understand how business was conducted under the old system, when every -bank had its separate currency, taking its color, like the chameleon, -from what was about it, so that there were as many currencies, with as -many colors, as there were banks. - -Two things must be done for the national banks: first, the bonds -deposited by them with the Government must be reduced in interest; and, -secondly, the system must be extended, so as to supply much-needed -facilities, especially at the West and South. - -I doubt if the national banks can expect to receive in the future -more than four per cent. from the bonds deposited by them with the -Government; and considering the profits attributed to their business, -it may be that there would be a reluctant consent even to this -allowance. Here it must be observed, that the whole system of national -banks is founded upon the bonds of the nation; so that, at the rate -of liquidation now adopted for the national debt, the system will be -without support in the lapse of twelve or fifteen years. The stability -of the banks, which is so vital alike to the national currency and -to the pecuniary interests involved in the business, can be assured -only by an issue of bonds for a longer term. Of course, the longer the -period, the more valuable the bond. To reduce the interest arbitrarily -on the existing short bonds of the banks, without offering compensation -in some form, would be positively unjust, besides being an infringement -of the guaranties surrounding such bonds, and therefore a violation -of good faith. A substitute Twenty-Sixty bond will be assurance of -stability for this length of time, while the additional life of the -bond will be a compensation for the reduction of interest. As it is not -proposed to issue such bonds immediately, except for banking purposes, -they will not fall below par, and this par will be coin, which, I need -not say, the sixes now held by the banks will not command. If, through -the failure or winding-up of any bank, an amount of the substituted -bonds should be liberated, there will be an instant demand for them at -par by new banks arising to secure the relinquished circulation. - -The extension of bank-notes from three to five hundred millions, which -I propose, will extend the banking system where it is now needed. -This alone is much. How long the Senate debated this question at the -last session, without any practical result, cannot be forgotten. That -debate certifies to the necessity of this extension. The proposition I -offer shows how it may be accomplished and made especially beneficent. -The requirement from all the banks of new four per cent. bonds, at -the rate of one hundred dollars for eighty dollars of notes issued -and to be issued, would absorb six hundred and twenty-five millions -of the national debt into four per cents., while the withdrawal of -one dollar of greenbacks for each additional dollar of notes will -go far to extinguish the outstanding greenbacks, thus quietly, and -without any appreciable contraction, removing an impediment to specie -payments. Naturally, as by a process of gestation, will this birth be -accomplished: it will come, and nobody can prevent it. - - * * * * * - -In presenting this series of measures, I am penetrated by the -conviction, that, if adopted, they cannot fail to bring all the -national obligations to a par with coin, and then specie payments will -be resumed without effort. Our bonds will be among the most popular in -the market. No longer below par, they will continue to advance, while -the national credit lifts its head unimpeached, unimpeachable. Under -this influence the remainder of our outstanding debt may be refunded in -Fifteen-Fifties at four and a half per cent., if not in Twenty-Sixties -at four per cent. There will then be sixteen hundred and twenty-five -millions refunded at an average of less than four and a half per cent., -and the whole debt, including the irredeemable sixes of 1881, at an -average of less than five per cent., while all will be within our -control five years earlier than in the maximum period proposed by the -Secretary of the Treasury. - -One immediate consequence of these measures would be the relief of the -people from eighty to one hundred millions of taxation, while there -would remain a surplus revenue of two millions a month applicable to -the reduction of the debt, being more than enough to liquidate the -whole prior to the maturity of the new obligations, if it were thought -advisable to complete the liquidation at so early a day. The country -will breathe freer, business will be more elastic, life will be easier, -as the assurance goes forth that no heavy taxation shall be continued -in order to pay the debt in eleven years, as is now proposed, nor in -fifteen years, nor in twenty years. By the present measures, while -retaining the privilege of paying the debt within twenty years, we -shall secure the alternative of sixty years, and at a largely reduced -interest,--leaving the opportunity of paying it at any intermediate -time, according to the best advantage of the country. With diminished -taxation and resources increasing immeasurably, the national debt will -cease to be a burden,--becoming “fine by degrees and beautifully less” -until it gradually ceases to exist. - - * * * * * - -In making this statement, I offer my contribution to the settlement -of a great question. If I am wrong, what I have said will soon be -forgotten. Meanwhile I ask for it your candid attention, adding one -further remark, with which I shall close. I never have doubted, I -cannot doubt, the ease with which the transition to specie payments -may be accomplished, especially as compared with the ominous fears -which this simple proposition seems to excite in certain quarters. We -are gravely warned against it as a period of crisis. I do not believe -there will be anything to which this term can be reasonably applied. -Like every measure of essential justice, it will at once harmonize with -the life of the community, and people will be astonished at the long -postponement of an act so truly beneficent in all its influences, so -important to the national character, and so congenial with the business -interests of the country. - - The bill was ordered to be printed, and referred to the - Committee on Finance. - - * * * * * - - January 25th, a bill from the Committee on Finance, “to - provide a national currency of coin notes and to equalize the - distribution of circulating notes,” being under consideration, - Mr. Sumner moved an amendment embracing the provisions of his - bill, with the exception of the first, second, and seventh - sections, as a substitute,--in support of which he the next day - spoke as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--Some things seem to be admitted in this debate -as starting-points,--at least if I may judge from the remarks of -the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]. One of these is the unequal -distribution of the bank-note currency, and another is that to take -from the Northern and Eastern banks circulation already awarded to them -would disturb trade. I venture to add, that the remedy would be worse -than the disease. - -The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE] and the Senator from Kentucky -[Mr. DAVIS] justly claim for the West and South a fair proportion of -bank circulation. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] demands more. -While neither asks for expansion, neither is ready for contraction. -The last-named Senator argues, that at this time the currency is not -too much for the area of country and the amount of business, which, -from the new spaces opened to settlement and the increase of commerce, -require facilities beyond those that are adequate in thickly settled -and wealthy communities. His premises may be in the main sound; but -he might have made a further application of them. If, in the absence -of local banks and banking facilities, a larger amount of circulation -is needed,--and I do not mean to question this assertion,--would it -not follow that the establishment of such local banks and banking -facilities, with new bank credits, checks of depositors, and other -agencies of exchange, and with the increase of circulation, would more -than counterbalance any slight contraction from the withdrawal of -greenbacks, and that thus we should be tending toward specie payments? - -The Senator from Kentucky said aptly, that, if we wait until all are -ready, we shall never resume. If the Senator from Indiana is right in -saying that prices have already settled down in the expectation of an -early resumption, then to my mind the battle is half won and we have -only to proceed always in the right direction. - -A simple redistribution of the existing currency cannot be made without -serious consequences to the business of the country, while it will -do nothing to correct the evils of our present financial condition. -It will do nothing for Financial Reconstruction, nor will these -consequences be confined to any geographical section. They will affect -the South and West as well as the North and East. I need only add that -disturbance in New York means disturbance everywhere in our country. - -Nor is it easy to see how any redistribution can be made, which, -however just to-day, may not be unjust to-morrow. As business develops -and population extends there will be new demand, with new inequalities -and new disturbances. - -The original Banking Act[212] authorized a circulation of $300,000,000, -a large part of which went to the Northern and Eastern States. All -this was very natural; for at that time there was no demand at the -South, and comparatively little at the West. With the supply of capital -at the East banks were promptly formed, even before the State banks -were permitted to come into the new system. Subsequently the State -banks were not only permitted to come into the new system, but their -circulation was taxed out of existence. Here, then, was banking capital -idle. It was reasonable that the circulation which was not demanded -in other parts of the country should be allotted to these banks. This -I state in simple justice to these banks. I might remind you also of -the patriotic service rendered by the banks of New York, Boston, and -Philadelphia, which in 1861 furnished the means by which our forces -were organized against the Rebellion. One hundred and fifty millions in -gold were furnished by these banks, of which less than fifty millions -were subsequently subscribed by the people;[213] and this was at a -moment when the national securities had received a terrible shock. Not -from the South, not from the West, did financial succor come at that -time. - - * * * * * - -In considering briefly the questions presented by the pending measure -I shall take them in their order. They are two: first, to enlarge -the national bank currency; and, secondly, to create a system of free -banking founded on coin notes. This leaves out of view the question of -refunding and consolidating the national debt; nor does it touch the -great question of specie payments. - -I begin with the proposed enlargement of the currency. The object is -excellent, as is admitted by all; but the practical question arises on -the way it shall be done. - -If you look at the bill now before the Senate, you will see that -it authorizes an enlargement to the extent of $45,000,000, and the -withdrawal to that amount of what are called three per cent. temporary -loan certificates, of which little more than this amount exists. The -extinction of this debt will accomplish an annual saving of about -$1,366,000. So far, so good. This amount of $45,000,000 is allotted -to banks organized in States and Territories having less than their -proportion under the general Banking Act. This is right, and it removes -to a certain extent objections successfully urged at the last session -of Congress against a measure for the redistribution of currency. - -But, plainly and obviously, the measure of relief proposed is not -sufficient to meet the just demands of the South and West; nor is it -sufficient to prevent taking from the North and East a portion of the -currency now enjoyed by them. Therefore in one part of the country -it will be inadequate, while in another it is unjust. Inadequacy and -injustice are bad recommendations. - -When a complete remedy is in our power, why propose a partial remedy? -When a just remedy is in our power, why propose an unjust remedy? There -is another question. I would ask also, Why unnecessarily disturb -existing and well-settled channels of trade?--for such must be the -effect of a new apportionment, as proposed, under the census of this -year. Why not at once provide another source from which to draw the new -supplies under the new apportionment? I open this subject with these -inquiries, which to my mind answer themselves. - -The proposition of the Committee is further embarrassed by the -provision for the cancellation each month of the three per cent. -certificates to an amount equal to the aggregate of new notes issued -during the previous month. In order to judge the expediency of -this measure we must understand the origin and character of these -certificates. - -The Secretary of the Treasury, desiring to avoid the further issue of -greenbacks, conceived the idea of a note which could be used in the -payment of Government obligations, but in such form as not to enter -into and inflate the currency. This resulted in an interest-bearing -note payable three years after date, with six per cent. interest -compounded every six months and payable at the maturity of the note -in its redemption. This anomalous note was made legal-tender for its -face value only.[214] It was not doubted that such notes, on the -accumulation of interest, would be withdrawn as an investment. Being -legal-tender, if they were allowed to be used by the banks as part of -their reserves, they would become, contrary to the original purpose, -part of the national circulation, while the Government would be paying -interest on bank reserves, which no bank could demand. But the _ipse -dixit_ of the Secretary could not prevent their use by the banks as -part of the reserves. The intervention of Congress was required, which, -by the second section of the Loan Act of June 30, 1864, provided as -follows:-- - - “Nor shall any Treasury note bearing interest, issued under - this Act, be a legal tender in payment or redemption of any - notes issued by any bank, banking association, or banker, - calculated or intended to circulate as money.”[215] - -From this statement it seems clear that neither the Secretary -originating these compound-interest legal-tender notes, nor the Act of -Congress authorizing them, nor the banks receiving them, contemplated -their employment as part of the bank reserves. How they reached this -condition remains to be told. - -The whole issue of the compound-interest legal-tender notes amounted to -upward of two hundred and seventeen millions.[216] These were funded at -or before maturity, except some fifty millions, which as they matured -were exchanged for certificates to that amount bearing three per cent. -interest, and constituted part of the bank reserves.[217] Here was -an innovation as improvident as new, being nothing less than bank -reserves on interest. This improvidence was increased by the manner -of distribution, which, instead of being ratable, seems to have been -according to the rule of “Who speaks first?” Of course the banks within -easy access of Washington had peculiar opportunities, by which they -were enabled to secure these notes, and thus obtain interest on part -of their reserves, while banks at a distance, and especially in the -country, were not equal in opportunity. Besides its partiality, this -provision operates like a gratuity to the banks having these notes. - -Obviously these three per cent. certificates ought to be withdrawn; but -I do not like to see their withdrawal conditioned on the extension of -banking facilities. Their case is peculiar, and they should be treated -accordingly. Nor should their accidental amount be made the measure of -banking facilities. They constitute a part of the national debt, and -should be considered in the refunding and consolidation of this debt, -and not on a bill to provide banking facilities. - -I think I do not err, if I conclude that the first part of the pending -measure is inadequate, while the cancellation of the three per cent. -certificates in the manner proposed is inexpedient. All this is more -observable when it is considered that there is another way, ample and -natural. - - * * * * * - -From the first part of the pending measure I pass to the second part, -being sections three, four, and five, which, if I am not mistaken, -authorize free banking, with coin notes as a declared basis of coin. -This is plausible, but to my mind illusory and impracticable. The -machine will not work; but if it does work, its first and most obvious -operation will be to create a new currency, adding a third to the -greenbacks and bank-notes already existing, besides creating a new -class of banks. Here I put the practical question, Can any national -bank issue and maintain a circulation of coin notes with a reserve -of only twenty-five per cent., so long as gold commands a premium? -How long would the reserve last? It is easy to see that until specie -payments this idea is impracticable. It will not work. In proportion -to the premium on gold would be the run on the banks, until their -outstanding notes were redeemed or their vaults emptied. - -But the measure is not only impracticable,--it is inexpedient, as -multiplying, instead of simplifying, the forms of currency. We have now -two paper currencies, distinct in form and with different attributes. -Everybody feels that this is unfortunate; and yet it is now proposed to -add another. Surely it is the dictate of wisdom, instead of creating -a third paper currency, to disembarrass the country of one of those -now existing and make the other convertible into coin, so that we may -hereafter enjoy one uniform currency. I confess my constant desire for -measures to withdraw our greenbacks and to make our present bank-notes -coin notes. Coin notes should be universal. Under any circumstances -the conclusion is irresistible, that the proposed plan, if not utterly -impracticable, is a too partial and timid experiment, calculated to -exercise very little influence over the great question of specie -payments. - - * * * * * - -If I am right in this review, the bill of the Committee does not -deserve our support. But I do not confine myself to criticism. I offer -a substitute. Could I have my way, I would treat the whole financial -question as a unit, providing at the same time for all the points -involved in what I have called Financial Reconstruction. This I have -attempted in the bill which I have already introduced. But on the -present occasion I content myself with a substitute for the present -measure. The amendment of which I have given notice has the twofold -object of the pending bill: first, to enlarge the currency; and, -secondly, to change the existing banking system, so as to provide -practically for free banking and to enlarge banking facilities. - -If you will look at my amendment, you will see that it enlarges -the limit of bank-notes from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000. This is -practically a provision for free banking, at least for some years. -Practically it leaves the volume of currency to be regulated by -legitimate demand, with a proviso for the withdrawal of legal-tender -notes to an amount equal to the new issues. The amendment then proceeds -to provide bonds to be deposited with the Government as the basis of -the new banks. And here is a just and much-needed economy,--just to -the Government, and not unjust to the banks. It is proposed for the -future to allow but four per cent. interest on the bonds deposited by -the banks. Thus far the banks have enjoyed large benefits, and in part -at the expense of the Government. Under the operation of my amendment -these profits would be slightly reduced, but not unduly, while the -Treasury would receive an annual benefit of not far from six million -dollars in coin. In this respect the proposition harmonizes with the -idea, which is constantly present to my mind, of diminishing our taxes. - - * * * * * - -Sir, in the remarks submitted by me on a former occasion I ventured to -say that the first great duty of Congress was to mitigate the burdens -now pressing upon the energies of the people and upon the business -of the country, and, as one means of accomplishing this important -result, to extend these burdens, in a diminishing annual ratio, over -a large population entering upon the enjoyment of the blessings which -the present generation at such enormous cost has assured to the -Republic.[218] Upon the assumption that the national revenues and the -national expenditures would continue relatively the same as now, a sum -extending from eighty to one hundred millions would be the measure of -relief that might be accorded at once, without arresting the continuous -reduction of the debt at the rate of $2,000,000 a month. - -In proposing this large reduction of taxation at this time, with the -hope of larger reductions in the near future, it was necessary to -keep in view the possibility of increased expenditure or of decreased -receipts. To guard against such contingency we must keep strict -watch over the expenditures, and, if possible, diminish the positive -annual obligations of the nation. And here the mind is naturally and -irresistibly attracted to the prodigious item of interest. Cannot this -be reduced at an early day by a large amount, and then subsequently, -though contingently, by a much larger amount? And should not this -result be one of our first endeavors? Is it not the first considerable -stage in the reduction of taxation? - -The credit of the country is injured by two causes: first, the -refusal to redeem past-due obligations, being so much _failed paper_, -which condition must necessarily continue so long as we deliberately -sanction an inconvertible currency; and, secondly, the menace of -Repudiation, with slurs upon the integrity of the people uttered in -important quarters. These two causes are impediments to the national -credit. How long shall they continue? Loyally and emphatically has -Congress declared that all the obligations of the nation shall be -paid according to their spirit as well as letter. But this is not -enough. More must be done. And here Congress must act, not partially, -nor timidly, nor in the interests of the few only, but impartially, -comprehensively, firmly, and in the interests of the many. It must help -the recognized ability of the nation by removing its disabilities. - -Nearly five years have now passed since the Rebellion sheathed its -sword. But the national expenditures did not cease at once when the -sword no longer plied its bloody work. They still continued, sometimes -under existing contracts which could not be broken, sometimes in -guarding the transition from war to peace. Meanwhile the national -faith was preserved, while the people carried the unexampled burden -willingly, if not cheerfully. The large unliquidated debt, the _débris_ -of the war, has been paid off or reduced to a form satisfactory to the -creditor, and the world has been assured that the people are ready for -any sacrifices according to the exigency. Is more necessary? Should -these sacrifices be continued when the exigency has ceased? - -These sacrifices are twofold, being direct and indirect. The direct are -measured by the known amount of taxation. The indirect are also traced -to existing taxation, and their witnesses are crippled trade, unsettled -values, oppressive prices, and an inconvertible currency, which of -itself is a constant sacrifice. Therefore do I say again, _Down with -the taxes!_ - -Bills relating to taxation do not originate in the Senate; but -Senators are not shut out from expressing themselves freely on the -proper policy which is demanded at this time. On the finances and the -banks the Senate has the same powers as the other House. Here it -may take the initiative, as is shown by the present bill. But what -it does should be equal to the occasion; it should be large, and not -petty,--far-reaching, and not restricted in its sphere. The present -bill, I fear, has none of these qualities which we desire at this time. -It is a patch or plaster only, when we need a comprehensive cure. - -To my mind it is easy to see what must be done. The country must be -relieved from its heavy burdens. Taxation must be made lighter,--also -less complex and inquisitorial. Simplification will be a form of -relief. Our banking system is ready to adapt itself to the wants of the -country, if you will only say the word. Speak, Sir, and it will do what -you desire. But instead of this we are asked by the Committee to begin -by making the system more complex, without adding to its efficiency; we -are asked to construct a third currency, which so long as it continues -must be a stumbling-block; we are asked to establish discord instead of -concord. - -Now, Sir, in order to bring the Senate to a precise vote on what I -regard as the fundamental proposition of my amendment, I shall withdraw -the amendment as a whole, and move to strike out the first two sections -of the Committee’s bill, and to insert as a substitute what I send to -the Chair. - - The proposed substitute, being Section 5 of Mr. Sumner’s bill, - having been read, he continued:-- - -On that proposition I have one word to say. It is brief: that you will -admit. It is simple: that you will admit. It enlarges the existing -national bank circulation by $200,000,000: that is ample, as I believe -you will admit. Practically it is a system of free banking: that is, -it is such until the enlarged circulation is absorbed,--that is, for -some time to come. But free banking is what, as I understand, Senators -desire. - -Then, again, it has in it no element of injustice. There is no -injustice to the North or to the East. All parts of the country are -equally accommodated and equally protected. But this cannot be said of -the pending measure. - -Then, again, it is elastic, adapting itself everywhere to the -exigencies of the place. If banking facilities are needed, and the -capital is ready, under that amendment they can be enjoyed. Unlike the -proposition of the Committee, it is not of cast-iron, but is so as to -adapt itself to all the conditions of business in every part of the -country. - -Then, again, in the final provision, that for every bank-note issued -a greenback shall be withdrawn, you find the great highway to specie -payments. All your greenbacks will speedily be withdrawn. You will -have then only the bank-notes, making one paper currency; and then -speedily, within a brief period, you will have specie payments. The -banks must have their reserves; there will be no greenbacks for them; -they must find them in specie. The banks, then, and every stockholder, -will find a motive to press for specie payments, and you will have that -great result quietly accomplished, absolutely without shock, while the -business interests of the country will rejoice. - - February 1st, in further advocacy of this amendment, Mr. Sumner - said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--As it is understood that the Senate is to vote to-day -on the bill and all pending propositions, I seize this moment to say -a last word for the proposition which I have had the honor of moving, -and which is now pending. But before I proceed with the discussion, -allow me to say, that, while sitting at my desk here, I have received -expressions of opinion from different parts of the country, one or two -of which I will read. For instance, here is a telegraphic dispatch from -a leading financial gentleman in Chicago:-- - - “Your views on Currency Question much approved here. Authorize - new bank circulation to extent named, retiring greenbacks _pari - passu_.” - -This is the very rule which I seek to establish. - -At the same time I received a communication from Circleville, Ohio, -dated January 25th, the first sentences of which I will read:-- - - “Please pardon me for this intrusion. I desire to ask, if you - are willing to indicate, what will likely be the result of your - financial bill. I think I only utter the sentiment of three - fourths of all the commercial men through our great and growing - West, when I say it should become a law, and thereby secure to - us our equal share of the national banking capital, which we - now need so much.” - -This, again, is what I seek to accomplish. - - * * * * * - -At this stage, I hope I may have the indulgence of the Senate, if I -ask one moment’s attention to the bill of the Committee. On a former -occasion I ventured to say that it was inadequate.[219] The more I -reflect upon it, the longer this debate is continued, the more I am -impressed with its inadequacy. It does not do what should be done -by the first measure of legislation on our finances adopted by the -present Congress. It is incomplete. I wish I could stop there; but I am -obliged to go further, and say that it is not only incomplete, but it -is, in certainly one of its features, to which I shall call attention, -mischievous. I take advantage of this moment to present this point, -because it has not been mentioned before, and because at a later stage -I may not have the opportunity of doing so. It is this provision at the -end of the first section:-- - - “But a new apportionment shall be made as soon as practicable, - based upon the census of 1870.” - -At the proper time I shall move to strike out these words, and I will -now very briefly assign my reasons. - -The proposition is objectionable, first, because it is -mischievous,--and, secondly, because it is difficult, if not -impracticable, in its operation; and if I can have the attention of the -Senate, unless figures deceive me, and unless facts are at fault, I -think that the Senate must agree in my conclusion. - -We are told by the Comptroller of the Currency that $45,000,000 is a -large allowance of currency at this moment for the South and West; -indeed, I believe he puts the limit at $40,000,000. Now suppose only -$40,000,000 are taken up during the coming year,--that is, till -the completion of the census; that would leave $5,000,000 still -outstanding, which might be employed for the benefit of the South and -West. That circumstance indicates to a certain extent the financial -condition of those parts of the country. Do they need larger -facilities, and, if so, to what extent? Can you determine in advance? I -doubt it. But, Sir, in the face of this uncertainty, this bill steps in -and declares positively that “a new apportionment shall be made as soon -as practicable, based upon the census of 1870.” What will be the effect -of such a new apportionment? Even according to the census of 1860, such -new apportionment would transfer some sixty million dollars from banks -that enjoy it to other parts of the country; it would take away from -those banks what they want, and transfer it where it is not wanted. The -language is imperative. But, Sir, it is not to be under the census of -1860, but under the census of 1870; and unless figures deceive, by that -census the empire of the great West will be more than ever manifest. -And if the transfer is made accordingly, it will take some ninety or -one hundred million dollars from where it now is, and is needed, and -carry it to other places where certainly it will not be needed in the -same degree. What will be the effect of such a transfer? - -Mark, Sir, the statute is mandatory and unconditional. There is no -chance for discretion; it is to be done; the transfer is to be made. -And now what must be the consequence? A derangement of business which -it is difficult to imagine, a contraction of currency instantaneous and -spasmodic to the amount of these large sums that I have indicated. - -I do not shrink from contraction. I am ready to say to the people of -Massachusetts, “If the Senate will adopt any policy of contraction -that is healthy, well-considered, and with proper conditions, I would -recommend its acceptance.” But a contraction like that proposed by -this bill, which arbitrarily takes from North and East this vast -amount, and transfers it to another part of the country, where it may -not be needed, such a contraction I oppose as mischievous. I see no -good in it. I see a disturbance of all the channels of business; and I -see a contraction which must be itself infinitely detrimental to the -financial interests of the Republic. - -But then, Sir, have you considered whether you can do it? Is it -practicable? I have shown that it is mischievous: is it practicable? -Can you take this large amount of currency from one part of the country -and transfer it to another? Have you ever reflected upon the history of -the bank-note after it has commenced its travels, when it has once left -the maternal bank? It goes you know not where. I have been informed -by bank-officers, and by those most familiar with such things, that -a bank-note, when once issued, very rarely returns home. I have been -assured that it is hardly ever seen again. The banks, indeed, may go -into liquidation, but their notes are still current. The maternal bank -may be mouldering in the earth; but these its children are moving -about, performing the work of circulation. Why? The credit of the -nation is behind them; and everybody knows, when he takes one of them, -that he is safe. Therefore, I ask, how can the proposed requirement be -carried into execution? how can you bring back these runaways, when -once in circulation on their perpetual travels? - -There is but one way, and that is by the return to specie payments. -Hold up before them coin, and they will all come running back to the -original bank; but until then they will continue abroad. The proposed -requirement seems to go on the idea that bank-notes, like cows, -return from pasture at night; whereas we all know, that, until specie -payments, they are more like the wild cattle of the prairies and the -pampas; you cannot find them; they are everywhere. Surely I am not -wrong, when I suggest that the proposed requirement is impracticable as -well as mischievous; and at the proper time I shall move to strike it -out. - - * * * * * - -The amendment which I have moved has been under discussion for several -days. It has had the valuable support of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. -CHANDLER], who brings to financial questions practical experience. It -has been opposed by other Senators, and with considerable ardor by my -excellent friend from Indiana [Mr. MORTON]. - -On Thursday last, the Senator from Indiana, addressing himself to me, -and inviting a reply, which I was then prevented from making, took -issue with me directly upon the position I have assumed, that the -withdrawal of legal-tender notes would materially assist the effort for -specie payments; and he further declared that the two currencies of -bank-notes and United States notes were kept together because one was -redeemable with the other. I do not quote his precise words, but I give -the substance.[220] - -Under the policy we are now pursuing, it seems to me, that, with -$356,000,000 of legal-tender notes in circulation, the Government will -not for many years, if ever again, pay specie. With that amount of -United States notes, under the actual policy, the bank currency will -forever remain inconvertible. And the correctness of these positions I -will endeavor briefly to demonstrate. - -A convertible currency is nothing more nor less than the servant -of coin. If there is no coin, it can neither be servant nor -representative, though it may attempt to perform the functions of coin. -Presenting itself under false pretences, it but partially succeeds -in this attempt; and the discredit attaching to it compels it to pay -more for any property than would be the price of such property in -coin, or the acknowledged representative of coin,--just as doubtful -people must submit to ten, fifteen, or twenty per cent. discount, -when what is known as “gilt-edged” commercial paper is discounted at -five, six, or seven per cent. Thus far we have had no coin in the -Treasury appropriated to the stability of the United States notes,--and -under our present policy, dictated by the restrictive laws that hedge -the Secretary of the Treasury and confine his liberty of action, -we never shall have, until the whole bonded debt of the country is -extinguished,--while at the same time the banks are excused under the -law from all attempts to fortify their notes with coin. - -And what is it that successfully discourages us from direct steps -toward specie payments? - -In the first place, it is the mistrust of the people in our ability -to resume, and to maintain resumption. In the next place, the monthly -publication of the Treasury discloses precisely our weakness as well as -our strength; and the great element of our weakness is the volume of -our past-due and demand obligations. In ordinary times,--that is, when -the people have confidence in the ability of the banks to redeem their -demand obligations in coin,--a reserve of twenty to twenty-five per -cent. in coin is more than sufficient to meet any probable demand that -may be made. Let mistrust arise in relation to the solvency of any bank -or of the system of banks, and the reserve of twenty-five per cent. -will vanish as the dew before the sun, and the individual bank or all -the banks must close their doors to all demands for specie. - -In our present legislation we encounter this mistrust wide-spread among -the people; and so long as we ourselves exhibit so great timidity in -our attempts at legislation upon this subject, just so long do we -minister to and strengthen this mistrust. - -The amount of demand obligations which the Treasury must be prepared -to meet upon a moment’s notice, including three per cent. certificates -and fractional currency, is more than four hundred and forty million -dollars. With the existing mistrust, measured by the premium on gold, a -reserve of twenty-five per cent. of coin in the Treasury appropriated -to these demands would be totally insufficient. This reserve must bear -a proportion to the aggregate of liabilities so large as to remove -mistrust, and this can be accomplished only by presenting as in the -vaults of the Treasury an amount of coin nearly equal to the sum of -liabilities. - -If during the last three years we had retained the surplus of coin -that has reached the Treasury, we should now have enough; but, as a -consequence of such accumulation, speculation would have run riot,--and -I fear, if we should now by legislative enactment decree that course -for the future, we should aggravate the situation. - -What, then, is left for us to do? What but to lessen our -liabilities?--which, as the laws now stand, must remain the same -to-morrow as to-day, and one, two, or five years hence immutably as now. - -Difficulties beset the contraction of those liabilities, as there are -difficulties that impede the accumulation of coin in sufficient amount -to meet our purpose; but the former may be neutralized, if not removed, -by judicious compensations that will not in any serious degree retard -the object for which I would legislate. - -Sound financial authorities unite in declaring, that, if the Government -resumes specie payments, the banks of New York can resume; and when -the banks of New York resume, the whole country can resume. Evidently, -then, our care is the Government. - -And what is the first step? To my mind we must lessen the demand -obligations of the Government, while the Secretary of the Treasury at -the same time strengthens the reserves in the national vaults. Neither -should be done suddenly or violently, but gradually, judiciously, and -wisely. As the statutes now stand, the obligations cannot be reduced. -With the present volume of obligations, the laws of trade prevent the -Secretary of the Treasury from sufficiently strengthening his reserves. -It therefore devolves upon the National Legislature to take the -initiative in the effort to resume specie payments. - -The difficulties that impede the reduction of the national liabilities -lie in the fact that such obligations are a part, and a large part, -of the currency of the country. To withdraw that currency without -giving a substitute is to create stringency, burden trade, and invite -chaos: at least, so it seems. These obligations, so far as they relate -to the currency, are larger in amount than those of the national -banks combined; and furthermore, they are the head and front of all. -They are so large as to be beyond the point of manageability, and I -would therefore reduce them within control. It is their volume that -puts them beyond control, and it is our want of control that causes -them to be depreciated. Thus, Sir, I would offer inducements to fund -them, or part of them, in bonds that would be sought after because -of their valuable uses beyond a mere investment, and to neutralize -the evils of contraction of Treasury liabilities by authorizing their -assumption, with the consent of the people, by various parties in -different sections of the country, each one of whom would be fully -equal to the task thus voluntarily assumed. I would issue a bank-note -for every dollar of Treasury obligation cancelled; but I would issue no -bank-note that did not absorb an equal obligation of the Treasury. By -this distribution of a portion of the demand obligations you restore to -the Government the full ability to meet the remainder; and at the same -time the people know, that, so far as the currency goes,--and it is of -this only we are treating,--every promise of any bank has its ultimate -recourse in the Treasury of the United States. - -The absorption of one hundred and fifty or two hundred millions cannot -fail to enhance the remaining legal-tender nearly, if not quite, to -par with gold. The volume of currency in the channels of trade and in -the hands of the people will be about the same as now. The aggregate -of United States notes and national bank-notes outstanding will be -precisely the same. Therefore the indirect contraction so much dwelt -upon will scarcely be felt. The volume of greenbacks will be ample for -the reserves of the banks, and their growing scarcity will cause them -to become more and more valuable; and as they approach the standard -of gold, so will they sustain with golden support the bank-notes into -which they are convertible. - -The demand by the people for legal-tender will not be appreciably -increased, as the bank-note is receivable by the Government for all -dues except customs, and those demands are necessarily localized. While -the growing scarcity of greenbacks, because of their replacement by -bank-notes fulfilling all the requirements of general trade, will not -be noticed by the people, the banks will take heed lest they fall, and -at an early day begin to strengthen themselves. Legal-tender reserves -they must have, and, with the honest eyes of our Secretary of the -Treasury to detect any deficiency, they will begin their strengthening -policy at once. Instead of putting gold received as interest forthwith -on the market for sale, they will put it snugly away in their vaults. -The gold which comes to them in the course of banking operations will -be added thereto; and almost imperceptibly the country banks will -arrive at the condition of the city banks, whose reserves in coin -and legal-tender notes are now far beyond the requirements of law. -In the mean time, and without derangement of business, the Treasury -may strengthen its reserve,--while, on the other hand, the quiet -reduction of its liabilities advances the percentage of the reserve -to the whole amount of liabilities in almost a compound ratio. With -this strengthening of the condition of the Treasury, made manifest to -all the world by its monthly publications, the mistrust of the people -will be gradually, but surely, dissipated, and as surely be replaced -by confidence that all demand obligations will be redeemed at an -early day,--a confidence as wide-spread and deep-seated as is that -now prevailing in relation to our bonded debt, that it will be paid -according to the spirit as well as the letter of the law. - -It will thus be seen that just in proportion to the strengthening -of the legal-tender do we strengthen the bank-note. Strike out of -existence in a single day the legal-tender notes, and I fear that -the bank-note would for a time fall in comparative value: so would -everything else. But I advocate no such violent measure. - -The Senator from Indiana in his remarks appeared to forget that -we have in the country two or three hundred millions of another -legal-tender,--being coin, now displaced, of which no legitimate use is -made in connection with the currency,--that should resume its proper -position in the paper circulation of the country. Here are two or three -hundred millions of money, now by force of law demonetized, which I -would have relieved of its disabilities. I would change the relation of -master it now occupies to that of servant, where it properly belongs; -and I would inflate the currency with it to the extent that we possess -it. Inflation by coin is simply specie payment, or very near it. - - * * * * * - -I have endeavored, Mr. President, thus briefly to respond to the -questions propounded to me. I do not know that I have entered -sufficiently into detail to explain clearly my convictions as to the -necessity for reducing the volume of legal-tender obligations, and -to prove, as I desire to prove, that their gradual withdrawal will -enhance not only the value of the remainder, but also the value of -the bank-note. Both will ascend in the scale. This enhancement of the -whole paper currency will tend to draw the coin of the country from -its seclusion. As in the early period of the war, before the present -currency was created, we were astonished at the positive, but hidden, -money resources of the people, so will the outflow of hidden coin -confound the calculations of those who suppose that its volume is to be -measured by the amount in the Treasury and in the New York banks. - -Mr. President, I am not alone in asking for the reformation of our -currency as the first stage of our financial efforts. I read from the -“Commercial and Financial Chronicle”[221] of New York, an authoritative -paper on this subject, as follows:-- - - “In any practical scheme to improve the Government finances and - credit, or to restore prosperous activities, or both at once, - the first thing to be done _must be_ the restoration of a sound - currency. That done or provided for, all the rest will be easy; - the best credit and the lowest rates of interest will follow.” - -To this end our greenbacks must be absorbed or paid, and my proposition -provides a way. As the greenbacks are withdrawn, coin will reappear to -take their place in the banks and the business of the country. This -will be specie payments. - - * * * * * - -Here I wish to remark that I fail to see the asserted dependence of our -demand notes on our bonds. The bonds may be at par without bringing the -notes to par, and so the notes may be at par without bringing the bonds -to par. According to the experience of other countries, bonds and notes -do not materially affect each other. The two travel on parallel lines -without touching. Each must be provided for; and my present purpose is -to provide for the demand notes. - -There is strong reason why this is the very moment for this effort. -According to statistical tables now before me, our exports are tending -to an equality with our imports. During the five months of July, -August, September, October, and November, 1869, there has been a -nominal balance in our favor of $1,752,416; whereas during the same -months of last year there was an adverse balance of $32,163,339. The -movement of specie is equally advantageous. During the five months -above mentioned there has been an import in specie of $10,056,316 -against $5,273,116 during the same months last year, and an export in -specie of $19,031,875 against $21,599,758 during the same months last -year.[222] According to these indubitable figures, the tide of specie -as well as of business is beginning to turn. It remains for us by wise -legislation to take advantage of the propitious moment. Take the proper -steps and you will have specie payments,--having which, all the rest -will follow. Because I desire to secure this great boon for my country -I now make this effort. - - The amendment was rejected. - - * * * * * - - March 2d, Mr. Sumner’s bill having been reported back from - the Committee on Finance with an amendment in the nature of a - substitute, he spoke in review of their respective provisions - as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The measure now before the Senate concerns interests -vast in amount and influence. I doubt if ever before any nation -has attempted to deal at once with so large a mass of financial -obligations, being nothing less than the whole national debt of the -United States. But beyond the proper disposition of this mass is the -question of taxation, and also of the extent to which the payment of -the national debt shall be assumed by the present generation, and -beyond all is the question of specie payments. On all these heads my -own conclusions are fixed. The mass of financial obligations should -be promptly adjusted in some new form at smaller interest; taxes must -be reduced; the payment of the national debt must be left in part to -posterity; specie payments must be provided for. - -The immediate question before the Senate is on a substitute reported by -the Committee for the bill which I had the honor of introducing some -weeks ago. Considering my connection with this measure, I hope that I -shall not intrude too much, if I recur to the original bill and explain -its provisions. - -There are certain general objects which must not be forgotten in our -present endeavor. I have already said that the taxes must be reduced. -Here I am happy to observe that the popular branch of Congress, in the -exercise of its constitutional prerogative, has taken the initiative -and is perfecting measures to this end. I trust that they will proceed -prudently, but boldly. - -In harmony with this effort the expenditures of the Government should -be revised and cut down to the lowest point consistent with efficiency. -Economy will be an important ally. Even in small affairs it will be -the witness to our purposes. Through these agencies our currency -will be improved, and we shall be brought to specie payments, while -the national credit will be established. Not at once can all this be -accomplished, but I am sure that we may now do much. - -As often as I return to this subject I am impressed by the damage the -country has already suffered through menacing propositions affecting -the national credit. I cannot doubt that in this way the national -burdens have been sensibly increased. By counter-propositions in the -name of Congress we have attempted to counteract these injurious -influences. We have met words with words. But this is not enough. - -There is another remark which I wish to make, although I do little more -than repeat what I said on another occasion.[223] It is that a national -debt, when once funded, does not seem to affect largely the condition -of the currency. The value of the former is maintained or depressed by -circumstances independent of the currency. But, on the other hand, the -condition of the currency bears directly upon all efforts for increased -loans; and this is of practical importance on the present occasion. The -rules of business are the same for the nation as for an individual; nor -can a nation, when it becomes a borrower, hope to escape the scrutiny -which is applied to an individual under similar circumstances. Applying -this scrutiny to our case, it appears that on our existing bonded debt -we have thus far performed all existing obligations,--not without -discussion, I regret to add, that has left in some quarters a lingering -doubt with regard to the future, and not without an opposition still -alive, if not formidable. But the case is worse with regard to that -other branch of the national debt known as legal-tenders, where we -daily fail to perform existing obligations, so that these notes are -nothing more than so much _failed paper_. With regard to this branch of -the national debt there is an open confession of insolvency, and each -day renews the confession. Now, by the immutable laws of credit, which -all legislative enactments are impotent to counteract or expunge, the -nation must suffer when it enters the market as a borrower. Failing -to pay these obligations already due, it must pay more for what it -borrows. Nor can we hope for more than partial success, until this -dishonor is removed. - -With these preliminary remarks, which are rather hints than arguments, -I come directly to the measure before the Senate; and here I begin with -the first section. - - * * * * * - -I wish the Senate would note the difference between this section in my -bill and in the substitute of the Committee. I proposed to authorize -the issue of $500,000,000 of Ten-Forty five per cents., and prescribe -the use to which the proceeds of such bonds should be applied. The -Committee propose $400,000,000 of Ten-Twenty five per cents., and leave -the application of the proceeds the subject of discretion. Between the -two propositions there are several differences: first, in the amount; -secondly, in the length of the bond; and, thirdly, in the application -of the proceeds. - -Here I beg to observe that the original sum of $500,000,000 was not -inserted by accident, or because it was a round and euphonious sum. -Nothing of the kind. It was the result of a careful examination of the -national debt in its details, especially in the light of the national -credit. It was adopted because it was the very sum required by the -nature of the case. At least so it seemed to me. A brief explanation -will show if I was not right. - -The year 1862, which marks the date of our legal-tenders, marks -also the date of a new system in regard to our loans. Senators are -hardly aware of this change. Previously our standard for sixes was an -immutable loan for twenty years. By the new system this immutability -was continued as to the right of demand by the bondholder, but the -right of payment was reserved to the nation at any time after five -years. This change, as we now see, gave positive advantages to the -nation. Its disadvantages to the bondholder were so apparent that -it encountered resistance, which was overcome only after undaunted -perseverance and final appeal to the people. Now, by recurring to the -schedule of the national debt, you will find that the first loan within -the sphere of this discretionary system is the Five-Twenties of 1862, -which, on the 1st of February last, after deducting the purchased -bonds, were $500,000,000. This, therefore, is the first loan falling -within our discretion, the first loan we are privileged to pay before -maturity, and the first loan presenting itself for payment. In these -incidents the loan of 1862 has precedence,--it stands first. - -But there is a reason, which to my mind is of peculiar force, why this -first loan should be paid in coin at the earliest possible day. It -seems to me that I do not deceive myself, when I consider it conclusive -on this question. The loan of 1862 is the specific loan which has been -made the objective point of all the movements under the banner of -Repudiation. It is the loan to which this idea first attached itself. -It is the loan first menaced. Therefore, to my mind, it is the loan -which should be first provided for. I know no way, short of universal -specie payments, by which the national credit can be so effectually -advanced. - -Why in the amendment of the Committee the amount of the proposed -issue is placed at $400,000,000 I am at a loss to conceive. Here is -no equivalent of any one loan, nor of two or more loans. It is an -accidental sum, and might have been more or less for the same reason -that it is what it is. The term Ten-Twenties seems also accidental, -as it is unquestionably new. Of course it is assumed that the amount -proposed of Ten-Twenties at five per cent. will absorb an equal amount -of Five-Twenties at six per cent., irrespective of any particular -loan; but I am at a loss to see on what grounds the holders of the -sixes can be induced to make the exchange. Will the substitute bonds -be considered of equal value? I affirm not. But assuming that they are -acceptable, how shall they be acceptably distributed? Shall the first -comer be first served? If all were at the same starting-point, the palm -might be justly bestowed upon the most swift. In the latitude allowed, -stretching over all the Five-Twenties, there would be opportunity for -favoritism; and with this opportunity there would be temptation and -suspicion. - -The change from a Ten-Forty bond to a Ten-Twenty bond, as proposed -by the Committee, is a change, so far as I can perceive, made up of -disadvantages. To the nation there is the same rate of interest, and -there is the same fixed period during which this interest must be -paid; while, on the other hand, the period of optional payment is -reduced from thirty years to ten years. If there be advantage in this -reduction, I do not perceive it. If at the expiration of ten years we -are in a condition to pay, we may do so as readily under a Ten-Forty -as under the Ten-Twenty proposed. If during the subsequent ten years -of option our advancing credit enables us to command a lower rate of -interest, surely we may do so just as favorably under one as under -the other. There is no benefit within the bounds of imagination, so -far at least as I can discern, which will not redound to the nation -from Ten-Forties as much as from Ten-Twenties. On the other hand, it -is within possibilities, from disturbance in the money markets of the -world, or from other unforeseen circumstances, that it may not be -convenient during the short optional period of the Committee to obtain -the necessary coin without a sacrifice. The greater latitude of payment -leaves the nation master of the situation, to pay or not to pay, as is -most for the national advantage. - -Furthermore, the loan proposed by the Committee has not, to my mind, -the elements of success promised by the other loan. It is assumed -in both cases that the coin for the redemption of the existing -obligations shall be obtained in Europe. Then we must look to the -European market in determining the form of the new loan. Now I have -reason to believe that a coin loan to the amount of $500,000,000 may -be obtained in Europe on Ten-Forties at par, provided the new bonds -are of the same form and purport as the Ten-Forties which are already -so popular, and provided further that the proceeds of the loan are -applied to the payment in coin at par of the Five-Twenties of 1862. The -reasons are obvious. The Ten-Forties have a good name, which is much -to start with. It is like the credit or good-will of an established -mercantile house, which stands often instead of capital; and then the -fact that the proceeds are to be absorbed in the redemption of the -first Five-Twenties, so often assailed, will most signally attest the -determination of the country to maintain its credit. These advantages -cost nothing, and it is difficult to see why they should be renounced. - -We must not make an effort and fail. Our course must be guided by such -prudence that success will be at least reasonably certain. For the -nation to offer a loan and be refused in the market will not do. Here, -as elsewhere, we must organize victory. Now it is to my mind doubtful, -according to the information within my reach, if the loan proposed by -the Committee can be negotiated successfully at par. Bankers there -may be who would gladly see themselves announced as financial agents -of the great Republic; but it remains to be seen if there are any -competent to handle a loan of $500,000,000 who would undertake it on -the terms of the Committee. I am clear that it is not prudent to make -the experiment, when it is easy to offer another loan with positive -advantages sufficient to turn the scale. Washington, in his Farewell -Address, said, “Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? -Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?” In the same spirit -I would say, Why forego the advantages of a well-known and peculiar -security? Why quit our Ten-Forties to stand upon a security which is -unknown, and practically foreign, whether at home or abroad? - -In the loan proposed by the original bill we find assurance of success, -with the promise of reduced taxation, Repudiation silenced, and the -coin reserves in the banks strengthened by sales in Europe, it may be, -$150,000,000. Should the amendment of the Committee prevail, I see -small chance of any near accomplishment of these objects, and meanwhile -our financial question is handed over to prolonged uncertainty. - -I pass now to the substitute of the Committee for the second and -third sections of the original bill. Here again the amount is changed -from $500,000,000 to $400,000,000. I am not aware of any reason for -this change; nor is there, indeed, any peculiar reason, as in the -case of the Five-Twenties of 1862, for the amount of $500,000,000. -The question between the two amounts may properly be determined by -considerations of expediency, among which will be that of uniformity -with outstanding loans. A more important change is in the time the -bonds are to run, which is Fifteen-Thirty years for the bonds at four -and a half per cent., and Twenty-Forty years for the bonds at four per -cent. Here occurs again the argument with regard to the inferiority -of Ten-Twenties, as compared with Ten-Forties. By the same reason the -Fifteen-Thirties will be inferior to the Fifteen-Fifties, and the -Twenty-Forties will be inferior to the Twenty-Sixties, of the original -bill. - -The prolongation of the bond is in the nature of compensation for -the reduction of interest. Already we have established the ratio of -compensation for such reduction,--already for a loan at six per cent. -we have offered Five-Twenties, but for a loan at five per cent. we have -offered Ten-Forties,--and I see no reason why by a tentative process -we should so materially change this standard as is now proposed. The -experiment can do no good, while it may do harm. It is in the nature -of a restriction on our discretion, and a limitation of the duration -of the bond, which, I apprehend, must interfere essentially with -its marketable character. While the prolongation of time enlarges -the option of the nation, it increases the value of the bond in the -market. That which is most favorable to the nation is most favorable -to the market value of the bond; and that which is unfavorable to the -nation is unfavorable also to the market value of the bond, rendering -its negotiation and sale more difficult and protracted. Thus at every -turn are we brought back to the original proposition. - -Against this conclusion is the argument founded on the idea of English -consols. It is sometimes said, If the short term of Five-Twenty -years is the standard for a six per cent. bond with a graduation to -Twenty-Sixty for a four per cent. bond, why may we not go further, -and establish consols at three per cent., running, if you please, -to eternity?--The technical term “consols” is an abbreviation for -the consolidated debt of Great Britain, and in the eyes of a British -subject has its own signification. It means a debt never to be paid, -or at least it is an inscribed debt carrying no promise of payment. I -would not have any debt of the United States assume either the form or -name of consols. I would rigidly adhere to definite periods of payment. -This is the American system, in contradistinction to the British -system. I would not only avoid the idea that our debt is permanent, but -I would adhere to the form of positive payment at some fixed period, -and keep this idea always present in the minds of the people. Without -the requirement of law, I doubt if the debt would be paid. Political -parties would court popularity by a reduction of taxation. The Treasury -of the United States, like the British Treasury, would always be -without a surplus, and the national debt would be recognized as a -burden to be endured forever. Therefore do I say, _No consols_. - -There is another consideration, having a wide influence, but especially -important at the West and South, which should induce us to press for a -reduction of the interest on our bonds; and here I present an argument -which, if not advanced before, is none the less applicable. - -Do Senators consider to what extent the Government determines the -rates of interest in the money centres of the country? Not only for -itself does it determine, but for others also. Government bonds enjoy -preëminence as an investment,--and if the interest is high, they -attract the disposable money of the country. Government sixes are -worth more than a six per cent. bond of any private corporation or -individual, no matter how well secured. Therefore, it is easy to see, -so long as we retain our standard at six per cent., so long as we have -sixes, will the capital of the country seek these bonds for investment, -permanent or temporary, to the detriment of numerous enterprises -important to the national development, which are driven to be the -stipendiaries of foreign capital. Railroads, especially at the West -and South, are sufferers, being sometimes delayed by the difficulty of -borrowing money, and sometimes becoming bankrupt from ruinous rates of -interest, always in competition with the Government. But what is true -of railroads is also true of other enterprises, which are pinched, and -even killed, by these exactions in which the Government plays such a -part. All are familiar with the recurring appeals for money on bonds -even at eight per cent., which is more than can be paid permanently -without loss; and even at such a ruinous rate there is difficulty in -obtaining the required amount. - -Doubtless the excessive interest now demanded is partly due to our -fictitious currency, where _failed_ paper is forced upon the market; -but beyond this influence is that of our sixes, absorbing disposable -capital. I venture to assert, that, if we could at an early day reduce -these sixes to fives, there are millions which would be released to -seek investment in other securities at six per cent., especially to the -relief of the West and South. The reduction of interest to four and a -half per cent. and four per cent. would release further millions. A -recent incident in the financial history of Massachusetts illustrates -the disturbing influence of our sixes. An attempt to obtain a loan in -Europe at five per cent. was unsuccessful, chiefly because the National -Government offered six per cent. - -Therefore, for the sake of public enterprise in its manifold forms, for -the sake of that prosperity which depends on human industry, for the -sake of manufactures, for the sake of commerce, and especially for the -sake of railroads, by which all these are quickened, we must do what we -can to reduce the general rate of interest, which is now such a curb -on enterprise; and here we must begin with our own bonds. Without any -adverse intention, the National Government is a victorious competitor, -and the defeated parties are those very enterprises whose success is so -important to the country. A competition so destructive should cease. -Keeping this before us in the new loan, we shall adopt that form of -bond by which the interest will most surely be reduced. Thus, while -refunding the national debt, we shall open the way to improvements of -all kinds. - - * * * * * - -This is what I have to say for the present on the refunding -propositions of the Committee. Their object is the same as mine. If I -differ from them in details, it is because after careful consideration -it seems to me that in some particulars their system may be improved. - - * * * * * - -Proceeding from these pivotal propositions, I find other things where I -must again differ. When I first addressed the Senate on this subject, -I took occasion to declare my objection to the idea of agencies or -offices in the commercial centres of Europe, where interest should -be paid. I am not ready to withdraw that objection,--though, if I -could be tempted, it would be by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN], -when he held up the prospect of a common money among nations. This is -one of the desires of my heart, as it is one of the necessities of -civilization; but I fail to see how this aspiration will be promoted by -the system proposed,--which must be judged on its own merits, without -any such recommendation. It is easy to see that such a system, besides -being the beginning of a new policy on the part of the Government, -may entail serious embarrassments. Sub-treasuries must be created in -foreign capitals, which must be continued so long as the bonds last. -Remittances of coin must be semiannual; and should such remittances -fail at any time, there must be advances at no little cost to the -Government. I cannot imagine any advantage from this new system -sufficient to induce us to encounter the possible embarrassments or -entanglements which it may cause. - - * * * * * - -I would not take too much of the time of the Senate, and therefore I -pass at once to the proposition of the Committee, being section seven, -providing for the very early payment of the national debt. - -Mr. President, the payment of the national debt is an American idea, -and I would say nothing to weaken it among the people. Whatever we -owe must be paid; but it is the part of prudence to make the payment -in such way as, while consistent with our obligations, shall promote -the national prosperity. In this spirit I approach the proposition of -the Committee, in which there is so much of good, only to examine and -measure it, in order to ascertain its probable influence, especially on -the question of Taxation. - -Here it must be borne in mind, that the present measure in all its -parts, so far as applicable, and especially with its guaranties and -pledges, must be taken as the basis of our new engagements. The -provision that so much of the debt shall be paid annually will become -in a certain sense a part of the contract, although not so expressed -in the bond. Not less than $150,000,000 are set apart annually to be -applied “to the payment of the interest and to the reduction of the -principal of the public debt.” This is a large sum, and we should -consider carefully if such a guaranty or pledge has in it the promise -of financial stability. Promising too much is sometimes as bad as -promising too little. Our promise must be according to our means -prudently employed. - -If we assume obligations so large as to bear heavily upon the business -of the country and to compel unreasonable taxation, there will be -little chance of financial stability. They will become the object of -attack, and will enter into the conflict of parties,--and if repealed, -the national faith may be called in question. I need not say that -business must suffer. A less ambitious effort on our part will be less -obnoxious to attack,--thus leaving the bonds to their natural position -in the money market, and strengthening all the movements of commerce. - -In order to determine the operation of this provision we must look -into details. I have the estimates before me, showing our present -and prospective liabilities for interest; but I content myself with -presenting compendiously the result, in order to determine the question -of taxation. Suffice it to say, that under the operation of the present -measure there will be in 1871, after the payment of all liabilities -for interest, a surplus of $43,000,000 to be applied to the payment of -the national debt. With each succeeding year the reduction of interest -will rapidly increase this surplus; and when we bring into operation -other provisions of the bill, and convert $500,000,000 of sixes into a -like amount of four and a half per cents., effecting a further saving -of interest, equal to $7,500,000 annually, the surplus revenue, as -compared with necessary expenditures, will in a brief period approach -$100,000,000 annually. - -Here the question arises, Is not this unnecessarily large? Is it not -beyond the bounds of prudence and wise economy? Shall we declare in -this fundamental measure a determination to redeem the whole national -debt within a period of twenty-five years? Can the industries of the -country sustain such taxation? I put the question. You shall answer -it. The future has its great claims upon us; so also has the present. -I submit that the pending measure sacrifices the present. I conclude, -therefore, as I began, with another appeal for reduced taxation. At the -proper time I shall move an amendment, in order to aid this result. - - In the course of the proceedings which followed, the bill of - the Committee underwent important amendments, in accordance - with the views expressed by Mr. Sumner,--for the Ten-Twenties - and Fifteen-Thirties therein proposed, a prolongation to - Ten-Forties and Fifteen-Forties being effected,--and the - provision for the payment of interest at the money-centres - and in the moneys of Europe stricken out. Some of its more - objectionable features being thus removed, he gave it a - qualified support. - - * * * * * - - March 10th, the question being on striking out a provision - in the bill of the Committee requiring the national banks to - exchange the bonds of the United States deposited by them as - security for their circulation for those bearing a lower rate - of interest, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--There is a word which has been introduced into this -debate with which we were all very familiar in another relation some -years ago. It is the word _Coercion_. A President of the United States -announced in most formal phrase that we could not coerce a State; -and now, borrowing a phrase from Mr. Buchanan, we are told we cannot -coerce a national bank. Well, Sir, is the phrase applicable? If it be -applicable, then I insist that we can coerce a national bank; but I do -not admit its applicability. What I insist on has already been so ably -and clearly stated by the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. SHERMAN] that -perhaps I need not add another word. I do not like to occupy your time; -yet I cannot forbear reminding you, Sir, of the plenary power which -Congress has reserved over the banking system in that very Act by which -it was established.[224] - -The Senator from California [Mr. CASSERLY] has read to you the clause. -We have been reminded to-day by a Senator on this floor that these are -formal words, words that often appear in statutes. But are they not -significant words? Have they not a meaning? Why are they there? Because -they have a meaning; because they reserve to Congress what I call -plenary power over the whole system. That system may be readjusted, -modified, shaped anew, and the banks cannot complain. They began their -existence under that law; they knew the conditions of their being; and -they cannot now murmur, if Congress chooses to exercise the prerogative -which it reserved at the very inception of the whole system. - -Sir, I approach this question, therefore, with the conviction that the -whole matter is open to our discretion. Nobody can say safely that what -is now proposed is not within the power of Congress. Congress may do -it, if the occasion justifies, if in its discretion it thinks best to -do it. It may do it, if it thinks that the financial policy of this -country will be thereby promoted. The banks are all parties to that -policy. May not the country turn around and ask the banks to do their -part in this great work of renovation? To a certain extent the banks -are in partnership with the Government. May not the Government insist -that they shall do their part on this great occasion? Shall this effort -of ours to readjust our finances and to save this large interest to our -country be thwarted by a pretension on the part of the banks that we -have not the power to interfere? - -But we are reminded that there is a difference between power and right. -How often, Sir, on other occasions, have I so insisted in this Chamber! -A great, broad, vital distinction there always is between power and -right. A nation or an individual may have a power without right. Now -is there not here a right as well as a power? I cannot doubt it. I -cannot doubt that Congress may rightfully exercise what I cannot doubt -is an existing power. Why should it not? It could exercise it--who can -doubt?--with reference to the public interests, to promote the national -credit. It will not exercise it in any spirit of wantonness, in any -spirit of injustice,--but to promote the national credit. Is not that -a rightful object? No one will say the contrary. Why, then, shall we -hesitate? - -We are reminded that these banks have secured certain privileges, and -it is said often that those are vested, and the old phrase “vested -rights” has been repeated. But how can they have vested rights under -a statute which contains the provision just read to us, securing to -Congress full power to change it in every respect? What, then, is the -simple aspect of this question? It is that certain securities have -been lodged with the Government by these banks on which they transact -their business, and now in readjusting the national debt it is deemed -advisable and for the public interests that the securities should be at -a lower rate of interest than when they were originally deposited. Is -it not right for Congress to require that? I cannot see the wrong in -it. I cannot see any doubt on the question. To my mind it is clear; it -is absolutely within the province of Congress, in the exercise of the -discretion which it originally retained over this whole subject. - -I hope, therefore, that in this debate we shall not be pressed too much -with the suggestion that we cannot coerce these banks. If the occasion -requires, and if the term be applicable, then do I say we may coerce -these banks to the extent of obliging them to take these securities -at a reduced rate of interest. I find no Repudiation in that. I find -nothing wrong in that. I find nothing in it but a simple measure in -harmony with this great process of Financial Reconstruction in which we -are now engaged. I call it Financial Reconstruction; and in this work -ought not the banks to take their place and perform their part? - - * * * * * - -Now, Sir, I have a criticism on this section. It does not go far -enough. The Committee propose that the banks shall take one third of -the three different kinds of bonds, the five, the four and a half, and -the four per cents. I think they ought to be required to take all in -fours, and I propose to give the Senate an opportunity of expressing -its judgment on that proposition. I may be voted down; perhaps I shall -be; but I shall make a motion, in the honest endeavor to render this -bill a practical measure, which can best succeed. I wish to mature -it; I wish to put it in the best shape possible; and for the sake of -the banks, and in the interest of the banks, I wish such a measure -as shall have a reasonable chance of stability in the future. If you -allow the banks gains that are too large, there will necessarily be a -constant opposition, growing and developing as their gains become more -conspicuous. Why expose the system to any such criticism? Let us now -revise it carefully, place it on sure, but moderate foundations, so -that it will have in itself the elements of future stability. - -To my mind that is the more politic course, and I am sure it is not -unjust. You and I, Mr. President, remember very well what was done on -another occasion. The State banks were taxed out of existence. It was -the cry, “Tax them out of existence! do not let them live! drive them -from competition with these new children of ours, the national banks!” -It was done. Was not that coercion? If the phrase is to be employed, -there was an occasion for it. But I am not aware that it was argued, -certainly it was with no great confidence argued, that to do that was -unjust. It was a measure of policy wisely adopted at the time, and -which we all now see has answered well. But if we could tax the State -banks out of existence, can we not, under the very specific terms of -the Act of Congress to which these national banks owe their existence, -apply a rule not unlike to them? We do not propose to tax them out of -existence, but we propose to require that they shall lodge with the -Government securities at a lower rate of interest. - -Something has been said, perhaps much, in this debate, with regard -to the burden that this will impose upon the banks. The Senator from -Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] has already answered that objection, and I do not -know that I can add to his answer; and yet I am not aware that he -reminded the Senate that in this very bill there is a new and important -provision in favor of the banks, or in favor of all bondholders,--being -an exemption from all taxation, not only State and municipal, but -national. - -There is but one other remark I will make, and that is, we all know, -unless I am much deceived, that the banks have during these last years -made great profits. I am told that the profits of the national banks -are two or three times greater than those of the old State banks, which -we did not hesitate to tax out of existence. Now is not that a fact -in this case? Is it not an essential element? Should it not be taken -into consideration on this occasion? If these national banks are the -recipients of such large profits, should we not exercise all the power -that belongs to us to compel them to their full contribution to this -great measure of Financial Reconstruction? I cannot hesitate in my -conclusion. - - March 11th, Mr. Sumner moved the addition of a section - providing for the resumption of specie payments,--being the - seventh section of the original bill,--remarking:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--Interested as I am in this bill, desirous of its -passage hardly less than the Senator from Ohio, I am bound to say, -that, in my judgment, the passage of this single section would be -worth more than the whole bill. It would do more for the credit of the -country; it would do more for its business. It would help us all to the -completion of Financial Reconstruction. How often have I insisted that -all our efforts to fund and refund are to a certain extent vain and -impotent, unless we begin by specie payments! That, Sir, is the Alpha -of this whole subject; and until Congress is ready to begin with that, -I fear that all the rest will be of little avail. It is in the light of -expedient rather than of remedy. There is the remedy. - - The proposition was negatived,--Congress not being yet ready - for this step. - - - - -MAJOR-GENERAL NATHANAEL GREENE, OF THE REVOLUTION. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE PRESENTATION OF HIS STATUE, JANUARY 20, -1870. - - - In the Senate, January 20, 1870, Senator Anthony announced - the presentation by Rhode Island of a statue of Major-General - Nathanael Greene, of the Revolution, executed by the - sculptor Brown, to be placed in the old Hall of the House - of Representatives. Mr. Sumner moved its acceptance by the - following Concurrent Resolution:-- - - A Resolution accepting the Statue of Major-General Greene. - - _Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives - concurring_, That the thanks of this Congress be presented - to the Governor, and through him to the people, of the - State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, for the - statue of Major-General Greene, whose name is so honorably - identified with our Revolutionary history; that this work - of art is accepted in the name of the nation, and assigned - a place in the old Hall of the House of Representatives, - already set aside by Act of Congress for the statues of - eminent citizens; and that a copy of this Resolution, - signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker - of the House of Representatives, be transmitted to the - Governor of the State of Rhode Island and Providence - Plantations. - - On this he spoke as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--How brief is life! how long is art! Nathanael Greene -died at the age of forty-four, and now Congress receives his marble -statue, destined to endure until this Capitol crumbles to dust. But art -lends its longevity only to lives extended by deeds. Therefore is the -present an attestation of the fame that has been won. - -Beyond his own deserts, Greene was fortunate during life in the praise -of Washington, who wrote of “the singular abilities which that officer -possesses,”[225]--and then again fortunate after death in the praise -of Hamilton, whose remarkable tribute is no ordinary record.[226] He -has been fortunate since in his biographer, whose work promises to be -classical in our literature.[227] And now he is fortunate again in a -statue, which, while taking an honorable place in American art, is the -first to be received in our Pantheon. Such are the honors of patriot -service. - -Among the generals of the Revolution Greene was next after Washington. -His campaign at the South showed military genius of no common order. He -saved the South. Had he lived to take part in the National Government, -his character and judgment must have secured for him an eminent post of -service. Unlike his two great associates, Washington and Hamilton, his -life was confined to war; but the capacities he manifested in command -gave assurance that he would have excelled in civil life. His resources -in the field would have been the same in the council chamber. - -Of Quaker extraction, Greene was originally a Quaker. The Quaker became -a soldier and commander of armies. Such was the requirement of the -epoch. Should a soldier and commander of armies in our day accept ideas -which enter into the life of the Quaker, the change would only be in -harmony with those principles which must soon prevail, ordaining peace -and good-will among men. Looking at his statue, with military coat and -with sword in hand, I seem to see his early garb beneath. The Quaker -general could never have been other than the friend of peace. - -Standing always in that beautiful Hall, the statue will be a perpetual, -though silent orator. The marble will speak; nor is it difficult to -divine the lesson it must teach. He lived for his country, and his -whole country,--nothing less. Born in the North, he died in the South, -which he had made his home. The grateful South honored him as the -North had already done. His life exhibits the beauty and the reward -of patriotism. How can his marble speak except for country in all its -parts and at all points of the compass? It was for the whole country -that he drew his sword of “ice-brook temper.” So also for the whole -country was the sword drawn in these latter days. And yet there was a -difference between the two occasions easy to state. - -Our country’s cause for which Greene contended was National -Independence. Our country’s cause recently triumphant in bloodiest -war was Liberty and Equality, the declared heritage of all mankind. -The first war was for separation from the mother country, according -to the terms of the Declaration, “That these United Colonies are and -of right ought to be Free and Independent States,”--the object being -elevated by the great principles announced. The second war was for -the establishment of these great principles, without which republican -government is a name and nothing more. But both were for country. The -larger masses, with the larger scale of military operations, in the -latter may eclipse the earlier; and it is impossible not to see that a -war for Liberty and Equality, making the promises of the Declaration a -reality, and giving to mankind an irresistible example, is loftier in -character than a war for separation. If hereafter Greene finds rivals -near his statue, they will be those who represented our country’s cause -in its later peril and its larger triumph. Just in proportion as ideas -are involved is conflict elevated, especially if those ideas concern -the Equal Rights of All. - -Greene died at the South, and nobody knows the place of his burial. He -lies without epitaph or tombstone. To-day a grateful country writes his -epitaph and gives him a monument in the Capitol. - - - - -PERSONAL RECORD ON RECONSTRUCTION WITH COLORED SUFFRAGE. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 21 AND FEBRUARY 10, 1870. - - - The arraignment of Mr. Sumner by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, - in the closing debate on the Virginia Bill, January 21st, - included, as remarked in that connection,[228] a reference - to matters of earlier date,--specifically among these being - the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, conferring upon the - colored people of the Rebel States equality of suffrage with - the whites.[229] Adverting to the fact that this bill was an - amendment in the nature of a substitute for one from the House, - and then reading the names of the Senators who voted for it, - Mr. Trumbull asked,-- - - “Mr. President, do you miss the name of any Senator from - that list of Yeas?--That was the vote by which that - amendment was adopted.--The ‘Absent’ were, among others, - ‘Mr. Sumner.’” - - And upon this showing, Mr. Trumbull concluded, that, - - “Unfortunately the colored citizens of the South have - nothing to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for, in - having the right of suffrage conferred upon them.” - - Mr. Trumbull continued:-- - - “Mr. President, this was not the only vote. A vote was - taken, after this amendment was adopted, upon the passage - of the bill thus amended; and the vote on the passage of - the bill was Yeas 29, Nays 10, and among those Yeas is not - found the name of the Senator from Massachusetts. - - “But, Sir, it sometimes happens that malice and hatred - will produce results which reason and good-will can never - accomplish; and when we passed this bill giving the right - of suffrage to the colored men in the South without the - aid of the Senator from Massachusetts and sent it to the - President [Mr. JOHNSON] he vetoed it, and on the question - of passing it over his veto the Senator from Massachusetts - voted with us. His affection for the President was not such - as to allow him to coincide with him in anything. So we got - his vote at last, but we had two-thirds without him. - - “This is the record, Mr. President.” - - Mr. Sumner answered:-- - -This assault to-day compels me to make a statement now which I never -supposed I should be called to make. I make it now with hesitation, but -rather to show the Senator’s course than my own. Sir, I am the author -of the provision in that Act conferring suffrage; and when I brought it -forward, the Senator from Illinois was one of my opponents,--then as -now. Senators who were here at that time remember well that this whole -subject was practically taken for the time from the jurisdiction of the -Senate into a caucus of the Republican party, where a committee was -created to whom all pending measures of Reconstruction were referred. I -had the honor of being a member of that committee. So was the Senator -from Illinois. So was my friend from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD]. The Senator -from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] was our chairman. In that committee this -Reconstruction Bill was debated and matured sentence by sentence, word -for word; and then and there, in that committee, I moved that we should -require the suffrage of all persons, without distinction of color, in -the organization of new governments, and in all the constitutions to be -made. - -In making this proposition at that time I only followed the proposition -I had made in the Senate two years before,[230] which I had urged -upon the people in an elaborate address at a political convention in -Massachusetts,[231] which I had again upheld in an elaborate effort -for two days in this Chamber,[232] and which from the beginning I had -never lost from my mind or heart. It was natural that I should press -it in committee; but I was overruled,--the Senator opposing me with -his accustomed determination. I was voted down. The chairman observed -my discontent and said, “You can renew your motion in caucus.” I -did so, stating that I had been voted down in committee, but that I -appealed from the committee to the caucus. My colleague [Mr. WILSON], -who sits before me, called out, “Do so”; and then rising, said, in -language which he will pardon me for quoting, but which will do -him honor always, “The report of the committee will leave a great -question open to debate on every square mile of the South. We must -close that question up.” Another Senator, who is not now here,--I can -therefore name him,--Mr. Gratz Brown [of Missouri], cried out most -earnestly, “Push it to a vote; we will stand by you.” I needed no such -encouragement, for my determination was fixed. There sat the Senator -from Illinois, sullen in his accustomed opposition. I pushed it to a -vote, and it was carried by only two majority, Senators rising to be -counted. My colleague, in his joy on the occasion, exclaimed, “This -is the greatest vote that has been taken on this continent!” He felt, -I felt, we all felt, that the question of the suffrage was then and -there secured. By that vote the committee was directed to make it a -part of Reconstruction. This was done, and the measure thus amended was -reported by the Senator from Ohio as chairman of the committee. - -I am compelled to this statement by the assault of the Senator. I had -no disposition to make it. I do not claim anything for myself. I did -nothing but my duty. Had I done less, I should have been faithless,--I -should have been where the Senator from Illinois placed himself. - -The Senator read from the “Globe” the vote on the passage of the bill, -and exulted because my name was not there. Sir, is there any Senator -in this Chamber whose name will be found oftener on the yeas and nays -than my own? Is there any Senator in this Chamber who is away from -his seat less than I am? There was a reason for my absence on that -occasion. I left this Chamber at midnight, fatigued, not well, knowing -that the great cause was assured, notwithstanding the opposition of the -Senator from Illinois,--knowing that at last the right of the colored -people to suffrage was recognized. I had seen it placed in the bill -reported from the committee. There it was on my motion, safe against -the assaults of the Senator from Illinois. Why should I, fatigued, -and not well, remain till morning to swell the large and ascertained -majority which it was destined to receive?[233] I have no occasion to -make up any such record. You know my fidelity to this cause. You know -if I am in the habit of avoiding the responsibilities of my position. -I cannot disguise, also, that there was another influence on my mind. -Reconstruction, even with the suffrage, was defective. More was -needed. There should have been a system of public schools, greater -protection to the freedmen, and more security against the Rebels, all -of which I sought in vain to obtain in committee, and I found all -effort in the Senate foreclosed by our action in caucus. Pained by this -failure, and feeling that there was nothing more for me to do, after -midnight I withdrew. On the return of the Act to the Senate on the veto -of the President, I recorded my vote in its favor. - - What Mr. Trumbull calls “the record” in this case, and which - Mr. Sumner, in the surprise of the occasion, seemingly accepts, - according to the obvious import of the term, as substantially - the complete record, inspection of either the Congressional - Globe or the Senate Journal shows to be very far from complete. - The vote following the Presidential veto was by no means the - only one in which Mr. Sumner’s name appears: between this and - the vote which would seem from the representation to have next - preceded, designated as “the vote on the passage of the bill,” - there intervened another, involving in an important degree the - character and fate of the whole measure. - - The bill in its original form, as it came from the House, was - purely, as indicated by its title, “a bill to provide for the - more efficient government of the insurrectionary States,” - dividing them into military districts and placing them under - military rule,--this being deemed the only effectual means - of suppressing the outrages continually perpetrated upon the - loyalists of the South, black and white,--its Reconstruction - features, which included the provision for colored suffrage, - being engrafted upon it by the Senate, coupled with - considerable modifications of its military details. It was on - the votes at this stage, February 16th, that Mr. Sumner’s name - was wanting. - - On the return of the bill to the House for concurrence in - these amendments, it at once encountered on the Republican - side severe animadversion, aptly expressed in the remark,--“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.” - Concurrence was refused, and a committee of conference asked. - The Senate insisting, and declining the proposed conference, - the House proceeded alone, supplementing the Reconstruction - provisions with others guarding against Rebel domination,[234] - and crowning their work with the emphatic vote of 128 Yeas - to 46 Nays. To this vote the Senate yielded, by a concurrent - vote of Yeas 35, Nays 7,--with “the effect,” as announced, “of - passing the bill.” Mr. Sumner, hailing these amendments as - what he had required, of course voted with the Yeas,--and his - name so stands on both of the official registers, in immediate - conjunction with Mr. Trumbull’s.[235] This was on the 20th of - February. The vote consequent upon the Veto was ten days later, - when his name was again recorded with the Yeas.[236] These two - were the only votes in the Senate on the Reconstruction Act of - March 2, 1867, in the completeness of its provisions, as it - appears in the Statute-Book.[237] - - * * * * * - - February 10th, 1870, the bill for the admission of Mississippi - having come up for consideration in the Senate, Mr. Stewart, - of Nevada, availed himself of the opportunity to reopen the - personal controversy with Mr. Sumner, in an acrimonious - speech denying his claim to the authorship of the provision - for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and - ascribing it to Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, a member of the other - House,--quoting Mr. Sumner’s opening declaration on this point, - but resisting the reading of what followed in explanation and - support of that declaration, under the plea that “he did not - want it printed as part of his own speech.”[238] - - On the conclusion of Mr. Stewart’s speech, Mr. Sumner answered - as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--You will bear witness that I am no volunteer now. I -have been no volunteer on any of these recurring occasions when I have -been assailed in this Chamber. I have begun no question. I began no -question with the Senator from Nevada. I began no question with the -other Senator on my right [Mr. TRUMBULL]. I began no question yesterday -with the Senator from New York [Mr. CONKLING].[239] I began no -question, either, with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER].[240] -But I am here to answer; and I begin by asking to have read at the desk -what I did say, and what the Senator from Nevada was unwilling, as he -declared, to have incorporated in his speech. I can understand that he -was very unwilling. I send the passage to the Chair. - - The passage referred to, embracing the first three paragraphs - of Mr. Sumner’s statement in answer to Mr. Trumbull, January - 21st,[241] having been read, he proceeded:-- - -That statement is to the effect that on my motion that important -proposition was put into the bill. Does anybody question it? Has -the impeachment of the Senator to-day impaired that statement by a -hair’s-breadth? He shows that in another part of this Capitol patriot -Representatives were striving in the same direction. All honor to them! -God forbid that I should ever grudge to any of my associates in this -great controversy any of the fame that belongs to them! There is enough -for all, provided we have been faithful. Sir, it is not in my nature -to take from any one credit, character, fame, to which he is justly -entitled. The world is wide enough for all. Let each enjoy what he has -earned. I ask nothing for myself. I asked nothing the other day; what I -said was only in reply to the impeachment, the arraignment let me call -it, by the Senator from Illinois. - -I then simply said it was on my motion that this identical requirement -went into the bill. The Senator, in reply, seeks to show that in the -other Chamber a similar proposition was brought forward; but it did not -become a part of the bill. He shows that it was brought forward in this -Chamber, but did not become a part of the bill. It was on my motion -that it did become a part of the bill. It was not unnatural, perhaps, -that I should go further, as I did, and say that in making this motion -I only acted in harmony with my life and best exertions for years. I -have the whole record here. Shall I open it? I hesitate. In doing so I -break a vow with myself. And yet it cannot be necessary. You know me in -this Chamber; you know how I have devoted myself from the beginning to -this idea, how constantly I have maintained it and urged it from the -earliest date. - - * * * * * - -The first stage in this series--you [Mr. ANTHONY, of Rhode Island, in -the chair] remember it; you were here; the Senator from Nevada was not -here--goes to February 11, 1862, when - - “Mr. Sumner submitted resolutions declaratory of the relations - between the United States and the territory once occupied - by certain States, and now usurped by pretended governments - without constitutional or legal right.” - -In these resolutions it is declared, that, after an act of secession -followed by war, - - “The territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of - Congress, as other territory, and the State becomes, according - to the language of the law, _felo de se_.” - -The resolutions conclude as follows:-- - - “And that, in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, and - further enjoined by the Constitution, Congress will assume - complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory where such - unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, - and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of - government under the Constitution, and, in the execution of - this trust, will provide carefully for the protection of all - the inhabitants thereof, for the security of families, the - organization of labor, the encouragement of industry, and the - welfare of society, and will in every way discharge the duties - of a just, merciful, and paternal government.”[242] - -Sir, there was the beginning of Reconstruction in this Chamber. That -was its earliest expression. - -On the 8th of February, 1864, it appears that - - “Mr. Sumner submitted resolutions defining the character of - the national contest, and protesting against any premature - restoration of Rebel States without proper guaranties - and safeguards against Slavery and for the protection of - freedmen.”[243] - -And on the same day it appears that he submitted the following -Amendment to the Constitution, which, had it been adopted then, would -have cured many of the difficulties that have since occurred, entitled-- - - “Amendment of the Constitution, securing Equality before the - Law and the Abolition of Slavery.” - -It is as follows:-- - - “All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can - hold another as a slave; and the Congress shall have power to - make all laws necessary and proper to carry this declaration - into effect everywhere within the United States and the - jurisdiction thereof.”[244] - -There, Sir, was the beginning of Civil-Rights Bills and -Political-Rights Bills. On the same day it appears that Mr. Sumner -introduced into the Senate “A bill to secure equality before the law in -the courts of the United States.”[245] - -The debate went on. On the 25th of February, 1865, a resolution of -the Judiciary Committee was pending, recognizing the State Government -of Louisiana. Mr. Sumner on that day introduced resolutions thus -entitled:-- - - “Resolutions declaring the duty of the United States to - guaranty Republican Governments in the Rebel States on the - basis of the Declaration of Independence, so that _the new - governments_”-- - -that is, the reconstructed governments-- - - “shall be founded on the consent of the governed and the - equality of all persons before the law.” - -Of this series of resolutions I will read two. - - “That the path of justice is also the path of peace; and that - for the sake of peace it is better to obey the Constitution, - and, in conformity with its requirements, in the performance of - the guaranty, to reëstablish State governments on the consent - of the governed and the equality of all persons before the law, - to the end that the foundations thereof may be permanent, and - that no loyal majorities may be again overthrown or ruled by - any oligarchical class.” - -Then comes another resolution:-- - - “That considerations of expediency are in harmony with the - requirements of the Constitution and the dictates of justice - and reason, especially now, when colored soldiers have shown - their military value; that, as their muskets are needed for - the national defence against Rebels in the field, so are their - ballots yet more needed against the subtle enemies of the Union - at home; and that without their support at the ballot-box - the cause of Human Rights and of the Union itself will be in - constant peril.”[246] - -On the resolution reported by the Senator from Illinois for the -admission of Louisiana without Equal Rights, I had the honor of moving -the very proposition now in question, under date of February 25, 1865:-- - - “_Provided_, That this shall 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 color or race, but all persons shall be equal before - the law_.”[247] - -Here was the first motion in this Chamber for equality of suffrage as a -measure of Reconstruction. I entitled it at the time “the corner-stone -of Reconstruction.” But here, Sir, it was my misfortune to encounter -the strenuous opposition of the Senator from Illinois. I allude to -this with reluctance; I have not opened this debate; and I quote what -I do now simply in reply to the Senator from Nevada. Replying on that -occasion to the Senator from Illinois, I said:-- - - “The United States are bound by the Constitution to ‘guaranty - to every State in this Union a republican form of government.’ - Now, when called to perform this guaranty, it is proposed - to recognize an oligarchy of the skin. The pretended State - government in Louisiana is utterly indefensible, whether you - look at its origin or its character. To describe it, I must use - plain language. It is a mere seven-months’ abortion, begotten - by the bayonet in criminal conjunction with the spirit of - Caste, and born before its time, rickety, unformed, unfinished, - whose continued existence will be a burden, a reproach, and - a wrong. That is the whole case; and yet the Senator from - Illinois now presses it upon the Senate at this moment, to the - exclusion of the important public business of the country.”[248] - -The Louisiana Bill, though pressed by the Senator from Illinois, -was defeated; and the equal rights of the colored race were happily -vindicated. His opposition was strenuous. - -But, Sir, I did not content myself with action in this Chamber. Our -good President was assassinated. The Vice-President succeeded to his -place. Being here in Washington, I entered at once into relations with -him,--hoping to bring, if possible, his great influence in favor of -this measure of Reconstruction; and here is a record, made shortly -afterward, which I will read. - - “During this period I saw the President frequently,--sometimes - at the private house he then occupied, and sometimes at his - office in the Treasury. On these occasions the constant - topic was ‘Reconstruction,’ which was considered in every - variety of aspect. More than once I ventured to press upon - him the duty and the renown of carrying out the principles - of the Declaration of Independence, and of founding the new - governments in the Rebel States on the consent of the governed, - without any distinction of color. To this earnest appeal he - replied, on one occasion, 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 in favor of the Equal Rights of All, the good cause - must prevail without controversy.”[249] - -Then followed another incident:-- - - “On another occasion, during the same period, the case of - Tennessee was discussed. I expressed the hope most earnestly - 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 that this was accomplished. I could not help rejoining - promptly, 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 which the President - might exercise in his own State by the expression of his - desires.”[250] - -Then, again, as I was about to leave on my return home to -Massachusetts, in an interview with him I ventured to express my -desires and aspirations as follows: this was in May, 1865:-- - - “After remarking that the Rebel region was still in military - occupation, and that it was the plain duty of the President - to use his temporary power for the establishment of correct - principles, I proceeded to say: ‘First, see to it that no - newspaper is allowed which is not thoroughly loyal and does not - speak well of the National Government and of Equal Rights’; and - here I reminded him of the saying of the Duke of Wellington, - that in a place under martial law an unlicensed press was 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 their 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 Rebel 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 at the time with perfect kindness; and I mention this - with the more readiness because I remember to have seen in the - papers a very different statement.”[251] - -Before I left Washington, and in the midst of my interviews with the -President, I was honored by a communication from colored citizens -of North Carolina, asking my counsel with regard to their rights, -especially the right to vote. I will not read their letter,--it was -published in the papers of the time, and much commented upon,--but I -will read my reply.[252] - - “WASHINGTON, May 13, 1865. - - “GENTLEMEN,--I am glad that the colored citizens of North - Carolina are ready to take part in the organization of - Government. It is unquestionably their right and duty. - - “I see little chance of peace or tranquillity in any Rebel - State, unless the rights of all are recognized, without - distinction of color. On this foundation we must build. - - “The article on Reconstruction to which you call my attention - proceeds on the idea, born of Slavery, that persons with a - white skin are the only ‘citizens.’ This is a mistake. - - “As you do me the honor to ask me the proper stand for you to - make, I have no hesitation in replying that you must insist on - all the rights and privileges of a citizen. They belong to you; - they are yours; and whoever undertakes to rob you of them is a - usurper and impostor. - - “Of course you will take part in any primary meetings for - political organization open to citizens generally, and will not - miss any opportunity to show your loyalty and fidelity. - - “Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen, faithfully - yours, - - “CHARLES SUMNER.” - -Such was my earnestness in this work, that, when invited by the -municipality of Boston, where I was born and have always lived, to -address my fellow-citizens in commemoration of the late President, I -deemed it my duty to dedicate the day mainly to a vindication of Equal -Rights as represented by him. I hold in my hand the address on that -occasion, from which I will read one passage. This was on the 1st of -June, 1865. - - “The argument for Colored Suffrage is overwhelming. It springs - from the necessity of the case, as well as from the Rights of - Man. This suffrage is needed for the security of the colored - people, for the stability of the local government, and for - the strength of the Union. Without it there is nothing but - insecurity for the colored people, instability for the local - government, and weakness for the Union, involving of course the - national credit.”[253] - -This was followed by a letter, dated Boston, July 8, 1865, addressed to -the colored people of Savannah, who had done me the honor of forwarding -to me a petition asking for the right to vote, with the request that I -would present it to the President. After saying, that, had I been at -Washington, I should have had great pleasure in presenting the petition -personally, but that I was obliged to content myself with another -method, I proceeded in this way:-- - - “Allow me to add, that you must not be impatient. You - have borne the heavier burdens of Slavery; and as these - are now removed, believe the others surely will be also. - This enfranchised Republic, setting an example to mankind, - cannot continue to sanction an odious oligarchy whose single - distinctive element is color. I have no doubt that you will be - admitted to the privileges of citizens. - - “It is impossible to suppose that Congress will sanction - governments in the Rebel States which are not founded on - ‘the consent of the governed.’ This is the corner-stone of - republican institutions. Of course, by the ‘governed’ is meant - all the loyal citizens, without distinction of color. Anything - else is mockery. - - “Never neglect your work; but, meanwhile, prepare yourselves - for the privileges of citizens. They are yours of right, - and I do not doubt that they will be yours soon in reality. - The prejudice of Caste and a false interpretation of the - Constitution cannot prevail against justice and common - sense, both of which are on your side,--and I may add, the - Constitution also, which, when properly interpreted, is clearly - on your side. - - “Accept my best wishes, and believe me, fellow-citizens, - faithfully yours, - - “CHARLES SUMNER.”[254] - -This was followed by an elaborate speech before the Republican State -Convention at Worcester, September 14, 1865, entitled “The National -Security and the National Faith: Guaranties for the National Freedman -and the National Creditor,”--where I insisted that national peace and -tranquillity could be had only from _impartial suffrage_; and I believe -that it was on this occasion that this phrase, which has since become -a formula of politics, was first publicly employed. My language was as -follows:-- - - “As the national peace and tranquillity depend essentially upon - the overthrow of monopoly and tyranny, here is another occasion - for special guaranty against the whole pretension of color. - _No Rebel State can be readmitted with this controversy still - raging and ready to break forth._” - -Mark the words, if you please. - - “So long as it continues, the land will be barren, agriculture - and business of all kinds will be uncertain, and the country - will be handed over to a fearful struggle, with the terrors - of San Domingo to darken the prospect. In shutting out the - freedman from his equal rights at the ballot-box, you open the - doors of discontent and insurrection. Cavaignac, the patriotic - President of the French Republic, met the present case, - when, speaking for France, he said: ‘I do not believe repose - possible, either in the present or the future, except so far - as you found your political condition on universal suffrage, - loyally, sincerely, completely accepted and observed.’”[255] - -I then proceeded,--not adopting the term “universal suffrage,” employed -by the eminent Frenchman,--as follows:-- - - “It is _impartial suffrage_ that I claim, without distinction - of color, so that there shall be one equal rule for all - men. And this, too, must be placed under the safeguard of - Constitutional Law.”[256] - -I followed up this effort by a communication to that powerful and -extensively circulated paper, the New York “Independent,” under date of -Boston, October 29, 1865, where I expressed myself as follows:-- - - “For the sake of the whole country, which suffers from weakness - in any part,--for the sake of the States lately distracted by - war, which above all things need security and repose,--for the - sake of agriculture, which is neglected there,--for the sake - of commerce, which has fled,--for the sake of the national - creditor, whose generous trust is exposed to repudiation,--and, - finally, for the sake of reconciliation, which can be complete - only when justice prevails, we must insist upon Equal Rights as - the condition of the new order of things.” - -Mark, if you please, Sir, “as the condition of the new order of -things,”--or, as I called it on other occasions, the corner-stone of -Reconstruction. - - “So long as this question remains unsettled, there can be no - true peace. Therefore I would say to the merchant who wishes - to open trade with this region, to the capitalist who would - send his money there, to the emigrant who seeks to find a - home there, Begin by assuring justice to all men. This is - the one essential condition of prosperity, of credit, and of - tranquillity. Without this, mercantile houses, banks, and - emigration societies having anything to do with this region - must all fail, or at least suffer in business and resources. To - Congress we must look as guardian, under the Constitution, of - the national safety.”[257] - -Meanwhile the President adopted a policy of reaction. I was at home -in Massachusetts, and from Boston, under date of November 12, 1865, I -addressed him a telegraphic dispatch, as follows:-- - - “TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON. - - “As a faithful friend and supporter of your administration, - I most respectfully petition you to suspend for the present - your policy towards the Rebel States. I should not present - this prayer, if I were not painfully convinced that thus - far it has failed to obtain any reasonable guaranties for - that security in the future which is essential to peace and - reconciliation. To my mind, it abandons the freedmen to the - control of their ancient masters, and leaves the national debt - exposed to repudiation by returning Rebels. The Declaration of - Independence asserts the equality of all men, and that rightful - government can be founded only on the consent of the governed. - I see small chance of peace, unless these great principles are - practically established. Without this the house will continue - divided against itself. - - “CHARLES SUMNER, - “_Senator of the United States_.”[258] - -Not content with these efforts, in an article more literary than -political in its character, which found a place in the “Atlantic -Monthly” for December, 1865, entitled, “Clemency and Common Sense: a -Curiosity of Literature, with a Moral,” I again returned to this same -question. I will quote only a brief passage. - - “Again, we are told gravely that the national power which - decreed Emancipation cannot maintain it by assuring universal - enfranchisement, because an imperial government must be - discountenanced,--as if the whole suggestion of ‘Imperialism’ - or ‘Centralism’ were not out of place, until the national - security is established, and our debts, whether to the national - freedman or the national creditor, are placed where they - cannot be repudiated. A phantom is created, and, to avoid this - phantom, we drive towards concession and compromise, as from - Charybdis to Scylla.”[259] - -The session of Congress opened December 4, 1865, and you will find that -on the first day I introduced two distinct measures of Reconstruction, -with Equality before the Law as their corner-stone. The first was a -bill in the following terms:-- - - “A Bill in part execution of the guaranty of a republican form - of government in the Constitution of the United States. - - “Whereas it is declared in the Constitution that the United - States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican - form of government; and whereas certain States have allowed - their governments to be subverted by rebellion, so that the - duty is now cast upon Congress of executing this guaranty: Now, - therefore, - - “_Be it enacted, &c._, That in all States lately declared to - be in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy invested with - peculiar privileges and powers, and there shall be no denial - of rights, civil or political, on account of race or color; - but all persons shall be equal before the law, whether in the - court-room or at the ballot-box. And this statute, made in - pursuance of the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the - land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any such State to - the contrary notwithstanding.”[260] - -The second was “A Bill to enforce the guaranty of a republican form -of government in certain States whose governments have been usurped -or overthrown.”[261] Read this bill, if you please, Sir. I challenge -criticism of it at this date, in the light of all our present -experience. It is in twelve sections, and you will find in it the very -proposition which is now in question,--being the requirement of Equal -Rights for All in the reconstruction of the Rebel States. - - “SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That the delegates”-- - -that is, the delegates to the Convention for the reëstablishment of a -State government-- - - “shall be elected by _the loyal male citizens_ of the United - States, of the age of twenty-one years, and resident at the - time in the county, parish, or district in which they shall - offer to vote, and enrolled as aforesaid, or absent in the - military service of the United States.”[262] - -And then the bill proceeds to provide,-- - - “SEC. 8. … That the Convention shall declare, on behalf of - the people of the State, their submission to the Constitution - and laws of the United States, and shall adopt the following - provisions, hereby prescribed by the United States in the - execution of the constitutional duty to guaranty a republican - form of government to every State, and incorporate them in the - Constitution of the State: that is to say:--” - -After one--two--three--four provisions, the section proceeds as -follows:-- - - “Fifthly, There shall be no distinction among the inhabitants - of this State founded on race, former condition, or color. - Every such inhabitant shall be entitled to all the privileges - before the law enjoyed by the most favored class of such - inhabitants.” - -And the section concludes:-- - - “Sixthly, These provisions shall be perpetual, not to be - abolished or changed hereafter.”[263] - -Nor is this all. On the same day I introduced “A Bill supplying -appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment to the Constitution -prohibiting Slavery,”[264] of which I will read the third section:-- - - “That, in further enforcement of the provision of the - Constitution prohibiting Slavery, and in order to remove all - relics of this wrong from the States where this constitutional - prohibition takes effect, it is hereby declared that all laws - or customs in such States, establishing any oligarchical - privileges, and any distinction of rights on account of race - or color, are hereby annulled, _and all persons in such States - are recognized as equal before the law_; and the penalties - provided in the last section are hereby made applicable to any - violation of this provision, which is made in pursuance of the - Constitution of the United States.”[265] - -Still further, on the same day I introduced “Resolutions declaratory of -the duty of Congress in respect to guaranties of the national security -and the national faith in the Rebel States.” One of these guaranties -which I proposed to establish was as follows:-- - - “The complete suppression of all oligarchical pretensions, and - the complete enfranchisement of all citizens, _so that there - shall be no denial of rights on account of color or race_; but - justice shall be impartial, and all shall be equal before the - law.” - -I added also a provision which I was unable to carry,--it was lost by a -tie vote,--as follows:-- - - “The organization of an educational system for the equal - benefit of all, without distinction of color or race.”[266] - -Such, Sir, were the measures which I had the honor of bringing forward -at the very beginning of the session. During the same session, in an -elaborate effort which occupied two days, February 5 and 6, 1866, and -is entitled “The Equal Rights of All: the great Guaranty and present -Necessity, for the sake of Security, and to maintain a Republican -Government,” I vindicated the necessity of the colored suffrage in -order to obtain peace and reconciliation, and I placed it on the -foundations of Constitutional Law as well as natural justice. Here is a -passage from this speech:-- - - “And here, after this long review, I am brought back to more - general considerations, and end as I began, by showing the - necessity of Enfranchisement for the sake of public security - and public faith. I plead now for the ballot, as the great - guaranty, and _the only sufficient guaranty_,--being in itself - peacemaker, reconciler, schoolmaster, and protector,--to which - we are bound by every necessity and every reason; and I speak - also for the good of the States lately in rebellion, as well - as for the glory and safety of the Republic, that it may be an - example to mankind.” - -The speech closed as follows:-- - - “The Roman Cato, after declaring his belief in the immortality - of the soul, added, that, if this were an error, it was an - error he loved. And now, declaring my belief in Liberty and - Equality as the God-given birthright of all men, let me say, - in the same spirit, if this be an error, it is an error I - love,--if this be a fault, it is a fault I shall be slow to - renounce,--if this be an illusion, it is an illusion which I - pray may wrap the world in its angelic forms.”[267] - -The discussion still proceeded, and only a month later, March 7, 1866, -I made another elaborate effort with the same object, from which I read -my constant testimony:-- - - “I do not stop to exhibit the elective franchise as essential - to the security of the freedman, without which he will be - the prey of Slavery in some new form, and cannot rise to the - stature of manhood. In opening this debate I presented the - argument fully. Suffice it to say that Emancipation will fail - in beneficence, if you do not assure to the former slave all - the rights of the citizen. Until you do this, your work will be - only _half done_, and the freedman only _half a man_.” - -This speech closed as follows:-- - - “Recall the precious words of the early English writer, who, - describing ‘the Good Sea-Captain,’ tells us that he ‘counts - the image of God nevertheless His image, cut in ebony, as - if done in ivory.’[268] The good statesman must be like the - good sea-captain. His ship is the State, which he keeps safe - on its track. He, too, must see the image of God in all his - fellow-men, and, in the discharge of his responsible duties, - must set his face forever against any recognition of inequality - in human rights. Other things you may do, but this you must not - do.”[269] - -I do not quote other efforts, other speeches, but pass to the next -session of Congress, when, at the beginning, under date of December 5, -1866, I introduced resolutions thus entitled:-- - - “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.” - -Of these resolutions the fourth is as follows:-- - - “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_.”[270] - -Meanwhile the subject of Reconstruction was practically discussed -in both Houses of Congress. In this Chamber a bill was introduced -by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. WILLIAMS], providing a military -government. In the House there was another bill, and on that bill -good Representatives--to whom be all honor!--sought to ingraft the -requirement of colored suffrage. This effort, unhappily, did not -prevail. The bill came to this Chamber without it. In this Chamber -the same effort was made; but the bill, while it was still immatured, -passed into our caucus. The effort which had thus far failed was then -renewed by me in the committee, where it again failed. It was then -renewed by me in the caucus, where it triumphed. This is the history -of that proposition. I claim nothing for myself. I alluded to it the -other day only in direct reply to the arraignment of the Senator from -Illinois. I allude to it now reluctantly, and only in direct reply to -the arraignment of the Senator from Nevada. I regret to be obliged -to make any allusion to it. I think there is no occasion for any. I -have erred, perhaps, in taking so much time in this explanation; but -when the Senator, after days and weeks of interval, came here with his -second indictment, I felt that I might without impropriety throw myself -upon the indulgence of this Chamber to make the simple explanation that -I have made. - -I have shown that as early as February 25, 1865, I proposed in this -Chamber to require the colored suffrage as the corner-stone of -Reconstruction. I have shown that in an elaborate bill introduced -December 4, 1865, being a bill of Reconstruction, I required the very -things which were afterward introduced in the Reconstruction Act -of 1867; and I have shown also that here in this Chamber, at home -among my constituents, in direct intercourse with the President, and -also in communication with colored persons at the South, from the -beginning, I insisted upon the colored suffrage as the essential -condition of Reconstruction. It so happened that I was a member of the -committee appointed by the caucus to consider this question, giving -me the opportunity there of moving it again; and then I had another -opportunity in the caucus of renewing the effort. I did renew it, and, -thank God, it was successful. - -Had Mr. Bingham or Mr. Blaine, who made a kindred effort in the House, -been of our committee, and then of our caucus, I do not doubt they -would have done the same thing. My colleague did not use too strong -language, when he said that then and there, in that small room, in -that caucus, was decided the greatest pending question on the North -American Continent. I remember his delight, his ecstasy, at the result. -I remember other language that he employed on that occasion, which I -do not quote. I know he was elevated by the triumph; and yet it was -carried only by two votes. There are Senators who were present at that -caucus according to whose recollection it was carried only by one vote. -The Postmaster-General, in conversing with me on this subject lately, -told me that he had often, in addressing his constituents, alluded to -this result as illustrating the importance of one vote in deciding a -great question. The Postmaster-General was in error. It was not by one -vote, but by two votes, that it was carried. - - Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, following with personal recollections - concerning the provision for colored suffrage in the - Reconstruction Act of 1867, said it was his “impression” that - the motion for its adoption “in caucus” was made by “the - Senator’s colleague [Mr. WILSON],” “but undoubtedly the other - Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] made it in committee, - and advocated it,”--adding, however, “Neither the Senator from - Massachusetts nor any other Senator can claim any great merit - in voting for universal suffrage in February or March, 1867. - His record was made long before that.” In reference to the - latter Mr. Sherman remarked:-- - - “The Senator from Massachusetts needs no defender of his - course on the question of universal suffrage. No man can - deny that from the first, and I think the very first, he - has advocated and maintained the necessity of giving to - the colored people of the Southern States the right to - vote.… Early and late he has repeated to us the necessity - of conferring suffrage upon the colored people of the - South as the basis of Reconstruction. I think, therefore, - that he is justified in stating that he was the first to - propose it in this body; and why should the Senator deem - it necessary to spend one hour of our valuable time now to - prove this fact? In my judgment it would be just as well - for George Washington to defend himself against the charge - of disloyalty to the American Colonies, for whom he was - fighting, as for the honorable Senator to defend his record - on this question.” - - After further remarks by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Trumbull, of the - same character as the first, Mr. Wilson rose and addressed the - Chair; but a previous motion for adjournment being insisted - upon and prevailing, he was cut off, and the matter subsided. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] Wordsworth, The Excursion, Book IV. 1293-5. - -[2] Speech on the Bill for the Admission of Nebraska, January 15, 1867: -Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 478. - -[3] “Non hoc præcipuum amicorum munus est, prosequi defunctum ignavo -questu, sed quæ voluerit meminisse, quæ mandaverit exsequi.”--TACITUS, -_Annalia_, Lib. II. cap. 71. - -[4] Senate Reports, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 128. - -[5] Quæstiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 3. - -[6] Quæstiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 7. - -[7] Letter to Mr. Hammond, May 29, 1792: Writings, Vol. III. p. 369. - -[8] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 9, § 168. - -[9] Law of Nations, pp. 138, 139. - -[10] Coleridge, The Piccolomini, Act I. Scene 4. - -[11] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 18, §§ 293-5. - -[12] Prize Cases: 2 Black, R., 674. - -[13] Mrs. Alexander’s Cotton: 2 Wallace, R., 419. - -[14] Ibid. - -[15] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 15, § 232. - -[16] Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur, (Boston, 1825,) pp. -305-6. - -[17] Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur, (Boston, 1825,) p. 304. - -[18] Secretary Marcy to General Taylor, Sept. 22, 1846: Executive -Documents, 30th Cong. 1st Sess., Senate. No. 1, p. 564. - -[19] International Law, Ch. XIX. § 17. - -[20] Vol. XI. p. 169, note. - -[21] Alison, History of Europe, (Edinburgh, 1843,) Vol. IX. p. 880. - -[22] Letter to Lieut. Gen. Sir John Hope, Oct. 8, 1813: Dispatches, -Vol. XI. pp. 169-170. - -[23] Sabine, Loyalists of the American Revolution, (Boston, 1864,) Vol. -I. p. 112. - -[24] Debate in the House of Commons, on the Compensation to the -American Loyalists, June 6, 1788: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. -XXVII. col. 610. - -[25] Ibid., col. 614. - -[26] Ibid., col. 616. - -[27] Ibid., col. 617. - -[28] American State Papers: Claims, p. 198. - -[29] Ibid. - -[30] Ibid., p. 199. - -[31] House Reports, 1830-1, No. 68; 1831-2, No. 88; 1832-3, No. 11. -Act, March 2, 1833: Private Laws, p. 546. - -[32] American State Papers: Claims, p. 446. Act, March 1, 1815: Private -Laws, p. 151. - -[33] American State Papers: Claims, p. 444. Act, February 27, 1815: -Private Laws, p. 150. - -[34] American State Papers: Claims, p. 462. - -[35] American State Papers: Claims, p. 521. Acts, March 3, 1817: -Private Laws, pp. 194, 187. - -[36] American State Papers: Claims, pp. 521, 522. Annals of Congress, -14th Cong. 2d Sess., coll. 215, 1036. - -[37] American State Papers: Claims, p. 835. Annals of Congress, 17th -Cong. 1st Sess., col. 311. - -[38] Statutes at Large, Vol. III. p. 263. - -[39] American State Papers: Claims, p. 590. - -[40] Ibid. - -[41] January 14th, Mr. Wilson moved, as an amendment to the pending -bill, a substitute providing for the appointment of “commissioners -to examine and report all claims for quartermasters’ stores and -subsistence supplies furnished the military forces of the United -States, during the late civil war, by loyal persons in the States -lately in rebellion.”--_Congressional Globe_, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., p. -359. - -[42] Speech in the House of Commons, January 14, 1766: Hansard’s -Parliamentary History, Vol. XVI. col. 104. - -[43] Speeches in the Senate on “Political Equality without Distinction -of Color,” March 7, 1866, and the “Validity and Necessity of -Fundamental Conditions on States,” June 10, 1868: _Ante_, Vol. XIII. -pp. 307-9; Vol. XVI. pp. 246-9. - -[44] Chap. XXV., Title. - -[45] Chap. XXIX. - -[46] Speech in the Senate, February 5 and 6, 1866: _Ante_, Vol. X. p. -184. - -[47] The Federalist, No. LIV., by Alexander Hamilton.--Concerning the -authorship of this paper, see the Historical Notice, by J. C. Hamilton, -pp. xcv-cvi, and cxix-cxxvii, prefixed to his edition of the Federalist -(Philadelphia, 1864). - -[48] Elliot’s Debates, (2d edit.,) Vol. III. p. 367. - -[49] 19 Howard, R., 476. - -[50] M’Culloch _v._ State of Maryland: 4 Wheaton, R., 408-21. - -[51] For the full text of the Convention, see Parliamentary Papers, -1868-9, Vol. LXIII.,--North America, No. 1, pp. 36-38; Executive -Documents, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, No. 11,--Correspondence -concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 752-5. - -[52] A term applied in England to the Ashburton Treaty,--and Lord -Palmerston thought “_most properly_.”--_Debate in the House of -Commons_, February 2, 1843: Hansard, 3d Ser., Vol. LXVI. coll. 87, 121, -127. - -[53] Stapleton’s Political Life of Canning, (London, 1831,) Vol. II. p. -408. Speech of Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, May 6, 1861: -Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 1566. - -[54] Speech in the House of Lords, May 16, 1861: Hansard’s -Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 2084. - -[55] On Foreign Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals, (London, -1859,) p. 75. See also pp. 59, 65-67. - -[56] Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. I. -pp. 21-22: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, No. 11. - -[57] Hautefeuille, Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres, (2ème -Édit., Paris, 1858,) Tit. IX. chap. 7. Parliamentary Papers, 1837, Vol. -LIV.; 1837-8, Vol. LII. - -[58] Le Droit International Public de l’Europe, (Berlin et Paris, -1857,) §§ 112, 121. - -[59] Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, July 24, 1862: Correspondence -concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 26, 29. - -[60] Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, March 27, 1863: Parliamentary Papers, -1864, Vol. LXII.,--North America, No. I. pp. 2, 3. Speech in the House -of Lords, February 16, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., -Vol. CLXXIII. coll. 632, 633. - -[61] Deposition of William Passmore, July 21, 1862,--in Note of Mr. -Adams to Earl Russell, July 22, 1862: Correspondence concerning Claims -against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 25-26. - -[62] Schedule annexed to Deposition of John Latham, in Note of Mr. -Adams to Earl Russell, January 13, 1864: Ibid., Vol. III. pp. 213-16. - -[63] Speech in the House of Commons, March 27, 1863: Hansard’s -Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXX. coll. 71-72; The Times -(London), March 28, 1863. - -[64] Circular of May 11, 1841,--inclosing Circular to British -functionaries abroad, dated May 8, 1841, together with a Memorial of -the General Antislavery Convention held at London, June 20, 1840: -Parliamentary Papers, 1842, Vols. XLIII., XLIV. - -[65] Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, (London, 1868,) Vol. I. p. -239. - -[66] Rebellion Record, Vol. VII., Part 3, p. 52. - -[67] Speech, May 13, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., -Vol. CLXXV. col. 505. - -[68] Speech at Rochdale, February 3, 1863: See preceding page. - -[69] Speech of Prof. Goldwin Smith, at a Meeting of the Union and -Emancipation Society, Manchester, England, April 6, 1863, on the -Subject of War Ships for the Southern Confederacy: Report, p. 25. - -[70] Mr. Canning to Mr. Monroe, August 3, 1807: American State Papers, -Foreign Relations, Vol. III. p. 188. - -[71] Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe, November 1, 1811: American State Papers, -Foreign Relations, Vol. III. pp. 499-500. - -[72] Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton, July 27, 1842: Executive Documents, -27th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, p. 124. - -[73] Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, July 28, 1842: Executive Documents, -27th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, p. 134. - -[74] Speech in the House of Commons, May 13, 1864: Hansard’s -Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXV. coll. 496-7. - -[75] Speech in the House of Commons, May 13, 1864: Hansard’s -Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXV. col. 498. - -[76] Ibid., col. 493. - -[77] Page 27. - -[78] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXV. col. 493. - -[79] Ibid., col. 498. For official returns cited in the text, see -Parliamentary Papers for 1864, Vol. LX. No. 137. - -[80] Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 1, 1868, -Appendix B: Executive Documents, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, -p. 496. - -[81] Ibid. - -[82] Report of F. H. Morse, U. S. Consul at London, dated January 1, -1868: Commercial Relations of the United States with Foreign Nations -for the Year ending September 30, 1867: Executive Documents, 40th Cong. -2d Sess., H. of R., No. 160, p. 11. - -[83] See Statement of Tonnage of United States from 1789 to 1866, in -Report of Secretary of Treasury for 1866: Executive Documents, 39th -Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 4, pp. 355-6. - -[84] Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the National Board of -Trade, December, 1868, p. 186. - -[85] Speech, May 13, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., -Vol. CLXXV. col. 496. - -[86] Greenleaf on the Law of Evidence, Part IV. § 256. - -[87] Digest. Lib. XLVI. Tit. 8, cap. 13. - -[88] Pothier on the Law of Obligations, tr. Evans, Part I. Ch. 2, Art. 3. - -[89] Commentaries, Vol. III. p. 219. - -[90] Tomlins, Law Dictionary, art. NUISANCE, IV. - -[91] Ovid, Metamorph. Lib. I. 185-6. - -[92] Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Nov. 20, 1862: Correspondence -concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 70-73. - -[93] Same to same: Ibid., pp. 180-2. - -[94] Ibid., p. 562. - -[95] Ibid., pp. 581-2. - -[96] Ibid., p. 632; and General Appendix, No. XV., Vol. IV. pp. 422, -seqq. - -[97] Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Vol. VI. p. 150. - -[98] Speech in the House of Commons, December 5, 1774: Hansard’s -Parliamentary History, Vol. XVIII. col. 45. - -[99] Speech, September 14, 1865: _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 305, seqq. - -[100] North American Review for January, 1844, Vol. LVIII. p. 150. - -[101] Report of the Special Commissioner of the Revenue for 1868: -Executive Documents, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 16, p. 7. - -[102] $300,000,000.--Act of June 3, 1864, Sec. 22: Statutes at Large, -Vol. - -[103] De l’Esprit des Lois, Liv. III. chs. 3, 6. - -[104] Paradise Lost, Book I. 742-5. - -[105] Sallust, Catilina, Cap. 12. - -[106] 2 Henry IV., Act IV. Scene 2. - -[107] Not a transcript of the famous epitaph on the tomb at Seville,-- - - “A Castilla y á Leon - Nuevo mundo dió Colon,”-- - - (“To Castile and Leon Columbus gave a new world,”)-- - -but part of a Latin inscription, to the same effect, on a mural tablet -in the Cathedral at Havana, the last resting-place of the remains of -the great navigator:-- - -“Claris. heros Ligustin. CHRISTOPHORUS COLOMBUS a se rei nautic. -scient. insign. nov. orb. detect. atque Castell. et Legion. regib. -subject.,” etc.-- - -Literally rendered, “The most illustrious Genoese hero, CHRISTOPHER -COLUMBUS, by himself, through remarkable nautical science, a new world -having been discovered and subjected to the kings of Castile and Leon,” -etc. - -See MASSE, _L’Isle de Cuba et La Havane_, (Paris, 1825,) p. 201. - -[108] Discours sur les Progrès successifs de l’Esprit Humain: Œuvres, -éd. Daire, (Paris, 1844,) Tom. II. p. 602. - -[109] Coxe, Memoirs of the Kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon, Ch. -LXXIII. - -[110] Letter to Robert R. Livingston, December 14, 1782: Diplomatic -Correspondence of the American Revolution, ed. Sparks, Vol. VII. p. 4. - -[111] Speech in Executive Session of the Senate on the -Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, April 13, 1869: _Ante_, pp. 53, seqq. - -[112] Journals of Congress, October 26, 1774; May 29, 1775; January 24, -February 15, March 20, 1776. American Archives, 4th Ser., Vol. I. coll. -930-4; II. 1838-9; IV. 1653, 1672; V. 411-13, 1643-5. - -[113] “I, fili mi, ut videas quantulâ sapientiâ regatur -mundus.”--OXENSTIERN, to his son, “as he was departing to assist -at the congress of statesmen.” (BROUGHAM, _Speech in the House of -Lords_, January 18, 1838: Hansard, 3d Ser., Vol. XL. col. 207.) “The -congress of statesmen” alluded to was that convened in 1648 for the -negotiation of the Treaty of Westphalia, which terminated the Thirty -Years’ War.--It may be remarked that other authorities represent the -occasion of this famous saying to have been a letter from the young -envoy to his father, while in attendance at the congress, expressing -a sense of need of the most mature wisdom for a mission so important -and difficult,--the old Chancellor replying in terms variously cited -thus:--“Mi fili, parvo mundus regitur intellectu”;--“Nescis, mi fili, -quantillâ prudentiâ homines regantur”;--“An nescis, mi fili, quantillâ -prudentiâ regatur orbis?”--See HARTE, _History of Gustavus Adolphus_, -(London, 1807,) Vol. II. p. 142; _Biographie Universelle_, (Michaud, -Paris, 1822,) art. OXENSTIERNA, Axel; BOITEAU, _Les Reines du Nord_, in -_Le Magasin de Librairie_, (Charpentier, Paris, 1858,) Tom. I. p. 436. - -[114] Discorsi, Lib. I. capp. 2, 9. - -[115] McPherson’s History of the United States during the Great -Rebellion, p. 606. - -[116] Manual of Political Ethics, (Boston, 1838,) Part I. p. 171. - -[117] Plato, Protagoras, § 82, p. 343. Pliny, Nat. Hist., Lib. VII. -cap. 32. - -[118] “Eunt homines admirari alta montium, et ingentes fluctus maris, -et latissimos lapsus fluminum, et Oceani ambitum, et gyros siderum, et -relinquunt seipsos.”--_Confessiones_, Edit. Benedict., Lib. X. Cap. -VIII. 15. - -[119] Essays, _John Bunyan_, (New York, 1862,) Vol. VI. p. 132. - -[120] Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. VI. pp. 314-16, art. -CASTE, and the authorities there cited. - -[121] Institutes of Hindoo Law, or the Ordinances of Menu, translated -by Sir William Jones: Works, (London, 1807,) Vols. VII., VIII. -Mill, British India, Book II. ch. 2; also, Art. CASTE, Encyclopædia -Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. VI. Robertson, Ancient India, Note LVIII. -[Appendix, Note I.]. Dubois, People of India, Part III. ch. 6. - -[122] Narrative of a Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, -etc., (London, 1829,) Vol. III. p. 355. - -[123] Mill, Art. CASTE, Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. VI. -p. 319. - -[124] Gurowski, Slavery in History, (New York, 1860,) p. 237. - -[125] Genesis, i. 27-28. - -[126] Acts, xvii. 26. - -[127] Legend on the coat-of-arms beneath the portrait in Stoever’s Life -of Linnæus, (London, 1794,)--said to have originated with an eminent -scientific friend of the great naturalist.--_Preface_, pp. xi-xii. - -[128] Richard the Second, Act I. Scene 3. - -[129] Nott and Gliddon, Types of Mankind, p. 169. - -[130] The Races of Man, p. 306. - -[131] Dissertation sur les Variétés Naturelles qui caractérisent la -Physionomie des Hommes, tr. Jansen, (Paris, 1792,) Ch. III. - -[132] For a notice of the principal writers and theories on the subject -of Races, including those mentioned in the text, see the article on -ETHNOLOGY, by Dr. Kneeland, in the “New American Cyclopædia,” (1st -edit.,) Vol. VII. pp. 306-11. - -[133] In reference to the theory of many Homers instead of one, the -German Voss used to say, “It would be a greater miracle, had there been -many Homers, than it is that there was one.” - -[134] Egypt’s Place in Universal History, (London, 1860,) Vol. IV. p. -480. - -[135] Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, (London, 1838,) pp. 34, seqq. - -[136] Letter to Mr. Lyell, February 20, 1836: Ninth Bridgewater -Treatise, Appendix, Note I, p. 226. - -[137] Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. IX. p. 354,--art. -ETHNOLOGY. - -[138] Voyage de l’Astrolabe, Tom. II. pp. 627, 628. - -[139] Histoire Naturelle, (2me édit.,) Tom. III. pp. 529-30. - -[140] Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen, (Coblenz, 1840,) Band II. -s. 773. - -[141] Cosmos, tr. Otté, (London, 1848,) pp. 364-8. - -[142] Merchant of Venice, Act III. Scene 1. - -[143] Pope, Essay on Man, Ep. I. 112. - -[144] Natural Provinces of the Animal World, and their Relation to -the Different Types of Man: prefixed to Nott and Gliddon’s “Types of -Mankind,” p. lxxv. - -[145] Ueber die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java, (Berlin, 1839,) Band -III. s. 426. - -[146] Cosmos, tr. Otté, Vol. I. pp. 368, 369. - -[147] Plutarch, Symposiaca, Lib. VIII. Quæst. 2: Moralia, ed. -Wyttenbach, Tom. III. p. 961. - -[148] Metaphysica, Lib. XIII. cap. 3, § 9: Opera, ed. Bekker, (Oxonii, -1837,) Tom. VIII. p. 277. - -[149] Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, 2 Theil, Beschluss: Sämmtliche -Werke, herausg. von Hartenstein, (Leipzig, 1867,) Band V. s. 167. - -[150] Isaiah, xiii. 12. - -[151] Cæsar, De Bello Gallico, Lib. V. cap. 14; VI. 13, 16. Prichard, -Physical History of Mankind, (London, 1841,) Vol. III. pp. 179, 187. - -[152] History of England, (London, 1849,) Vol. I. p. 4. - -[153] Physical History of Mankind, Vol. III. p. 182. - -[154] Geographica, Lib. IV. cap. 5, § 2, p. 200. Prichard, Physical -History of Mankind, Vol. III. pp. 196-7. - -[155] Herodian, Hist., Lib. III. cap. 14, § 13. Dion Cassius, Hist. -Rom., Lib. LXXVI. cap. 12. Prichard, Vol. III. pp. 155-6. - -[156] For details, see Prichard, Vol. III. pp. 137-8, and the -authorities there cited. - -[157] De Bello Gallico, Lib. V. cap. 14. - -[158] Diodorus Siculus, Biblioth. Histor., Lib. V. cap. 31, p. 213. -Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. V. p. 375, art. BRITAIN. - -[159] Procopius, De Bello Gothico, Lib. IV. cap. 20, p. 623, D. -Macaulay, History of England, Vol. I. p. 5. - -[160] Macaulay, Ibid. - -[161] Ibid., p. 4. - -[162] Henry, History of Great Britain, (London, 1805,) Vol. IV. pp. -237, 239. - -[163] Leges Regis Edwardi Confessoris, xxv. _De Judeis_: Ancient Laws -and Institutes of England, ed. Thorpe, Vol. I. p. 453. Milman, History -of the Jews, (London, 1863,) Vol. III. pp. 238, 249. - -[164] Pii Secundi Commentarii Rerum Memorabilium quæ Temporibus suis -contigerunt, (Romæ, 1584,) pp. 6-7. - -[165] Erasmus Rot. Francisco, Cardinalis Eboracensis Medico [A. D. -1515],--Epist. 432, App.: Opera, (Lugd. Batav., 1703,) Tom. III. col. -1815. Jortin’s Life of Erasmus, (London, 1808,) Vol. I. p. 69; III. p. -44. - -[166] L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, (7me édit., Paris, 1866,) p. -269. - -[167] De Bello Gallico, Lib. V. cap. 14. - -[168] Ritter, Erdkunde, (Berlin, 1832,) Theil II. ss. 22-25. Guyot, The -Earth and Man, (Boston, 1850,) pp. 44-47. - -[169] Cosmos, tr. Otté, Vol. I. p. 368. - -[170] - - “Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona - Multi.” - - HORAT. _Carm._ Lib. IV. ix. 25-26. - -[171] Métral, Histoire de l’Expédition des Français à Saint-Domingue, -sous le Consulat de Napoléon Bonaparte; suivie des Mémoires et Notes -d’Isaac Louverture sur la même Expédition, et sur la Vie de son Père. -Paris, 1825. - -[172] Nell, Services of Colored Americans in the Wars of 1776 and 1812, -pp. 23-24. - -[173] Dumont, Mémoires Historiques sur la Louisiane, (Paris, 1753,) -Tom. II. pp. 244-6. Mercier, Mon Bonnet de Nuit, art. _Morale_, -(Amsterdam, 1784,) Tom. II. p. 226. - -[174] Copy of a Letter from Benjamin Banneker to the Secretary of -State, with his Answer, (Philadelphia, 1792,) p. 6. - -[175] Chapitres VII., VIII. - -[176] Catherine Ferguson: Lossing’s Eminent Americans, p. 404. - -[177] Mungo Park, Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa, (London, -1816,) Vol. I. pp. 45, 257. Grégoire, De la Littérature des Nègres, -(Paris, 1808,) p. 118. - -[178] Joannes Leo Africanus, Africæ Descriptio, (Lugd. Batav., Elzevir, -1632,) Lib. VII. p. 646. - -[179] Serm. XXV., De Nigredine et Formositate Sponsæ, id est Ecclesiæ: -Opera, Edit. Benedict., (Paris, 1839,) Tom. I. col. 2814. - -[180] Isaiah, xi. 9, lxvi. 18. - -[181] Matthew, xiii. 33. - -[182] 1 Corinthians, v. 6; Galatians, v. 9. - -[183] Matthew, xiii. 12. - -[184] Senate Reports, No. 29, 41st Cong. 2d Sess. - -[185] Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., Appendix, pp. 321, 323: -Debate on the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, March 3, 1854. - -[186] Gazette of the United States, Philadelphia, December 31, 1791. -From an article entitled “Sketches of Boston and its Inhabitants,” -purporting to be “extracted from a series of letters published in a -late Nova Scotia paper.” - -[187] Paradise Lost, Book X. 958-61. - -[188] Act of April 20, 1818, Sec. 3: Statutes at Large, Vol. III. p. -448. - -[189] Annals of Congress, 15th Cong. 1st Sess., col. 519. - -[190] The case of the Hornet, as stated by Mr. Carpenter, was as -follows:--“The Hornet was purchased in this country by Cubans, was -taken into the open sea outside of the United States, and there armed -and manned to cruise against Spain, and started on her way toward the -waters of Cuba with arms and supplies for the revolutionists. Owing -to the poor quality of her coal, she was unable to pursue her voyage, -and put into a port of the United States, when she was libelled by the -United States, upon the ground that she was intended for the ‘service -of the people of a certain colony of the kingdom of Spain, to wit, the -island of Cuba,’ etc. All of which is charged to be against the third -section of the Neutrality Law.”--_Congressional Globe_, 41st Cong. 2d -Sess., p. 144. - -[191] Act of April 10, 1869, Sec. 7: Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI. p. 41. - -[192] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 428. - -[193] “’Tis out of time to set it forth in the Declaration; but it -should have come in the Replication. ’Tis like leaping (as Hale, -Chief-Justice, said) before one come to the stile.”--_Sir Ralph Bovy’s -Case_: 1 Ventris, R., 217. - -[194] Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel -States, March 2, 1867, Preamble and Section 6: Statutes at Large, Vol. -XIV. pp. 428, 429. - -[195] Letter to Adjutant-General Townsend, July 10, 1869: Papers -relating to the Test Oath: House Miscellaneous Documents, 41st Cong. 2d -Sess., No. 8, p. 28. See also Letters of June 16 and 26, 1869, to R. T. -Daniel and B. W. Gillis, respectively: Ibid., pp. 24, 15. - -[196] Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. pp. 14-16. - -[197] Section 6. - -[198] Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 502-3. - -[199] Ibid., Vol. XV. p. 344. - -[200] Act of July 19, 1867, Sec. 11: Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 16. - -[201] For some previous remarks relative to the Reconstruction Act of -1867, see article entitled “Personal Record on Reconstruction with -Colored Suffrage,” _post_, pp. 304-7. - -[202] See, _ante_, pp. 184-5. - -[203] “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.”--General Bosquet -to Mr. Layard: Kinglake, Invasion of the Crimea, (Edinburgh, 1868) Vol. -IV. p. 369, note. - -[204] Annual Message, December 1, 1862. - -[205] Report of Special Commissioner of Revenue, December, 1869: -Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 27, p. XIII. - -[206] Statistics of the United States in 1860, Eighth Census, -Miscellaneous, pp. 294, 295. - -[207] Report of Special Commissioner of Revenue, December, 1869: -Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 27, p. VI. - -[208] Ibid. - -[209] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, pp. -XIII-XVIII. - -[210] Statement of the Public Debt, January 1, 1870.--Purchases of -bonds in excess of the sum required for the sinking fund first appear -in the Statement of August 1, 1869, and as then amounting, with the -accrued interest, to $15,110,590; thence to January 1, 1870, the -monthly average, including interest, was a little short of $10,000,000. - -[211] Act of March 3, 1864: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 13. - -[212] Act of February 25, 1863: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 665-82. - -[213] Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 9, 1861: -Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 2. - -[214] Acts of March 3, 1863, § 2, and June 30, 1864, § 2: Statutes at -Large, Vols. XII. p. 710, XIII. p. 218. - -[215] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 219. - -[216] Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 6, 1869: -Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, p. XXVII. - -[217] Ibid., p. XVIII. - -[218] Speech, January 12, 1870: _Ante_, pp. 238, seqq. - -[219] _Ante_, p. 256. - -[220] Speech, January 17, 1870: Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d -Sess., p. 817. - -[221] January 22, 1870. - -[222] Monthly Reports on the Commerce and Navigation of the United -States for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1870, p. 200. - -[223] Speech, February 1, 1870: _Ante_, p. 277. - -[224] “That Congress reserves the right, at any time, to amend, alter, -or repeal this Act.”--_Act to provide a National Currency_, &c., -February 25, 1863, Sec. 65: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 665-82. - -[225] Letter to Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens, February 18, 1782: -Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. VIII. p. 241. - -[226] Eulogy on Major-General Greene, before the Society of the -Cincinnati, July 4, 1789: Works, ed. J. C. Hamilton, Vol. II. pp. -480-95. - -[227] Life, by G. W. Greene, 3 vols. 8vo, New York, 1867-71. - -[228] _Ante_, p. 231. - -[229] Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel -States, Section 5: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 428-9. - -[230] Proviso in Amendment of Resolution recognizing the New State -Government of Louisiana, February 25, 1865: No Reconstruction without -the Votes of the Blacks: Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. -1099; _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 185. - -[231] Speech at the Republican State Convention in Worcester, Mass., -September 14, 1865: The National Security and the National Faith: -_Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 327-8. - -[232] Speech on a proposed Amendment of the Constitution, February 5 -and 6, 1866: The Equal Rights of All: Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. -1st Sess., pp. 673-87; _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 115, seqq. - -[233] The vote on its adoption was Yeas 32, Nays 3.--_Senate Journal_, -39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 293. - -[234] These supplementary amendments consisted of the Proviso at the -end of Section 5, together with Section 6, of the Act as finally -passed: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 428-9. - -[235] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1645; Senate -Journal, p. 320. - -[236] Congressional Globe, p. 1976; Senate Journal, p. 424. - -[237] See further, concerning the matters here referred to, Mr. -Sumner’s speeches in the debates on this bill, with the accompanying -notes: _Ante_, Vol. XI. pp. 102, seqq. - -[238] Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1177. - -[239] Debate on the Census Bill: Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d -Sess., pp. 1143, seqq. - -[240] Debate, February 3d, on the Neutrality Laws: Ibid., pp. 1001, -seqq. - -[241] _Ante_, pp. 304-6. - -[242] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 736-7. _Ante_, Vol. -VIII. pp. 163-7. - -[243] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 523. _Ante_, Vol. -X. pp. 295-9. - -[244] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 521. - -[245] Ibid., p. 522. - -[246] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1091. _Ante_, Vol. -XII. pp. 197-200. - -[247] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1099. _Ante_, Vol. -XII. p. 185. - -[248] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1129. _Ante_, Vol. -XII. pp. 190-1. - -[249] See Address at the Music Hall, Boston, October 2, 1866, entitled -“The One Man Power _vs._ Congress”: _Ante_, Vol. XIV. p. 200. - -[250] Ibid., p. 21. - -[251] Address at the Music Hall: The One Man Power _vs._ Congress: -_Ante_, Vol. XIV. pp. 201-2. - -[252] For both letter and reply, see, _ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 231-2. - -[253] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 292-3. - -[254] _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 299. - -[255] Speech in the Legislative Assembly, May 21, 1850: Moniteur, May -22, 1850, p. 1761. - -[256] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 327-8. - -[257] The Independent, November 2, 1865. _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 368-9. - -[258] The One Man Power _vs._ Congress: _Ante_, Vol. XIV. p. 204. - -[259] Atlantic Monthly, Vol. XVI. p. 760. _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 410. - -[260] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2. _Ante_, Vol. -XIII. p. 14. - -[261] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2. _Ante_, Vol. -XIII. p. 21. - -[262] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. p. 23. - -[263] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 25-26. - -[264] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2. _Ante_, Vol. -XIII. p. 16. - -[265] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. p. 17. - -[266] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2. _Ante_, Vol. -XIII. pp. 33, 34. - -[267] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 685, 687. _Ante_, -Vol. XIII. pp. 219, 236-7. - -[268] Fuller, Holy State: The Good Sea-Captain. - -[269] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 1231-2. _Ante_, -Vol. XIII. pp. 334-5, 337. - -[270] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 15. _Ante_, Vol. -XIV. pp. 224-5. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, -volume 17 (of 20), by Charles Sumner - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: COMPLETE WORKS, VOL 17 *** - -***** This file should be named 50370-0.txt or 50370-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/3/7/50370/ - -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. - diff --git a/old/50370-0.zip b/old/50370-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4417769..0000000 --- a/old/50370-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50370-h.zip b/old/50370-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0db5db9..0000000 --- a/old/50370-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50370-h/50370-h.htm b/old/50370-h/50370-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index de2fd4b..0000000 --- a/old/50370-h/50370-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,14594 +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 17 (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 { - max-width: 50em; - margin: auto; -} - -.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; - font-style: normal; - 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 .indent5 { - text-indent: 2em;} - -.poetry .indent11 { - text-indent: 8em;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.sig {margin-left: 10%;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.smcapuc {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} - -.tdr {text-align: right;} - -.transnote {background-color: #CDCDCD; - color: black; - border: solid 2px; - font-size: smaller; - padding: 0.5em; - margin-bottom: 5em; - font-family: sans-serif, serif;} - -@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 -17 (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 17 (of 20) - -Author: Charles Sumner - -Editor: George Frisbie Hoar - -Release Date: November 2, 2015 [EBook #50370] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: COMPLETE WORKS, VOL 17 *** - - - - -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> - - -<p class="transnote noindent">Transcriber’s Note: There is a printer’s error in <a href="#Footnote_102">footnote 102</a>; the -Statutes at Large volume reference is missing from the original.</p> - -<hr class="r15" /> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 460px;"> -<img src="images/frontispiece.jpg" width="460" height="600" alt="Hamilton Fish" /> -<p class="caption">HAMILTON FISH</p> -</div> - -<hr class="r15" /> - -<h1 style="visibility: hidden;">Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 17 (of 20)</h1> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;"> -<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="400" height="650" alt="Cover page" /> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[Pg ii]</a></span></p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Copyright</span>, 1880,<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">Limited to One Thousand Copies.</span></p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Of which this is</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 100px;"> -<img src="images/issuenumber.jpg" width="100" height="33" alt="No. Extra" /> -</div> - -<p class="center">Norwood Press:<br /> -<span class="smcap">Norwood, Mass.</span>, U.S.A.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p> - -<h2>CONTENTS OF VOLUME XVII.</h2> - -<table summary="Contents"> - <tr> - <td></td><td class="tdr">PAGE</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#CHEAP_OCEAN_POSTAGE"><span class="smcap">Cheap Ocean Postage.</span> Resolution in the Senate, December -7, 1868</a></td><td class="tdr">1</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_LATE_HON_THADDEUS_STEVENS_REPRESENTATIVE"><span class="smcap">The Late Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, Representative of -Pennsylvania.</span> Remarks in the Senate on his Death, -December 18, 1868</a></td><td class="tdr">2</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#CLAIMS_OF_CITIZENS_IN_THE_REBEL_STATES"><span class="smcap">Claims of Citizens in the Rebel States.</span> Speeches in the -Senate, January 12 and 15, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">10</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#TRIBUTE_TO_HON_JAMES_HINDS_REPRESENTATIVE"><span class="smcap">Tribute to Hon. James Hinds, Representative of Arkansas.</span> -Speech in the Senate, January 23, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">32</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#POWERS_OF_CONGRESS_TO_PROHIBIT_INEQUALITY"><span class="smcap">Powers of Congress to Prohibit Inequality, Caste, and -Oligarchy of the Skin.</span> Speech in the Senate, February -5, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">34</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#CLAIMS_ON_ENGLAND_INDIVIDUAL_AND"><span class="smcap">Claims on England,—Individual and National.</span> Speech -on the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, in Executive Session -of the Senate, April 13, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">53</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#LOCALITY_IN_APPOINTMENT_TO_OFFICE"><span class="smcap">Locality in Appointment to Office.</span> Remarks in the -Senate, April 21, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">94</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#NATIONAL_AFFAIRS_AT_HOME_AND_ABROAD"><span class="smcap">National Affairs at Home and Abroad.</span> Speech at the -Republican State Convention in Worcester, Massachusetts, -September 22, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">98</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_QUESTION_OF_CASTE"><span class="smcap">The Question of Caste.</span> Lecture delivered in the Music -Hall, Boston, October 21, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">131</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#CURRENCY"><span class="smcap">Currency.</span> Remarks in the Senate, on introducing a Bill to -amend the Banking Act, and to promote the Return to -Specie Payments, December 7, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">184</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#COLORED_PHYSICIANS"><span class="smcap">Colored Physicians.</span> Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, -on the Exclusion of Colored Physicians from the -Medical Society of the District of Columbia, December -9, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">186</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#THE_LATE_HON_WILLIAM_PITT_FESSENDEN"><span class="smcap">The Late Hon. William Pitt Fessenden, Senator of -Maine.</span> Remarks in the Senate on his Death, December -14, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">189</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#CUBAN_BELLIGERENCY"><span class="smcap">Cuban Belligerency.</span> Remarks in the Senate, December -15, 1869</a></td><td class="tdr">195</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#ADMISSION_OF_VIRGINIA_TO_REPRESENTATION"><span class="smcap">Admission of Virginia to Representation in Congress.</span> -Speeches in the Senate, January 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, -21, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">204</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#FINANCIAL_RECONSTRUCTION_AND_SPECIE"><span class="smcap">Financial Reconstruction and Specie Payments.</span> Speeches -in the Senate, January 12, 26, February 1, March 2, 10, -11, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">234</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#MAJOR-GENERAL_NATHANAEL_GREENE"><span class="smcap">Major-General Nathanael Greene, of the Revolution.</span> -Speech in the Senate, on the Presentation of his Statue, -January 20, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">299</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="hanging"><a href="#PERSONAL_RECORD_ON_RECONSTRUCTION"><span class="smcap">Personal Record on Reconstruction with Colored Suffrage.</span> -Remarks in the Senate, January 21 and February -10, 1870</a></td><td class="tdr">303</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="CHEAP_OCEAN_POSTAGE" id="CHEAP_OCEAN_POSTAGE"></a>CHEAP OCEAN POSTAGE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Resolution in the Senate, December 7, 1868.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">Whereas the inland postage on a letter throughout -the United States is three cents, while the -ocean postage on a similar letter to Great Britain, under -a recent convention, is twelve cents, and on a letter to -France is thirty cents, being a burdensome tax, amounting -often to a prohibition of foreign correspondence, yet -letters can be carried at less cost on sea than on land; -and whereas, by increasing correspondence, and also by -bringing into the mails mailable matter often now clandestinely -conveyed, cheap ocean postage would become -self-supporting; and whereas cheap ocean postage would -tend to quicken commerce, to diffuse knowledge, to promote -the intercourse of families and friends separated -by the ocean, to multiply the bonds of peace and good-will -among men and nations, to advance the progress of -liberal ideas, and thus, while important to every citizen, -it would become the active ally of the merchant, the -emigrant, the philanthropist, and the friend of liberty: -Therefore</p> - -<p><i>Be it resolved</i>, That the President of the United States -be requested to open negotiations with the European -powers, particularly with Great Britain, France, and -Germany, for the establishment of cheap ocean postage.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="THE_LATE_HON_THADDEUS_STEVENS_REPRESENTATIVE" id="THE_LATE_HON_THADDEUS_STEVENS_REPRESENTATIVE"></a>THE LATE HON. THADDEUS STEVENS, REPRESENTATIVE -OF PENNSYLVANIA.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate on his Death, December 18, 1868.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—The visitor to the House of -Commons, as he paces the vestibule, stops with -reverence before the marble statues of men who for two -centuries of English history filled that famous chamber. -There are twelve in all, each speaking to the memory as -he spoke in life, beginning with the learned Selden and -the patriot Hampden, with Falkland so sweet and loyal, -Somers so great as defender of constitutional liberty, -and embracing in the historic group the silver-tongued -Murray, the two Pitts, father and son, masters of eloquence, -Fox, always first in debate, and that orator -whose speeches contribute to the wealth of English -literature, Edmund Burke.</p> - -<p>In the lapse of time, as our history extends, similar -monuments will illustrate the approach to our House of -Representatives, arresting the reverence of the visitor. -If our group is confined to those whose fame has been -won in the House alone, it will be small; for members -of the House are mostly birds of passage, only perching -on the way to another place. Few remain so as to become -identified with the House, or their service there is -forgotten in the blaze of service elsewhere,—as was the -case with Madison, Marshall, Clay, Webster, and Lincoln. -It is not difficult to see who will find a place<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> -in this small company. There must be a statue of Josiah -Quincy, whose series of eloquent speeches is the -most complete of our history before Webster pleaded -for Greece,—and also a statue of Joshua R. Giddings, -whose faithful championship of Freedom throughout a -long and terrible conflict makes him one of the great -names of our country. And there must be a statue of -<span class="smcap">Thaddeus Stevens</span>, who was perhaps the most remarkable -character identified with the House, unless we except -John Quincy Adams; but the fame of the latter -is not of a Representative alone, for he was already illustrious -from various service before he entered the -House.</p> - -<p>All of these hated Slavery, and labored for its overthrow. -On this account they were a mark for obloquy, -and were generally in a minority. Already compensation -has begun. As the cause they upheld so bravely -is exalted, so is their fame. By the side of their far-sighted, -far-reaching, and heroic efforts, how diminutive -is all that was done by others at the time! How vile -the spirit that raged against them!</p> - -<p>Stevens was a child of New England, as were Quincy -and Adams; but, after completing his education, he -found a home in Pennsylvania, which had already given -birth to Giddings. If this great central State can claim -one of these remarkable men by adoption only, it may -claim the other by maternity. Their names are among -its best glories.</p> - -<p>Two things Stevens did for his adopted State, by -which he repaid largely all her hospitality and favor. -He taught her to cherish Education for the People, and -he taught her respect for Human Rights. The latter -lesson was slower learned than the former. In the prime<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> -of life, when his faculties were in their highest vigor, he -became conspicuous for earnest effort, crowned by most -persuasive speech, whose echoes have not yet died away, -for those Common Schools, which, more even than railways, -are handmaids of civilization, besides being the -true support of republican government. His powerful -word turned the scale, and a great cause was won. This -same powerful word was given promptly and without -hesitation to that other cause, suffering then from constant -and most cruel outrage. Here he stood always like -a pillar. Suffice it to say that he was one of the earliest -of Abolitionists, accepting the name and bearing the reproach. -Not a child in Pennsylvania, conning a spelling-book -beneath the humble rafters of a village school, -who does not owe him gratitude; not a citizen, rejoicing -in that security obtained only in liberal institutions -founded on the Equal Rights of All, who is not his -debtor.</p> - -<p>When he entered Congress, it was as champion. His -conclusions were already matured, and he saw his duty -plain before him. The English poet foreshadows him, -when he pictures</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse indent5">“one in whom persuasion and belief</div> -<div class="verse">Had ripened into faith, and faith become</div> -<div class="verse">A passionate intuition.”<a name="FNanchor_1" id="FNanchor_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Slavery was wrong, and he would not tolerate it. Slave-masters, -brimming with Slavery, were imperious and -lawless. From him they learned to see themselves as -others saw them. Strong in his cause and in the consciousness -of power, he did not shrink from encounter; -and when it was joined, he used not only argument and -history, but all those other weapons by which a bad<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> -cause is exposed to scorn and contempt. Nobody said -more in fewer words, or gave to language a sharper -bite. Speech was with him at times a cat-o’-nine-tails, -and woe to the victim on whom the terrible lash descended!</p> - -<p>Does any one doubt the justifiableness of such debate? -Sarcasm, satire, and ridicule are not given in -vain. They have an office to perform in the economies -of life. They are faculties to be employed prudently in -support of truth and justice. A good cause is helped, if -its enemies are driven back; and it cannot be doubted -that the supporters of wrong and the procrastinators -shrank often before the weapons he wielded. Soft words -turn away wrath; but there is a time for strong words -as for soft words. Did not the Saviour seize the thongs -with which to drive the money-changers from the Temple? -Our money-changers long ago planted themselves -within our temple. Was it not right to lash them away? -Such an exercise of power in a generous cause must not -be confounded with that personality of debate which has -its origin in nothing higher than irritability, jealousy, or -spite. In this sense Thaddeus Stevens was never personal. -No personal thought or motive controlled him. -What he said was for his country and mankind.</p> - -<p>As the Rebellion assumed its giant proportions, he -saw clearly that it could be smitten only through Slavery; -and when, after a bloody struggle, it was too tardily -vanquished, he saw clearly that there could be no true -peace, except by new governments built on the Equal -Rights of All. And this policy he urged with a lofty -dogmatism as beneficent as uncompromising. The Rebels -had burned his property in Pennsylvania, and there -were weaklings who attributed his conduct to smart at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> -pecuniary loss. How little they understood his nature! -Injury provokes and sometimes excuses resentment. -But it was not in him to allow private grief to influence -public conduct. The losses of the iron-master were -forgotten in the duties of the statesman. He asked -nothing for himself. He did not ask his own rights, -except as the Rights of Man.</p> - -<p>I know not if he could be called orator. Perhaps, -like Fox, he were better called debater. And yet I -doubt if words were ever delivered with more effect -than when, broken with years and decay, he stood before -the Senate and in the name of the House of Representatives -and of all the people of the United States -impeached Andrew Johnson, President of the United -States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office. Who -can forget his steady, solemn utterance of this great arraignment? -The words were few, but they will sound -through the ages. The personal triumph in his position -at that moment was merged in the historic grandeur of -the scene. For a long time, against opposition of all -kinds, against misconceptions of the law, and against -apologies for transactions without apology, he had insisted -on impeachment; and now this old man, tottering -to your door, dragged the Chief Magistrate of the Republic -to judgment. It was he who did this thing; and -I should do poor justice to his life, if on this occasion I -failed to declare my gratitude for the heroic deed. His -merit is none the less because other influences prevailed -in the end. His example will remain forever.</p> - -<p>In the House, which was the scene of his triumphs, -I never heard him but once; and I cannot forget the -noble eloquence of that brief speech. I was there by -accident just as he rose. He did not speak more than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> -ten minutes, but every sentence seemed an oration. -With unhesitating plainness he arraigned Pennsylvania -for her denial of equal rights to an oppressed race, and, -rising with the theme, declared that this State had not -a republican government.<a name="FNanchor_2" id="FNanchor_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> His explicitness was the -more striking because he was a Representative of Pennsylvania. -Nobody, who has considered with any care -what constitutes a republican government, especially -since the definition supplied by our Declaration of Independence, -can doubt that he was right. His words will -live as the courageous testimony of a great character on -this important question.</p> - -<p>The last earnest object of his life was the establishment -of Equal Rights throughout the whole country by -the recognition of the requirement of the Declaration of -Independence. I have before me two letters in which -he records his convictions, which are perhaps more -weighty because the result of most careful consideration, -when age had furnished experience and tempered the -judgment. “I have,” says he, “long, and with such -ability as I could command, reflected upon the subject -of the Declaration of Independence, and finally have -come to the sincere conclusion that Universal Suffrage -was one of the inalienable rights intended to be embraced -in that instrument.” It is difficult to see how -there can be hesitation on this point, when the great -title-deed expressly says that governments derive their -just powers from the consent of the governed. But this -is not the only instance in which he was constrained by -the habits of that profession which he practised so successfully. -A great Parliamentarian of France has said:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> -“The more one is a lawyer, the less he is a Senator,”—<i>Plus -on est avocat, moins on est Sénateur.</i> If Stevens -reached his conclusion slowly, it was because he had -not completely emancipated himself from that technical -reasoning which is the boast of the lawyer rather than -of the statesman. The pretension that the power to -determine the “qualifications” of voters embraced the -power to exclude for color, and that this same power to -exclude for color was included in the asserted power of -the States to make “regulations” for the elective franchise, -seems at first to have deceived him; as if it were -not insulting to reason and shocking to the moral sense -to suppose that any unalterable physical condition, such -as color of hair, eyes, or skin, could be a “qualification,”—and -as if it were not equally offensive to suppose, -that, under a power to determine “qualifications” or to -make “regulations,” a race could be disfranchised. Of -course this whole pretension is a technicality set up -against Human Rights. Nothing can be plainer than -that a technicality may be employed in favor of Human -Rights, but never against them. Stevens came to his -conclusion at last, and rested in it firmly. His final -aspiration was to see it prevail. He had seen much for -which he had striven embodied in the institutions of his -country. He had seen Slavery abolished. He had seen -the freedman of the National Capital lifted to equality -of political rights by Act of Congress; he had seen the -colored race throughout the whole land lifted to equality -of civil rights by Act of Congress. It only remained that -he should see them throughout the whole land lifted to -the same equality in political rights; and then the promises -of the Declaration of Independence would be all fulfilled. -But he was called away before this final triumph.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> -A great writer of Antiquity, a perpetual authority, tells -us that “the chief duty of friends is not to follow the -departed with idle lamentation, but to remember their -wishes and to execute their commands.”<a name="FNanchor_3" id="FNanchor_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> These are -the words of Tacitus. I venture to add that we shall -best honor him we now celebrate, if we adopt his aspiration -and strive for its fulfilment.</p> - -<p>It is as Defender of Human Rights that Thaddeus -Stevens deserves homage. Here he is supreme. On -other questions he erred. On the finances his errors -were signal. But history will forget these and other -failings, as it bends with reverence before the exalted -labors by which humanity has been advanced. Already -he takes his place among illustrious names which are -the common property of mankind. I see him now, as so -often during life. His venerable form moves slowly and -with uncertain steps; but the gathered strength of years -is in his countenance, and the light of victory on his -path. Politician, calculator, timeserver, stand aside! -A hero-statesman passes to his reward.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CLAIMS_OF_CITIZENS_IN_THE_REBEL_STATES" id="CLAIMS_OF_CITIZENS_IN_THE_REBEL_STATES"></a>CLAIMS OF CITIZENS IN THE REBEL STATES.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speeches in the Senate, January 12 and 15, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—This discussion, so unexpectedly -prolonged, has already brought us to see two -things,—first, the magnitude of the interests involved, -and, secondly, the simplicity of the principle which must -determine our judgment. It is difficult to exaggerate -the amount of claims which will be let loose to feed on -the country, if you recognize that now before us; nor -can I imagine anything more authoritative than the -principle which bars all these claims, except so far as -Congress in its bounty chooses to recognize them.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>By the Report of the Committee on Claims<a name="FNanchor_4" id="FNanchor_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> it appears -that the house of Miss Sue Murphey, of Decatur, -Alabama, was destroyed, so that not a vestige remained, -by order of the commander at that place, on the 19th -March, 1864, under instructions from General Sherman -to make it a military post. It is also stated that Miss -Murphey was loyal. These are the important facts. -Assuming the loyalty of the petitioner, which I have -been led to doubt, the simple question is, whether the -Nation is bound to indemnify a citizen, domiciled in a -Rebel State, for property in that State, taken for the -building of a fort by the United States against the -Rebels.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here it is proper to observe three things,—one concerning -the petitioner, and two concerning the property -taken: first, that the petitioner was domiciled in a -Rebel State, or, to use more technical language, in a State -declared by public proclamation to be in rebellion; secondly, -that the property was situated within the Rebel -State; and, thirdly, that the property was taken under -the necessities of war, and for the national defence. On -these three several points there can be no question. -They are facts which have not been denied in this debate. -Thus far I confine myself to a statement of facts, -in order to prepare the way for the consideration of the -legal consequences.</p> - -<p>Bearing in mind these facts, several difficulties which -have been presented during this debate disappear. For -instance, a question was put by a learned Senator [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Davis</span>, of Kentucky] as to the validity of an imagined -seizure of the property of the eminent Judge Wayne, -situated in the District of Columbia. But it is obvious -that the facts in the imagined case of the eminent judge -are different from those in the actual case before us. -Judge Wayne, unlike the petitioner, was domiciled in a -loyal part of the country; and his property, unlike that -of the petitioner, was situated in a loyal part of the -country. This difference between the two cases serves -to illustrate the position of the petitioner. Because property -situated in the District of Columbia and belonging -to a loyal judge domiciled here could not be taken, it by -no means follows that property situated in a Rebel State -and belonging to a person domiciled there can enjoy the -same immunity.</p> - -<p>Behind the fact of domicile, and the fact that the -property was situated in a Rebel State, is that other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> -fact, equally incontrovertible, that it was taken in the -exigencies of war. The military order under which -the taking occurred declares that “the necessities of the -Army require the use of every building in Decatur,”—not -merely the building in question, but every building; -and the Report of the Committee says that “General -Sherman had previously issued an order to fortify Decatur -for a military post.” I might quote more to illustrate -this point; but I quote enough. It is plain -and indisputable that the taking was under an exigency -of war. To deny this is to assail the military -order under which it was done, and also the Report of -the Committee.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Three men once governed the mighty Roman world. -Three facts govern the present case, with the power of a -triumvirate,—the domicile of the petitioner, the situation -of the property, and the exigency of war. If I -dwell on these three facts, it is because I am unwilling -that either should drop out of sight; each is important. -Together they present a case which it is easy to decide, -however painful the conclusion. And this brings me to -the principle which I said at the beginning was so simple. -Indeed, let the facts be admitted, and it is difficult -to see how there can be any question in the present case. -But the facts, as I have stated them, are indubitable.</p> - -<p>On these facts two questions arise: first, as to the -rule of International Law applicable to property of persons -domiciled in an enemy country; and, secondly, as -to the applicability of this rule to the present case. Of -the rule there can be no question; its applicability is -sustained by reason, and also by authority from which -there can be no appeal.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span></p> - -<p>In stating and enforcing the rule I might array writers, -precedents, and courts; but I content myself with -a paragraph from a writer who in expounding the Laws -of War is perhaps the highest authority. I refer to the -Dutch publicist of the last century, Bynkershoek, whose -work is always quoted in the final resort on these questions. -This great writer expresses himself as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Could it be doubted whether under the name of enemies -may be understood also our friends who having been conquered -are with the enemy, their city perhaps being occupied -by him?… I should think that they also were to be so -understood, certainly as regards goods which they have under -the government of the enemy.… I know upon what -ground others say the contrary,—namely, that our friends, -although they are with the enemy, have no spirit of hostility -to us; for that it is not of their free will that they are -there, and that it is only from the <i>animus</i> that the case is to -be judged. But the case does not depend upon the <i>animus</i> -alone; because neither are all the rest of our enemy’s subjects, -at any rate very few of them, carried away by a spirit -of hostility to us; but it depends upon the right by which -those goods are with the enemy, and upon the advantage -which they afford him for our destruction.”<a name="FNanchor_5" id="FNanchor_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Nothing could be stronger in determining the liability -from domicile. Its sweeping extent, under the exigency -of war, is proclaimed by this same writer in words of -peculiar weight:—</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span></p> -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Since it is the condition of war that enemies are despoiled -and proscribed as to every right, it stands to reason that everything -found with the enemy changes its owner and goes -to the Treasury.… If we follow the mere Law of War, -even <i>immovable</i> property may be sold and its price turned -into the Treasury, as in the case of movable property.”<a name="FNanchor_6" id="FNanchor_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Here is an austere statement; but it was adopted by -Mr. Jefferson as a fundamental principle in his elaborate -letter to the British Minister, vindicating the confiscation -of the property of Loyalists during the Revolution.<a name="FNanchor_7" id="FNanchor_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> -It was the corner-stone of his argument, as it has -since been the corner-stone of judicial decisions. To -cite texts and precedents in its support is superfluous. -It must be accepted as the rule of International Law.</p> - -<p>The rule, as succinctly expressed, is simply this,—that -the property of persons domiciled in an enemy -country is liable to seizure and capture without regard -to the alleged friendly or loyal character of the owner.</p> - -<p>Unquestionably there are limitations imposed by humanity -which must not be transcended. A country -must not be wasted, or buildings destroyed, unless under -some commanding necessity. This great power must -not be wantonly employed. Men must not become barbarians. -But, if, in the pursuit of the enemy, or for -purposes of defence, property must be destroyed, then -by International Law it can be done. This is the rule. -Vattel, while pleading justly and with persuasive examples -for the preservation of works of art, such as temples, -tombs, and structures of remarkable beauty, admits -that even these may be sacrificed:—</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span></p> -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“If for the operations of war, to advance the works in a -siege, it is necessary to destroy edifices of this nature, one has -undoubtedly the right to do so. The sovereign of the country, -or his general, destroys them indeed himself, when the -necessities or the maxims of war invite thereto. The governor -of a besieged city burns its suburbs, to prevent the besiegers -from obtaining a lodgment therein. Nobody thinks -of blaming him who lays waste gardens, vineyards, orchards, -in order to pitch his tent and intrench himself there.”<a name="FNanchor_8" id="FNanchor_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This same rule is recognized by Manning, in his polished -and humane work, less frequently quoted, but entitled -always to great respect. This interesting writer -expresses himself as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“It is clearly a belligerent’s right to destroy the enemy’s -property <i>as far as necessary in making fortifications</i>.… -Destruction of the enemy’s property is justifiable as far as indispensable -for the purposes of warfare, but no further.”<a name="FNanchor_9" id="FNanchor_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>With the limitations which I have tried to exhibit, -the rule is beyond question in the relations between -nations. Do you call it harsh? Undoubtedly it is so. -It is war, which from beginning to end is terrible harshness. -Without the incidents sanctioned by this rule war -would be changed, so that it would be no longer war. It -was such individual calamities that Shakespeare had in -mind, when he spoke of “the purple testament of bleeding -war”; and it was such which entered into the vision -of that other poet, when, in words of remarkable beauty, -he pictured, by way of contrast, the blessings of peace:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse indent11">“Straight forward goes</div> -<div class="verse">The lightning’s path, and straight the fearful path</div> -<div class="verse">Of the cannon-ball. Direct it flies, and rapid,</div> -<div class="verse">Shattering that it may reach, and shattering what it reaches.</div> -<div class="verse">My son! the road the human being travels,</div> -<div class="verse">That on which blessing comes and goes, doth follow</div> -<div class="verse">The river’s course, the valley’s playful windings,</div> -<div class="verse">Curves round the cornfield and the hill of vines,</div> -<div class="verse">Honoring the holy bounds of property;</div> -<div class="verse">And thus, secure, though late, leads to its end.”<a name="FNanchor_10" id="FNanchor_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p> -<p>It only remains now to show that this rule of International -Law is applicable to the present case. Of -course, our late war was not between two nations; therefore -it was not strictly international. But it was between -the National Government, on one side, and a -Rebellion which had become “territorial” in character, -with such form and body as to have belligerent rights -on land. Mark the distinction, if you please; for I have -always insisted, and still insist, that complete belligerency -on land does not imply belligerency on the ocean. -As there is a dominion of the land, so there is a dominion -of the ocean; and as there is a belligerency of the -land, so there is also a belligerency of the ocean. Therefore, -while denying to our Rebels belligerent rights on -the ocean, I have no hesitation with regard to them on -the land. But just in proportion as these are admitted, -is the rule of International Law made applicable to the -present case.</p> - -<p>Against our Rebels the Nation had two sources of -power and two arsenals of rights,—one of these being -the powers and rights of sovereignty, and the other the -powers and rights of war,—the former being determined -by the Constitution, the latter by International Law. -The Nation might pursue a Rebel as traitor or as belligerent; -but whether traitor or belligerent, he was -always an enemy. Pursuing him in the courts as -traitor, he was justly entitled to all the delays and safeguards -of the Constitution; but it was otherwise, if he -was treated as belligerent. Pursuing him in battle, -driving him from point to point, dislodging him from -fortresses, expelling him from towns, pushing him back -from our advancing line, and then building fortifications -against him,—all this was war; and it was none the less<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> -war because the enemy was unhappily our own countryman. -A new law supplied the rule for our conduct,—not -the Constitution, with its manifold provisions dear -to the lover of Liberty, including the solemn requirement -that nobody shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property -without due process of law,” and then again that other -requirement, that “private property shall not be taken -for public use without just compensation.” All these -were silent while International Law prevailed. The -Rebellion had grown until it became a war; and as this -war was among countrymen, it was a civil war. But -the rule of conduct in a civil war is to be found in the -Law of Nations.</p> - -<p>I do not stop to quote the familiar views of publicists, -especially of Vattel, to the effect that in a civil war the -two parties are to be treated as “two different nations.”<a name="FNanchor_11" id="FNanchor_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> -Suffice it to say, that such is the judgment of all the -authorities on International Law. But I come directly -to the decisions of our Supreme Court, which recognize -the rule of International Law as applicable to our civil -war.</p> - -<p>In the famous cases known as the <i>Prize Cases</i>, the -Court expressly says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“All persons residing within this territory, whose property -may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power, -are in this contest liable to be treated as enemies, though not -foreigners.”<a name="FNanchor_12" id="FNanchor_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Here is the rule of International Law applied directly -to our civil war. In a later case the rule is applied -with added emphasis and particularity:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“We must be governed by the principle of public law, so -often announced from this bench as applicable alike to civil -and international wars, that <i>all the people of each State or -district in insurrection against the United States must be regarded -as enemies</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_13" id="FNanchor_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Thus, according to our highest tribunal, the rule in -civil war and international war is the same. By another -decision of the Court, this same rule continues in force -until the character of public enemy is removed by competent -authority. On this point the Court declares itself -as follows, in the Alexander cotton case:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“All the people of each State or district in insurrection -against the United States must be regarded as enemies, until, -by the action of the Legislature and the Executive, or otherwise, -that relation is thoroughly and permanently changed.”<a name="FNanchor_14" id="FNanchor_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>If the present case is to be settled by authority, this -is enough. Here is the Supreme Court solemnly recognizing -the rule of International Law, even to the extent -of embracing under its penalties <i>all the people</i> of the -hostile community, without regard to their sentiments -of loyalty. This is decisive. You cannot decree the -national liability in the present case without reversing -these decisions. You must declare that the rule of -International Law is not applicable to our civil war. -There is no ground for exception. You must reject -the rule absolutely.</p> - -<p>Do you say that its application is harsh? Of course -it is. But again I say, this is war; or rather, it is rebellion -which has assumed the front of war. I do not make -the rule. I have nothing to do with it. I take it as -I find it, affirmed by great authorities of International<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> -Law, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United -States.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Here I might stop; for the conclusion stands on reason -and authority, each unanswerable; but I proceed -further in order to relieve the case of all ambiguity. Of -course instances may be adduced where compensation -has been made to sufferers from an army, but no case -like the present. If we glance at these instances, we -shall see the wide difference.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>1. The first instance is where property is taken by -the Nation, or its representative, <i>within its own established -jurisdiction</i>. Of course this is unlike that now -before us. To cite it is only to perplex and mystify, not -to instruct. Thus, a Senator [Mr. <span class="smcap">Willey</span>, of West Virginia] -has adduced well-known words from Vattel on -the question, “Whether subjects should be indemnified -for damages sustained in war,” “as when a field, a house, -or a garden, belonging to a private person, is taken for -the purpose of erecting on the spot a town-rampart, or -any other piece of fortification.”<a name="FNanchor_15" id="FNanchor_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> But this authority is -not applicable to the present case, where the claimant is -not what Vattel calls a “subject,” and the property was -not within the established jurisdiction of the nation. It -applies only to such cases as occurred during the War of -1812, where property was taken on the Canadian frontier -or at New Orleans for the erection of a fortress,—or -such a case as that which formed one of the military -glories of the Count Rochambeau, when at the head of -the French forces in our country. The story is little -known, and therefore I adduce it now, as I find it in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> -the Memoirs of Ségur, one of the brilliant officers who -accompanied the expedition.</p> - -<p>The French squadrons were quitting their camp at -Crompond, near the North River, in New York, on their -way to embark for France. Their commander, fresh -from the victory of Yorktown, was at the head of the -columns, when a simple citizen approached, and, tapping -him slightly on the shoulder, said: “In the name -of the law you are my prisoner.” The glittering staff by -which Count Rochambeau was surrounded broke forth -with indignation, but the General-in-Chief restrained -their impatience, and, smiling, said to the American -citizen: “Take me away with you, if you can.” “No,” -replied the simple representative of the law, “I have -done my duty, and your Excellency may proceed on -your march, if you wish to set justice at defiance. Some -of your soldiers have cut down several trees, and burnt -them to make their fires. The owner of them claims -an indemnity, and has obtained a warrant against you, -which I have come to execute.” The Count, on hearing -this explanation, which was translated by one of his -staff, gave bail, and at once directed the settlement of -the claim on equitable grounds. The American withdrew, -and the French squadrons, which had been arrested -by a simple constable, proceeded on their march. -This interesting story, so honorable to our country and -to the French commander, is disfigured by the end, -showing extortion on the part of the claimant. A judgment -by arbitration fixed the damages at four hundred -dollars, being less than the commander had at once offered, -while the claimant demanded no less than three -thousand dollars.<a name="FNanchor_16" id="FNanchor_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span></p> - -<p>Afterward, in the National Assembly of France, when -that great country began to throb with republican life, -this instance of submission to law was mentioned with -pride.<a name="FNanchor_17" id="FNanchor_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> But though it cannot lose its place in history, it -cannot furnish a precedent of International Law. Besides -being without any exigency of defence, the trespass -was within our own jurisdiction, in which respect -it differed precisely from the case on which we are to -vote. I adduce it now because it serves to illustrate -vividly the line of law.</p> - -<p>2. Another instance, which I mention in order to put -it aside, is <i>where an army in a hostile country has carefully -paid for all its supplies</i>. Such conduct is exceptional. -The general rule was expressed by Mr. Marcy, during -our war with Mexico, when he said that “an invading -army has the unquestionable right to draw its supplies -from the enemy without paying for them, and to require -contributions for its support,” that “the enemy may be -made to feel the weight of the war.”<a name="FNanchor_18" id="FNanchor_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> But General -Halleck, after quoting these words, says that “the resort -to forced contributions for the support of our armies -in a country like Mexico, under the particular circumstances -of the war, would have been at least impolitic, -if not unjust; and the American generals very properly -declined to adopt, except to a very limited extent, the -mode indicated.”<a name="FNanchor_19" id="FNanchor_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> According to this learned authority, -it was a question of policy rather than of law.</p> - -<p>The most remarkable instance of forbearance, under -this head, was that of the Duke of Wellington, as he -entered France with his victorious troops, fresh from the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> -fields of Spain. He was peremptory that nothing should -be taken without compensation. His order on this occasion -will be found at length in Colonel Gurwood’s collection -of his “Dispatches.”<a name="FNanchor_20" id="FNanchor_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> His habit was to give -receipts for supplies, and ready money was paid in the -camp. The British historian dwells with pride on the -conduct of the commander, and records the astonishment -with which it was regarded by both soldiers and -peasantry, who found it so utterly at variance with the -system by which the Spaniards had suffered and the -French had profited during the Peninsular campaigns.<a name="FNanchor_21" id="FNanchor_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> -The conduct of the Duke of Wellington cannot be too -highly prized. It was more than a victory. I have -always regarded it as the <i>high-water mark</i> of civilized -war, so far as war can be civilized. But I am obliged to -add, on this occasion, that it was politic also. In thus -softening the rigors of war, he smoothed the way for his -conquering army. In a dispatch to one of his generals, -written in the spirit of the order, he says, in very expressive -language: “If we were five times stronger than -we are, we could not venture to enter France, if we cannot -prevent our soldiers from plundering.”<a name="FNanchor_22" id="FNanchor_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> It was in -a refined policy that this important order had its origin. -Regarding it as a generous example for other commanders, -and offering to it my homage, I must confess, that, -as a precedent, it is entirely inapplicable to the present -case.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Putting aside these two several classes of cases, we -are brought back to the original principle, that there<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> -can be no legal claim to damages for property situated -in an enemy country, and belonging to a person domiciled -there, when taken for the exigencies of war.</p> - -<p>If the conclusion were doubtful, I should deem it my -duty to exhibit at length the costly consequences from -an allowance of this claim. The small sum which you -vote will be a precedent for millions. If you pay Miss -Sue Murphey, you must pay claimants whose name will -be Legion. Of course, if justice requires, let it be done, -even though the Treasury fail. But the mere possibility -of such liabilities is a reason for caution on our part. -We must consider the present case as if on its face it -involved not merely a few thousands, but many millions. -Pay it, and the country will not be bankrupt, -but it will have an infinite draft upon its resources. If -the occasion were not too grave for a jest, I would say -of it as Mercutio said of his wound: “No, ’tis not so -deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis -enough.”</p> - -<p>If you would have a practical idea of the extent of -these claims, be taught by the history of the British -Loyalists, who at the close of our Revolution appealed -to Parliament for compensation on account of their -losses. The whole number of these claims was five -thousand and seventy-two. The whole amount claimed -was £8,026,045, or about thirty-eight million dollars, -of which the commissioners allowed less than half.<a name="FNanchor_23" id="FNanchor_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> -Our claimants would be much more numerous, and the -amount claimed vaster.</p> - -<p>We may also learn from England something of the -spirit in which such claimants should be treated. Even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> -while providing for them, Parliament refused to recognize -any legal title on their part. What it did was in -compassion, generosity, and bounty,—not in satisfaction -of a debt. Mr. Pitt, in presenting the plan which -was adopted, expressly denied any right on grounds of -“strict justice.” Here are his words:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The American Loyalists, in his opinion, could not call -upon the House to make compensation for their losses as a -matter of strict justice; but they most undoubtedly had -strong claims on their generosity and compassion. In the -mode, therefore, that he should propose for finally adjusting -their claims, he had laid down a principle with a view to -mark this distinction.”<a name="FNanchor_24" id="FNanchor_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>In the same spirit Mr. Burke said:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Such a mode of compensating the claims of the Loyalists -would do the country the highest credit. It was a new and -a noble instance of national bounty and generosity.”<a name="FNanchor_25" id="FNanchor_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Fox, who was full of ardent sympathies, declared:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“They were entitled to a compensation, <i>but by no means to -a full compensation</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_26" id="FNanchor_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>And Mr. Pitt, at another stage of the debate, thus -denied their claim:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“They certainly had <i>no sort of claim</i> to a repayment of all -they had lost.”<a name="FNanchor_27" id="FNanchor_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>So far as this instance is an example to us, it is only -an incentive to a kindly policy, which, after prudent inquiry,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> -and full knowledge of the extent of these claims, -shall make such reasonable allowance as humanity and -patriotism may require. There must be an inquiry not -only into this individual case, but into all possible cases -that may spring into being, so that, when we act, it may -be on the whole subject.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>From the beginning of our national life Congress has -been called to deal with claims for losses by war. -Though new in form, the present case belongs to a -long list, whose beginning is hidden in Revolutionary -history. The folio volume of State Papers, now before -me, entitled “Claims,” attests the number and variety. -Even amid the struggles of the war, as early as 1779, -the Rev. Dr. Witherspoon was allowed $19,040 for repairs -of the college at Princeton damaged by the troops.<a name="FNanchor_28" id="FNanchor_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> -There was afterward a similar allowance to the academy -at Wilmington, in Delaware, and also to the college in -Rhode Island. These latter were recommended by Mr. -Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, as “affecting -the interests of literature.”<a name="FNanchor_29" id="FNanchor_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> On this account they were -treated as exceptional. It will also be observed that -they concerned claimants within our own jurisdiction. -But on a claim for compensation for a house burnt at -Charlestown for the purpose of dislodging the enemy, by -order of the American commander at that point during -the Siege of Boston, a Committee of Congress in 1797 -reported, that, “as Government has not adopted a general -rule to compensate individuals who have suffered in -a similar manner, the Committee are of opinion that the -prayer of this petition cannot be granted.”<a name="FNanchor_30" id="FNanchor_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> At a later<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> -day, however, after successive favorable reports, the -claim was finally in 1833 allowed, and compensation -made to the extent of the estimated value of the property -destroyed.<a name="FNanchor_31" id="FNanchor_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p> - -<p>In 1815 a claimant received compensation for a house -at the end of the Potomac bridge, which was blown up -to prevent certain public stores from falling into the -hands of the enemy;<a name="FNanchor_32" id="FNanchor_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> and other claimants at Baltimore -received compensation for rope-walks burnt in the defence -of the city.<a name="FNanchor_33" id="FNanchor_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> The report of a committee in another -case says that the course of Congress “seems to inculcate -that indemnity is due to all those <i>whose losses have -arisen from the acts of our own Government, or those acting -under its authority</i>, while losses produced by the -conduct of the enemy are to be classed among the unavoidable -calamities of war.”<a name="FNanchor_34" id="FNanchor_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> This is the most complete -statement of the rule which I find.</p> - -<p>After the Battle of New Orleans the question of the -application of this rule was presented repeatedly, and -with various results. In one case, a claim for “a quantity -of fencing” used as fuel by troops of General Jackson -was paid by Congress; so also was a claim for damages -to a plantation “upon which public works for the -defence of the country were erected.”<a name="FNanchor_35" id="FNanchor_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> On the other -hand, a claim for “an elegant and well-furnished house” -which afforded shelter to the British army and was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> -therefore fired on with hot shot, also a claim for damage -to a house and plantation where a battery was erected -by our troops, and on both of which claims the -Committee, simultaneously with the two former, reported -favorably, were disallowed by Congress.<a name="FNanchor_36" id="FNanchor_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> In a subsequent -case both the report and action seem to have -proceeded on a different principle from that previously -enunciated. At the landing of the enemy near New -Orleans, the levee was cut in order to annoy him. As -a consequence, the plantation of the claimant was inundated, -and suffered damages estimated at $19,250. -But the claim was rejected, on the ground that “the -injury was done in the necessary operations of war.”<a name="FNanchor_37" id="FNanchor_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> -Certainly this ground may be adopted in the present -case, while it must not be forgotten that in all the -foregoing cases the claimants were citizens within our -own jurisdiction, whose property had been used against -a foreign enemy.</p> - -<p>The multiplicity of claims arising in the War of 1812 -prompted an Act of Congress in 1816 for “the payment -for property lost, captured, or destroyed by the enemy.” -In this Act it was, among other things, provided,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That any person, who, in the time aforesaid [the late war], -has sustained damage by the destruction of his or her house -or building by the enemy, while the same was occupied as a -military deposit, under the authority of an officer or agent of -the United States, shall be allowed and paid the amount of -such damage, provided it shall appear that such occupation -was the cause of its destruction.”<a name="FNanchor_38" id="FNanchor_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span></p> - -<p>Two years later it was found, that, in order to obtain -the benefits of this Act, people, especially on the frontier -of the State of New York, had not hesitated at “fraud, -forgery, and perhaps perjury.”<a name="FNanchor_39" id="FNanchor_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> Thereupon, the law, -which by its terms was limited to two years, and which -it had been proposed to extend, was permitted to expire; -and it is accordingly now marked in our Statutes, -“Obsolete.” But it is not without its lesson. It shows -what may be expected, should any precedent be adopted -by Congress to quicken the claimants now dormant in -the South. “It is the duty of a good Government to -attend to the morals of the people as an affair of primary -concern.”<a name="FNanchor_40" id="FNanchor_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> So said the Committee in 1818, recommending -the non-extension of the Act. But this warning -is as applicable now as then.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Among the claimants of the present day there are -doubtless many of character and virtue. It is hard to -vote against them. But I cannot be controlled on this -occasion by my sympathies. Everywhere and in every -household there has been suffering which mortal power -cannot measure. Sometimes it is borne in silence and -solitude; sometimes it is manifest to all. In coming -into this Chamber and asking for compensation, it invites -comparison with other instances. If your allowance -is to be on account of merit, who will venture to -say that this case is the most worthy? It is before us -now for judgment. But there are others, not now before -us, where the suffering has been greater, and where, I do -not hesitate to say, the reward should be in proportion. -This is an appeal for justice. Therefore do I say, in the -name of justice, Wait!</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 15th, the same bill being under discussion, Mr. Sumner -spoke as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>There is another point, on which I forbore to dwell -with sufficient particularity when I spoke before. It is -this: Assuming that this claimant is loyal, I honor her -that she kept her loyalty under the surrounding pressure -of rebellion. Of course this was her duty,—nor -more nor less. The practical question is, Shall she be -paid for it? Had she been disloyal, there would have -been no proposition of compensation. As the liability -of the Nation is urged on the single ground that she -kept her regard for the flag truly and sincerely, it is -evident that this loyalty must be put beyond question; -it must be established like any other essential link of -evidence. I think I do not err in supposing that it -is not established in the present case,—at least with -such certainty as to justify opening the doors of the -Treasury.</p> - -<p>But assuming that in fact the loyalty is established, I -desire to go further, and say that not only is the present -claim without any support in law, but it is unreasonable. -The Rebel States had become one immense prison-house -of Loyalty; Alabama was a prison-house. The -Nation, at every cost of treasure and blood, broke into -that prison-house, and succeeded in rescuing the Loyalists; -but the terrible effort, which cost the Nation so -dearly, involved the Loyalists in losses also. In breaking -into the prison-house and dislodging the Rebel keepers, -property of Loyalists suffered. And now we are -asked to pay for this property damaged in our efforts for -their redemption. Our troops came down to break the -prison-doors and set the captives free. Is it not unreasonable -to expect us to pay for this breaking?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span></p> - -<p>If the forces of the United States had failed, then -would these Loyalists have lost everything, country, -property, and all,—that is, if really loyal, according to -present professions. It was our national forces that -saved them from this sacrifice, securing to them country, -and, if not all their property, much of it. A part of -the property of the present claimant was taken in order -to save to her all else, including country itself. It was -a case, such as might occur under other circumstances, -where a part—and a very small part—is sacrificed in -order to save the rest. According to all analogies of -jurisprudence, and the principles of justice itself, the -claimant can look for nothing beyond such contribution -as Congress in its bounty may appropriate. It is a case -of bounty, and not of law.</p> - -<p>It is a mistake to suppose, as has been most earnestly -argued, that a claimant of approved loyalty in -the Rebel States should have compensation precisely -like a similar claimant in a Loyal State. To my mind -this assumption is founded on a misapprehension of -the Constitution, the law, and the reason of the case,—three -different misapprehensions. By the Constitution -property cannot be taken for public use without -“just compensation”; but this rule was silent in the -Rebel States. International Law stepped in and supplied -a different rule. And when we consider how -much was saved to the loyal citizen in a Rebel State -by the national arms, it will be found that this rule is -only according to justice.</p> - -<p>I have no disposition to shut the door upon claimants. -Let them be heard; but the hearing must be according -to some system, so that Congress shall know the -character and extent of these claims. Before the motion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> -of my colleague,<a name="FNanchor_41" id="FNanchor_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> I had already prepared instructions for -the Committee, which I will read, as expressing my own -conclusion on this matter:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That the committee to whom this bill shall be referred, -the Committee on Claims, be instructed to consider the expediency -of providing for the appointment of a commission -whose duty it shall be to inquire into the claims of the loyal -citizens of the National Government arising during the recent -Rebellion anywhere in the United States, classifying these -claims, specifying their respective amounts, and the circumstances -out of which they originated, also, the evidence of -loyalty adduced by the claimants respectively, to the end -that Congress may know precisely the extent and character -of these claims before legislating thereupon.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>As this is a resolution of instruction, simply to consider -the expediency of what is proposed, I presume -there can be no objection to it.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Afterwards, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the bill, with all pending -propositions, was recommitted to the Committee on Claims.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="TRIBUTE_TO_HON_JAMES_HINDS_REPRESENTATIVE" id="TRIBUTE_TO_HON_JAMES_HINDS_REPRESENTATIVE"></a>TRIBUTE TO HON. JAMES HINDS, REPRESENTATIVE -OF ARKANSAS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, January 23, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Hinds, while engaged in canvassing the State of Arkansas on -the Republican side, was assassinated. The Senators of Arkansas requested -Mr. Sumner to speak on the resolution announcing his death.</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—It is with hesitation that I -add a word on this melancholy occasion, and I do -it only in compliance with the suggestion of others.</p> - -<p>I did not know Mr. Hinds personally; but I have -been interested in his life, and touched by his tragical -end. Born in New York, educated in Ohio, a settler in -Minnesota, and then a citizen of Arkansas, he carried -with him always the energies and principles ripened -under our Northern skies. He became a Representative -in Congress, and, better still, a vindicator of the Rights -of Man. Unhappily, that barbarism which we call Slavery -is not yet dead, and it was his fate to fall under its -vindictive assault. Pleading for the Equal Rights of All, -he became a victim and martyr.</p> - -<p>Thus suddenly arrested in life, his death is a special -sorrow, not only to family and friends, but to the country -which he had begun to serve so well. The void, -when a young man dies, is measured less by what he -has done than by the promises of the future. Performance -itself is forgotten in the ample assurance afforded -by character. Already Mr. Hinds had given himself<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> -sincerely and bravely to the good cause. By presence -and speech he was urging those great principles of the -Declaration of Independence whose complete recognition -will be the cope-stone of our Republic, when he fell -by the stealthy shot of an assassin. It was in the midst -of this work that he fell, and on this account I am glad -to offer my tribute to his memory.</p> - -<p>As the life he led was not without honor, so his death -is not without consolation. It was the saying of Antiquity, -that it is sweet to die for country. Here was -death not only for country, but for mankind. Nor is it -to be forgotten, that, dying in such a cause, his living -voice is echoed from the tomb. There is a testimony in -death often greater than in any life. The cause for -which a man dies lives anew in his death. “If the assassination -could trammel up the consequence,” then -might the assassin find some other satisfaction than the -gratification of a barbarous nature. But this cannot be. -His own soul is blasted; the cause he sought to kill is -elevated; and thus it is now. The assassin is a fugitive -in some unknown retreat; the cause is about to triumph.</p> - -<p>Often it happens that death, which takes away life, -confers what life alone cannot give. It makes famous. -History does not forget Lovejoy, who for devotion to the -cause of the slave was murdered by a fanatical mob; and -it has already enshrined Abraham Lincoln in holiest -keeping. Another is added to the roll,—less exalted -than Lincoln, less early in immolation than Lovejoy, -but, like these two, to be remembered always among -those who passed out of life through the gate of sacrifice.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="POWERS_OF_CONGRESS_TO_PROHIBIT_INEQUALITY" id="POWERS_OF_CONGRESS_TO_PROHIBIT_INEQUALITY"></a>POWERS OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT INEQUALITY, -CASTE, AND OLIGARCHY OF THE SKIN.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, February 5, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The Senate having under consideration a joint resolution from the -House of Representatives proposing an Amendment to the Constitution -of the United States on the subject of Suffrage in the words following, -viz.:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="center">“<span class="smcap">Article ——.</span></p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> The right of any citizen of the United States to vote shall -not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of -the race, color, or previous condition of slavery of any citizen or class of -citizens of the United States.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> The Congress shall have power to enforce by proper legislation -the provisions of this Article.”—</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner offered the following bill as a substitute:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> That the right to vote, to be voted for, and to hold office -shall not be denied or abridged anywhere in the United States, under any -pretence of race or color; and all provisions in any State Constitutions, -or in any laws, State, Territorial, or Municipal, inconsistent herewith, are -hereby declared null and void.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> That any person, who, under any pretence of race or color, wilfully -hinders or attempts to hinder any citizen of the United States from -being registered, or from voting, or from being voted for, or from holding -office, or who attempts by menaces to deter any such citizen from the exercise -or enjoyment of the rights of citizenship above mentioned, shall be -punished by a fine not less than one hundred dollars nor more than three -thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the common jail for not less than -thirty days nor more than one year.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 3.</span> That every person legally engaged in preparing a register of -voters, or in holding or conducting an election, who wilfully refuses to -register the name or to receive, count, return, or otherwise give the proper -legal effect to the vote of any citizen, under any pretence of race or color, -shall be punished by a fine not less than five hundred dollars nor more than -four thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the common jail for not less -than three calendar months nor more than two years.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 4.</span> That the District Courts of the United States shall have exclusive -jurisdiction of all offences against this Act; and the district attorneys, -marshals, and deputy marshals, the commissioners appointed by the Circuit -and Territorial Courts of the United States, with powers of arresting, -imprisoning, or bailing offenders, and every other officer specially empowered -by the President of the United States, shall be, and they are hereby, -required, at the expense of the United States, to institute proceedings -against any person who violates this Act, and cause him to be arrested and -imprisoned or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court as by -this Act has cognizance of the offence.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 5.</span> That every citizen unlawfully deprived of any of the rights of -citizenship secured by this Act, under any pretence of race or color, may -maintain a suit against any person so depriving him, and recover damages -in the District Court of the United States for the district in which such -person may be found.</p> - -</div> - -<p>On this he spoke as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—In the construction of a machine -the good mechanic seeks the simplest -process, producing the desired result with the greatest -economy of time and force. I know no better rule for -Congress on the present occasion. We are mechanics, -and the machine we are constructing has for its object -the conservation of Equal Rights. Surely, if we are -wise, we shall seek the simplest process, producing the -desired result with the greatest economy of time and -force. How widely Senators are departing from this -rule will appear before I have done.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Rarely have I entered upon any debate in this Chamber -with a sense of sadness so heavy as oppresses me at -this moment. It was sad enough to meet the champions -of Slavery, as in other days they openly vindicated -the monstrous pretension and claimed for it the safeguard -of the Constitution, insisting that Slavery was -national and Freedom sectional. But this was not so -sad as now, after a bloody war with Slavery, and its defeat<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> -on the battle-field, to meet the champions of a kindred -pretension, for which they claim the safeguard of -the Constitution, insisting also, as in the case of Slavery, -upon State Rights. The familiar vindication of Slavery -in those early debates was less sickening than the vindication -now of the intolerable pretension, that a State, -constituting part of the Nation, and calling itself “Republican,” -is entitled to shut out any citizen from participation -in government simply on account of race or -color. To denominate such pretension as intolerable -expresses very inadequately the extent of its absurdity, -and the utterness of its repugnance to all good principles, -whether of reason, morals, or government.</p> - -<p>I make no question with individual Senators; I make -no personal allusion; but I meet the odious imposture, -as I met the earlier imposture, with indignation and -contempt, naturally excited by anything unworthy of -this Chamber and unworthy of the Republic. How it -can enter here and find Senators willing to assume the -stigma of its championship is more than I can comprehend. -Nobody ever vindicated Slavery, who did not lay -up a store of regret for himself and his children; and -permit me to say now, nobody can vindicate Inequality -and Caste, whether civil or political, the direct offspring -of Slavery, as intrenched in the Constitution, beyond the -reach of national prohibition, without laying up a similar -store of regret. Death may happily come to remove -the champion from the judgment of the world; but History -will make its faithful record, to be read with sorrow -hereafter. Do not complain, if I speak strongly. The -occasion requires it. I seek to save the Senate from -participation in an irrational and degrading pretension.</p> - -<p>Others may be cool and indifferent; but I have warred<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> -with Slavery too long, in all its different forms, not to -be aroused when this old enemy shows its head under -an <i>alias</i>. Once it was Slavery; now it is Caste; and -the same excuse is assigned now as then. In the name -of State Rights, Slavery, with all its brood of wrong, -was upheld; and now, in the name of State Rights, -Caste, fruitful also in wrong, is upheld. The old champions -reappear under other names and from other States, -each crying out, that, under the National Constitution, -notwithstanding even its supplementary Amendments, a -State may, if it pleases, deny political rights on account -of race or color, and thus establish that vilest institution, -a Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin.</p> - -<p>This perversity, which to careless observation seems -so incomprehensible, is easily understood, when it is -considered that the present generation grew up under -an interpretation of the National Constitution supplied -by the upholders of Slavery. State Rights were exalted -and the Nation was humbled, because in this way Slavery -might be protected. Anything for Slavery was -constitutional. Such was the lesson we were taught. -How often I have heard it! How often it has sounded -through this Chamber, and been proclaimed in speech -and law! Under its influence the Right of Petition was -denied, the atrocious Fugitive Slave Bill was enacted, -and the claim was advanced that Slavery travelled with -the flag of the Republic. Vain are all our victories, if -this terrible rule is not reversed, so that State Rights -shall yield to Human Rights, and the Nation be exalted -as the bulwark of all. This will be the crowning victory -of the war. Beyond all question, the true rule under -the National Constitution, especially since its additional -Amendments, is, that <i>anything for Human Rights is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> -constitutional</i>. Yes, Sir; against the old rule, <i>Anything -for Slavery</i>, I put the new rule, <i>Anything for Human -Rights</i>.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Sir, I do not declare this rule hastily, and I know the -presence in which I speak. I am surrounded by lawyers, -and now I challenge any one or all to this debate. -I invoke the discussion. On an occasion less important, -Mr. Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, after saying that he -came not “with the statute-book doubled down in dog’s-ears -to defend the cause of Liberty,” that he relied on -“a general principle, a constitutional principle,” exclaimed: -“It is a ground on which I stand firm, on -which I dare meet any man.”<a name="FNanchor_42" id="FNanchor_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> In the same spirit I -would speak now. No learning in books, no skill acquired -in courts, no sharpness of forensic dialectics, no -cunning in splitting hairs can impair the vigor of the -constitutional principle which I announce. Whatever -you enact for Human Rights is constitutional. There -can be no State Rights against Human Rights; and this -is the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution -or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.</p> - -<p>A State exercises its proper function, when, within its -own jurisdiction, it administers local law, watches local -interests, promotes local charities, and by local knowledge -brings the guardianship of Government to the home -of the citizen. Such is the proper function of the State, -by which we are saved from that centralization elsewhere -so absorbing. But a State transcends its proper -function, when it interferes with those Equal Rights,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> -whether civil or political, which by the Declaration of -Independence and repeated texts of the National Constitution -are under the safeguard of the Nation. The -State is local in character, and not universal. Whatever -is justly local belongs to its cognizance; whatever is -universal belongs to the Nation. But what can be more -universal than the Rights of Man? They are for “all -men,”—not for all white men, but for all men. Such -they have been declared by our fathers, and this axiom -of Liberty nobody can dispute.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Listening to the champions of Caste and Oligarchy -under the National Constitution, and perusing their -writings, I think I understand the position they take. -With as much calmness as I can command, I note what -they have to say in speech and in print. I know it all. -I do not err, when I say that this whole terrible and -ignominious pretension is traced to direct and barefaced -perversion of the National Constitution. Search history, -study constitutions, examine laws, and you will find no -perversion more thoroughly revolting. By the National -Constitution it is provided, that “the electors in each -State shall have the <i>qualifications</i> requisite for electors -of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature,”—thus -seeming to refer the primary determination of -what are called “qualifications” to the States; and this -is reinforced by the further provision, that “the times, -places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and -Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the -Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time -by law make or alter such <i>regulations</i>.” This is all -On these simple texts, conferring plain and intelligible -powers, the champions insist that “color” may be made<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> -a “qualification,” and that under the guise of “regulations” -citizens whose only offence is a skin not colored -like our own may be shut out from political rights,—and -that in this way a monopoly of rights, being at once -a Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin, is placed under -the safeguard of the National Constitution. Such is -the case of the champions; this is their stock-in-trade. -With all their learning, all their subtlety, all their sharpness, -this is what they have to say in behalf of an infamous -pretension under the National Constitution. Everything -from them begins and ends in a perversion of -two words,—“qualifications” and “regulations.”</p> - -<p>Now to this perversion I oppose point-blank denial. -These two words are not justly susceptible of any such -signification, especially in a National Constitution, which -is to be interpreted always so that Human Rights shall -not suffer. I do not stop now for dictionaries. The case -is too plain. A “qualification” is something that can be -acquired. A man is familiarly said to “qualify” for an -office. Nothing can be a “qualification” which is not -in its nature attainable,—as residence, property, education, -or character, each of which is within the possible -reach of well-directed effort. Color cannot be a “qualification.” -If the prescribed “qualification” were color -of the hair or color of the eyes, all would see its absurdity; -but it is none the less absurd, when it is color of the -skin. Here is an unchangeable condition, impressed by -Providence. Are we not reminded that the leopard cannot -change his spots, or the Ethiopian his skin? These -are two examples of enduring conditions. Color is a -quality from Nature. But a “quality” is very different -from a “qualification.” A quality inherent in man and -part of himself can never be a “qualification” in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> -sense of the National Constitution. On other occasions -I have cited authorities,<a name="FNanchor_43" id="FNanchor_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> and shown how this attempt -to foist into the National Constitution a pernicious -meaning is in defiance of all approved definition, as it -is plainly repugnant to reason, justice, and common -sense.</p> - -<p>The same judgment must be pronounced on the attempt -to found this outrage upon the power to make -“regulations,”—as if this word had not a limited signification -which renders such a pretension impossible. -“Regulations” are nothing but rules applicable to a -given matter; they concern the manner in which a -business shall be conducted, and, when used with regard -to elections, are applicable to what may be called -incidents, in contradistinction to the principal, which is -nothing less than the right to vote. A power to regulate -is not a power to destroy or to disfranchise. In -an evil hour Human Rights may be struck down, but -it cannot be merely by “regulations.” The pretension -that under such authority this great wrong may be -done is another illustration of that extravagance which -the champions do not shrink from avowing.</p> - -<p>The whole structure of Caste and Oligarchy, as founded -on two words, may be dismissed. It is hard even to -think of it without impatience, to speak of it without -denouncing it as unworthy of human head or human -heart. There are honorable Senators who shrink from -any direct argument on these two words, and, wrapping -themselves in pleonastic phrase, content themselves with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> -the general assertion, that power over suffrage belongs to -the States. But they cannot maintain this conclusion -without founding on these two words,—insisting that -color may be a “qualification,” and that under the narrow -power to make “regulations” a race may be broadly -disfranchised. To this wretched pretension are they -driven. And now, if there be any such within the sound -of my voice, I ask the question directly,—Can “color,” -whether of hair, eyes, or skin, be a “qualification” under -our National Constitution? under the pretence of making -“regulations” of elections, can a race be disfranchised? -With all the power derived from both these -words, can any State undertake to establish a Caste and -organize an Oligarchy of the Skin? To put these questions -is to answer them.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Such is the case as presented by the champions. But -looking at the National Constitution, we shall be astonished -still more at this pretension. On other occasions -I have gone over the whole case of Human Rights vs. -State Rights under the National Constitution. For the -present I content myself with allusions only to the principal -points.</p> - -<p>It is under the National Constitution that the champions -set up their pretension; therefore to the National -Constitution I go. And I begin by appealing to the -letter, which from beginning to end does not contain -one word recognizing “color.” Its letter is blameless; -and its spirit is not less so. Surely a power to disfranchise -for color must find some sanction in the Constitution. -There must be some word of clear intent under -which this terrible prerogative can be exercised. This -conclusion of reason is reinforced by the positive text<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> -of our Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, -where it is expressly announced that all men are equal -in rights, and that just government stands only on the -consent of the governed. In the face of the National -Constitution, interpreted, first by itself, and then by the -Declaration of Independence, how can this pretension -prevail?</p> - -<p>But there are positive texts of the National Constitution, -refulgent as the Capitol itself, which forbid it with -sovereign, irresistible power, and invest Congress with -all needful authority to maintain the prohibition.</p> - -<p>There is that key-stone clause, by which it is expressly -declared that “the United States shall guaranty to every -State in this Union a republican form of government”; -and Congress is empowered to enforce this guaranty. -The definition of a republican government was solemnly -announced by our fathers, first, in that great battle-cry -which preceded the Revolution, “Taxation without representation -is tyranny,” and, secondly, in the great Declaration -at the birth of the Republic, that all men are -equal in rights, and that just government stands only on -the consent of the governed. A Republic is where taxation -and representation go hand in hand, where all are -equal in rights, and no man is excluded from participation -in the government. Such is the definition of a republican -government, which it is the duty of Congress -to maintain. Here is a bountiful source of power, which -cannot be called in question. In the execution of the -guaranty Congress may—nay, must—require that there -shall be no Inequality, Caste, or Oligarchy of the Skin.</p> - -<p>I know well the arguments of the champions. They -insist that the definition of a Republican Government is -to be found in the State Constitutions at the adoption<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> -of the National Constitution; and as all these, except -Massachusetts, recognized Slavery, they find that the -denial of Human Rights is republican. But the champions -forget that Slavery was regarded as a temporary -exception,—that the slave, who was not represented, -was not taxed,—that he was not part of the “body-politic,”—that -the difference at that time was not between -white and black, but between slave and freeman, precisely -as in the days of Magna Charta,—that in most -of the States all freemen, without distinction of color, -were citizens,—and that, according to the history of -the times, there was no State which ventured to announce -in its Constitution a discrimination founded on -color, except Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina,—this -last the persevering enemy of republican government -for successive generations; so that, if we look at the -State Constitutions, we find that they also testify to -the true definition.</p> - -<p>There are words of authority which the champions -forget also. They forget Magna Charta, that great title-deed -called “the most august diploma and sacred anchor -of English liberties,” where, after declaring that “there -shall be but <i>one measure</i> throughout the realm,”<a name="FNanchor_44" id="FNanchor_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> it is -announced in memorable words, that “<i>no freeman</i> shall -be disseized of his freehold or liberties but by legal judgment -of his peers or by the law of the land,”<a name="FNanchor_45" id="FNanchor_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> meaning, -of course, the law of the whole land, <i>in contradistinction -to any local law</i>. The words with which this great -guaranty begin still resound: <i>Nullus liber homo</i>, “No -freeman,” shall be denied the liberties which belong to -freemen.</p> - -<p>The champions also forget that “The Federalist,” in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> -commending the Constitution, at the time of its adoption, -insisted, that, if the slaves became free, they would -be entitled to representation. I have quoted the potent -words before,<a name="FNanchor_46" id="FNanchor_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> and now I quote them again:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed -the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is -denied to them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, -that, if the laws were to restore the rights which have -been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an -equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.”<a name="FNanchor_47" id="FNanchor_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The champions also forget, that, in the debates on the -ratification of the National Constitution, it was charged -by its opponents, and admitted by its friends, that Congress -was empowered to correct any inequality of suffrage. -I content myself with quoting the weighty words -of Madison in the Virginia Convention:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Some States might regulate the elections on the principles -of <i>Equality</i>, and others might regulate them otherwise.… -Should the people of any State by any means be deprived -of the right of suffrage, <i>it was judged proper that it -should be remedied by the General Government</i>.… If the -elections be regulated properly by the State Legislatures, the -Congressional control will very probably never be exercised. -The power appears to me satisfactory, and as unlikely to be -abused as any part of the Constitution.”<a name="FNanchor_48" id="FNanchor_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The champions also forget that Chief Justice Taney, -in that very Dred Scott decision where it was ruled that -a person of African descent could not be a citizen of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> -United States, admitted, that, if he were once a citizen, -that is, if he were once admitted to be a component part -of the body-politic, he would be entitled to the equal -privileges of citizenship. Here are some of his emphatic -words:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“There is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of -writers on Government, or in any actual experiment heretofore -tried, an exposition of the term <i>citizen</i> which has not -been understood as conferring <i>the actual possession and enjoyment, -or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an -entire equality of privileges, civil and political</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_49" id="FNanchor_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Thus from every authority, early and late,—from -Magna Charta, wrung out of King John at Runnymede,—from -Hamilton, writing in “The Federalist,”—from -Madison, speaking in the Convention at Richmond,—from -Taney, presiding in the Supreme Court of the -United States,—is there one harmonious testimony to -the equal rights of citizenship.</p> - -<p>If in the original text of the Constitution there could -be any doubt, it was all relieved by the Amendment -abolishing Slavery and empowering Congress to enforce -this provision. Already Congress, in the exercise of this -power, has passed a <i>Civil Rights Act</i>. It only remains -that it should now pass a <i>Political Rights Act</i>, which, -like the former, shall help consummate the abolition of -Slavery. According to a familiar rule of interpretation, -expounded by Chief Justice Marshall in his most -masterly judgment, Congress, when intrusted with any -power, is at liberty to select the “means” for its execution.<a name="FNanchor_50" id="FNanchor_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> -The Civil Rights Act came under the head of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> -“means” selected by Congress, and a Political Rights -Act will have the same authority. You may as well -deny the constitutionality of the one as of the other.</p> - -<p>The Amendment abolishing Slavery has been reinforced -by another, known as Article XIV., which declares -peremptorily that “no State shall make or enforce -any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities -of citizens of the United States,” and again Congress -is empowered to enforce this provision. What can be -broader? Colored persons are citizens of the United -States, and no State can abridge their privileges or immunities. -It is a mockery to say, that, under these explicit -words, Congress is powerless to forbid any discrimination -of color at the ballot-box. Why, then, were -they inscribed in the Constitution? To what end? -There they stand, supplying additional and supernumerary -power, ample for safeguard against Caste or Oligarchy -of the Skin, no matter how strongly sanctioned -by any State Government.</p> - -<p>But the champions, anxious for State Rights against -Human Rights, strive to parry this positive text, by insisting, -that, in another provision of this same Amendment, -the power over the right to vote is conceded to the -States. Mark, now, the audacity and fragility of this -pretext. It is true, that, “when the right to vote … -is denied to any of the male inhabitants of a State, -… or in any way abridged, except for participation in -rebellion or other crime,” the basis of representation is -reduced in corresponding proportion. Such is the penalty -imposed by the Constitution on a State which denies -the right to vote, except in a specific case. But this -penalty on the State does not in any way, by the most -distant implication, impair the plenary powers of Congress<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> -to enforce the guaranty of a republican government, -the abolition of Slavery, and that final clause -guarding the rights of citizens,—three specific powers -which are left undisturbed, unless the old spirit of Slavery -is once more revived, and Congress is compelled -again to wear those degrading chains which for so long -a time rendered it powerless for Human Rights.</p> - -<p>The pretension, that the powers of Congress, derived -from the Constitution and its supplementary texts, were -all foreclosed, and that the definition of a republican -government was dishonored, merely by the indirect operation -of the clause imposing a penalty upon a State, -is the last effort of the champions. They are driven to -the assumption, that all these beneficent powers have -been taken away by indirection, and that a provision -evidently temporary and limited can have this overwhelming -consequence. They set up a technical rule of -law, “<i>Expressio unius est exclusio alterius</i>.” It is impossible -to see the application of this technicality. Because -the basis of representation is reduced in proportion to -any denial of the right to vote, therefore, it is argued, -the denial of the right to vote is placed beyond the -reach of Congress, notwithstanding all its plenary powers -from so many sources. It is enough to say of this -conclusion, that it is as strong as anything founded on the -“argal” of the grave-digger in “Hamlet.” Really, Sir, -it is too bad that so great a cause should be treated with -such levity.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Mr. President, I make haste to the conclusion. Unwilling -to protract this debate, I open the question in -glimpses only. Even in this imperfect way, it is clearly -seen, first, that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> -the National Constitution to sustain the pretension of -Caste or Oligarchy of the Skin, as set up by certain -States,—and, secondly, that there is in the National -Constitution a succession and reduplication of powers -investing Congress with ample authority to repress any -such pretension. In this conclusion, I raise no question -on the power of States to regulate the suffrage; I do not -ask Congress to undertake any such regulation. I simply -propose, that, under the pretence of regulating the -suffrage, States shall not exercise a prerogative hostile -to Human Rights, without any authority under the -National Constitution, and in defiance of its positive -texts.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I am now brought directly to the proposed Amendment -of the Constitution. Of course, the question stares -us in the face, Why amend what is already sufficient? -Why erect a supernumerary column?</p> - -<p>So far as I know, two reasons are assigned. The first -is, that the power of Congress is doubtful. It is natural -that those who do not sympathize strongly with the -Equal Rights of All should doubt. Men ordinarily find -in the Constitution what is in themselves; so that the -Constitution in its meaning is little more than a reflection -of their own inner nature. As I am unable to find -any ground of doubt, in substance or even in shadow, I -shrink from a proposition which assumes that there is -doubt. To my mind the power is too clear for question. -As well question the obligation of Congress to guaranty -a republican form of government, or the abolition of -Slavery, or the prohibition upon States to interfere with -the rights and privileges of citizenship, each of which is -beyond question.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span></p> - -<p>Another reason assigned for a Constitutional Amendment -is, its permanent character in comparison with an -Act of Congress, which may be repealed. On this head -I have no anxiety. Let this beneficent prohibition once -find place in our statute-book, and it will be lasting as -the National Constitution itself, to which it will be only -a legitimate corollary. In harmony with the Declaration -of Independence, and in harmony with the National -Constitution, it will become of equal significance, and no -profane hand will touch its sacred text. It will never -be repealed. The elective franchise, once recognized, -can never be denied,—once conferred, can never be -resumed. The rule of Equal Rights, once applied by -Congress under the National Constitution, will be a -permanent institution as long as the Republic endures; -for it will be a vital part of that Republican Government -to which the nation is pledged.</p> - -<p>Dismissing the reasons for the Amendment, I turn to -those which make us hesitate. There are two. The -Amendment admits, that, under the National Constitution -as it is, with its recent additions, a Caste and an -Oligarchy of the Skin may be set up by a State without -any check from Congress; that these ignoble forms of -inequality are consistent with republican government; -and that the right to vote is not an existing privilege -and immunity of citizenship. All this is plainly admitted -by the proposed Amendment,—thus despoiling -Congress of beneficent powers, and emasculating the -National Constitution itself. It is only with infinite -reluctance that I consent to any such admission, which, -in the endeavor to satisfy ungenerous scruples, weakens -all those texts which are so important for Human -Rights.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span></p> - -<p>The hesitation to present the Amendment is increased, -when we consider the difficulties in the way of its ratification. -I am no arithmetician, but I understand that -nobody has yet been able to enumerate the States whose -votes can be counted on to assure its ratification within -any reasonable time. Meanwhile this great question, -which cannot brook delay, which for the sake of peace -and to complete Reconstruction should be settled at -once, is handed over to prolonged controversy in the -States. I need not depict the evils which must ensue. -A State will become for the time a political caldron, into -which will be dropped all the poisoned ingredients of -prejudice and hate, while a powerful political party, -chanting, like the Witches in “Macbeth,”</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“Double, double, toil and trouble;</div> -<div class="verse">Fire, burn; and, caldron, bubble,”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">will use this very Amendment as the pudding-stick with -which to stir the bubbling mass. Such a controversy -should be avoided, if possible; nor should an agitation -so unwelcome and so sterile be needlessly invited. “Let -us have peace.”</p> - -<p>Of course, if there were no other way of accomplishing -the great result, the Amendment should be presented, -even with all its delays, uncertainties, and provocations -to local strife. But happily all these are unnecessary. -The same thing may be accomplished by Act of Congress, -without any delay, without any uncertainty, and -without any provocation to local strife. The same vote -of two thirds required for the presentation of the Amendment -will pass the Act over the veto of the President. -Once adopted, it will go into instant operation, without -waiting for the uncertain concurrence of State Legislatures, -and without provoking local strife so wearisome to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> -the country. The States will not be turned into political -caldrons, and the Democratic party will have no -pudding-stick with which to stir the bubbling mass.</p> - -<p>I do not depart from the proprieties of this occasion, -when I show how completely the course I now propose -harmonizes with the requirements of the political party -to which I belong. Believing most sincerely that the -Republican party, in its objects, is identical with country -and with mankind, so that in sustaining it I sustain -these comprehensive charities, I cannot willingly see this -agency lose the opportunity of confirming its supremacy. -You need votes in Connecticut, do you not? There are -three thousand fellow-citizens in that State ready at the -call of Congress to take their place at the ballot-box. -You need them also in Pennsylvania, do you not? -There are at least fifteen thousand in that great State -waiting for your summons. Wherever you most need -them, there they are; and be assured they will all vote -for those who stand by them in the assertion of Equal -Rights. In standing by them you stand by all that is -most dear in the Republic.</p> - -<p>Pardon me,—but, if you are not moved by considerations -of justice under the Constitution, then I appeal -to that humbler motive which is found in the desire for -success. Do this and you will assure the triumph of -all that you can most desire. Party, country, mankind, -will be elevated, while the Equal Rights of All will be -fixed on a foundation not less enduring than the Rock -of Ages.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The bill offered by Mr. Sumner as a substitute for the original joint -resolution was rejected; and the latter, embodying the proposed Amendment -to the Constitution, failed for want of the requisite two-thirds of -the votes cast,—these standing, Yeas 31, Nays 27.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CLAIMS_ON_ENGLAND_INDIVIDUAL_AND" id="CLAIMS_ON_ENGLAND_INDIVIDUAL_AND"></a>CLAIMS ON ENGLAND,—INDIVIDUAL AND -NATIONAL.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech on the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, in Executive -Session of the Senate, April 13, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—A report recommending that -the Senate do not advise and consent to a treaty -with a foreign power, duly signed by the plenipotentiary -of the nation, is of rare occurrence. Treaties are often -reported with amendments, and sometimes without any -recommendation; but I do not recall an instance, since -I came into the Senate, where such a treaty has been -reported with the recommendation which is now under -consideration. The character of the treaty seemed to -justify the exceptional report. The Committee did not -hesitate in the conclusion that it ought to be rejected, -and they have said so.</p> - -<p>I do not disguise the importance of this act; but I -believe that in the interest of peace, which every one -should have at heart, the treaty must be rejected. A -treaty, which, instead of removing an existing grievance, -leaves it for heart-burning and rancor, cannot be considered -a settlement of pending questions between two nations. -It may seem to settle them, but does not. It is -nothing but a snare. And such is the character of the -treaty now before us. The massive grievance under -which our country suffered for years is left untouched; -the painful sense of wrong planted in the national heart<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> -is allowed to remain. For all this there is not one word -of regret, or even of recognition; nor is there any semblance -of compensation. It cannot be for the interest of -either party that such a treaty should be ratified. It -cannot promote the interest of the United States, for we -naturally seek justice as the foundation of a good understanding -with Great Britain; nor can it promote the -interest of Great Britain, which must also seek a real -settlement of all pending questions. Surely I do not -err, when I say that a wise statesmanship, whether on -our side or on the other side, must apply itself to find -the real root of evil, and then, with courage tempered -by candor and moderation, see that it is extirpated. -This is for the interest of both parties, and anything -short of it is a failure. It is sufficient to say that the -present treaty does no such thing, and that, whatever -may have been the disposition of the negotiators, the -real root of evil remains untouched in all its original -strength.</p> - -<p>I make these remarks merely to characterize the -treaty and prepare the way for its consideration.</p> - -<h3>THE PENDING TREATY.</h3> - -<p>If we look at the negotiation which immediately preceded -the treaty, we find little to commend. You have -it on your table. I think I am not mistaken, when I -say that it shows a haste which finds few precedents in -diplomacy, but which is explained by the anxiety to -reach a conclusion before the advent of a new Administration. -Mr. Seward and Mr. Reverdy Johnson unite -in this unprecedented activity, using the Atlantic cable -freely. I should not object to haste, or to the freest use<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> -of the cable, if the result were such as could be approved; -but, considering the character of the transaction, -and how completely the treaty conceals the main -cause of offence, it seems as if the honorable negotiators -were engaged in huddling something out of sight.</p> - -<p>The treaty has for its model the Claims Convention -of 1853. To take such a convention as a model was a -strange mistake. This convention was for the settlement -of outstanding claims of American citizens on Great -Britain, and of British subjects on the United States, -which had arisen since the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. It -concerned individuals only, and not the nation. It was -not in any respect political; nor was it to remove any -sense of national wrong. To take such a convention as -the model for a treaty which was to determine a national -grievance of transcendent importance in the relations of -two countries marked on the threshold an insensibility -to the true nature of the difference to be settled. At -once it belittled the work to be done.</p> - -<p>An inspection of the treaty shows how from beginning -to end it is merely for the settlement of individual -claims on both sides, putting the two batches on an -equality, so that the sufferers by the misconduct of England -may be counterbalanced by British blockade-runners. -It opens with a preamble, which, instead of announcing -the unprecedented question between the two -countries, simply refers to individual claims that have -arisen since 1853,—the last time of settlement,—some -of which are still pending and remain unsettled. Who -would believe that under these words of commonplace -was concealed the unsettled difference which has already -so deeply stirred the American people, and is destined, -until finally adjusted, to occupy the attention of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> -civilized world? Nothing here gives notice of the real -question. I quote the preamble, as it is the key-note to -the treaty:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Whereas claims have at various times since the exchange -of the ratifications of the convention between Great Britain -and the United States of America, signed at London on the -8th of February, 1853, been made upon the Government of -her Britannic Majesty on the part of citizens of the United -States, and upon the Government of the United States on -the part of subjects of her Britannic Majesty; and whereas -<i>some of such claims are still pending and remain unsettled</i>; -her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain -and Ireland, and the President of the United States of -America, being of opinion that a speedy and equitable settlement -of all such claims will contribute much to the maintenance -of the friendly feelings which subsist between the two -countries, have resolved to make arrangements for that purpose -by means of a convention.”<a name="FNanchor_51" id="FNanchor_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The provisions of the treaty are for the trial of these -cases. A commission is constituted, which is empowered -to choose an arbitrator; but, in the event of a failure to -agree, the arbitrator shall be determined “by lot” from -two persons, one named by each side. Even if this aleatory -proceeding were a proper device in the umpirage of -private claims, it is strangely inconsistent with the solemnity -which belongs to the present question. The -moral sense is disturbed by such a process at any stage -of the trial; nor is it satisfied by the subsequent provision -for the selection of a sovereign or head of a friendly -state as arbitrator.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span></p> - -<p>The treaty not merely makes no provision for the determination -of the great question, but it seems to provide -expressly that it shall never hereafter be presented. A -petty provision for individual claims, subject to a set-off -by the individual claims of England, so that in the end -our country may possibly receive nothing, is the consideration -for this strange surrender. I borrow a term from -an English statesman on another occasion, if I call it a -“capitulation.”<a name="FNanchor_52" id="FNanchor_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> For the settlement of a few individual -claims, we condone the original far-reaching and destructive -wrong. Here are the plain words by which -this is done:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The high contracting parties engage to consider the result -of the proceedings of this commission as a full and final settlement -of every claim upon either Government arising out of -any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the ratifications -of the present convention; and further engage that -every such claim, whether or not the same may have been -presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the -said commission, shall, from and after the conclusion of the -proceedings of the said commission, be considered and treated -as finally settled and barred, and thenceforth inadmissible.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>All this I quote directly from the treaty. It is Article -V. The national cause is handled as nothing more -than a bundle of individual claims, and the result of the -proceedings under the proposed treaty is to be “a full -and final settlement,” so that hereafter all claims “shall -be considered and treated as finally settled and barred, -and thenceforth inadmissible.” Here is no provision for -the real question, which, though thrust out of sight, or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> -declared to be “finally settled and barred,” according to -the terms of the treaty, must return to plague the two -countries. Whatever the treaty may say in terms, there -is no settlement in fact; and until this is made, there -will be constant menace of discord. Nor can it be forgotten -that there is no recognition of the rule of international -duty applicable to such cases. This, too, is left -unsettled.</p> - -<p>While doing so little for us, the treaty makes ample -provision for all known claims on the British side. As -these are exclusively “individual,” they are completely -covered by the text, which has no limitations or exceptions. -Already it is announced in England that even -those of “Confederate bondholders” are included. I -have before me an English journal which describes the -latter claims as founded on “immense quantities of cotton, -worth at the time of their seizure nearly two shillings -a pound, which were then in the legal possession -of those bondholders”; and the same authority adds, -“These claims will be brought, indifferently with others, -before the designed joint commission, whenever it shall -sit.” From another quarter I learn that these bondholders -are “very sanguine of success <i>under the treaty as it -is worded</i>, and certain it is that the loan went up from 0 -to 10 as soon as it was ascertained that the treaty was -signed.” I doubt if the American people are ready just -now to provide for any such claims. That they have risen -in the market is an argument against the treaty.</p> - -<h3>THE CASE AGAINST ENGLAND.</h3> - -<p>Passing from the treaty, I come now to consider -briefly, but with proper precision, the true ground of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> -complaint; and here again we shall see the constant -inadequacy of the remedy now applied. It is with reluctance -that I enter upon this statement, and I do it -only in the discharge of a duty which cannot be postponed.</p> - -<p>Close upon the outbreak of our troubles, little more -than one month after the bombardment of Fort Sumter, -when the Rebellion was still undeveloped, when the National -Government was beginning those gigantic efforts -which ended so triumphantly, the country was startled -by the news that the British Government had intervened -by a Proclamation which accorded belligerent rights to -the Rebels. At the early date when this was done, the -Rebels were, as they remained to the close, without ships -on the ocean, without prize courts or other tribunal for -the administration of justice on the ocean, <i>without any -of those conditions which are the essential prerequisites to -such a concession</i>; and yet the concession was general, -being applicable to the ocean and the land, so that by -British fiat they became ocean belligerents as well as -land belligerents. In the swiftness of this bestowal -there was very little consideration for a friendly power; -nor does it appear that there was any inquiry into those -<i>conditions-precedent</i> on which it must depend. Ocean -belligerency, being a “fact,” and not a “principle,” can -be recognized only on evidence showing its <i>actual existence</i>, -according to the rule first stated by Mr. Canning -and afterward recognized by Lord John Russell.<a name="FNanchor_53" id="FNanchor_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> But -no such evidence was adduced; for it did not exist, and -never has existed.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span></p> - -<p>Too much stress cannot be laid upon the rule, that -belligerency is a “fact,” and not a “principle.” It is -perhaps the most important contribution to this discussion; -and its original statement, on the occasion of the -Greek Revolution, does honor to its author, unquestionably -the brightest genius ever directed to this subject. -According to this rule, belligerency must be proved to -exist; it must be shown. It cannot be imagined, or divined, -or invented; it must exist as a “fact” within the -knowledge of the world, or at least as a “fact” susceptible -of proof. Nor can it be inferred on the ocean -merely from its existence on the land. From the beginning, -when “God called the dry land Earth, and the -gathering together of the waters called He Seas,” the -two have been separate, and power over one has not -necessarily implied power over the other. There is a -dominion of the land, and a dominion of the ocean. -But, whatever power the Rebels possessed on the land, -they were always without power on the ocean. Admitting -that they were belligerents on the land, they were -never belligerents on the ocean.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“The oak leviathans, whose huge ribs make</div> -<div class="verse">Their clay creator the vain title take</div> -<div class="verse">Of lord of thee, <i>and arbiter of war</i>,”—</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">these they never possessed. Such was the “fact” that -must govern the present question. The rule, so simple, -plain, and intelligible, as stated by Mr. Canning, is a decisive -touchstone of the British concession, which, when -brought to it, is found to be without support.</p> - -<p>Unfriendly in the precipitancy with which it was -launched, this concession was more unfriendly in substance. -It was the first stage in the depredations on our -commerce. Had it not been made, no Rebel ship could<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> -have been built in England: every step in her building -would have been piracy. Nor could any munitions of -war have been furnished: not a blockade-runner, laden -with supplies, could have left the English shores, except -under a kindred penalty. The direct consequence of -this concession was to place the Rebels on an equality -with ourselves in all British markets, whether of ships -or munitions of war. As these were open to the National -Government, so they were open to the Rebels. -The asserted neutrality between the two began by this -tremendous concession, when the Rebels, at one stroke, -were transformed not only into belligerents, but into -customers.</p> - -<p>In attributing to that bad Proclamation this peculiar -influence I follow the authority of the Law Lords of -England, who, according to authentic report, announced -that without it the fitting out of a ship in England to -cruise against the United States would have been an act -of piracy. This conclusion was clearly stated by Lord -Chelmsford, ex-Chancellor, speaking for himself and -others, when he said: “If the Southern Confederacy -had not been recognized by us as <i>a belligerent power</i>, -he agreed with his noble and learned friend [Lord -Brougham], that any Englishman aiding them by fitting -out a privateer against the Federal Government <i>would -be guilty of piracy</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_54" id="FNanchor_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> This conclusion is only according -to analogies of law. It is criminal for British subjects -to forge bombs or hand-grenades to be employed in the -assassination of a foreign sovereign at peace with England, -as when Bernard supplied from England the missiles -used by Orsini against the life of the French<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> -Emperor,—all of which is illustrated by Lord Chief-Justice -Campbell, in his charge to the jury on the trial -of Bernard, and also by contemporaneous opinions of -Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Truro, and at an -earlier day by Lord Ellenborough in a case of libel on -the First Consul. That excellent authority, Sir George -Cornewall Lewis, gives a summary drawn from all these -opinions, when he says: “The obligation incumbent -upon a state of preventing her soil from being used <i>as -an arsenal</i>, in which the means of attack against a foreign -government may be collected and prepared for use, is -wholly independent of the form and character of that -government.”<a name="FNanchor_55" id="FNanchor_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> As every government is constrained by -this rule, so every government is entitled to its safeguards. -There can be no reason why the life of our Republic -should be less sacred than the life of an Emperor, -or should enjoy less protection from British law. That -England became an “arsenal” for the Rebels we know; -but this could not have been, unless the Proclamation -had prepared the way.</p> - -<p>The only justification that I have heard for this extraordinary -concession, which unleashed upon our country -the Furies of War to commingle with the Furies of Rebellion -at home, is, that President Lincoln undertook to -proclaim a <i>blockade</i> of the Rebel ports. By the use of -this word “blockade” the concession is vindicated. Had -President Lincoln proclaimed a <i>closing</i> of the Rebel -ports, there could have been no such concession. This -is a mere technicality; lawyers might call it an <i>apex -juris</i>; and yet on this sharp point England hangs her -defence. It is sufficient that in a great case like the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> -present, where the correlative duties of a friendly power -are in question, an act fraught with such portentous evil -cannot be vindicated on a technicality. In this debate -there is no room for technicality on either side. We -must look at the substance, and find a reason in nothing -short of overruling necessity. War cannot be justified -merely on a technicality; nor can the concession of -ocean belligerency to rebels without a port or prize court. -Such a concession, like war itself, must be at the peril of -the nation making it.</p> - -<p>The British assumption, besides being offensive from -mere technicality, is inconsistent with the Proclamation -of the President, taken as a whole, which, while appointing -a blockade, is careful to reserve the rights of sovereignty, -thus putting foreign powers on their guard -against any premature concession. After declaring an -existing insurrection in certain States, and the obstruction -of the laws for the collection of the revenue, as the -motive for action, the President invokes not only the -Law of Nations, but “the laws of the United States,” -and, in further assertion of the national sovereignty, declares -Rebel cruisers to be pirates.<a name="FNanchor_56" id="FNanchor_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> Clearly the Proclamation -must be taken as a whole, and its different provisions -so interpreted as to harmonize with each other. -If they cannot stand together, then it is the “blockade” -which must be modified by the national sovereignty, -and not the national sovereignty by the blockade. Such -should have been the interpretation of a friendly power, -especially when it is considered that there are numerous -precedents of what the great German authority, Heffter, -calls “Pacific Blockade,” or blockade without concession<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> -of ocean belligerency,—as in the case of France, England, -and Russia against Turkey, 1827; France against -Mexico, 1837-39; France and Great Britain against -the Argentine Republic, 1838-48; Russia against the -Circassians, 1831-36, illustrated by the seizure of the -Vixen, so famous in diplomatic history.<a name="FNanchor_57" id="FNanchor_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> Cases like -these led Heffter to lay down the rule, that “<i>blockade</i>” -does not necessarily constitute <i>a state of regular war</i>,<a name="FNanchor_58" id="FNanchor_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> as -was assumed by the British Proclamation, even in the -face of positive words by President Lincoln asserting -the national sovereignty and appealing to “the laws of -the United States.” The existence of such cases was -like a notice to the British Government against the -concession so rashly made. It was an all-sufficient -warning, which this power disregarded.</p> - -<p>So far as is now known, the whole case for England is -made to stand on the use of the word “Blockade” by -President Lincoln. Had he used any other word, the -concession of belligerency would have been without justification, -even such as is now imagined. It was this -word which, with magical might, opened the gates to all -those bountiful supplies by which hostile expeditions -were equipped against the United States: it opened the -gates of war. Most appalling is it to think that one -little word, unconsciously used by a trusting President, -could be caught up by a friendly power and made to play -such a part.</p> - -<p>I may add that there is one other word often invoked -for apology. It is “Neutrality,” which, it is said, was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> -proclaimed between two belligerents. Nothing could be -fairer, always provided that the “neutrality” proclaimed -did not begin with a concession to one party without -which this party would be powerless. Between two -established Nations, both independent, as between Russia -and France, there may be neutrality; for the two are -already equal in rights, and the proclamation would be -precisely equal in its operation. But where one party is -an established Nation, and the other is nothing but an -odious combination of Rebels, the proclamation is most -unequal in operation; for it begins by a solemn investiture -of Rebels with all the rights of war, saying to them, -as was once said to the youthful knight, “Rise; here is -a sword; use it.” To call such an investiture a proclamation -of neutrality is a misnomer. It was a proclamation -of equality between the National Government on -the one side and Rebels on the other, and no plausible -word can obscure this distinctive character.</p> - -<p>Then came the building of the pirate ships, one after -another. While the Alabama was still in the ship-yard, -it became apparent that she was intended for the Rebels. -Our Minister at London and our Consul at Liverpool -exerted themselves for her arrest and detention. They -were put off from day to day. On the 24th July, 1862, -Mr. Adams “completed his evidence,” accompanied by -an opinion from the eminent barrister, Mr. Collier, afterward -Solicitor-General, declaring the plain duty of -the British Government to stop her.<a name="FNanchor_59" id="FNanchor_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> Instead of acting -promptly by the telegraph, five days were allowed -to run out, when at last, too tardily, the necessary order -was dispatched. Meanwhile the pirate ship escaped<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> -from the port of Liverpool by a stratagem, and her voyage -began with music and frolic. Here, beyond all -question, was negligence, or, according to the language -of Lord Brougham on another occasion, “crass negligence,” -making England justly responsible for all that -ensued.</p> - -<p>The pirate ship found refuge in an obscure harbor of -Wales, known as Moelfra Bay, where she lay in British -waters <i>from half-past seven o’clock, P. M., July 29th, to -about three o’clock, A. M., July 31st</i>, being upward of -thirty-one hours, and during this time she was supplied -with men from the British steam-tug Hercules, which -followed her from Liverpool. These thirty-one hours -were allowed to elapse without any attempt to stop her. -Here was another stage of “crass negligence.”</p> - -<p>Thus was there negligence in allowing the building to -proceed, negligence in allowing the escape from Liverpool, -and negligence in allowing the final escape from -the British coast.</p> - -<p>Lord Russell, while trying to vindicate his Government, -and repelling the complaints of the United States, -more than once admitted that the escape of the Alabama -was “a scandal and a reproach,”<a name="FNanchor_60" id="FNanchor_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> which to my mind is -very like a confession. Language could not be stronger. -Surely such an act cannot be blameless. If damages are -ever awarded to a friendly power for injuries received, it -is difficult to see where they could be more strenuously -claimed than in a case which the First Minister of the -offending power did not hesitate to characterize so -strongly.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span></p> - -<p>The enlistment of the crew was not less obnoxious to -censure than the building of the ship and her escape. It -was a part of the transaction. The evidence is explicit. -Not to occupy too much time, I refer only to the deposition -of William Passmore, who swears that he was engaged -with the express understanding that “the vessel -was going out to the Government of the Confederate -States of America,” “to fight for the Southern Government”; -that he joined her at Laird’s yard at Birkenhead, -near Liverpool, remaining there several weeks; -that there were about thirty men on board, most of them -old man-of-war’s men, among whom it was “well known -that the vessel was going out as a privateer for the Confederate -Government, to act against the United States, -under a commission from Mr. Jefferson Davis.”<a name="FNanchor_61" id="FNanchor_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> In a -list of the crew, now before me, there is a large number -said to be from the “Royal Naval Reserve.”<a name="FNanchor_62" id="FNanchor_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> I might -add to this testimony. The more the case is examined, -the more clearly do we discern the character of the transaction.</p> - -<p>The dedication of the ship to the Rebel service, from -the very laying of the keel and the organization of her -voyage, with England as her <i>naval base</i>, from which she -drew munitions of war and men, made her departure as -much <i>a hostile expedition</i> as if she had sailed forth from -her Majesty’s dock-yard. At a moment of profound peace -between the United States and England there was a hostile -expedition against the United States. It was in no -just sense a commercial transaction, but an act of war.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span></p> - -<p>The case is not yet complete. The Alabama, whose -building was in defiance of law, international and municipal, -whose escape was “a scandal and a reproach,” and -whose enlistment of her crew was a fit sequel to the rest, -after being supplied with an armament and with a Rebel -commander, entered upon her career of piracy. Mark -now a new stage of complicity. Constantly the pirate -ship was within reach of British cruisers, and from time -to time within the shelter of British ports. For five -days, unmolested, she enjoyed the pleasant hospitality -of Kingston, in Jamaica, obtaining freely the coal and -other supplies so necessary to her vocation. But no -British cruiser, no British magistrate ever arrested the -offending ship, whose voyage was a continuing “scandal -and reproach” to the British Government.</p> - -<p>The excuse for this strange license is a curious technicality,—as -if a technicality could avail in this case at -any stage. Borrowing a phrase from that master of admiralty -jurisprudence, Sir William Scott, it is said that -the ship “deposited” her original sin at the conclusion -of her voyage, so that afterward she was blameless. But -the Alabama never concluded her voyage until she sank -under the guns of the Kearsarge, because she never had -a port of her own. She was no better than the Flying -Dutchman, and so long as she sailed was liable for that -original sin, which had impregnated every plank with -an indelible dye. No British cruiser could allow her to -proceed, no British port could give her shelter, without -renewing the complicity of England.</p> - -<p>The Alabama case begins with a fatal concession, by -which the Rebels were enabled to build ships in England, -and then to sail them, without being liable as -pirates; it next shows itself in the building of the ship,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> -in the armament, and in the escape, with so much of -negligence on the part of the British Government as to -constitute sufferance, if not connivance; and then, again, -the case reappears in the welcome and hospitality accorded -by British cruisers and by the magistrates of -British ports to the pirate ship, when her evasion from -British jurisdiction was well known. Thus at three different -stages the British Government is compromised: -first, in the concession of ocean belligerency, on which -all depended; secondly, in the negligence which allowed -the evasion of the ship, in order to enter upon the hostile -expedition for which she was built, manned, armed, -and equipped; and, thirdly, in the open complicity -which, after this evasion, gave her welcome, hospitality, -and supplies in British ports. Thus her depredations -and burnings, making the ocean blaze, all proceeded -from England, which by three different acts lighted the -torch. To England must be traced, also, all the wide-spread -consequences which ensued.</p> - -<p>I take the case of the Alabama because it is the best -known, and because the building, equipment, and escape -of this ship were under circumstances most obnoxious to -judgment; but it will not be forgotten that there were -consort ships, built under the shelter of that fatal Proclamation, -issued in such an eclipse of just principles, -and, like the ships it unloosed, “rigged with curses -dark.” One after another, ships were built; one after -another, they escaped on their errand; and, one after -another, they enjoyed the immunities of British ports. -Audacity reached its height when iron-clad rams were -built, and the perversity of the British Government became -still more conspicuous by its long refusal to arrest -these destructive engines of war, destined to be employed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> -against the United States. This protracted hesitation, -where the consequences were so menacing, is a part of -the case.</p> - -<p>It is plain that the ships which were built under the -safeguard of this ill-omened Proclamation, which stole -forth from the British shores and afterward enjoyed the -immunities of British ports, were not only British in -origin, but British in equipment, British in armament, -and British in crews. They were British in every respect, -except in their commanders, who were Rebel; and -one of these, as his ship was sinking, owed his safety to -a British yacht, symbolizing the omnipresent support of -England. British sympathies were active in their behalf. -The cheers of a British passenger-ship crossing -the path of the Alabama encouraged the work of piracy; -and the cheers of the House of Commons encouraged -the builder of the Alabama, while he defended what he -had done, and exclaimed, in taunt to him who is now an -illustrious member of the British Cabinet, John Bright, -that he “would rather be handed down to posterity as -the builder of a dozen Alabamas” than be the author of -the speeches of that gentleman “crying up” the institutions -of the United States, which the builder of the -Alabama, rising with his theme, denounced as “of no -value whatever,” and as “reducing the very name of -Liberty to an utter absurdity,”<a name="FNanchor_63" id="FNanchor_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> while the cheers of the -House of Commons echoed back his words. Thus from -beginning to end, from the fatal Proclamation to the rejoicing -of the accidental ship and the rejoicing of the -House of Commons, was this hostile expedition protected<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> -and encouraged by England. The same spirit which -dictated the swift concession of belligerency, with all -its deadly incidents, ruled the hour, entering into and -possessing every pirate ship.</p> - -<p>There are two circumstances by which the whole case -is aggravated. One is found in the date of the Proclamation -which lifted the Rebels to an equality with the -National Government, opening to them everything that -was open to us, whether ship-yards, foundries, or manufactories, -and giving to them a flag on the ocean coëqual -with the flag of the Union. This extraordinary manifesto -was signed on the very day of the arrival of our -Minister in England,—so that, when, after an ocean -voyage, he reached the British Government, to which he -was accredited, he found this great and terrible indignity -to his country already perpetrated, and the floodgates -opened to infinite woes. The Minister had been -announced; he was daily expected; the British Government -knew of his coming;—but in hottest haste -they did this thing.</p> - -<p>The other aggravation is found in its flagrant, unnatural -departure from that Antislavery rule which, -by manifold declarations, legislative, political, and diplomatic, -was the avowed creed of England. Often was -this rule proclaimed, but, if we except the great Act of -Emancipation, never more pointedly than in the famous -circular of Lord Palmerston, while Minister of Foreign -Affairs, announcing to all nations that England was -pledged to the Universal Abolition of Slavery.<a name="FNanchor_64" id="FNanchor_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> And<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> -now, when Slaveholders, in the very madness of barbarism, -broke away from the National Government and -attempted to found a new empire with Slavery as its -declared corner-stone, Antislavery England, without a -day’s delay, without even waiting the arrival of our -Minister at the seat of Government, although known -to be on his way, made haste to decree that this shameful -and impossible pretension should enjoy equal rights -with the National Government in her ship-yards, foundries, -and manufactories, and equal rights on the ocean. -Such was the decree. Rebel Slaveholders, occupied in -a hideous attempt, were taken by the hand, and thus, -with the official protection and the God-speed of Antislavery -England, commenced their accursed work.</p> - -<p>I close this part of the argument with the testimony -of Mr. Bright, who, in a speech at Rochdale, among his -neighbors, February 3, 1863, thus exhibits the criminal -complicity of England:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I regret, more than I have words to express, this painful -fact, that, of all the countries in Europe, this country is the -only one which has men in it who are willing to take active -steps in favor of this intended Slave Government. We supply -the ships; we supply the arms, the munitions of war; -<i>we give aid and comfort to this foulest of all crimes. Englishmen -only do it.</i>”<a name="FNanchor_65" id="FNanchor_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>In further illustration, and in support of Mr. Bright’s -allegation, I refer again to the multitudinous blockade-runners -from England. Without the manifesto of belligerency -they could not have sailed. All this stealthy -fleet, charged with hostility to the United States, was a -part of the great offence. The blockade-runners were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> -kindred to the pirate ships. They were of the same bad -family, having their origin and home in England. From -the beginning they went forth with their cargoes of -death;—for the supplies which they furnished contributed -to the work of death. When, after a long and -painful siege, our conquering troops entered Vicksburg, -they found Armstrong guns from England in position;<a name="FNanchor_66" id="FNanchor_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> -and so on every field where our patriot fellow-citizens -breathed a last breath were English arms and munitions -of war, all testifying against England. The dead spoke, -also,—and the wounded still speak.</p> - -<h3>REPARATION FROM ENGLAND.</h3> - -<p>At last the Rebellion succumbed. British ships and -British supplies had done their work, but they failed. -And now the day of reckoning has come,—but with -little apparent sense of what is due on the part of England. -Without one soothing word for a friendly power -deeply aggrieved, without a single regret for what Mr. -Cobden, in the House of Commons, called “the cruel -losses”<a name="FNanchor_67" id="FNanchor_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> inflicted upon us, or for what Mr. Bright called -“aid and comfort to the foulest of all crimes,”<a name="FNanchor_68" id="FNanchor_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> or for -what a generous voice from Oxford University denounced -as a “flagrant and maddening wrong,”<a name="FNanchor_69" id="FNanchor_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> England simply -proposes to submit the question of liability for individual -losses to an anomalous tribunal where chance plays<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> -its part. This is all. Nothing is admitted, even on this -question; no rule for the future is established; while -nothing is said of the indignity to the nation, nor of the -damages to the nation. On an earlier occasion it was -otherwise.</p> - -<p>There is an unhappy incident in our relations with -Great Britain, which attests how in other days individual -losses were only a minor element in reparation for -a wrong received by the nation. You all know from -history how in time of profound peace, and only a few -miles outside the Virginia Capes, the British frigate -Leopard fired into the national frigate Chesapeake, pouring -broadside upon broadside, killing three persons and -wounding eighteen, some severely, and then, boarding -her, carried off four others as British subjects. This was -in the summer of 1807. The brilliant Mr. Canning, British -Minister of Foreign Affairs, promptly volunteered -overtures for an accommodation, by declaring his Majesty’s -readiness to take the whole of the circumstances -of the case into consideration, and “to make reparation -for <i>any alleged injury to the sovereignty of the United -States</i>, whenever it should be clearly shown that such -injury has been actually sustained and that such reparation -is really due.”<a name="FNanchor_70" id="FNanchor_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> Here was a good beginning. There -was to be reparation for an injury to the national sovereignty. -After years of painful negotiation, the British -Minister at Washington, under date of November -1, 1811, offered to the United States three propositions: -first, the disavowal of the unauthorized act; secondly, -the immediate restoration, so far as circumstances would -permit, of the men forcibly taken from the Chesapeake;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> -and, thirdly, a suitable pecuniary provision for the sufferers -in consequence of the attack on the Chesapeake; -concluding with these words:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“These honorable propositions are made with the sincere -desire that they may prove satisfactory to the Government of -the United States, and I trust they will meet with that amicable -reception which their conciliatory nature entitles them -to. I need scarcely add how cordially I join with you in the -wish that they might prove introductory to a removal of all -the differences depending between our two countries.”<a name="FNanchor_71" id="FNanchor_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>I adduce this historic instance to illustrate partly the -different forms of reparation. Here, of course, was reparation -to individuals; but there was also reparation to -the nation, whose sovereignty had been outraged.</p> - -<p>There is another instance, which is not without authority. -In 1837 an armed force from Upper Canada -crossed the river just above the Falls of Niagara, and -burned an American vessel, the Caroline, while moored -to the shores of the United States. Mr. Webster, in his -negotiation with Lord Ashburton, characterized this act -as “of itself a wrong, and an offence to the sovereignty -and the dignity of the United States, … for which, -to this day, no atonement, or even apology, has been -made by her Majesty’s Government,”<a name="FNanchor_72" id="FNanchor_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a>—all these words -being strictly applicable to the present case. Lord Ashburton, -in reply, after recapitulating some mitigating -circumstances, and expressing a regret “that some explanation -and apology for this occurrence was not immediately -made,” proceeds to say:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Her Majesty’s Government earnestly desire that a reciprocal -respect for the independent jurisdiction and authority of -neighboring states may be considered among the first duties -of all Governments; and I have to repeat the assurance of -regret they feel that the event of which I am treating should -have disturbed the harmony they so anxiously wish to maintain -with the American people and Government.”<a name="FNanchor_73" id="FNanchor_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Here again was reparation for a wrong done to the -nation.</p> - -<p>Looking at what is due to us on the present occasion, -we are brought again to the conclusion that the satisfaction -of individuals whose ships have been burnt or sunk -is only a small part of what we may justly expect. As -in the earlier cases where the national sovereignty was -insulted, there should be an acknowledgment of wrong, -or at least of liability, leaving to the commissioners the -assessment of damages only. The blow inflicted by that -fatal Proclamation which insulted our national sovereignty -and struck at our unity as a nation, followed by -broadside upon broadside, driving our commerce from -the ocean, was kindred in character to those earlier -blows; and when we consider that it was in aid of -Slavery, it was a blow at Civilization itself. Besides -degrading us and ruining our commerce, its direct and -constant influence was to encourage the Rebellion, and -to prolong the war waged by Slaveholders at such cost -of treasure and blood. It was a terrible mistake, -which I cannot doubt that good Englishmen must regret. -And now, in the interest of peace, it is the duty of both -sides to find a remedy, complete, just, and conciliatory, -so that the deep sense of wrong and the detriment to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> -the Republic may be forgotten in that proper satisfaction -which a nation loving justice cannot hesitate to -offer.</p> - -<h3>THE EXTENT OF OUR LOSSES.</h3> - -<p><i>Individual losses</i> may be estimated with reasonable -accuracy. Ships burnt or sunk with their cargoes may -be counted, and their value determined; but this leaves -without recognition the vaster damage to commerce -driven from the ocean, and that other damage, immense -and infinite, caused by the prolongation of the war, all -of which may be called <i>national</i> in contradistinction -to <i>individual</i>.</p> - -<p>Our <i>national losses</i> have been frankly conceded by -eminent Englishmen. I have already quoted Mr. Cobden, -who did not hesitate to call them “cruel losses.” -During the same debate in which he let drop this testimony, -he used other words, which show how justly he -comprehended the case. “<i>You have been</i>,” said he, -“<i>carrying on hostilities from these shores against the -people of the United States</i>, and have been inflicting an -amount of damage on that country greater than would -be produced by many ordinary wars. It is estimated -that the loss sustained by the capture and burning of -American vessels has been about $15,000,000, or nearly -£3,000,000 sterling. <i>But that is a small part of the injury -which has been inflicted on the American marine.</i> -We have rendered the rest of her vast mercantile property -for the present valueless.”<a name="FNanchor_74" id="FNanchor_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> Thus, by the testimony -of Mr. Cobden, were those individual losses which are -alone recognized by the pending treaty only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> “a small -part of the injury inflicted.” After confessing his fears -with regard to “the heaping up of a <i>gigantic material -grievance</i>” such as was then accumulating, he adds, in -memorable words:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“You have already done your worst towards the American -mercantile marine. What with the high rate of insurance, -what with these captures, and what with the rapid transfer -of tonnage to British capitalists, you have virtually made -valueless that vast property. Why, if you had gone and -helped the Confederates by bombarding all the accessible -seaport towns of America, a few lives might have been lost, -which, as it is, have not been sacrificed; but you could -hardly have done more injury in the way of destroying property -than you have done by these few cruisers.”<a name="FNanchor_75" id="FNanchor_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>With that clearness of vision which he possessed in -such rare degree, this statesman saw that England had -“virtually made valueless a vast property,” as much as -if this power had “bombarded all the accessible seaport -towns of America.”</p> - -<p>So strong and complete is this statement, that any -further citation seems superfluous; but I cannot forbear -adducing a pointed remark in the same debate, by that -able gentleman, Mr. William E. Forster:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“There could not,” said he, “be a stronger illustration of -the damage which had been done to the American trade by -these cruisers than the fact, that, so completely was the American -flag driven from the ocean, the Georgia, on her second -cruise, did not meet a single American vessel in six weeks, -though she saw no less than seventy vessels in a very few -days.”<a name="FNanchor_76" id="FNanchor_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span></p> - -<p>This is most suggestive. So entirely was our commerce -driven from the ocean, that for six weeks not an -American vessel was seen!</p> - -<p>Another Englishman, in an elaborate pamphlet, bears -similar testimony. I refer to the pamphlet of Mr. Edge, -published in London by Ridgway in 1863, and entitled -“The Destruction of the American Carrying-Trade.” -After setting forth at length the destruction of our commerce -by British pirates, this writer thus foreshadows -the damages:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Were we,” says he, “the sufferers, we should certainly -demand compensation for the loss of the property captured -or destroyed, for the interest of the capital invested in the -vessels and their cargoes, and, maybe, a fair compensation in -addition for all and any injury accruing to our business interests -from the depredations upon our shipping. <i>The remuneration -may reach a high figure in the present case; but it -would be a simple act of justice</i>, and might prevent an incomparably -greater loss in the future.”<a name="FNanchor_77" id="FNanchor_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Here we have the damages assessed by an Englishman, -who, while contemplating remuneration at a high -figure, recognizes it as “a simple act of justice.”</p> - -<p>Such is the candid and explicit testimony of Englishmen, -pointing the way to the proper rule of damages. -How to authenticate the extent of national loss with -reasonable certainty is not without difficulty; but it -cannot be doubted that such a loss occurred. It is folly -to question it. The loss may be seen in various circumstances: -as, in the rise of insurance on all American -vessels; the fate of the carrying-trade, which was one of -the great resources of our country; the diminution of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> -our tonnage, with the corresponding increase of British -tonnage; the falling off in our exports and imports, with -due allowance for our abnormal currency and the diversion -of war. These are some of the elements; and here -again we have British testimony. Mr. W. E. Forster, in -the speech already quoted, announces that “the carrying-trade -of the United States was transferred to British -merchants”;<a name="FNanchor_78" id="FNanchor_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> and Mr. Cobden, with his characteristic -mastery of details, shows, that, according to an official -document laid on the table of Parliament, American -shipping had been transferred to English capitalists as -follows: in 1858, 33 vessels, 12,684 tons; 1859, 49 vessels, -21,308 tons; 1860, 41 vessels, 13,638 tons; 1861, -126 vessels, 71,673 tons; 1862, 135 vessels, 64,578 tons; -and 1863, 348 vessels, 252,579 tons; and he adds, “I -am told that this operation is now going on as fast as -ever”; and this circumstance he declares to be “the -<i>most serious aspect</i> of the question of our relations with -America.”<a name="FNanchor_79" id="FNanchor_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> But this “most serious aspect” is left untouched -by the pending treaty.</p> - -<p>Our own official documents are in harmony with these -English authorities. For instance, I have before me now -the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1868, -with an appendix by Mr. Nimmo, on shipbuilding in -our country. From this Report it appears that in the -New England States, during the year 1855, the most -prosperous year of American shipbuilding, 305 ships -and barks and 173 schooners were built, with an aggregate -tonnage of 326,429 tons, while during the last year -only 58 ships and barks and 213 schooners were built,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> -with an aggregate tonnage of 98,697 tons.<a name="FNanchor_80" id="FNanchor_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> I add a -further statement from the same Report:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“During the ten years from 1852 to 1862 the aggregate -tonnage of American vessels entered at seaports of the United -States from foreign countries was 30,225,475 tons, and the -aggregate tonnage of foreign vessels entered was 14,699,192 -tons, while during the five years from 1863 to 1868 the aggregate -tonnage of American vessels entered was 9,299,877 -tons, and the aggregate tonnage of foreign vessels entered was -14,116,427 tons,—showing that American tonnage in our -foreign trade had fallen from two hundred and five to sixty-six -per cent. of foreign tonnage in the same trade. Stated in -other terms, during the decade from 1852 to 1862 sixty-seven -per cent. of the total tonnage entered from foreign countries -was in American vessels, and during the five years from 1863 -to 1868 only thirty-nine per cent. of the aggregate tonnage -entered from foreign countries was in American vessels,—a -relative falling off of nearly one half.”<a name="FNanchor_81" id="FNanchor_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>It is not easy to say how much of this change, which -has become chronic, may be referred to British pirates; -but it cannot be doubted that they contributed largely -to produce it. They began the influences under which -this change has continued.</p> - -<p>There is another document which bears directly upon -the present question. I refer to the interesting Report -of Mr. Morse, our consul at London, made during the -last year, and published by the Secretary of State. -After a minute inquiry, the Report shows that on the -breaking out of the Rebellion in 1861 the entire tonnage -of the United States, coasting and registered, was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> -5,539,813 tons, of which 2,642,628 tons were registered -and employed in foreign trade, and that at the close of -the Rebellion in 1865, notwithstanding an increase in -coasting tonnage, our registered tonnage had fallen to -1,602,528 tons, being a loss during the four years of -more than a million tons, amounting to about forty per -cent. of our foreign commerce. During the same four -years the total tonnage of the British empire rose from -5,895,369 tons to 7,322,604 tons, the increase being especially -in the foreign trade. The Report proceeds to -say that as to the cause of the decrease in America and -the corresponding increase in the British empire “there -can be no room for question or doubt.” Here is the precise -testimony from one who at his official post in London -watched this unprecedented drama, with the outstretched -ocean as a theatre, and British pirates as the -performers:—</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span></p> -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Conceding to the Rebels the belligerent rights of the sea, -when they had not a solitary war-ship afloat, in dock, or in -the process of construction, and when they had no power to -protect or dispose of prizes, made their sea-rovers, when they -appeared, the instruments of terror and destruction to our -commerce. From the appearance of the first corsair in pursuit -of their ships, American merchants had to pay not only -the marine, but the war risk also, on their ships. After the -burning of one or two ships with their neutral cargoes, the -ship-owner had to pay the war risk on the cargo his ship had -on freight, as well as on the ship. Even then, for safety, the -preference was, as a matter of course, always given to neutral -vessels, and American ships could rarely find employment on -these hard terms as long as there were good neutral ships in -the freight markets. Under such circumstances there was no -course left for our merchant ship-owners but to take such -profitless business as was occasionally offered them, let their -ships lie idle at their moorings or in dock with large expense -and deterioration constantly going on, to sell them outright -when they could do so without ruinous sacrifice, or put them -under foreign flags for protection.”<a name="FNanchor_82" id="FNanchor_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Beyond the actual loss in the national tonnage, there -was a further loss in the arrest of our natural increase -in this branch of industry, which an intelligent statistician -puts at five per cent. annually, making in 1866 a -total loss on this account of 1,384,953 tons, which must -be added to 1,229,035 tons actually lost.<a name="FNanchor_83" id="FNanchor_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> The same statistician, -after estimating the value of a ton at forty dollars -gold, and making allowance for old and new ships, -puts the sum-total of national loss on this account at -$110,000,000. Of course this is only an item in our -bill.</p> - -<p>To these authorities I add that of the National Board -of Trade, which, in a recent report on American Shipping, -after setting forth the diminution of our sailing -tonnage, says that it is nearly all to be traced to the war -on the ocean; and the result is summed up in the words, -that, “while the tonnage of the nation was rapidly disappearing -<i>by the ravages of the Rebel cruisers</i> and by sales -abroad, in addition to the usual loss by the perils of the -sea, there was no construction of new vessels going forward -to counteract the decline even in part.”<a name="FNanchor_84" id="FNanchor_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> Such is -the various testimony, all tending to one conclusion.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span></p> - -<p>This is what I have to say for the present on <i>national -losses</i> through the destruction of commerce. These are -large enough; but there is another chapter, where they -are larger far: I refer, of course, to the national losses -caused by the prolongation of the war, and traceable directly -to England. Pardon me, if I confess the regret -with which I touch this prodigious item; for I know -well the depth of feeling which it is calculated to stir. -But I cannot hesitate. It belongs to the case. No candid -person, who studies this eventful period, can doubt -that the Rebellion was originally encouraged by hope of -support from England,—that it was strengthened at -once by the concession of belligerent rights on the ocean,—that -it was fed to the end by British supplies,—that -it was encouraged by every well-stored British ship that -was able to defy our blockade,—that it was quickened -into frantic life with every report from the British pirates, -flaming anew with every burning ship; nor can it -be doubted that without British intervention the Rebellion -would have soon succumbed under the well-directed -efforts of the National Government. Not weeks or -months, but years, were added in this way to our war, -so full of costly sacrifice. The subsidies which in other -times England contributed to Continental wars were less -effective than the aid and comfort which she contributed -to the Rebellion. It cannot be said too often that the -<i>naval base</i> of the Rebellion was not in America, but in -England. The blockade-runners and the pirate ships -were all English. England was the fruitful parent, and -these were the “hell-hounds,” pictured by Milton in his -description of Sin, which, “when they list, would creep -into her womb and kennel there.” Mr. Cobden boldly -said in the House of Commons that England made war<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> -from her shores on the United States, with “an amount -of damage to that country greater than would be produced -by many ordinary wars.”<a name="FNanchor_85" id="FNanchor_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> According to this testimony, -the conduct of England was war; but it must -not be forgotten that this war was carried on at our sole -cost. The United States paid for a war waged by England -upon the National Unity.</p> - -<p>There was one form that this war assumed which was -incessant, most vexatious, and costly, besides being in -itself a positive alliance with the Rebellion. It was that -of blockade-runners, openly equipped and supplied by -England under the shelter of that baleful Proclamation. -Constantly leaving English ports, they stole across the -ocean, and then broke the blockade. These active -agents of the Rebellion could be counteracted only by a -network of vessels stretching along the coast, at great -cost to the country. Here is another distinct item, the -amount of which may be determined at the Navy Department.</p> - -<p>The sacrifice of precious life is beyond human compensation; -but there may be an approximate estimate -of the national loss in treasure. Everybody can make -the calculation. I content myself with calling attention -to the elements which enter into it. Besides the blockade, -there was the prolongation of the war. The Rebellion -was suppressed at a cost of more than four thousand -million dollars, a considerable portion of which has been -already paid, leaving twenty-five hundred millions as a -national debt to burden the people. If, through British -intervention, the war was doubled in duration, or in any -way extended, as cannot be doubted, then is England<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> -justly responsible for the additional expenditure to which -our country was doomed; and whatever may be the final -settlement of these great accounts, such must be the -judgment in any chancery which consults the simple -equity of the case.</p> - -<p>This plain statement, without one word of exaggeration -or aggravation, is enough to exhibit the magnitude -of the national losses, whether from the destruction of -our commerce, the prolongation of the war, or the expense -of the blockade. They stand before us mountain-high, -with a base broad as the Nation, and a mass stupendous -as the Rebellion itself. It will be for a wise -statesmanship to determine how this fearful accumulation, -like Ossa upon Pelion, shall be removed out of -sight, so that it shall no longer overshadow the two -countries.</p> - -<h3>THE RULE OF DAMAGES.</h3> - -<p>Perhaps I ought to anticipate an objection from the -other side, to the effect that these national losses, whether -from the destruction of our commerce, the prolongation -of the war, or the expense of the blockade, are indirect -and remote, so as not to be a just ground of claim. This -is expressed at the Common Law by the rule that “damages -must be for the natural and proximate consequence -of an act.”<a name="FNanchor_86" id="FNanchor_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> To this excuse the answer is explicit. The -damages suffered by the United States are twofold, individual -and national, being in each case direct and proximate, -although in the one case individuals suffered, and -in the other case the nation. It is easy to see that there -may be occasions, where, overtopping all individual -damages, are damages suffered by the nation, so that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> -reparation to individuals would be insufficient. Nor -can the claim of the nation be questioned simply because -it is large, or because the evidence with regard to -it is different from that in the case of an individual. In -each case the damage must be proved by the best possible -evidence, and this is all that law or reason can -require. In the case of the nation the evidence is historic; -and this is enough. Impartial history will record -the national losses from British intervention, and it is -only reasonable that the evidence of these losses should -not be excluded from judgment. Because the case is -without precedent, because no nation ever before received -such injury from a friendly power, this can be -no reason why the question should not be considered on -the evidence.</p> - -<p>Even the rule of the Common Law furnishes no impediment; -for our damages are the natural consequence -of what was done. But the rule of the Roman Law, -which is the rule of International Law, is broader than -that of the Common Law. The measure of damages, -according to the Digest, is, “Whatever may have been -lost or might have been gained,”—<i>Quantum mihi abest, -quantumque lucrari potui</i>;<a name="FNanchor_87" id="FNanchor_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> and this same rule seems to -prevail in the French Law, borrowed from the Roman -Law.<a name="FNanchor_88" id="FNanchor_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> This rule opens the door to ample reparation for -all damages, whether individual or national.</p> - -<p>There is another rule of the Common Law, in harmony -with strict justice, which is applicable in the -case. I find it in the law relating to <i>Nuisances</i>, which -provides that there may be two distinct proceedings,—first, -in behalf of individuals, and, secondly, in behalf<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> -of the community. Obviously, reparation to individuals -does not supersede reparation to the community. -The proceeding in the one case is by action at law, -and in the other by indictment. The reason assigned -by Blackstone for the latter is, “Because, the damage -being common to all the king’s subjects, no one can -assign his particular proportion of it.”<a name="FNanchor_89" id="FNanchor_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> But this is -the very case with regard to damages sustained by the -nation.</p> - -<p>A familiar authority furnishes an additional illustration, -which is precisely in point:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“No person, natural or corporate, can have an action for a -<i>public nuisance</i>, or punish it,—but only the king, in his public -capacity of supreme governor and <i>paterfamilias</i> of the -kingdom. Yet this rule admits of one exception: where a -private person suffers some extraordinary damage beyond the -rest of the king’s subjects.”<a name="FNanchor_90" id="FNanchor_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Applying this rule to the present case, the way is -clear. Every British pirate was <i>a public nuisance</i>, involving -the British Government, which must respond in -damages, not only to the individuals who have suffered, -but also to the National Government, acting as <i>paterfamilias</i> -for the common good of all the people.</p> - -<p>Thus by an analogy of the Common Law in the case -of a Public Nuisance, also by the strict rule of the -Roman Law, which enters so largely into International -Law, and even by the rule of the Common Law relating -to Damages, all losses, whether individual or national, -are the just subject of claim. It is not I who say this; -it is the Law. The colossal sum-total may be seen not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> -only in the losses of individuals, but in those national -losses caused by the destruction of our commerce, the -prolongation of the war, and the expense of the blockade, -all of which may be charged directly to England:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse indent11">“illud ab uno</div> -<div class="verse">Corpore, et ex una pendebat origine bellum.”<a name="FNanchor_91" id="FNanchor_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Three times is this liability fixed: first, by the concession -of ocean belligerency, opening to the Rebels ship-yards, -foundries, and manufactories, and giving to them -a flag on the ocean; secondly, by the organization of -hostile expeditions, which, by admissions in Parliament, -were nothing less than piratical war on the United States -with England as the naval base; and, thirdly, by welcome, -hospitality, and supplies extended to these pirate -ships in ports of the British empire. Show either of -these, and the liability of England is complete; show -the three, and this power is bound by a triple cord.</p> - -<h3>CONCLUSION.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>, in concluding these remarks, I desire -to say that I am no volunteer. For several years I have -carefully avoided saying anything on this most irritating -question, being anxious that negotiations should be left -undisturbed to secure a settlement which could be accepted -by a deeply injured nation. The submission of -the pending treaty to the judgment of the Senate left -me no alternative. It became my duty to consider it -carefully in committee, and to review the whole subject. -If I failed to find what we had a right to expect, and if -the just claims of our country assumed unexpected proportions,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> -it was not because I would bear hard on England, -but because I wish most sincerely to remove all -possibility of strife between our two countries; and it -is evident that this can be done only by first ascertaining -the nature and extent of difference. In this spirit -I have spoken to-day. If the case against England is -strong, and if our claims are unprecedented in magnitude, -it is only because the conduct of this power at a -trying period was most unfriendly, and the injurious -consequences of this conduct were on a scale corresponding -to the theatre of action. Life and property were -both swallowed up, leaving behind a deep-seated sense -of enormous wrong, as yet unatoned and even unacknowledged, -which is one of the chief factors in the -problem now presented to the statesmen of both countries. -The attempt to close this great international -debate without a complete settlement is little short of -puerile.</p> - -<p>With the lapse of time and with minuter consideration -the case against England becomes more grave, not -only from the questions of international responsibility -which it involves, but from better comprehension of the -damages, which are seen now in their true proportions. -During the war, and for some time thereafter, it was -impossible to state them. The mass of a mountain -cannot be measured at its base; the observer must occupy -a certain distance; and this rule of perspective -is justly applicable to damages which are vast beyond -precedent.</p> - -<p>A few dates will show the progress of the controversy, -and how the case enlarged. Going as far back as -20th November, 1862, we find our Minister in London, -Mr. Adams, calling for redress from the British Government<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> -on account of the Alabama.<a name="FNanchor_92" id="FNanchor_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> This was the -mild beginning. On the 23d October, 1863, in another -communication, the same Minister suggested to the -British Government any “fair and equitable form of -conventional arbitrament or reference.”<a name="FNanchor_93" id="FNanchor_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> This proposition -slumbered in the British Foreign Office for nearly -two years, during which the Alabama was pursuing her -piratical career, when, on the 30th August, 1865, it was -awakened by Lord Russell only to be knocked down in -these words:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“In your letter of the 23d of October, 1863, you were -pleased to say that the Government of the United States is -ready to agree to any form of arbitration.… Her Majesty’s -Government must, therefore, decline either to make reparation -and compensation for the captures made by the Alabama, or -to refer the question to any foreign state.”<a name="FNanchor_94" id="FNanchor_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Such was our repulse from England, having at least -the merit of frankness, if nothing else. On the 17th -October, 1865, our Minister informed Lord Russell that -the United States had finally resolved to make no effort -for arbitration.<a name="FNanchor_95" id="FNanchor_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> Again the whole question slumbered -until 27th August, 1866, when Mr. Seward presented a -list of individual claims on account of the pirate Alabama -and other Rebel cruisers.<a name="FNanchor_96" id="FNanchor_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> From that time negotiation -has continued, with ups and downs, until at last -the pending treaty was signed. Had the early overtures -of our Government been promptly accepted, or had there<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> -been at any time a just recognition of the wrong done, -I doubt not that this great question would have been -settled; but the rejection of our very moderate propositions, -and the protracted delay, which afforded an opportunity -to review the case in its different bearings, have -awakened the people to the magnitude of the interests -involved. If our demands are larger now than at our -first call, it is not the only time in history when such a -rise has occurred. The story of the Sibyl is repeated, -and England is the Roman king.</p> - -<p>Shall these claims be liquidated and cancelled promptly, -or allowed to slumber until called into activity by -some future exigency? There are many among us, who, -taking counsel of a sense of national wrong, would leave -them to rest without settlement, so as to furnish a precedent -for retaliation in kind, should England find herself -at war. There are many in England, who, taking -counsel of a perverse political bigotry, have spurned -them absolutely; and there are others, who, invoking -the point of honor, assert that England cannot entertain -them without compromising her honor. Thus there is -peril from both sides. It is not difficult to imagine one -of our countrymen saying, with Shakespeare’s Jew, -“The villany you teach me I will execute, and it shall -go hard but I will better the instruction”; nor is it difficult -to imagine an Englishman firm in his conceit that -no apology can be made and nothing paid. I cannot -sympathize with either side. Be the claims more or -less, they are honestly presented, with the conviction -that they are just; and they should be considered candidly, -so that they shall no longer lower, like a cloud -ready to burst, upon two nations, which, according to -their inclinations, can do each other such infinite injury<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> -or such infinite good. I know it is sometimes said that -war between us must come sooner or later. I do not -believe it. But if it must come, let it be later, and then -I am sure it will never come. Meanwhile good men -must unite to make it impossible.</p> - -<p>Again I say, this debate is not of my seeking. It is -not tempting; for it compels criticism of a foreign power -with which I would have more than peace, more even -than concord. But it cannot be avoided. The truth -must be told,—not in anger, but in sadness. England -has done to the United States an injury most difficult to -measure. Considering when it was done and in what -complicity, it is truly unaccountable. At a great epoch -of history, not less momentous than that of the French -Revolution or that of the Reformation, when Civilization -was fighting a last battle with Slavery, England gave her -name, her influence, her material resources to the wicked -cause, and flung a sword into the scale with Slavery. -Here was a portentous mistake. Strange that the land -of Wilberforce, after spending millions for Emancipation, -after proclaiming everywhere the truths of Liberty, -and ascending to glorious primacy in the sublime movement -for the Universal Abolition of Slavery, could do -this thing! Like every departure from the rule of justice -and good neighborhood, her conduct was pernicious -in proportion to the scale of operations, affecting individuals, -corporations, communities, and the nation itself. -And yet down to this day there is no acknowledgment -of this wrong,—not a single word. Such a generous -expression would be the beginning of a just settlement, -and the best assurance of that harmony between two -great and kindred nations which all must desire.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="LOCALITY_IN_APPOINTMENT_TO_OFFICE" id="LOCALITY_IN_APPOINTMENT_TO_OFFICE"></a>LOCALITY IN APPOINTMENT TO OFFICE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, April 21, 1869.</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 resolution requesting from -the heads of Departments “information of the names, age, and compensation -of all inferior officers, clerks, and employés in their respective -Departments at Washington, showing from what States they were -respectively appointed,” &c., Mr. Abbott, of North Carolina, moved -the following addition:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Resolved further</i>, That in the opinion of the Senate the distribution of -the official patronage of the Government not embraced in local offices in -the States should be made as nearly equal among all the States, according -to their representation and population, as may be practicable; and that to -confine such patronage to particular States or sections, either wholly or -partially, is both unjust and injudicious.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>On the latter resolution Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—If I have rightly read the history -of my country, there was before Vicksburg -an army commanded by three generals from Ohio,—General -Grant, General Sherman, and General McPherson. -Now, if I rightly understand the proposition of -the Senator from North Carolina, he would require that -the generals in command of our Army should be taken -geographically,—not according to their merits, not according -to their capacity to defend this Republic and to -maintain with honor its flag, but simply according to -the place of their residence,—and no three generals -should be in command from one State. Do I understand -the Senator aright?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Abbott.</span> My amendment reads, “as far as practicable.”</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Very well,—“as far as practicable.” -I would inquire of my friend whether fitness for office -or service in other departments of the Government does -not depend upon capacity, talent, preparation, as much -as in the Army? I ask the Senator if it is not so?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Abbott.</span> The purpose of this amendment was not to -override all such considerations; it was to give an expression -of the sense of the Senate that States should not be ignored -in the distribution of this sort of patronage. Nothing in it -prevents three generals from Ohio being in the command of -one army, or the appointment of three Cabinet officers from -Ohio; but it is simply to express the sense of the Senate -that these things ought to be done with something like fairness -and justice, as between the different States.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I take it there is no Senator who does -not accept the general idea of the Senator from North -Carolina, that all things should be done in fairness, and -that all parts of the country, every portion of this great -Republic, should be treated with equal respect and honor. -That is clear. But first and foremost above all is -the public service: that must be maintained; it must -not be sacrificed; and how can it be maintained, unless -you advance to prominent posts in this service those -who are the most meritorious, and who can best discharge -the duties of the post?</p> - -<p>I merely throw out this remark, and call attention to -this point, that Senators may see to what this proposition -tends. If it were fully carried out, it would reduce -the public service of this country to one dead -level. Men would go into it merely because they lived<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> -in certain places, not because they had a fitness for the -posts to which they were advanced. Perhaps I am mistaken, -but I see no reason why there should be three -Ohio generals in command before Vicksburg, and not -three Ohio citizens in eminent civil service. To my -mind the attainments and the talents required in civil -service are as well worthy to be recognized as those -that are required in military service, and I see no reason -for a rule that shall allow talent to be taken without -any reference to geographical limit in the military -service which is not equally applicable to the civil service.</p> - -<p>Now, as to our friends who have recently come into -this Chamber, I beg them to understand, that, so far -as I am concerned, there is no disposition to deny or -to begrudge them anything to which, according to geographical -proportions, they may be entitled; but I beg -them to consider that time is an essential element of -this transition through which we are passing.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> Will my friend allow me to make a -suggestion to him?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Fessenden.</span> I merely wish to allude to the notorious -fact that for half a century before the Rebellion the proportion -of persons in civil office in the Departments in Washington -from the Southern States was very nearly, if not quite, -two to one to those from all the other States. They had the -control, and had pretty much all the offices, for years and -years.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> We are now in a process of transition, -and I was observing that time is an essential element -in that process. What the Senator from North Carolina<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> -aims at cannot be accomplished at once. The -change cannot be made instantly. The men are not -presented from the States lately in rebellion in sufficient -numbers, in sufficient proportion, with competency -for these posts. I know that there are gentlemen -there fit to grace many of these posts, but I know also -that there is not relatively the same proportion of persons -fit for the civil service as there is in the other -parts of the country; and our friends from the South, it -seems to me, must take this into consideration kindly, -and wait yet a little longer.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="NATIONAL_AFFAIRS_AT_HOME_AND_ABROAD" id="NATIONAL_AFFAIRS_AT_HOME_AND_ABROAD"></a>NATIONAL AFFAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech at the Republican State Convention in Worcester, -Massachusetts, September 22, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Sumner was selected as President of the Convention. On taking -the chair he spoke as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Fellow-citizens of Massachusetts</span>:—</p> - -<p class="dropcap">While thanking you for the honor conferred upon -me, I make haste to say that in my judgment -Massachusetts has one duty, at the coming election, to -which all local interests and local questions must be -postponed, as on its just performance all else depends; -and this commanding duty is, to keep the Commonwealth, -now as aforetime, an example to our country -and a bulwark of Human Rights. Such was Massachusetts -in those earlier days, when, on the continent of -Europe, the name of “Bostonians” was given to our -countrymen in arms against the mother country,<a name="FNanchor_97" id="FNanchor_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> making -this designation embrace all,—and when, in the -British Parliament, the great orator, Edmund Burke, -exclaimed, “The cause of Boston is become the cause -of all America; every part of America is united in -support of Boston; … you have made Boston the -Lord Mayor of America.”<a name="FNanchor_98" id="FNanchor_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> I quote these words from -the Parliamentary Debates. But Boston was at that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> -time Massachusetts, and it was her stand for Liberty -that made her name the synonym for all. And permit -me to add, that, in choosing a presiding officer entirely -removed from local issues, I find assurance of -your readiness to unite with me in that <i>National Cause</i> -which concerns not Massachusetts only, but every part -of America, and concerns also our place and name as a -nation.</p> - -<p>The enemy here in Massachusetts would be glad to -divert attention from the unassailable principles of the -Republican Party; they would be glad to make you forget -that support we owe to a Republican Administration,—also -that support we owe to the measures of Reconstruction, -and our constant abiding persistence for -all essential safeguards not yet completely established. -These they would hand over to oblivion, hoping on -some local appeal to disorganize our forces, or, perhaps, -obtain power to be wielded against the National Cause. -Massachusetts cannot afford to occupy an uncertain position. -Therefore I begin by asking you to think of our -country, our whole country,—in other words, of <i>National -Affairs at Home and Abroad</i>.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>It is now four years since I had the honor of presiding -at our annual Convention, and I do not forget how -at that time I endeavored to remind you of this same -National Cause, then in fearful peril.<a name="FNanchor_99" id="FNanchor_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> The war of armies -was ended; no longer was fellow-citizen arrayed -against fellow-citizen; on each side the trumpet was -hushed, the banner furled. But the defection of Andrew -Johnson had then begun, and out of that defection -the Rebellion assumed new life, with new purposes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> -and new hopes. If it did not spring forth once more -fully armed, it did spring forth filled with hate and -diabolism towards all who loved the Union, whether -white or black. There were exceptions, I know; but -they were not enough to change the rule. And straightway -the new apparition, acting in conjunction with the -Northern Democracy, aboriginal allies of the Rebellion, -planned the capture of the National Government. Its -representatives came up to Washington. Then was the -time for a few decisive words in the name of the Republic, -on which for four years they had waged bloody -war. The great dramatist, who has words for every occasion, -anticipated this, when he said,—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“Return thee, therefore, with a flood of tears,</div> -<div class="verse">And wash away thy country’s stained spots.”</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Such a mood would have been the beginning of peace. -How easy to see that these men should have been admonished -frankly and kindly to return home, there to -plant, plough, sow, reap, buy, sell, and be prosperous, -but not to expect any place in the copartnership of -government until there was completest security for all! -Instead of this, they were sent back plotting how to obtain -ascendency at home as the stepping-stone to ascendency -in the nation. Such was the condition of -things in the autumn of 1865, when, sounding the alarm -from this very platform, I insisted upon irreversible -guaranties against the Rebellion, and especially on security -to the national freedman and the national creditor. -It was upon security that I then insisted,—believing, -that, though the war of armies was ended, this -was a just object of national care, all contained in the -famous time-honored postulate of war, <i>Security for the -Future</i>, without which peace is no better than armistice.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span></p> - -<p>To that security one thing is needed,—simply this: -All men must be safe in their rights, so that affairs, -whether of government or business, shall have a free -and natural course. But there are two special classes -still in jeopardy, as in the autumn of 1865,—the National -Freedman and the National Creditor,—each a -creditor of the nation and entitled to protection, each -under the guardianship of the public faith; and behind -these are faithful Unionists, now suffering terribly from -the growing reaction.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>For the protection of the national freedman a Constitutional -Amendment is presented for ratification, placing -his right to vote under the perpetual safeguard of -the nation; but I am obliged to remind you that this -Amendment has not yet obtained the requisite number -of States, nor can I say surely when it will. The Democratic -Party is arrayed against it, and the Rebel interest -unites with the Democracy. Naturally they go together. -They are old cronies. Here let me say frankly -that I have never ceased to regret,—I do now most -profoundly regret,—that Congress, in its plenary powers -under the Constitution, especially in its great unquestionable -power to guaranty a republican government -in the States, did not summarily settle this whole -question, so that it should no longer disturb the country. -It was for Congress to fix the definition of a republican -government; nor need it go further than our -own Declaration of Independence, where is a definition -from which there is no appeal. There it is, as it came -from our fathers, in lofty, self-evident truth; and Congress -should have applied it. Or it might have gone to -the speech of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, where<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> -again is the same great definition. There was also a -decisive precedent. As Congress made a Civil Rights -Law, so should it have made a Political Rights Law. -In each case the power is identical. If it can be done -in the one, it can be done in the other. To my mind -nothing is clearer. Thus far Congress has thought otherwise. -There remains, then, the slow process of Constitutional -Amendment, to which the country must be -rallied.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>But this is not enough. No mere text of Constitution -or Law is sufficient. Behind these must be a -prevailing Public Opinion and a sympathetic Administration. -Both are needed. The Administration must -reinforce Public Opinion, and Public Opinion must -reinforce the Administration. Such is all experience. -Without these the strongest text and most cunning in -its requirements is only a phantom, it may be of terror, -as was the case with the Fugitive Slave Bill,—but -not a living letter. It is not practically obeyed; -sometimes it is evaded, sometimes openly set at nought. -And now it is my duty to warn you that the national -freedman still needs your care. His ancient master is -already in the field conspiring against him. That traditional -experience, that infinite audacity, that insensibility -to Human Rights, which so long upheld Slavery, -are aroused anew. No longer able to hold him as slave, -the ancient master means to hold him as dependant, and -to keep him in his service, personal and political,—thus -substituting a new bondage for the old. Unhappily, -he finds at the North a political party which the -Rebellion has not weaned from that unnatural Southern -breast whence it drew its primitive nutriment; and this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> -political party now fraternizes in the dismal work by -which peace is postponed: for until the national freedman -is safe in Equal Rights there can be no peace. -You may call it peace, but I tell you it is not peace. -It is peace only in name. Who does not feel that he -treads still on smothered fires? Who does not feel his -feet burn as he moves over the treacherous ashes? If I -wished any new motive for opposition to the Democracy, -I should find it in this hostile alliance. Because -I am for peace so that this whole people may be at -work, because I desire tranquillity so that all may be -happy, because I seek reconciliation so that there shall -be completest harmony, therefore I oppose the Democracy -and now denounce it as Disturber of the National -Peace.</p> - -<p>The information from the South is most painful. Old -Rebels are crawling from hiding-places to resume their -former rule; and what a rule! Such as might be expected -from the representatives of Slavery. It is the -rule of misrule, where the “Ku-Klux-Klan” takes the -place of missionary and schoolmaster. Murder is unloosed. -The national freedman is the victim; and so is -the Unionist. Not one of these States where intimidation, -with death in its train, does not play its part. -Take that whole Southern tier from Georgia to Texas, -and add to it Tennessee, and, I fear, North Carolina and -Virginia also,—for the crime is contagious,—and there -is small justice for those to whom you owe so much. -That these things should occur under Andrew Johnson -was natural; that Reconstruction should encounter difficulties -after his defection was natural. Andrew Johnson -is now out of the way, and in his place a patriot -President. Public Opinion must come to his support in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> -this necessary work. There is but one thing these disturbers -feel; it is power; and this they must be made -to feel: I mean the power of an awakened people, directed -by a Republican Administration, vigorously, constantly, -surely, so that there shall be no rest for the -wicked.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>If I could forget the course of the Democracy on -these things,—as I cannot,—there is still another -chapter for exposure; and the more it is seen, the -worse it appears. It is that standing menace of Repudiation, -by which the national credit at home and -abroad suffers so much, and our taxes are so largely increased. -It will not do to say that no National Convention -has yet announced this dishonesty. I charge it -upon the Party. A party which repudiates the fundamental -principles of the Declaration of Independence, -which repudiates Equality before the Law, which repudiates -the self-evident truth that government is founded -only on the consent of the governed, which repudiates -what is most precious and good in our recent history, -and whose chiefs are now engaged in cunning assault -upon the national creditor, is a party of Repudiation. -This is its just designation. A Democrat is a Repudiator. -What is Slavery itself but an enormous wholesale -repudiation of all rights, all truths, and all decencies? -How easy for a party accepting this degradation to repudiate -pecuniary obligations! These are small, compared -with the other. Naturally the Democracy is once -more in conjunction with the old Slave-Masters. The -Repudiation Gospel according to Mr. Pendleton is now -preaching in Ohio; and nothing is more certain than -that the triumph of the Democracy would be a fatal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> -blow not only at the national freedman, but also at -the national creditor. There would be repudiation for -each.</p> - -<p>The word “Repudiation,” in its present sense, is not -old. It first appeared in Mississippi, a Democratic -State intensely devoted to Slavery. If the thing were -known before, never before did it assume the same -hardihood of name. It was in 1841 that a Mississippi -Governor, in a Message to the Legislature, used this -word with regard to certain State bonds, and thus began -that policy by which Mississippi was first dishonored -and then kept poor: for capital was naturally shy of -such a State. Constantly, from that time, Mississippi -had this “bad eminence”; nor is the State more known -as the home of Jefferson Davis than as the home of Repudiation. -Unhappily, the nation suffered also; and -even now, as I understand, it is argued in Europe, to -our discredit, that, because Mississippi repudiated, the -nation may repudiate also. If I refer to this example, -it is because I would illustrate the mischief of the -Democratic policy and summon Mississippi to tardy -justice. A regenerated State cannot afford to bear the -burden of Repudiation; nor can the nation and the sisterhood -of States forget misconduct so injurious to all.</p> - -<p>I have pleasure, at this point, in reference to an early -effort in the “North American Review,” by an able -lawyer, for a time an ornament of the Supreme Court of -the United States, Hon. B. R. Curtis, who, after reviewing -the misconduct of Mississippi, argues most persuasively, -that, where a State repudiates its obligations, to -the detriment of foreigners, there is a remedy through -the National Government. This suggestion is important -for Mississippi now. But the article contains another<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> -warning, applicable to the nation at the present hour, -which I quote:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The conduct of a few States has not only destroyed their -own credit and left their sister States very little to boast of, -but has so materially affected the credit of the whole Union -that it was found impossible to negotiate in Europe any part -of the loan authorized by Congress in 1842. It was offered -on terms most advantageous to the creditor, terms which -in former times would have been eagerly accepted; and after -going a-begging through all the exchanges of Europe, -the agent gave up the attempt to obtain the money, in -despair.”<a name="FNanchor_100" id="FNanchor_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>As the fallen drunkard illustrates the evils of intemperance, -so does Mississippi illustrate the evils of Repudiation. -Look at her! But there are men who would -degrade our Republic to this wretched condition. Forgetting -what is due to our good name as a nation at -home and abroad,—forgetting that the public interests -are bound up with the Public Faith, involving all economies, -national and individual,—forgetting that our -transcendent position has corresponding obligations, and -that, as Nobility once obliged to great duty, (“<i>Noblesse -oblige</i>,”) so does Republicanism now,—there are men -who, forgetting all these things, would carry our Republic -into this terrible gulf, so full of shame and sacrifice. -They begin by subtle devices; but already the mutterings -of open Repudiation are heard. I denounce them -all, whether device or muttering; and I denounce that -political party which lends itself to the outrage.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Repudiation means Confiscation, and in the present -case confiscation of the property of loyal citizens. With<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> -unparalleled generosity the nation has refused to confiscate -Rebel property; and now it is proposed to confiscate -Loyal property. When I expose Repudiation as -Confiscation, I mean to be precise. Between two enactments, -one requiring the surrender of property without -compensation, and the other declaring that the nation -shall not and will not pay an equal amount according -to solemn promise, there can be no just distinction. -The two are alike. The former might alarm a greater -number, because on its face more demonstrative. But -analyze the two, and you will see that in each private -property is taken by the nation without compensation, -and appropriated to its own use. Therefore do I say, -Repudiation is Confiscation.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>A favorite device of Repudiation is to pay the national -debt in “greenbacks,”—in other words, to pay -bonds bearing interest with mere promises not bearing -interest,—violating, in the first place, a rule of honesty, -which forbids such a trick, and, in the second place, -a rule of law, which refuses to recognize an inferior -obligation as payment of a superior. Here, in plain -terms, is repudiation of the interest and indefinite postponement -of the principal. This position, when first -broached, contemplated nothing less than an infinite issue -of greenbacks, flooding the country, as France was -flooded by <i>assignats</i>, and utterly destroying values of all -kinds. Although, in its present more moderate form, it -is limited to payment by existing greenbacks, yet it has -the same radical injustice. Interest-bearing bonds are -to be paid with non-interest-bearing bits of paper. The -statement of the case is enough. Its proposer would -never do this thing in his own affairs; but how can he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> -ask his country to do what honesty forbids in private -life?</p> - -<p>Another device is to tax the bonds, when the money -was lent on the positive condition that the bonds should -not be taxed. This, of course, is to break the contract -in another way. It is Repudiation in another form.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>To argue these questions is happily unnecessary, and -I allude to them only because I wish to exhibit the loss -to the country from such attempts. This can be made -plain as a church-door.</p> - -<p>The total debt of our country on the 1st September, -aside from the sixty millions of bonds issued to the Pacific -Railway, was $2,475,962,501; and here I mention, -with great satisfaction, that since the 1st March last -the debt has been reduced $49,500,758. The surplus -revenue now accruing is not less than $100,000,000 a -year, and will be, probably, not less than $125,000,000 -a year, of which large sum not less than $75,000,000 -must be attributed to the better enforcement of the -laws and the economy now prevailing under a Republican -Administration. And here comes the practical -point. Large as is our surplus revenue, it should have -been more, and would have been more but for the Repudiation -menaced by the Democracy.</p> - -<p>If we look at our bonded debt, we find it is now -$2,107,936,300, upon which we pay not less than -$124,000,000 in annual interest, the larger part at six -per cent., the smaller at five per cent., gold. The difference -between this interest and that paid by other -powers is the measure of our annual loss. English -three per cents. and French fours are firm in the market; -but England and France have not the same immeasurable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> -resources that are ours, nor is either so secure -in its government. It is easy to see that our debt -could have been funded without paying more than four -per cent., but for the doubt cast upon our credit by -the dishonest schemes of Repudiation. “Payment in -Greenbacks” and “Taxation of Bonds” are costly cries. -Without these there would have been $40,000,000 annually -to swell our surplus revenue. But this sum, if -invested in a sinking fund at four per cent. interest, -would pay the whole bonded debt in less than thirty -years. Such is our annual loss.</p> - -<p>The sum-total of this loss directly chargeable upon -the Repudiators is more than one hundred millions, already -paid in taxes; and much I fear, fellow-citizens, -that, before the nation can recover from the discredit -inflicted upon it, another hundred millions will be paid -in the same way. It is hard to see this immense treasure -wrung by taxation from the toil of the people to -pay these devices of a dishonest Democracy. Do not -forget that the cost of this experiment is confined to no -particular class. Wherever the tax-gatherer goes, there -it is paid. Every workman pays it in his food and -clothing; every mechanic and artisan, in his tools; -every housewife, in her cooking-stove and flat-iron; -every merchant, in the stamp upon his note; every -man of salary, in the income tax; ay, every laborer, -in his wood, his coal, his potatoes, and his salt. Many -of these taxes, imposed under duress of war, will be removed -soon, I trust; but still the enormous sum of forty -millions annually must be contributed by the labor of -the country, until the world is convinced, that, in spite -of Democratic menace, the Republic will maintain its -plighted faith to the end.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span></p> - -<p>People wish to reduce taxation. I tell you how. -Let no doubt rest upon the Public Faith. Then will -the present burdensome taxation grow “fine by degrees -and beautifully less.” <i>It is the doubt which costs.</i> It is -with our country, as with an individual,—the doubt -obliges the payment of <i>extra interest</i>. To stop that extra -interest we must keep faith.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>As we look at the origin of the greenback, we shall -find a new motive for fidelity. I do not speak of that -patriotic character which commends the national debt, -but of the financial principle on which the greenback -was first issued. It came from the overruling exigencies -of self-defence. The national existence depended -upon money, which could be had only through a forced -loan. The greenback was the agency by which it was -collected. The disloyal party resisted the passage of -the original Act, prophesying danger and difficulty; but -the safety of the nation required the risk, and the Republican -Party assumed it. And now this same disloyal -party, once against the greenback, insist upon continuing -in peace what was justified only in war,—insist -upon a forced loan, when the overruling exigencies of -self-defence have ceased, and the nation is saved. To -such absurdity is this party now driven.</p> - -<p>The case is aggravated, when we consider the boundless -resources of the country, through which in a short -time even this great debt will be lightened, if the praters -of Repudiation are silenced. Peace, financially as -well as politically, is needed. Let us have peace. Nowhere -will it be felt more than at the South, which -is awakening to a consciousness of resources unknown -while Slavery ruled. With these considerable additions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> -to the national capital, five years cannot pass without a -sensible diminution of our burdens. A rate of taxation, -<i>per capita</i>, equal to only one half that of 1866, will pay -even our present interest, all present expenses, and the -entire principal, in less than twenty years. But to this -end we must keep faith.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The attempt is aggravated still further, when it is -considered that Repudiation is impossible. Try as you -may, you cannot succeed. You may cause incalculable -distress, and postpone the great day of peace, but you -cannot do this thing. The national debt never can be -repudiated. It will be paid, dollar for dollar, in coin, -with interest to the end.</p> - -<p>How little do these Repudiators know the mighty -resisting power which they encounter! how little, the -mighty crash which they invite! As well undertake to -move Mount Washington from its everlasting base, or -to shut out the ever-present ocean from our coasts. It -is needless to say that the crash would be in proportion -to the mass affected, being nothing less than the whole -business of the country. Now it appears from investigations -making at this moment by Commissioner Wells, -whose labors shed such light on financial questions, that -<i>our annual product reaches the sum of seven thousand -millions of dollars</i>.<a name="FNanchor_101" id="FNanchor_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> But this prodigious amount depends -for its value upon exchange, which in turn depends -upon credit. Destroy exchange, and even these -untold resources would be an infinite chaos, without -form and void. Employment would cease, capital would -waste, mills would stop, the rich would become poor,—the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> -poor, I fear, would starve. Savings banks, trust -companies, insurance companies would disappear. Such -would be the mighty crash; but here you see also the -mighty resisting power. Therefore, again do I say, Repudiation -is impossible.</p> - -<p>Mr. Boutwell is criticized by the Democracy because -he buys up bonds, paying the current market rates, -when he should pay the face in greenbacks. I refer -to this Democratic criticism because I would show how -little its authors look to consequences while forgetting -the requirements of Public Faith. Suppose the Secretary, -yielding to these wise suggestions, should announce -his purpose to take up the first ten millions -of five-twenties, paying the face in greenbacks. What -then? “After us the deluge,” said the French king; -and so, after such notice from our Secretary, would our -deluge begin. At once the entire bonded debt would be -reduced to greenbacks. The greenback would not be -raised; the bond would be drawn down. All this at -once,—and in plain violation of the solemn declaration -of both Houses of Congress pledging payment in coin. -But who can measure the consequences? Bonds would -be thrown upon the market. From all points of the -compass, at home and abroad, they would come. Business -would be disorganized. Prices would be changed. -Labor would be crushed. The fountains of the great -deep would be broken up, and the deluge would be -upon us.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Among the practical agencies to which the country -owes much already are the National Banks. Whatever -may be the differences of opinion with regard to them, -they cannot fail to be taken into account in all financial<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> -discussions. As they have done good where they are -now established, I would gladly see them extended, especially -at the South and West, where they are much -needed, and where abundant crops already supply the -capital. It is doubtful if this can be brought about -without removing the currency limitation in the existing -Bank Act.<a name="FNanchor_102" id="FNanchor_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> In this event I should like the condition -that for every new bank-note issued a greenback -should be cancelled, thus substituting the bank-note for -the greenback. In this way greenbacks would be reduced -in volume, while currency is supplied by the -banks. Such diminution of the national paper would -be an important stage toward specie payments, while -the national banks in the South and West, founded on -the bonds of the United States, would be a new security -for the national credit.</p> - -<p>In making this suggestion, I would not forget the -necessity of specie payments at the earliest possible -moment; nor can I forbear to declare my unalterable -conviction that by proper exertion this supreme object -may be accomplished promptly,—always provided the -national credit is kept above suspicion, or, like the good -knight, “without fear and without reproach.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Thus, fellow-citizens, at every turn are we brought -back to one single point, the Public Faith, which cannot -be dishonored without infinite calamity. The child -is told not to tell a lie; but this injunction is the same -for the full-grown man, and for the nation also. We -cannot tell a lie to the national freedman or the national -creditor; we cannot tell a lie to anybody. That<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> -word of shame cannot be ours. But falsehood to the -national freedman and the national creditor is a national -lie. Breaking promise with either, you are dishonored, -and <i>Liar</i> must be stamped upon the forehead of -the nation. Beyond the ignominy, which all of us must -bear, will be the influence of such a transgression in -discrediting Republican Government and the very idea -of a Republic. For weal or woe, we are an example. -Mankind is now looking to us, and just in proportion -to the eminence we have reached is the eminence of our -example. Already we have shown how a Republic can -conquer in arms, offering millions of citizens and untold -treasure at call. It remains for us to show how a Republic -can conquer in a field more glorious than battle, -where all these millions of citizens and all this untold -treasure uphold the Public Faith. Such an example -will elevate Republican Government, and make the -idea of a Republic more than ever great and splendid. -Helping here, you help not only your own country, but -help Humanity also,—help liberal institutions in all -lands,—help the down-trodden everywhere, and all -who struggle against the wrong and tyranny of earth.</p> - -<p>The brilliant Frenchman, Montesquieu, in that remarkable -work which occupied so much attention during -the last century, “The Spirit of Laws,” pronounces -<i>Honor</i> the animating sentiment of Monarchy, but <i>Virtue</i> -the animating sentiment of a Republic.<a name="FNanchor_103" id="FNanchor_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> It is for us to -show that he was right; nor can we depart from this -rule of Virtue without disturbing the order of the universe. -Faith is nothing less than a part of that sublime -harmony by which the planets wheel surely in their -appointed orbits, and nations are summoned to justice.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> -Nothing too lofty for its power, nothing too lowly for -its protection. It is an essential principle in the divine -Cosmos, without which confusion reigns supreme. All -depends upon Faith. Why do you build? Because -you have faith in those laws by which you are secured -in person and property. Why do you plant? why do -you sow? Because you have faith in the returning seasons, -faith in the generous skies, faith in the sun. But -faith in this Republic must be fixed as the sun, which -illumines all. I cannot be content with less. Full well -I see that every departure from this great law is only to -our ruin, and from the height we have reached the tumble -will be like that of the Grecian god from the battlements -of Heaven:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse indent11">“From morn</div> -<div class="verse">To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve,</div> -<div class="verse">A summer’s day, and with the setting sun</div> -<div class="verse">Dropped from the zenith like a falling star.”<a name="FNanchor_104" id="FNanchor_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>It only remains, come what may, that we should at -all hazards preserve this Public Faith,—never forgetting -that honesty is not only the best policy, but the -Golden Rule. For myself, I see nothing more practical, -at this moment, than, first, at all points to oppose the -Democracy, and, secondly, to insist that yet awhile -longer ex-Rebels shall be excused from copartnership -in government. Do not think me harsh; do not think -me austere. I am not. I will not be outdone by anybody -in clemency; nor at the proper time will I be behind -any one in opening all doors of office and trust. -But the proper time has not yet come. There must be -security for the future, unquestionable and ample, before -I am ready; and this I would require not only for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> -the sake of the national freedman and the national -creditor, but for the sake of the country containing the -interests of all, and also of the ex-Rebel himself, whose -truest welfare is in that peace where all controversy -shall be extinguished forever. In this there is nothing -but equity and prudence according to received precedents. -The ancient historian declares that the ancestors -of Rome, the most religious of men, took nothing -from the vanquished but the license to do wrong: “<i>Nostri -majores, religiosissimi mortales, … neque victis quicquam -præter injuriæ licentiam eripiebant</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_105" id="FNanchor_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> These are -the words of Sallust. I know no better example for -our present guidance. Who can object, if men recently -arrayed against their country are told to stand aside -yet a little longer, until all are secure in their rights? -Here is no fixed exclusion,—nothing of which there -can be any just complaint,—nothing, which is not practical, -wise, humane,—nothing which is not born of justice -rather than victory. In the establishment of Equal -Rights conquest loses its character, and is no longer -conquest;—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“For then both parties nobly are subdued,</div> -<div class="verse">And neither party loser.”<a name="FNanchor_106" id="FNanchor_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Even in the uncertainty of the future it is easy to see -that the national freedman and the national creditor -have a common fortune. In the terrible furnace of war -they were joined together, nor can they be separated -until the rights of both are fixed beyond change. Therefore, -could my voice reach them, I would say, “Freedman, -stand by the creditor! Creditor, stand by the -freedman!” And to the people I would say,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> “Stand -by both!”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>From affairs at home I turn to affairs abroad, and -here I wish to speak cautiously. In speaking at all I -break a vow with myself not to open my lips on these -questions except in the Senate. I yield to friendly -pressure. And yet I know no reason why I should not -speak. It was Talleyrand who, to somebody apologizing -for what might be an indiscreet question, replied, -that an answer might be indiscreet, but not a question. -My answer shall at least be frank.</p> - -<p>In our foreign relations there are with me two cardinal -principles, which I have no hesitation to avow at -all times: first, peace with all the world; and, secondly, -sympathy with all struggling for Human Rights. -In neither of these would I fail; for each is essential. -Peace is our all-conquering ally. Through peace the -whole world will be ours. “Still in the right hand -carry gentle peace,” and there is nothing we cannot do. -Filled with the might of peace, the sympathy we extend -will have a persuasive power. Following these -plain principles, we should be open so that foreign nations -shall know our sentiments, and in such way that -even where there is a difference there shall be no just -cause for offence.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In this spirit I would now approach Spain. Who -can forget that great historic monarchy, on whose empire, -encircling the globe, the sun never set? Patron of -that renowned navigator through whom she became the -discoverer of this hemisphere, her original sway within -it surpassed that of any other power. At last her extended -possessions on the main, won by Cortés and Pizarro, -loosed themselves from her grasp, to take their -just place in the Family of Nations. Cuba and Porto<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> -Rico, rich islands of the Gulf, remained. And now Cuban -insurgents demand independence also. For months -they have engaged in deadly conflict with the Spanish -power. Ravaged provinces and bloodshed are the witnesses. -The beautiful island, where sleeps Christopher -Columbus, with the epitaph that he gave to Castile and -Leon a new world,<a name="FNanchor_107" id="FNanchor_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> is fast becoming a desert, while the -nation to which he gave the new world is contending -for its last possession there. On this simple statement -two questions occur: first, as to the duty of Spain; and, -secondly, as to the duty of the United States.</p> - -<p>Unwelcome as it may be to that famous Castilian -pride which has played so lofty a part in modern Europe, -Spain must not refuse to see the case in its true -light; nor can she close her eyes to the lesson of history. -She must recall how the Thirteen American Colonies -achieved independence against all the power of -England,—how all her own colonies on the American -main achieved independence against her own most -strenuous efforts,—how at this moment England is preparing -to release her Northern colonies from their condition<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> -of dependence; and recalling these examples, it -will be proper for her to consider if they do not illustrate -a tendency of all colonies, which was remarked by -an illustrious Frenchman, even before the independence -of the United States. Never was anything more prophetic -in politics than when Turgot, in 1750, speaking -of the Phœnician colonies in Greece and Asia Minor, -said: “Colonies are like fruits, which hold to the tree -only until their maturity: when sufficient for themselves, -they did that which Carthage afterwards did,—<i>that -which some day America will do</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_108" id="FNanchor_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> These most -remarkable words of the philosopher-statesman will be -found in his Discourse at the Sorbonne; and now for -their application. Has not Cuba reached his condition -of maturity? Is it not sufficient for itself? At all -events, is victory over a colony contending for independence -worth the blood and treasure it will cost? -These are serious questions, which can be answered -properly only by putting aside all passion and prejudice -of empire, and calmly confronting the actual condition -of things. Nor must the case of Cuba be confounded -for a moment with our wicked Rebellion, having for -its object the dismemberment of a Republic, to found a -new power with Slavery as its vaunted corner-stone. -For myself, I cannot doubt, that, in the interest of both -parties, Cuba and Spain, and in the interest of humanity -also, the contest should be closed. This is my judgment -on the facts, so far as known to me. Cuba must -be saved from its bloody delirium, or little will be left -for the final conqueror. Nor can the enlightened mind -fail to see that the Spanish power on this island is an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> -anachronism. The day of European colonies has passed,—at -least in this hemisphere, where the rights of man -were first proclaimed and self-government first organized. -A governor from Europe, nominated by a crown, -is a constant witness against these fundamental principles.</p> - -<p>As the true course of Spain is clear, so to my mind is -the true course of the United States equally clear. It -is to avoid involving ourselves in any way. Enough of -war have we had, without heedlessly assuming another; -enough has our commerce been driven from the ocean, -without heedlessly arousing another enemy; enough of -taxation are we compelled to bear, without adding another -mountain. Two policies were open to us at the -beginning of the insurrection. One was to unite our -fortunes with the insurgents, assuming the responsibilities -of such an alliance, with the hazard of letters-of-marque -issued by Spain and of public war. I say nothing -of the certain consequences in expenditure and in -damages. A Spanish letter-of-marque would not be less -destructive than the English Alabama. The other policy -was to make Spain feel that we wish her nothing -but good,—and that, especially since the expulsion of -her royal dynasty, we cherish for her a cordial and -kindly sympathy. It is said that republics are ungrateful; -but I would not forget that at the beginning -of our Revolutionary struggle our fathers were aided -by her money, as afterwards by her arms, and that -her great statesman, Florida Blanca, by his remarkable -energies determined the organization of that Armed -Neutrality in Northern Europe which turned the scale -against England,<a name="FNanchor_109" id="FNanchor_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a>—so that John Adams declared,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> “We -owe the blessings of peace to the Armed Neutrality.”<a name="FNanchor_110" id="FNanchor_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> -I say nothing of the motives by which Spain was then -governed. It is something that in our day of need she -lent us a helping hand.</p> - -<p>It is evident, that, adopting the first policy, we should -be powerless, except as an enemy. The second policy -may enable us to exercise an important influence.</p> - -<p>The more I reflect upon the actual condition of Spain, -the more I am satisfied that the true rule for us is non-intervention, -except in the way of good offices. This -ancient kingdom is now engaged in comedy and tragedy. -You have heard of <i>Hunting the Slipper</i>. The -Spanish comedy is <i>Hunting a King</i>. The Spanish tragedy -is sending armies against Cuba. I do not wish to -take part in the comedy or the tragedy. If Spain is -wise, she will give up both. Meanwhile we have a -duty which is determined by International Law. To -that venerable authority I repair. What that prescribes -I follow.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>By that law, as I understand it, nations are not left -to any mere caprice. There is a rule of conduct which -they must follow, subject always to just accountability -where they depart from it. On ordinary occasions there -is no question; for it is with nations as with individuals. -It is only where the rule is obscure or precedents -are uncertain that doubt arises, as with some persons -now. Here I wish to be explicit. Belligerence is a -“fact,” attested by evidence. If the “fact” does not -exist, there is nothing to recognize. The fact cannot -be invented or imagined; it must be proved. No matter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> -what our sympathy, what the extent of our desires, -we must look at the fact. There may be insurrection -without reaching this condition, which is at least -the half-way house to independence. The Hungarians, -when they rose against Austria, obtained no such recognition, -although they had large armies in the field, and -Kossuth was their governor; the Poles, in repeated insurrections -against Russia, obtained no such recognition, -although the conflict made Europe vibrate; the Sepoys -and Rajahs of India failed also, although for a time the -English empire hung trembling; nor, in my opinion, -were our slave-mad Rebels ever entitled to such recognition,—for, -whatever the strength of the Rebellion on -land, it remained, as in the case of Hungary, of Poland, -of India, without those Prize Courts which are absolutely -essential to recognition by foreign powers. <i>A -cruiser without accountability to Prize Courts is a lawless -monster which civilized nations cannot sanction.</i> Therefore -the Prize Court is the condition-precedent; nor is -this all. If the Cuban insurgents have come within -any of the familiar requirements, I have never seen the -evidence. They are in arms, I know. But where are -their cities, towns, provinces? where their government? -where their ports? where their tribunals of justice? and -where their Prize Courts? To put these questions is -to answer them. How, then, is the “fact” of belligerence?</p> - -<p>There is another point in the case, which is with me -final. Even if they come within the prerequisites of -International Law, I am unwilling to make any recognition -of them so long as they continue to hold human -beings as slaves, which I understand they now do. I -am told that there was a decree in May last, purporting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> -to be signed by Cespedes, abolishing slavery; then I -am told of another decree in July, maintaining slavery. -There is also the story of a pro-slavery constitution to -be read at home, and an anti-slavery constitution to be -read abroad. Nor is there any evidence that any decree -or constitution has had any practical effect. In -this uncertainty I shall wait, even if all other things -are propitious. In any event there must be Emancipation.</p> - -<p>On the recognition of belligerence there is much latitude -of opinion,—some asserting that a nation may -take this step whenever it pleases; but this pretension -excludes the idea that belligerence is always a question -of fact on the evidence. Undoubtedly an independent -nation may do anything in its power, whenever it -pleases,—but subject always to just accountability, if -another suffers from what it does. This may be illustrated -in the three different cases of war, independence, -and belligerence. In each case the declaration is an exercise -of high prerogative, inherent in every nation, and -kindred to that of eminent domain; but a nation declaring -war without just cause becomes a wrong-doer; -a nation recognizing independence where it does not -exist in fact becomes a wrong-doer; and so a nation -recognizing belligerence where it does not exist in fact -becomes a wrong-doer also. Any present uncertainty -on this last point I attribute to the failure of precedents -sufficiently clear and authoritative; but with me -there is one rule in such a case which I cannot disobey. -In the absence of any precise injunction, I do -not hesitate to adopt that interpretation of International -Law which most restricts war and all that makes for -war,—believing that in this way I shall best promote<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> -civilization and obtain new security for international -peace.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>From the case of Spain I pass to the case of England, -contenting myself with a brief explanation. On this -subject I have never spoken except with pain, as I have -been obliged to expose a great transgression. I hope to -say nothing now which shall augment difficulties,—although, -when I consider how British anger was aroused -by an effort in another place,<a name="FNanchor_111" id="FNanchor_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> judged by all who heard -it most pacific in character, I do not know that even -these few words may not be misinterpreted.</p> - -<p>There can be no doubt that we received from England -incalculable wrong,—greater, I have often said, -than was ever before received by one civilized power -from another, short of unjust war. I do not say this -in bitterness, but in sadness. There can be no doubt, -that, through English complicity, our carrying-trade -was transferred to English bottoms,—our foreign commerce -sacrificed, while our loss was England’s gain,—our -blockade rendered more expensive,—and generally, -that our war, with all its fearful cost of blood and treasure, -was prolonged indefinitely. This terrible complicity -began with the wrongful recognition of Rebel belligerence, -under whose shelter pirate ships were built and -supplies sent forth. All this was at the very moment -of our mortal agony, in the midst of a struggle for national -life; and it was done in support of Rebels whose -single declared object of separate existence as a nation -was Slavery, being in this respect clearly distinguishable -from an established power where slavery is tolerated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> -without being made the vaunted corner-stone. -Such is the case. Who shall fix the measure of this -great accountability? For the present it is enough to -expose it. I make no demand,—not a dollar of money, -not a word of apology. I show simply what England -has done to us. It will be for her, on a careful review -of the case, to determine what reparation to offer; it -will be for the American people, on a careful review of -the case, to determine what reparation to require. On -this head I content myself with the aspiration that out -of this surpassing wrong, and the controversy it has -engendered, may come some enduring safeguard for the -future, some landmark of Humanity. Then will our -losses end in gain for all, while the Law of Nations is -elevated. But I have little hope of any adequate settlement, -until our case, in its full extent, is heard. In all -controversies the first stage of justice is to understand -the case; and sooner or later England must understand -ours.</p> - -<p>The English arguments, so far as argument can be -found in the recent heats, have not in any respect impaired -the justice of our complaint. Loudly it is said -that there can be no sentimental damages, or damages -for wounded feelings; and then our case is dismissed, -as having nothing but this foundation. Now, without -undertaking to say that there is no remedy in the case -supposed, I wish it understood that our complaint is for -damages traced directly to England. If the amount is -unprecedented, so also is the wrong. The scale of damages -is naturally in proportion to the scale of operations. -Who among us doubts that these damages were -received? Call them what you please, to this extent -the nation lost. The records show how our commerce<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> -suffered, and witnesses without number testify how the -blockade was broken and the war prolonged. Ask any -of our great generals,—ask Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, -Meade, Burnside,—ask Grant. In view of this transcendent -wrong, it is a disparagement of International -Law to say that there is no remedy. An eminent English -judge once pronounced from the bench that “the -law is astute to find a remedy”; but no astuteness -is required in this case,—nothing but simple justice, -which is always the object of a true diplomacy. How -did the nation suffer? To what extent? These are the -practical questions. No technicality can be set up on -either side. <i>Damages</i> are <i>damages</i>, no matter by what -artificial term they may be characterized. Opposing -them as <i>consequential</i> shows the disposition to escape -by technicality, even while confessing an equitable liability,—since -England is bound for <i>all the consequences</i> -of her conduct, bound under International Law, which -is a Law of Equity always, and bound, no matter how -the damages occurred, <i>always provided they proceeded -from her</i>. Because the damages are national, because -all suffered instead of one, this is no reason for immunity -on her part.</p> - -<p>Then it is said, “Why not consider our good friends -in England, and especially those noble working-men -who stood by us so bravely?” We do consider them -always, and give them gratitude for their generous alliance. -They belong to what our own poet has called -“the nobility of labor.” But they are not England. -We trace no damages to them, nor to any class, high -or low, but to England, corporate England, through -whose Government we suffered.</p> - -<p>Then, again, it is said,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> “Why not exhibit an account -against France?” For the good reason, that, while -France erred with England in recognition of Rebel -belligerence, no pirate ships or blockade-runners were -built under shelter of this recognition to prey upon our -commerce. The two cases are wide asunder, and they -are distinguished by two different phrases of the Common -Law. The recognition of Rebel belligerence in -France was wrong without injury; but that same recognition -in England was wrong with injury, and it is of -this unquestionable injury that we complain.</p> - -<p>Fellow-citizens, it cannot be doubted that this great -question, so long as it continues pending, will be a -cloud always upon the relations of two friendly powers, -when there should be sunshine. Good men on both -sides should desire its settlement, and in such way as -most to promote good-will, and make the best precedent -for civilization. But there can be no good-will without -justice, nor can any “snap judgment” establish any rule -for the future. Nothing will do now but a full inquiry, -without limitation or technicality, and a candid acceptance -of the result. There must be equity, which is -justice without technicality.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Sometimes there are whispers of territorial compensation, -and Canada is named as the consideration. But he -knows England little, and little also of that great English -liberty from Magna Charta to the Somerset case, -who supposes that this nation could undertake any -such transfer. And he knows our country little, and -little also of that great liberty which is ours, who supposes -that we could receive such a transfer. On each -side there is impossibility. Territory may be conveyed, -but not a people. I allude to this suggestion only because,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> -appearing in the public press, it has been answered -from England.</p> - -<p>But the United States can never be indifferent to -Canada, nor to the other British provinces, near neighbors -and kindred. It is well known historically, that, -even before the Declaration of Independence, our fathers -hoped that Canada would take part with them. -Washington was strong in this hope; so was Franklin. -The Continental Congress, by solemn resolution, -invited Canada, and then appointed a Commission, with -Benjamin Franklin at its head, “to form an Union between -the United Colonies and the people of Canada.” -In the careful instructions of the Congress, signed in -their behalf by John Hancock, President, the Commissioners -are, among other things, enjoined “in the strongest -terms to assure the people of Canada that it is our -earnest desire to adopt them into our Union as a sister -Colony, and to secure the same general system of mild -and equal laws for them and for ourselves, with only -such local differences as may be agreeable to each Colony -respectively”; and further, that in the judgment of -the Congress “their interest and ours are inseparably -united.”<a name="FNanchor_112" id="FNanchor_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a></p> - -<p>Long ago the Continental Congress passed away, living -only in its deeds. Long ago the great Commissioner -rested from his labors, to become a star in our firmament. -But the invitation survives, not only in the archives -of our history, but in all American hearts, constant -and continuing as when first issued, believing, as -we do, that such a union, in the fulness of time, with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> -the good-will of the mother country and the accord of -both parties, must be the harbinger of infinite good. -Nor do I doubt that this will be accomplished. Such -a union was clearly foreseen by the late Richard Cobden, -who, in a letter to myself, bearing date, London, -7th November, 1849, wrote:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I agree with you that Nature has decided that <i>Canada -and the United States must become one</i> for all purposes of -intercommunication. Whether they also shall be united in -the same Federal Government must depend upon the two -parties to the union. I can assure you that there will be no -repetition of the policy of 1776 on our part, to prevent our -North American colonies from pursuing their interests in -their own way. If the people of Canada are tolerably unanimous -in wishing to sever the very slight thread which now -binds them to this country, I see no reason why, if good -faith and ordinary temper be observed, it should not be done -amicably.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Nearly twenty years have passed since these prophetic -words, and enough has already taken place to give -assurance of the rest. “Reciprocity,” once established -by treaty, and now so often desired on both sides, will -be transfigured in Union, while our Plural Unit is -strengthened and extended.</p> - -<p>The end is certain; nor shall we wait long for its -mighty fulfilment. Its beginning is the establishment -of peace at home, through which the national unity -shall become manifest. This is the first step. The rest -will follow. In the procession of events it is now at -hand, and he is blind who does not discern it. From -the Frozen Sea to the tepid waters of the Mexican Gulf, -from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the whole vast continent, -smiling with outstretched prairies, where the coal-fields<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> -below vie with the infinite corn-fields above,—teeming -with iron, copper, silver, and gold,—filling fast -with a free people, to whom the telegraph and steam -are constant servants,—breathing already with schools, -colleges, and libraries,—interlaced by rivers which are -great highways,—studded with inland seas where fleets -are sailing, and “poured round all old Ocean’s” constant -tides, with tributary commerce and still expanding -domain,—such will be the Great Republic, One -and Indivisible, with a common Constitution, a common -Liberty, and a common Glory.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="THE_QUESTION_OF_CASTE" id="THE_QUESTION_OF_CASTE"></a>THE QUESTION OF CASTE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Lecture delivered in the Music Hall, Boston, October -21, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">Man is a name of honor for a king;</div> -<div class="verse">Additions take away from each chief thing.</div> -<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Chapman</span>, <i>Bussy d’Ambois</i>, Act IV. Sc. 1.</p> -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="r15" /> - -<p>All men have the same rational nature and the same powers of conscience, -and all are equally made for indefinite improvement of these divine -faculties, and for the happiness to be found in their virtuous use. -Who that comprehends these gifts does not see that the diversities of the -race vanish before them?—<span class="smcap">Channing</span>, <i>Slavery</i>: Works, Vol. II. p. 21.</p> - -<hr class="r15" /> - -<p>The Christian philosopher sees in every man a partaker of his own -nature and a brother of his own species.—<span class="smcap">Chalmers</span>, <i>Utility of Missions</i>: -Works, Vol. XI. p. 244.</p> - -<hr class="r15" /> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a><br /><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span></p> - -<h3>LECTURE.</h3> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—In asking you to consider the -Question of Caste, I open a great subject of immediate -practical interest. Happily, Slavery no longer -exists to disturb the peace of our Republic; but it is -not yet dead in other lands, while among us the impious -pretension of this great wrong still survives against -the African because he is black and against the Chinese -because he is yellow. Here is nothing less than the -claim of hereditary power from color; and it assumes -that human beings cast in the same mould with ourselves, -and in all respects <i>men</i>, with the same title of -manhood that we have, may be shut out from Equal -Rights on account of the skin. Such is the pretension, -plainly stated.</p> - -<p>On other occasions it has been my duty to show how -inconsistent is this pretension with our character as a -Republic, and with the promises of our fathers,—all -of which I consider it never out of order to say and -to urge. But my present purpose is rather to show -how inconsistent it is with that sublime truth, being -part of God’s law for the government of the world, -which teaches the Unity of the Human Family, and its -final harmony on earth. In this law, which is both -commandment and promise, I find duties and hopes,—perpetual<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> -duties never to be postponed, and perpetual -hopes never to be abandoned, so long as Man -is Man.</p> - -<p>Believing in this law, and profoundly convinced that -by the blessing of God it will all be fulfilled on earth, -it is easy to see how unreasonable is a claim of power -founded on any unchangeable physical incident derived -from birth. Because man is black, because man is yellow, -he is none the less Man; because man is white, he -is none the more Man. By this great title he is universal -heir to all that Man can claim. Because he is -Man, and not on account of color, he enters into possession -of the promised dominion over the animal kingdom,—“over -the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of -the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon -the earth.” But this equal copartnership without distinction -of color symbolizes equal copartnership in all -the Rights of Man.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>As I enter upon this important theme, I confess an -unwelcome impediment, partly from the prevailing prejudice -of color, which has become with many what is -sometimes called a second nature, and partly from the -little faith among men in the future development of the -race. The cry, “A white man’s government,” which is -such an insult to human nature, has influence in the -work of degradation. Accustomed to this effrontery, -people do not see its ineffable absurdity, which is made -conspicuous, if they simply consider the figure our fathers -would have cut, had they declared the equal rights -of <i>white</i> men, and not the equal rights of <i>men</i>. The -great Declaration was axiomatic and self-evident because -universal; confined to a class, it would have been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> -neither. Hearkening to this disgusting cry, people close -the soul to all the quickening voices, whether of prophet, -poet, or philosopher, by which we are encouraged -to persevere; nor do they heed the best lessons of science.</p> - -<p>I begin by declaring an unalterable faith in the Future, -which nothing can diminish or impair. Other -things I may renounce, but this I cannot. Throughout -a life of controversy and opposition, frequently in a -small minority, sometimes almost alone, I have never -for a moment doubted the final fulfilment of the great -promises for Humanity without which this world would -be a continuing chaos. To me it was clear from the beginning, -even in the early darkness, and then in the -bloody mists of war, that Slavery must yield to well-directed -efforts against it; and now it is equally clear -that every kindred pretension must yield likewise, until -all are in the full fruition of those equal rights which -are the crown of life on earth. Nor can this great triumph -be restricted to our Republic. Wherever men -are gathered into nations, wherever Civilization extends -her beneficent sway, there will it be manifest. Against -this lofty truth the assaults of the adversary are no better -than the arrows of barbarians vainly shot at the sun. -Still it moves, and it will move until all rejoice in its -beams. The “all-hail Hereafter,” in which the poet -pictures personal success, is a feeble expression for that -transcendent Future where man shall be conqueror, not -only over nations, but over himself, subduing pride of -birth, prejudice of class, pretension of Caste.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The assurances of the Future are strengthened, when -I look at Government and see how its character constantly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> -improves as it comes within the sphere of -knowledge. Men must know before they can act wisely; -and this simple rule is applicable alike to individuals -and communities. “Go, my son,” said the Swedish -Chancellor, “and see with what little wisdom the world -is governed.”<a name="FNanchor_113" id="FNanchor_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> Down to his day government was little -more than an expedient, a device, a trick, for the aggrandizement -of a class, of a few, or, it may be, of one. -Calling itself Commonwealth, it was so in name only. -There were classes always, and egotism was the prevailing -law. Macchiavelli, the much-quoted herald of -modern politics, insisted that all governments, whether -monarchical or republican, owed their origin or reformation -to a single lawgiver, like Lycurgus or Solon.<a name="FNanchor_114" id="FNanchor_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> If -this was true in his day, it is not in ours. In the presence -of an enlightened people, a single lawgiver, or an -aristocracy of lawgivers, is impossible, while government -becomes the rule of all for the good of all,—not -the One Man Power, so constant in history,—not the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> -Triumvirate, sometimes occurring,—not an Oligarchy, -which is the rule of a few,—not an Aristocracy, which -is the rule of a class,—not any combination, howsoever -accepted, sanctioning exclusions,—but the whole body -of the people, without exclusion of any kind, or, in -the great words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, -“government of the people, by the people, and for the -people.”<a name="FNanchor_115" id="FNanchor_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a></p> - -<p>Thus far government has been at best an Art, like -alchemy or astrology, where ministers exercised a subtle -power, or speculators tried imaginative experiments, -seeking some philosopher’s-stone at the expense of the -people. Though in many respects still an Art only, it -is fast becoming a Science founded on principles and -laws from which there can be no just departure. As a -science, it is determined by knowledge, like any other -science, aided by that universal handmaid, the philosophy -of induction. From a succession of particulars the -general rule is deduced; and this is as true of government -as of chemistry or astronomy. Nor do I see reason -to doubt, that, in the evolution of events, the time -is at hand when government will be subordinated to -unquestionable truth, making diversity of opinion as -impossible in this lofty science as it is now impossible -in other sciences already mastered by man. Science accomplishes -part only of its beneficent work, when it -brings physical nature within its domain. That other -nature found in Man must be brought within the same -domain. And is it true that man can look into the unfathomable -Universe, there to measure suns and stars, -that he can penetrate the uncounted ages of the eart<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span>h’s -existence, reading everywhere the inscriptions upon its -rocks, but that he cannot look into himself, or penetrate -his own nature, to measure human capacities and read -the inscriptions upon the human soul? I do not believe -it. What is already accomplished in such large -measure for the world of matter will yet be accomplished -for that other world of Humanity; and then it -will appear, by a law as precise as any in chemistry or -astronomy, that just government stands only on the consent -of the governed, that all men must be equal before -the law of man as they are equal before the law of God, -and that any discrimination founded on the accident -of birth is inconsistent with that true science of government -which is simply the science of justice on earth.</p> - -<p>One of our teachers, who has shed much light on the -science of government,—I refer to Professor Lieber, of -New York,—shows that the State is what he calls “a -<i>jural</i> society,” precisely as the Church is a religious society, -and an insurance company a financial society.<a name="FNanchor_116" id="FNanchor_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> -The term is felicitous as it is suggestive. Above the -State rises the image of Justice, lofty, blindfold, with -balance in hand. There it stands in colossal form with -constant lesson of Equal Rights for All, while under -its inspiration government proceeds according to laws -which cannot be disobeyed with impunity, and Providence -is behind to sustain the righteous hand. In proportion -as men are wise, they recognize these laws and -confess the exalted science.</p> - -<p>“Know thyself” is the Heaven-descended injunction -which ancient piety inscribed in letters of gold in the -temple at Delphi.<a name="FNanchor_117" id="FNanchor_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> The famous oracle is mute, but the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> -divine injunction survives; nor is it alone. Saint Augustine -impresses it in his own eloquent way, when he -says, “Men go to admire the heights of mountains, and -the great waves of the sea, and the widest flow of rivers, -and the compass of the ocean, and the circuits of the -stars, <i>and leave themselves behind</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_118" id="FNanchor_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> Following the early -mandate, thus seconded by the most persuasive of the -Christian Fathers, man will consider his place in the -universe and his relations to his brother man. Looking -into his soul, he will there find the great irreversible -Law of Right, universal for the nation as for himself, -commanding to do unto others as we would have them -do unto us; and under the safeguard of this universal -law I now place the rights of all mankind. It is little -that I can do; but, taking counsel of my desires, I am -not without hope of contributing something to that just -judgment which shall blast the effrontery of Caste as -doubly offensive, not only to the idea of a Republic, but -to Human Nature itself.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Already you are prepared to condemn Caste, when -you understand its real character. To this end, let me -carry you to that ancient India, with its population of -more than a hundred and eighty millions, where this -artificial discrimination, born of impossible fable, was -for ages the dominating institution of society,—being, -in fact, what Slavery was in our Rebellion, the corner-stone -of the whole structure.</p> - -<p>The Portuguese were the first of European nations -to form establishments in India, and therefore through<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> -them was the civilized world first acquainted with its -peculiar institutions. But I know no monument of -their presence there, and no contribution from them to -our knowledge of the country, so enduring as the word -Caste, or, in the Portuguese language, <i>Casta</i>, by which -they designated those rigid orders or ranks into which -the people of India were divided. The term originally -applied by them has been adopted in the other languages -of Europe, where it signifies primarily the orders -or ranks of India, but by natural extension any -separate and fixed order of society. In the latter sense -Caste is now constantly employed. The word is too -modern, however, for our classical English literature, or -for that most authentic record of our language, the Dictionary -of Dr. Johnson, when it first saw the light in -1755.</p> - -<p>Though the word was unknown in earlier times, the -hereditary discrimination it describes entered into the -political system of modern Europe, where people were -distributed into classes, and the son succeeded to the -condition of his father, whether of privilege or disability,—the -son of a noble being a noble with great privileges, -the son of a mechanic being a mechanic with -great disabilities. And this inherited condition was applicable -even to the special labor of the father; nor was -there any business beyond its tyrannical control. According -to Macaulay, “the tinkers formed an hereditary -caste.”<a name="FNanchor_119" id="FNanchor_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> The father of John Bunyan was a tinker, and -the son inherited the position. The French Revolution -did much to shake this irrational system; yet in many -parts of Europe, down to this day, the son emancipates -himself with difficulty from the class in which he is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> -born. But just in proportion to the triumph of Equality -does Caste disappear.</p> - -<p>This institution is essentially barbarous, and therefore -appears in barbarous ages, or in countries not yet -relieved from the early incubus. It flourished side by -side with the sculptured bulls and cuneïform characters -of Assyria, side by side with the pyramids and hieroglyphics -of Egypt. It showed itself under the ambitious -sway of Persia, and even in the much-praised Cecropian -era of Attica. In all these countries Caste was -organized, differing somewhat in divisions, but hereditary -in character. And the same phenomenon arrested -the attention of the conquering Spaniards in Peru. The -system had two distinct elements: first, separation, with -rank and privilege, or their opposite, with degradation -and disability; secondly, descent from father to son, so -that it was perpetual separation from generation to generation.<a name="FNanchor_120" id="FNanchor_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In Hindustan, this dreadful system, which, under the -name of Order, is the organization of disorder, has prolonged -itself to our day, so as to be a living admonition -to mankind. That we may shun the evil it entails, in -whatever shape, I now endeavor to expose its true character.</p> - -<p>The regular castes of India are four in number, called -in Sanscrit <i>varnas</i>, or <i>colors</i>, although it does not appear -that by nature they were of different colors. Their origin -will be found in the sacred law-book of the Hindoos, -the “Ordinances of Menu,” where it is recorded -that the Creator caused the Brahmin, the Cshatriya, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> -Vaisya, and the Sudra, so named from <i>Scripture</i>, <i>Protection</i>, -<i>Wealth</i>, and <i>Labor</i>, to proceed from his mouth, his -arm, his thigh, and his foot, appointing separate duties -for each class. To the Brahmin, proceeding from the -mouth, was allotted the duty of reading the Veda and -of teaching it; to the Cshatriya, proceeding from the -arm, the duty of soldier; to the Vaisya, proceeding -from the thigh, the duty of cultivating the land and -keeping herds of cattle; and to the Sudra, proceeding -from the foot, was appointed the chief duty of serving -the other classes without depreciating their worth. -Such was the original assignment of parts; but, under -the operation of natural laws, those already elevated increased -their importance, while those already degraded -sank lower. Ascent from an inferior class was absolutely -impossible: as well might a vegetable become a -man. The distinction was perpetuated by the injunction -that each should marry only in his own class, with -sanguinary penalties upon any attempted amalgamation.</p> - -<p>The Brahmin was child of rank and privilege; the -Sudra, child of degradation and disability. Omitting -the two intermediate classes, soldiers and husbandmen, -look for one moment at the two extremes, as described -by the sacred volume.</p> - -<p>The Brahmin is constantly hailed as first-born, and, -by right, chief of the whole creation. This eminence is -declared in various terms. Thus it is said, “When a -Brahmin springs to light, he is born above the world”; -and then again, “Whatever exists in the universe is -all in effect the wealth of the Brahmin.” As he engrosses -the favor of the Deity, so is he entitled to the -veneration of mortals; and thus,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> “whether learned or -ignorant, he is a powerful divinity, even as fire is -a powerful divinity, whether consecrated or common.” -Immunities of all kinds cluster about him. Not for the -most insufferable crime can he be touched in person or -property; nor can he be called to pay taxes, while all -other classes must bestow their wealth upon him. Such -is the Brahmin, with these privileges crystallized in his -blood from generation to generation.</p> - -<p>On the other hand is the Sudra, who is the contrast -in all particulars. As much as the Brahmin is object of -constant veneration, so is the Sudra object of constant -contempt. As one is exalted above Humanity, so is the -other degraded below it. The life of the Sudra is servile, -but according to the sacred volume he was created -by the Self-Existent especially to serve the Brahmin. -Everywhere his degradation is manifest. He holds no -property which a Brahmin may not seize. The crime -he commits is visited with the most condign punishment, -beyond that allotted to other classes subject to -punishment. The least disrespect to a Brahmin is terribly -avenged. For presuming to sit on a Brahmin’s -carpet, the penalty is branding and banishment, or -maiming; for contumelious words to a Brahmin, it is -an iron style ten fingers long thrust red-hot into the -mouth; and for offering instruction to a Brahmin, it is -nothing less than hot oil poured into mouth and ears. -Such is the Sudra; and this fearful degradation, with -all its disabilities, is crystallized in his blood from generation -to generation.</p> - -<p>Below these is another more degraded even than the -Sudra, being the outcast, with no place in either of the -four regular castes, and known commonly as the Pariah. -Here is another term imported into familiar usage to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> -signify generally those on whom society has set its ban. -No person of the regular castes holds communication -with the Pariah. His presence is contaminating. Milk, -and even water, is defiled by his passing shadow, and -cannot be used until purified. The Brahmin sometimes -puts him to death at sight. In well-known language of -our country, once applied to another people, he has no -rights which a Brahmin is bound to respect.<a name="FNanchor_121" id="FNanchor_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a></p> - -<p>Such a system, so shocking to the natural sense, has -been denounced by all who have considered it, whether -on the spot or at a distance,—unless I except the excellent -historian Robertson, who seems to find apologies -for it, as men among us find apologies for the caste -which sends its lengthening shadow across our Republic. -I might take your time until late in the evening -unfolding its obvious evil, as exposed by those who -have witnessed its operation. This testimony is collected -in a work entitled “Caste opposed to Christianity,” -by Rev. Joseph Roberts, and published in London -in 1847. I give brief specimens only. A Hindoo converted -to Christianity exposes its demoralizing influence, -when he says, “Caste is the stronghold of pride, -which makes a man think of himself more highly than -he ought to think”; and so also another converted Hindoo, -when he says, “Caste makes a man think that he -is holier than another, and that he has some inherent -virtue which another has not”; and still another converted -Hindoo, when he says, “Caste is part and parcel -of idolatry and all heathen abomination.” But no testimony<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> -surpasses that of the eminent Reginald Heber, the -Bishop of Calcutta, when he declares that it is “a system -which tends, more than anything else the Devil -has yet invented, to destroy the feelings of general benevolence, -and to make nine tenths of mankind the -hopeless slaves of the remainder.”<a name="FNanchor_122" id="FNanchor_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> Under these protests, -and the growing influence of Christianity, the system -is so far mitigated, that, according to an able writer -whose soul is enlisted against it, “the distinctions are -felt on certain limited occasions only.”<a name="FNanchor_123" id="FNanchor_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> These are -the words of James Mill, interesting always as the author -of the best work on India, and the father of John -Stuart Mill. It is now admitted, that, under constraint -of necessity, the member of a superior caste may descend -to the pursuits of an inferior caste. The lofty -Brahmin engages in traffic, yet he cannot touch “leather”; -for contact with this article of commerce is polluting. -But I am obliged to add that no modification -leaving “distinctions” transmissible with the blood can -be adequate. So long as these continue, the natural -harmonies of society are disturbed and man is degraded. -The system in its mildest form can have nothing but -evil; for it is a constant violation of primal truth, and a -constant obstruction to that progress which is the appointed -destiny of man.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Change now the scene,—from ancient India, and the -shadow of unknown centuries, to our Republic, born on -yesterday. How unlike in venerable antiquity! How<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span> -like in the pretension of Caste! Here the caste claiming -hereditary rank and privilege is white, the caste -doomed to hereditary degradation and disability is -black or yellow; and it is gravely asserted that this -difference of color marks difference of race, which in -itself justifies the discrimination. To save this enormity -of claim from indignant reprobation, it is insisted -that the varieties of men do not proceed from a common -stock,—that they are different in origin,—that -this difference is perpetuated in their respective capacities; -and the apology concludes with the practical assumption, -that the white man is a superior caste not -unlike the Brahmin, while the black man is an inferior -caste not unlike the Sudra, sometimes even the Pariah; -nor is the yellow man exempted from this same insulting -proscription. When I consider how for a long time -the African was shut out from testifying in court, even -when seeking redress for the grossest outrage, and how -at this time in some places the Chinese is also shut out -from testifying in court, each seems to have been little -better than the Pariah. In stating this assumption of -superiority, which I do not exaggerate, I open a question -of surpassing interest, whether in science, government, -or religion.</p> - -<p>Here I must not forget that some, who admit the -common origin of all men, insist that the African is -descended from Ham, son of Noah, through Canaan, -cursed by Noah to be servant of his brethren, and that -therefore he may be degraded even to slavery. But -this apology is not original with us. Nobles in Poland -seized upon it to justify their lordly pretensions, calling -their serfs, though white, descendants of Ham.<a name="FNanchor_124" id="FNanchor_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> But<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> -whether employed by Pole or American, it is worthy -only of derision. I do not know that this apology is -invoked for maltreating the Chinese, although he is descended -from Ham as much as the Pole.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Two passages of Scripture, one in the Old Testament -and the other in the New, both governing this question, -attest the Unity of the Human Family. The first is -in that sublime chapter of Genesis, where, amidst the -wonders of Creation, it is said: “So God created man in -His own image; in the image of God created He him; -male and female created He them. And God blessed -them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, -and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”<a name="FNanchor_125" id="FNanchor_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> The -other passage is from that great sermon of Saint Paul, -when, standing in the midst of Mars Hill, he proclaimed -to the men of Athens, and through them to all mankind, -that God “hath made of <i>one blood</i> all nations of -men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.”<a name="FNanchor_126" id="FNanchor_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> If, as -is sometimes argued, there be ambiguity in the account -of the Creation, or if in any way its authority has been -impaired by scientific criticism, there is nothing of the -kind to detract from the sermon of Saint Paul, which -must continue forevermore venerable and beautiful.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Appealing from these texts, the apologists hurry to -Science; and there I follow. But I must compress into -paragraphs what might fill volumes.</p> - -<p>Ethnology, to which we repair, is a science of recent -origin, exhibiting the different races or varieties of Man -in their relations with each other, as that other science, -Anthropology, exhibits Man in his relation to the animal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> -world. Nature and History are our authorities, -but all science and all knowledge are tributary. Perhaps -no other theme is grander; for it is the very beginning -of human history, in which all nations and -men have a common interest. Its vastness is increased, -when we consider that it embraces properly not only -the origin, distribution, and capacity of Man, but his -destiny on earth,—stretching into the infinite past, -stretching also into the infinite future, and thus spanning -Humanity.</p> - -<p>The subject is entirely modern. Hippocrates, one of -our ancient masters, has left a treatise on “Air, Water, -and Place,” where climatic influences are recognized; -but nobody in Antiquity studied the varieties of our -race, or regarded its origin except mythically. The discovery -of America, and the later circumnavigation of -the globe, followed by the development of the sciences -generally, prepared the way for this new science.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>It is obvious to the most superficial observer that -there are divisions or varieties in the Human Family, -commonly called Races; but the most careful explorations -of Science leave the number uncertain. These -differences are in Color and in Skull,—also in Language. -Of these the most obvious is Color; but here, -again, the varieties multiply in proportion as we consider -transitional or intermediate hues. Two great -teachers in the last century—Linnæus, of whom it -was said, “God created, Linnæus classified,” <i>Deus creavit, -Linnæus disposuit</i>,<a name="FNanchor_127" id="FNanchor_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> and Kant, a sincere and penetrating<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> -seeker of truth—were content with four,—white, -copper, tawny or olive, and black,—corresponding -geographically to European, American, Asiatic, and -African. Buffon, in his eloquent portraiture, recognizes -five, with geographical designations. He was followed -by Blumenbach, who also recognizes five, with the -names which have become so famous since,—Caucasian, -Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. -Here first appears the popular, but deceptive term, -Caucasian; for nobody supposes now that the white -cradle was on Caucasus, which is best known to English-speaking -people by the verse of Shakespeare, making -it anything but Eden,—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“Oh, who can hold a fire in his hand</div> -<div class="verse">By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?”<a name="FNanchor_128" id="FNanchor_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Blumenbach was an able and honest inquirer; and if -his nomenclature is defective, it is only another illustration -of the adage, that nothing is at the same time invented -and perfected.</p> - -<p>If I mention other attempts, it is only to show how -Science hesitates before this great problem. Cuvier -reduces the Family to three, with branches or subdivisions, -and lends his great authority to the term -Caucasian, which he adopts from Blumenbach. Lesson -began with three, according to color,—white, yellow, -and black; but afterwards recognized six,—white, bistre, -orange, yellow, red, black,—represented respectively -by European, Hindoo, Malay, Mongolian, American, -and Negro, African and Asiatic. Desmoulins makes -eleven. Bory de Saint-Vincent adds to Desmoulins. -Broc adds to Saint-Vincent. The London “Ethnological -Journal” makes no less than sixty-three, of which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> -twenty-eight varieties are intellectual and thirty-five -physical; and we are told<a name="FNanchor_129" id="FNanchor_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> that thirty varieties of Caucasian -alone are recognized on the monuments of ancient -Egypt, as they appear in the magnificent works of -Rosellini and Lepsius. Our own countryman, Pickering,—whose -experience was gained on the Exploring -Expedition of Captain Wilkes,—in his work on “The -Races of Man and their Geographical Distribution,” -enumerates eleven varieties of Man, divided into four -groups, according to color,—white, brown, blackish-brown, -and black. In his opinion, “there is no middle -ground between the admission of eleven distinct -species in the Human Family and the reduction to -one.”<a name="FNanchor_130" id="FNanchor_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a></p> - -<p>The Dutch anatomist, Camper, distinguishes the Human -Family by the facial angle, ranging from eighty -degrees, in the European, down to seventy degrees, in -the Negro.<a name="FNanchor_131" id="FNanchor_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> This attempt was continued by Virey, who -divides Man into two species: the first with a facial -angle of 85° to 90°, including Caucasian, Mongolian, -and copper-colored American; and the second with a -facial angle of 75° to 82°, including dark-brown Malay, -blackish Hottentot and Papuan, and the Negro. Prichard, -whose voluminous works constitute an ethnological -mine, finds, chiefly from the skull, seven varieties, -which he calls (1.) Iranian, from Iran, the primeval seat -in Persia of the Aryan race, embracing the Caucasian of -Blumenbach with some Asiatic and African nations; -(2.) Turanian or Mongolian; (3.) American, including<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> -Esquimaux; (4.) Hottentot and Bushman; (5.) Negro; -(6.) Papuan, or woolly-haired Polynesian; (7.) Australian. -The same industrious observer finds three principal -varieties in the conformation of the head, corresponding -respectively to Savage, Nomadic, and Civilized -Man. In the savage African and Australian the jaw is -prolonged forward, constituting what he calls, by an expressive -term, <i>prognathous</i>. In the nomadic Mongolian -the skull is pyramidal and the face broad. In Civilized -Man the skull is oval or elliptical. But the naturalist -records that there are forms of transition, as nations approach -to civilization or relapse into barbarism.</p> - -<p>Thus does the Human Skull refuse any definitive answer. -There are varieties of skull, as of color; but the -question remains, to what extent they attest original diversity. -Equally vain is the attempt to obtain a guide -in the form of the human pelvis. But every such attempt -and its failure have their lesson.</p> - -<p>There remains one other criterion: I mean Language. -And here the testimony is such as to disturb all divisions -founded on Color or Skull; for it is ascertained -that people differing in these respects speak languages -having a common origin. The ancient Sanscrit, sometimes -called the most elaborate of human dialects, has -yielded its secret to philological research, and now -stands forth the mother tongue of the European nations. -It is difficult to measure the importance of this -revelation; for, while not decisive on the main question, -it increases our difficulty in accepting any postulate -of original diversity.<a name="FNanchor_132" id="FNanchor_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span></p> - -<p>And now the question arises, How are these varieties -to be regarded in the light of science? Are they aboriginal -and from the beginning,—or are they super-induced -by secondary causes, of which the record is -lost in the extended night preceding our historic day? -Here the authorities are divided. On the one side, we -are reminded that within the period of recognized chronology -no perceptible change has occurred in any of -these varieties,—that on the earliest monuments of -Egypt the African is pictured precisely as we see him -now, even to that servitude from which among us he is -happily released,—and it is insisted that no known influences -of climate or place are sufficient to explain -such transformations from an aboriginal type, while -plural types are in conformity with the analogies of -the animal and vegetable world. On the other side, we -are reminded, that, whatever may be the difficulties -from supposing a common centre of Creation, there are -greater still in supposing plural centres,—that it is easier -to understand one creation than many,<a name="FNanchor_133" id="FNanchor_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a>—that geographical -science makes us acquainted with intermediate -gradations of color and conformation in which the -great contrasts disappear,—that, even within the last -half-century and in Europe, people have tended to lose -their national physiognomy and run into a common -type, thus attesting subjection to transforming influences,—that, -after accepting the races already described, -there are other varieties, national, family, and individual, -not less difficult of explanation,—and it is insisted, -that, whatever these varieties, be they few or many, -there is among them all <i>an overruling Unity</i>, by which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> -they are constituted one and the same cosmopolitan -species, endowed with speech, reason, conscience, and -the hope of immortality, knitting all together in a -common Humanity, and, amidst all seeming differences, -making all as near to each other as they are far -apart from every other created thing, while to every -one is given that great first instrument of civilization, -the human hand, by which the earth is tilled, cities -built, history written, and the stars measured;—and -this unquestionable Unity is pronounced all-sufficient -evidence of a common origin.</p> - -<p>In considering this great question, do all inquirers -sufficiently recognize the element of Time? Obviously -the sphere of operation is enlarged in proportion to -the time employed. Everything is possible with time. -Confining ourselves to recognized chronology, existing -varieties cannot be reconciled with that unity found in -a common origin. What are the six thousand years of -Hebrew time, what are the twenty-two thousand years -of human annals sanctioned by the learning and piety -of Bunsen,<a name="FNanchor_134" id="FNanchor_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> for the consummation of these transformations? -And this longest period, how brief for the completion -of those two marvellous languages, Sanscrit and -Greek, which at the earliest dawn of authentic history -were already so perfect! Considering the infinitudes of -astronomy, and those other infinitudes of geology, it is -not unreasonable to claim an antiquity for Primeval -Man compared with which all the years of authentic -history are a span. With such incalculable opportunity, -amidst unknown changes of Nature where heat -and cold strove for mastery, no transformation consistent -with the preservation of the characteristic species<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> -was impossible. Egypt is not alone in its Sphinx, perplexing -mortals with perpetual enigma. Science is our -Sphinx, and its enigma is Man and his varieties on -earth: to which I answer, “Time.”</p> - -<p>Nor is it unreasonable to suppose that at the Creation -conditions were stamped upon man, making transformations -natural. Because unnatural according to observation -during the brief period of historic time, it -does not follow that they are not strictly according to -law. The famous Calculating Engine of Charles Babbage, -the distinguished mathematician, as described in -his remarkable “Bridgewater Treatise,” where Science -vindicates anew the ways of Providence to man, supplies -an illustration which is not without instruction. -This machine, with a power almost miraculous, was so -adjusted as to produce a series of natural numbers in -regular order from unity to a number expressed by one -hundred millions and one,—100,000,001,—when another -series was commenced, regulated by a different -law, which continued until at a certain number the series -was again changed; and all these changes in the -immense progression proceeded from a propulsion at -the beginning.<a name="FNanchor_135" id="FNanchor_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> Any simple observer, finding that the -series stretched onwards through successive millions, -would have no hesitation in concluding from the vast -induction that it must proceed always according to the -same law; and yet it was not so. But the Calculating -Engine is only a contrivance of human skill. And -cannot the Creator do as much? That is a very inadequate -conception of the Almighty Power creating -the universe and placing man in it, which supposes, according -to the language of Sir John Herschel, the eminent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span> -astronomer, that “His combinations are exhausted -upon any one of the theatres of their former exercise.”<a name="FNanchor_136" id="FNanchor_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> -Thus far we know not the law of the series which governed -Primeval Man. Who can say that after lapse of -time changes did not occur, always in obedience to conditions -stamped upon him at the Creation?</p> - -<p>A simpler illustration carries us to the same result. -A cog-wheel, so common in machinery, operates ordinarily -by the cogs on its rim; but the wheel may be so -constructed, that, after a certain series of rotations, another -set of cogs is presented, inducing a different motion. -All can see how, in conformity with preëxisting -law, a change may occur in the operations of the machine. -But it was not less easy for the Creator to fix -His law at the beginning, according to which the evolutions -of this world proceed. And thus are we brought -back to the conclusion, so often announced, that unity -of origin must not be set aside simply because existing -varieties of Man cannot be sufficiently explained by -known laws, operating during that brief period which -we call History.</p> - -<p>In considering this great question, there are authorities -which cannot be disregarded. Count them or -weigh them, it is the same. I adduce a few only, beginning -with Latham, the ethnologist, who insists,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“(1.) That, as a matter of fact, the languages of the earth’s -surface are referable to one common origin; (2.) that, as a -matter of logic, this common origin of language is <i>primâ facie</i> -evidence of a common origin for those who speak it.”<a name="FNanchor_137" id="FNanchor_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span></p> - -<p>The great French geographer and circumnavigator, -Dumont d’Urville, testifies thus:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I see on the whole surface of the globe only three types -or divisions of mankind which seem to me to merit the title -of distinct races: the white, more or less colored with red; -the yellow, inclining to different tints of copper or bronze; -and the black.—I share in the opinion which refers these -three races to one and the same primitive stock, and which -places their common cradle on the central plateau of Asia.”<a name="FNanchor_138" id="FNanchor_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Buffon, the brilliant naturalist, whose work is one of -the French classics, thus records his judgment:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“All concurs to prove that the human race is not composed -of species essentially different among themselves,—that, -on the contrary, there was originally but a single species -of men, who, in multiplying and spreading over all the -surface of the globe, have undergone different changes through -the influence of climate, difference of food, difference in the -manner of living, epidemic maladies, and the infinitely varied -intermixture of individuals more or less alike.”<a name="FNanchor_139" id="FNanchor_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Another authority, avoiding the question of origin, -has given a summary full of instruction and beauty. I -refer to Alexander von Humboldt, the life-long companion -of every science, to whom all science was revealed,—who -studied Man in both hemispheres, and -ever afterwards, throughout his long and glorious career, -continued the pursuit. Adopting the words of the -great German anatomist, Johannes Müller, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span> “the -different races of mankind are forms of one sole species, -by the union of two individuals of which descendants -are propagated,”<a name="FNanchor_140" id="FNanchor_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> and criticizing the popular classifications -of Blumenbach and Prichard as wanting “typical -sharpness” or “well-established principle,” the author -of “Cosmos” insists that “the distribution of mankind -is only a distribution into <i>varieties</i>, which are commonly -designated by the somewhat indefinite term <i>races</i>,” -and then announces the grand conclusion:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Whilst we maintain the unity of the human species, we -at the same time repel the depressing assumption of superior -and inferior races of men. There are nations more susceptible -of cultivation, more highly civilized, more ennobled by -mental cultivation, than others, <i>but none in themselves nobler -than others</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_141" id="FNanchor_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Such is the testimony of Science by one of its greatest -masters. Rarely have better words been uttered. -Nor should it be said longer that Science is silent. -Humboldt has spoken. And what he said is much -in little,—most simple, but most comprehensive; for, -while asserting the Unity of the Human Family, he -repels that disheartening pretension of Caste which -I insist shall find no place in our political system. -Through him Science is enlisted for the Equal Rights -of All.</p> - -<p>Whatever the judgment on the unity of origin, where, -from the nature of the case, there can be no final human -testimony, it is a source of infinite consolation that -we can anchor to that other unity found in a common -organization, a common nature, and a common destiny, -being at once physical, moral, and prophetic. This is -the true Unity of the Human Family. In all essentials<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> -constituting Humanity, in all that makes Man, all varieties -of the human species are one and the same. -There is no real difference between them. The variance, -whether of complexion, configuration, or language, -is external and superficial only, like the dress we wear. -Here all knowledge and every science concur. Anatomy, -physiology, psychology, history, the equal promises -to all men, testify. Look at Man on the dissecting -table, and he is always the same, no matter in what -color he is clad,—same limbs, same bones, same proportions, -same structure, same upright stature. Look -at Man in the world, and you will find him in nature -always the same,—modified only by the civilization -about him. There is no human being, black or yellow, -who may not apply to himself the language of -Shakespeare’s Jew:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, -dimensions, senses, affections, passions?—fed with the same -food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, -healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the -same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, -do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If -you poison us, do we not die?”<a name="FNanchor_142" id="FNanchor_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Look at Man in his destiny here or hereafter, so -far as it can be penetrated by mortal vision, and who -will venture to claim for any variety or class exclusive -prerogatives on earth or in heaven? Where is this preposterous -pretender? God has given to all the same -longevity, marking a common mortality,—the same -cosmopolitan character, marking citizenship everywhere,—and -the same capacity for improvement, marking<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> -that tendency sometimes called the perfectibility of the -race; and He has given to all alike the same promise -of immortal life. By these tokens is Man known everywhere -to be Man, and by these tokens is he everywhere -entitled to the Rights of Man.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>There is a lesson in the Dog,—is there not? Who -does not admire that fidelity which makes this animal -ally and friend of man, following him over the whole -earth, in every climate, under all influences of sky, cosmopolitan -as himself, in prosperity and adversity always -true,—and then, by beautiful fable, transported to another -world, where the association of life is prolonged -to man, while “his faithful dog shall bear him company”?<a name="FNanchor_143" id="FNanchor_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> -The dog of Ulysses dying for joy at his master’s -return, when all Ithaca had forgotten the long-absent -lord, is not the only instance. But who has -heard that this wonderful instinct makes any discrimination -of manhood? It is to Man that the dog is faithful; -nor does it matter of what condition, whether the -child of wealth or the rough shepherd tending his -flocks; nor does it matter of what complexion, whether -Caucasian white, or Ethiopian black, or Mongolian -yellow. It is enough that the master is Man; and -thus, even through the instincts of a brute, does Nature -testify to that Unity of the Human Family by virtue -of which all are alike in rights.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Experts in Ethnology are earnest to recognize this -other Unity on which I now insist. Our own Agassiz, -who is the most illustrious of the masters not accepting -the unity of origin, is careful to add,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> “that the moral -question of Brotherhood among men” is not affected by -this dissent; and he announces “that Unity is not only -compatible with diversity of origin, but that it is the -universal law of Nature.”<a name="FNanchor_144" id="FNanchor_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> This other Unity found an -eloquent representative in William von Humboldt, not -less eminent as philologist than his brother as naturalist, -who proclaims our Common Humanity to be the -dominant idea of history, more and more extending its -empire, “striving to remove the barriers which prejudice -and limited views of every kind have erected -amongst men, and to treat all mankind, without reference -to religion, nation, or color, as one Fraternity, one -great community”; and he concludes by announcing -“the recognition of the bond of Humanity” as “one -of the noblest leading principles in the history of mankind.”<a name="FNanchor_145" id="FNanchor_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> -And these grand words are adopted by Alexander -von Humboldt,<a name="FNanchor_146" id="FNanchor_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> so that the philologist and the naturalist -unite in this cause. Thus in every direction do -we find new testimony against the pretension of Caste.</p> - -<p>We are told that “a little learning is a dangerous -thing.” If this be ever true, it cannot be better illustrated -than by that sciolism which from the varieties of -the human species would overthrow that sublime Unity -which is the first law of Creation. As well overthrow -Creation itself. There is no great intelligence which -does not witness to this law. Bacon, Newton, Leibnitz, -Descartes all testify. Laplace, from the heights of his -knowledge, teaches that the curve described by a simple<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> -particle of air or vapor is regulated by a law as certain -as the orbits of the planets; and is not Man the equal -subject of certain law? God rejoices in Unity. It is -with Him a universal law, applicable to all above and -below, from the sun in the heavens to the soul of man. -Not one law for one group of stars, and one law for one -group of men,—but one law for all stars, and one law -for all men. The saying of Plato, that “God geometrizes,”<a name="FNanchor_147" id="FNanchor_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a> -is only another expression for the certainty and -universality of this law. Aristotle follows Plato, when, -borrowing an illustration from the well-known requirements -of the Greek drama, he announces, that “in Nature -nothing is unconnected or out of place, as in a bad -tragedy.”<a name="FNanchor_148" id="FNanchor_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> But Caste is unconnected and out of place. -It is a perpetual discord, a prolonged jar,—contrary to -the first principle of the Universe.</p> - -<p>Only when we consider the universality of the Moral -Law can we fully appreciate the grandeur of this Unity. -The great philosopher of Germany, Kant, declared that -there were two things filling him always with admiration,—the -starry heavens above, and the moral law -within.<a name="FNanchor_149" id="FNanchor_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> Well might the two be joined together; for in -that moral law, with a home in every bosom, is a vastness -and beauty commensurate with the Universe. Every -human being carries a universe in himself; but -here, as in that other universe, is the same prevailing -law of Unity, in harmony with which the starry heavens -move in their spheres and men are constrained to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> -the duties of life. The stars must obey; so must men. -This obedience brings the whole Human Family into -harmony with each other, and also with the Creator. -And here, again, we behold the grandeur of the system, -while new harmonies unfold. Religion takes up the -lesson, and the daily prayer, “Our Father who art in -Heaven,” is the daily witness to the Brotherhood of -Man. God is Universal Father; then are we all brothers. -If not all children of Adam, we are all children of -God,—if not all from the same father on earth, we are -all from the same Father in Heaven; and this affecting -relationship, which knows no distinction of race or color, -is more vital and ennobling than any monopoly. -Here, once more, is that universal law which forbids -Caste, speaking not only with the voice of Science, but -of Religion also,—praying, pleading, protesting, in the -name of a Common Father, against such wrong and insult -to our brother man. In beautiful harmony are -those words of promise, “I will make a <i>man</i> more precious -than fine gold, even a man than the golden wedge -of Ophir.”<a name="FNanchor_150" id="FNanchor_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> Against this lofty recognition of a common -humanity, how mean the pretension of Caste!</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Assuming this common humanity, it is difficult to see -how reason can resist the conclusion, that in the lapse -of time there must be a common, universal civilization, -which every nation and every people will share. None -too low, none too inaccessible for its kindred embrace. -Amidst the differences which now exist, and in the contemplation -of nations and peoples infinitely various in -condition, with the barbarian still claiming an extensive -empire, with the savage still claiming a whole continent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> -and islands of the sea, I cannot doubt the certain triumph -of this great law. Believing in God, I believe -also in Man, through whose God-given energies all this -will be accomplished. Was he not told at the beginning, -with the blessing of God upon him, “<i>Be fruitful, -and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it</i>”? -All of which I am sure will be done. Why this common -humanity, why this common brotherhood, if the -inheritance is for Brahmins only? Why the injunction -to multiply and subdue the earth, if there are to be Sudras -and Pariahs always? Why this sublime law of -Unity, holding the universe in its grasp, if Man alone is -left beyond its reach?</p> - -<p>I have already founded the Unity of the Human -Family partly on the common destiny, and I now insist -that this common destiny is attested by the unquestionable -Unity of the Human Family. They are parts of -one system, complements of each other. Why this -unity, if there be no common destiny? How this -common destiny, if there be no unity? Assuming the -unity, then is the common destiny a necessary consequence, -under the law appointed for man.</p> - -<p>The skeptic is disturbed, because thus far in our brief -chronology this common civilization has not been developed; -but to my mind it is plain that much has -been done, making the rest certain, through the same -incessant influences, under the great law of Human -Progress.</p> - -<p>That European civilization which has already pushed -its conquests in every quarter of the globe is a lesson to -mankind. Beginning with small communities, it has -proceeded stage by stage, extending to larger, until it -embraced nations and distant places,—and now stamps<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span> -itself ineffaceably upon increasing multitudes, making -them, under God, pioneers in the grand march of Humanity.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Europe had her dark ages when there was a night -with “darkness visible,” and there was an earlier period -in the history of each nation when Man was not -less savage than now in the very heart of Africa; but -the European has emerged, and at last stands in a -world of light. Take any of the nations whose development -belongs to modern times, and the original degradation -can be exhibited in authentic colors. There is -England, whose present civilization is in many respects -so finished; but when the conquering Cæsar, only fifty-five -years before the birth of Christ, landed on this unknown -island, her people were painted savages, with a -cruel religion, and a conjugal system which was an incestuous -concubinage.<a name="FNanchor_151" id="FNanchor_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> His authentic report places this -condition beyond question; and thus knowing her original -degradation and her present transformation after -eighteen centuries, we have the terms for a question in -the Rule of Three. Given the original degradation and -present transformation of England, how long will it -take for the degradation of other lands to experience a -similar transformation? Add also present agencies of -civilization, to which England was for centuries a stranger.</p> - -<p>This instance is so important as to justify details. -When Britain was first revealed to the commercial enterprise -of Tyre, her people, according to Macaulay,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span> -“were little superior to the natives of the Sandwich -Islands.”<a name="FNanchor_152" id="FNanchor_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> The historian must mean, when those islands -were first discovered by Captain Cook. Prichard, our -best authority, supposes them “nearly on a level with -the New-Zealanders or Tahitians of the present day, or -perhaps not very superior to the Australians,”<a name="FNanchor_153" id="FNanchor_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> which -is very low indeed. There was but little change, if -any, when they became known to the Romans. They -are pictured as large and tall, excelling the Gauls in -stature, but less robust, and, according to the geographer -Strabo, with crooked legs and unshapely figures.<a name="FNanchor_154" id="FNanchor_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> -Northward were the Caledonians,—also Britons,—tattooing -their bodies, dwelling in tents, savage in manners, -and with a moral degradation kindred to that of -the Southern Britons.<a name="FNanchor_155" id="FNanchor_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> Across the Channel were the -Irish, whose reported condition was even more terrible.<a name="FNanchor_156" id="FNanchor_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> -According to Cæsar, most in the interior of Britain -never sowed corn, but lived on milk and flesh, -and were clad in skins; but he notes that all colored -their bodies with a cerulean dye, “making them more -horrid to the sight in battle”; and he then relates, that -societies of ten or twelve, brothers and brothers, parents -and children, had wives in common.<a name="FNanchor_157" id="FNanchor_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> Their religious -observances were such as became this savage life. Here -was the sanctuary of the Druids, whose absolute and -peculiar power was sustained by inhuman rites. On -rude, but terrible altars, in the gloom of the forest, human<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> -victims were sacrificed,—while from the blood, as -it coursed under the knife of the priest, there was a -divination of future events.<a name="FNanchor_158" id="FNanchor_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> There was no industry, -and no production, except slaves too illiterate for the -Roman market. Imagination pictured strange things. -One province was reported where “the ground was covered -with serpents, and the air was such that no man -could inhale it and live.”<a name="FNanchor_159" id="FNanchor_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> In the polite circles of the -Empire the whole region excited a fearful horror, which -has been aptly likened to that of the early Ionians for -“the Straits of Scylla and the city of the Læstrygonian -cannibals.”<a name="FNanchor_160" id="FNanchor_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> The historian records with a sigh, that -“no magnificent remains of Latian porches and aqueducts -are to be found” here,—that “no writer of -British birth is reckoned among the masters of Latian -poetry and eloquence.”<a name="FNanchor_161" id="FNanchor_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a></p> - -<p>And this was England at the beginning. Long afterwards, -when centuries had intervened, the savage was -improved into the barbarian. But from one authentic -instance learn the rest. The trade in slaves was active, -and English peddlers bought up children throughout the -country, while the people, greedy of the price, sold their -own relations, sometimes their own offspring.<a name="FNanchor_162" id="FNanchor_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> In similar -barbarism, all Jews and their gains were the absolute -property of the king; and this law, beginning with -Edward the Confessor, was enforced under successive -monarchs, one of them making a mortgage of all Jews<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span> -to his brother as security for a debt.<a name="FNanchor_163" id="FNanchor_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> Nothing worse is -now said of Africa.</p> - -<p>Progress was slow. When in 1435 the Italian Æneas -Sylvius, afterwards Pope Pius the Second, visited this -island, it was to his eyes most forlorn. Houses in cities -were in large part built without lime. Cottages had no -other door than a bull-hide. Food was coarse,—sometimes, -in place of bread, the bark of trees; and white -bread was such a rarity among the people as to be a curiosity.<a name="FNanchor_164" id="FNanchor_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> -When afterwards, under Henry the Eighth, -civilization had begun, the condition of the people was -deplorable. There was no such thing among them as -comfort, while plague and sweating-sickness prevailed. -The learned and ingenious Erasmus, who was an honored -guest in England at this time, refers much to the -filthiness of the houses. The floors he describes as commonly -of clay strewn with rushes, in the renewal of -which those at the bottom sometimes remained undisturbed -for twenty years, retaining filth unmentionable,—“<i>sputa, -vomitus, mictum canum et hominum, projectam -cervisiam et piscium reliquias, aliasque sordes non -nominandas</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_165" id="FNanchor_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> I quote the words of this eminent observer. -The traveller from the interior of Africa would -hardly make a worse report.</p> - -<p>Such was England. But this story of savagery and -barbarism is not peculiar to that country. I might take -other countries, one by one, and exhibit the original<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span> -degradation and the present elevation. I might take -France. I content myself with one instance only. An -authentic incident of French history, recorded by a contemporary -witness, and associated with famous names -in the last century, shows the little recognition at that -time of a common humanity. And this story concerns -a lady, remarkable among her sex for various talent, -and especially as a mathematician, and the French -translator of Newton,—Madame Duchâtelet. This -great lady, the friend of Voltaire, found no difficulty -in undressing before the men-servants of her household, -not considering it well-proved that such persons -were of the Human Family. This curious revelation of -manners, which arrested the attention of De Tocqueville -in his remarkable studies on the origin of the -French Revolution,<a name="FNanchor_166" id="FNanchor_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> if reported from Africa, would be -recognized as marking a most perverse barbarism.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>These are illustrations only, which might be multiplied -and extended indefinitely, but they are sufficient. -Here, within a limited sphere, obvious to all, -is the operation of that law which governs Universal -Man. Progress here prefigures progress everywhere; -nay, progress here is the first stage in the world’s progress. -Nobody doubts the progress of England; nobody -doubts the progress of France; nobody doubts the progress -of the European Family, wherever distributed, in -all quarters of the globe. But must not the same law -under which these have been elevated exert its equal -influence on the whole Family of Man? Is it not with -people as with individuals? Some arrive early, others -tardily. Who has not observed, that, independently of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> -original endowment, the progress of the individual depends -upon the influences about him? Surrounded by -opportunity and trained with care, he grows into the -type of Civilized Man; but, on the other hand, shut out -from opportunity and neglected by the world, he remains -stationary, always a man, entitled from his manhood -to Equal Rights, but an example of inferiority, if -not of degradation. Unquestionably it is the same with -a people. Here, again, opportunity and a training hand -are needed.</p> - -<p>To the inquiry, How is this destiny to be accomplished? -I answer, Simply by recognizing the law of -Unity, and acting accordingly. The law is plain; obey -it. Let each people obey the law at home; its extension -abroad will follow. The standard at home will become -the standard everywhere. The harmony at home -will become the harmony of mankind. Drive Caste -from this Republic, and it will be, like Cain, “a fugitive -and a vagabond in the earth.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Therefore do I now plead for our Common Humanity -in all lands. Especially do I plead for the African, not -only among us, but in his own vast, mysterious home, -where for unknown centuries he has been the prey of -the spoiler. He may be barbarous, perhaps savage; but -so have others been, who are now in the full enjoyment -of civilization. If you are above him in any respect, -then by your superiority are you bound to be his helper. -Where much is given much is required; and this -is the law for a nation, as for an individual.</p> - -<p>The unhappy condition of Africa, a stranger to civilization, -is often invoked against a Common Humanity. -Here again is that sciolism which is the inseparable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> -ally of every ignoble pretension. It is easy to explain -this condition without yielding to a theory inconsistent -with God’s Providence. The key is found in her geographical -character, affording few facilities for intercommunication -abroad or at home. Ocean and river are -the natural allies of civilization, as England will attest; -for such was their early influence, that Cæsar, on landing, -remarked the superior condition of the people on -the coast.<a name="FNanchor_167" id="FNanchor_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> Europe, indented by seas on the south and -north, and penetrated by considerable rivers, will attest -also. The great geographer, Carl Ritter, who has placed -the whole globe in the illumination of geographical science, -shows that the relation of interior spaces to the -extent of coast has a measurable influence on civilization: -and here is the secret of Africa. While all Asia -is five times as large as Europe, and Africa more than -three times as large, the littoral margins have a different -proportion. Asia has 30,800 miles of coast; Europe -17,200; and Africa only 14,000. For every 156 -square miles of the European continent there is one -mile of coast, while in Africa one mile of coast corresponds -to 623 square miles of continent. The relative -extension of coast in Europe is four times greater than -in Africa. Asia is in the middle between the two extremes, -having for every 459 square miles one mile of -coast; and so also is Asia between the two in civilization. -There is still another difference, with corresponding -advantage to Europe. One third part of Europe is -in the nature of ramification from the mass, furnishing -additional opportunities; whereas Africa is a solid, -impenetrable continent, without ramifications, without -opening gulfs or navigable rivers, except the Nile, which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> -once witnessed the famous Egyptian civilization.<a name="FNanchor_168" id="FNanchor_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> And -now, in addition to all these opportunities by water, -Europe has others not less important from a reticulation -of railways, bringing all parts together, while Africa is -without these new-born civilizers. All these things are -apparent and beyond question; nor can their influence -be doubted. And thus is the condition of Africa explained -without an insult to her people or any new -apology for Caste.</p> - -<p>The attempt to disparage the African as inferior to -other men, except in present condition, shows that same -ever-present sciolism. Does Humboldt repel the assumption -of superiority, and beautifully insist that no -people are “in themselves nobler than others”?<a name="FNanchor_169" id="FNanchor_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> Then -all are men, all are brothers, of the same Human Family, -with superficial and transitional differences only. -Plainly, no differences can make one color superior to -another. And looking carefully at the African, in the -seclusion and isolation of his native home, we see sufficient -reason for that condition which is the chief argument -against him. It is doubtful if any people has become -civilized without extraneous help. Britain was -savage when Roman civilization intervened; so was -Gaul. Cadmus brought letters to Greece; and what is -the story of Prometheus, who stole fire from Heaven, -but an illustration of this law? The African has not -stolen fire; no Cadmus has brought letters to him; no -Roman civilization has been extended over his continent. -Meanwhile left to savage life, he has been a perpetual -victim, hunted down at home to feed the bloody<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> -maw of Slavery, and then transported to another hemisphere, -always a slave. In such condition Nature has -had small opportunity for development. No kindly influences -have surrounded his home; no voice of encouragement -has cheered his path; no prospect of trust or -honor has awakened his ambition. His life has been a -Dead Sea, where apples of Sodom floated. And yet his -story is not without passages which quicken admiration -and give assurance for the Future,—at times melting -to tenderness, and at times inspiring to rage, that these -children of God, with so much of His best gifts, should -be so wronged by their brother man.</p> - -<p>The ancient poet tells us that there were heroes before -Agamemnon,<a name="FNanchor_170" id="FNanchor_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a>—that is, before the poet came to -praise. Who knows the heroes of those vast unvisited -recesses where there is no history and only short-lived -tradition? But among those transported to this hemisphere -heroes have not been wanting. Nowhere in history -was the heroical character more conspicuous than in -our fugitive slaves. Their story, transferred to Greece -or Rome, would be a much-admired chapter, from which -youth would derive new passion for Liberty. The story -of the African in our late war would be another chapter, -awakening kindred emotion. But it is in a slave of -the West Indies, whose parents were stolen from Africa, -that we find an example of genius and wisdom, courage -and character, with all the elements of general and -ruler. The name borne by this remarkable person as -slave was Toussaint, but his success in forcing an <i>opening</i> -everywhere secured for him the addition of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span> “l’Ouverture,” -making his name Toussaint l’Ouverture, Toussaint -<i>the Opening</i>, by which he takes his place in history. -He was opener for his people, whom he advanced -from Slavery to Freedom, and then sank under the -power of Napoleon, who sent an army and fleet to subdue -him.<a name="FNanchor_171" id="FNanchor_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> More than Agamemnon, or any chief before -Troy,—more than Spartacus, the renowned leader of -the servile insurrection which made Rome tremble,—he -was a hero, endowed with a higher nature and better -faculties; but he was an African, jet black in complexion. -The height that he reached is the measure of his -people. Call it high-water mark, if you will; but this -is the true line for judgment, and not the low-water -mark of Slavery, which is always adopted by the apologists -for Caste. Toussaint l’Ouverture is the actual -standard by which the African must be judged.</p> - -<p>When studied where he is chiefly seen,—not in the -affairs of government, but in daily life,—the African -awakens attachment and respect. The will of Mr. Upshur, -Secretary of State under President Tyler, describes -a typical character. Here are the remarkable words:—</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span></p> -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I emancipate and set free my servant, David Rich, and -direct my executors to give him <i>one hundred dollars</i>. I recommend -him, in the strongest manner, to the respect, esteem, -and confidence of any community in which he may -happen to live. He has been my slave for twenty-four years, -during which time he has been trusted to every extent, and -in every respect. My confidence in him has been unbounded; -his relation to myself and family has always been such -as to afford him daily opportunities to deceive and injure us, -and yet he has never been detected in a serious fault, nor -even in an intentional breach of the decorums of his station. -His intelligence is of a high order, his integrity above all suspicion, -and his sense of right and propriety always correct -and even delicate and refined. I feel that he is justly entitled -to carry this certificate from me into the new relations -which he now must form. It is due to his long and most -faithful services, and to the sincere and steady friendship -which I bear him. In the uninterrupted and confidential -intercourse of twenty-four years, I have never given, nor had -occasion to give him, an unpleasant word. I know no man -who has fewer faults or more excellences than he.”<a name="FNanchor_172" id="FNanchor_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The man thus portrayed was an African, whose only -school was Slavery. Here again is the standard of this -people.</p> - -<p>Nor is there failure in loftiness of character. With -heroism more beautiful than that of Mutius Scævola, -a slave in Louisiana, as long ago as 1753, being compelled -to be executioner, cut off his right hand with -an axe, that he might avoid taking the life of his -brother slave.<a name="FNanchor_173" id="FNanchor_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a></p> - -<p>The apologist for Caste will be astonished to know, -but it is none the less true, that the capacity of the -African in scholarship and science is better attested -than that of anybody claiming to be his master. What -modern slave-master has taught the Latin like Juan -Latino at Seville, in Spain,—written it like Capitein -at the Hague, or Williams at Jamaica,—gained academic -honors like those accorded to Amo by the University<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> -of Wittenberg? What modern slave-master has -equalled in science Banneker of Maryland, who, in his -admirable letter to Jefferson, avows himself “of the African -race, and in that color which is natural to them, of -the deepest dye”?<a name="FNanchor_174" id="FNanchor_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> These instances are all from the -admirable work of the good Bishop Grégoire, “De la -Littérature des Nègres.”<a name="FNanchor_175" id="FNanchor_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> Recent experience attests the -singular aptitude of the African for knowledge, and his -delight in its acquisition. Nor is there any doubt of -his delight in doing good. The beneficent system of -Sunday Schools in New York is traced to an African -woman, who first attempted this work, and her school -was for all alike, without distinction of color.<a name="FNanchor_176" id="FNanchor_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a></p> - -<p>To the unquestionable capacity of the African must -be added simplicity, amenity, good-nature, generosity, -fidelity. Mahometans, who know him well, recognize -his superior fidelity. And such also is the report of -travellers not besotted by Slavery, from Mungo Park to -Livingstone, who testify also to tenderness for parents, -respect for the aged, hospitality, and patriarchal virtues -reviving the traditions of primitive life. “Strike me, -but do not curse my mother,” said an African slave to -his master.<a name="FNanchor_177" id="FNanchor_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> And Leo Africanus, the early traveller, -describes a chief at Timbuctoo, “very black in complexion, -but most fair in mind and disposition.”<a name="FNanchor_178" id="FNanchor_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> Others -dwell on his Christian character, and especially his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> -susceptibility to those influences which are peculiarly -Christian,—so that Saint Bernard could say of him, -“<i>Felix Nigredo, quæ mentis candorem parit</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_179" id="FNanchor_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> Of all -people he is the mildest and most sympathetic. Hate -is a plant of difficult growth in his bosom. How often -has he returned the harshness of his master with care -and protection! The African, more than the European, -is formed by Nature for the Christian graces.</p> - -<p>It is easy to picture another age, when the virtues -which ennoble the African will return to bless the people -who now discredit him, and Christianity will receive -a new development. In the Providence of God -the more precocious and harder nature of the North is -called to make the first advance. Civilization begins -through knowledge. An active intelligence performs -the part of opening the way. But it may be according -to the same Providence, that the gentler people, -elevated in knowledge, will teach their teachers what -knowledge alone cannot impart, and the African shall -more than repay all that he receives. The pioneer intelligence -of Europe going to blend with the gentleness -of Africa will be a blessed sight, but not more blessed -than the gentleness of Africa returning to blend with -that same intelligence at home. Under such combined -influences men will not only know and do, but they -will feel also; so that knowledge in all its departments, -and life in all its activities, will have the triumphant -inspiration of Human Brotherhood.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In this work there is no room for prejudice, timidity, -or despair. Reason, courage, and hope are our allies,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> -while the bountiful agencies of Civilization open the -way. Time and space, ancient tyrants keeping people -apart, are now overcome. There is nothing of aspiration -for Universal Man which is not within the reach of -well-directed effort,—no matter in what unknown recess -of continent, no matter on what distant island of -the sea. Wherever Man exists, there are the capacities -of manhood, with that greatest of all, the capacity for -improvement; and the civilization we have reached supplies -the means.</p> - -<p>As in determining the function of Government, so -here again is the necessity of knowledge. Man must -know himself, and that law of Unity appointed for the -Human Family. Such is the true light for our steps. -Here are guidance and safety. Who can measure the -value of knowledge? What imagination can grasp its -infinite power? As well measure the sun in its glory. -The friendly lamp in our streets is more than the police. -Light in the world is more than armies or navies. -Where its rays penetrate, there has civilization -begun. Not the earth, but the sun, is the centre of our -system; and the noon-day effulgence in which we live -and move symbolizes that other effulgence which is -found in knowledge.</p> - -<p>Great powers are at hand, ministers of human progress. -I name two only: first, the printing-press; and, -secondly, the means of intercommunication, whether by -navigation or railways, represented by the steam-engine. -By these civilization is extended and secured. It is not -only carried forward, but fixed so that there can be no -return,—like the wheel of an Alpine railway, which -cannot fall back. Every rotation is a sure advance. -Here is what Greece and Rome never knew, and more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span> -than Greece and Rome have contributed to man. By -the side of these two simple agencies how small all that -has come to us from these two politest nations of Antiquity! -We can better spare Greece and Rome than -the printing-press and steam-engine. Not a triumph in -literature, art, or jurisprudence, from the story of Homer -and the odes of Horace to the statue of Apollo and -the bust of Augustus, from the eloquence of Demosthenes -and Cicero to that Roman Law which has become -the law of the world, that must not yield in value to -these two immeasurable possessions. To the printing-press -and steam-engine add now their youthful handmaid, -the electric telegraph, whose swift and delicate -fingers weave the thread by which nations are brought -into instant communion, while great cities, like London -and Paris, New York and San Francisco, become suburbs -to each other, and all mankind feel together the -throb of joy or sorrow. Through these incomparable -agencies is knowledge made coextensive with space and -time on earth. No distance of place or epoch it will -not pervade. Thus every achievement in thought or -science, every discovery by which Man is elevated, becomes -the common property of the whole Human Family. -There can be no monopoly. Sooner or later all -enjoy the triumph. Standing on the shoulders of the -Past, Man stands also on the shoulders of every science -discovered, every art advanced, every truth declared. -There is no height of culture or of virtue—if -virtue itself be not the highest culture—which may -not be reached. There is no excellence of government -or society which may not be grasped. Where is the -stopping-place? Where the goal? One obstacle is -overcome only to find another, which is overcome, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span> -then another also, in the ascending scale of human improvement.</p> - -<p>And then shall be fulfilled the great words of prophecy, -which men have read so long with hope darkened -by despair: “The earth shall be full of the knowledge -of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea”; “it shall -come that I will gather all nations and tongues, and -they shall come and see my glory.”<a name="FNanchor_180" id="FNanchor_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> The promises of -Christianity, in harmony with the promises of Science, -and more beautiful still, will become the realities of -earth; and that precious example wherein is the way -of life will be another noon-day sun for guidance and -safety.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The question <i>How?</i> is followed by that other question -<i>When?</i> The answer is easy. Not at once; not by -any sudden conquest; not in the lifetime of any individual -man; not in any way which does not recognize -Nature as co-worker. It is by constant, incessant, unceasing -activity in conformity with law that Nature -works; and so in these world-subduing operations Man -can be successful only in harmony with Nature. Because -in our brief pilgrimage we are not permitted to -witness the transcendent glory, it is none the less certain. -The peaceful conquest will proceed, and every -day must contribute its fruits.</p> - -<p>At the beginning of the last century Russia was -a barbarous country, shut out from opportunities of -improvement. Authentic report attests its condition. -Through contact with Europe it was vitalized. The -life-giving principle circulated, and this vast empire -felt the change. Exposed to European contact at one<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span> -point only, here the influence began; but the native energies -of the people, under the guidance of a powerful -ruler, responded to this influence, and Russia came -within the widening circle of European civilization. -Why may not this experience be repeated elsewhere, -and distant places feel the same beneficent power?</p> - -<p>To help in this work it is not necessary to be emperor -or king. Everybody can do something, for to everybody -is given something to do; and it is by this accumulation -of activities, by this succession of atoms, that the -result is accomplished. I use trivial illustrations, when -I remind you that the coral-reef on which navies are -wrecked is the work of the multitudinous insect,—that -the unyielding stone is worn away by drops; but this is -the law of Nature, under which no influence is lost. -Water and air both testify to the slightest movement. -Not a ripple stirred by the passing breeze or by the -freighted ship cleaving the sea, which is not prolonged -to a thousand shores, leaving behind an endless progeny, -so long as ocean endures. Not a wave of air set in -motion by the human voice, which is not prolonged -likewise into unknown space. But these watery and -aërial pulses typify the acts of Man. Not a thing done, -not a word said, which does not help or hinder the -grand, the beautiful, the holy consummation. And the -influence is in proportion to the individual or nation -from whom it proceeds. God forbid that our nation -should send through all time that defiance of human -nature which is found in Caste!</p> - -<p>There are two passages of the New Testament which -are to me of infinite significance. We read them often, -perhaps, without comprehending their value. The first -is with regard to leaven, when the Saviour said,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span> “The -kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven”;<a name="FNanchor_181" id="FNanchor_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> and then -Saint Paul, taking up the image, on two different occasions, -repeats, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole -lump.”<a name="FNanchor_182" id="FNanchor_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> In this homely illustration we see what is accomplished -by a small influence. A little changes all. -Here again are the acts of Man typified. All that we -do is leaven; all that our country does is leaven. -Everybody in his sphere contributes leaven, and helps -his country to contribute that mighty leaven which will -leaven the whole mighty lump. The other passage—difficult -to childhood, though afterwards recognized as a -faithful record of human experience—is where we are -told, “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and -he shall have more abundance.”<a name="FNanchor_183" id="FNanchor_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> Here to me is a new -incentive to duty. Because the world inclines to those -who have, therefore must we study to serve those who -have not, that we may counteract the worldly tendency. -Give to the poor and lowly, give to the outcast, give to -those degraded by their fellow-men, that they may be -elevated in the scale of Humanity,—assured that what -we give is not only valuable in itself, but the beginning -of other acquisitions,—that the knowledge we convey -makes other knowledge easy,—that the right we recognize -helps to secure all the Rights of Man. Give to -the African only his due, and straightway the promised -abundance will follow.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In leaving this question, which I have opened to you -so imperfectly, I am impressed anew with its grandeur. -The best interests of our country and the best interests<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span> -of mankind are involved in the answer. Let Caste prevail, -and Civilization is thwarted. Let Caste be trampled -out, and there will be a triumph which will make -this Republic more than ever an example. The good -influence will extend in prolonged pulsations, reaching -the most distant shores. Not a land which will not feel -the spread, just in proportion to its necessities. Above -all, Africa will feel it; and the surpassing duty which -Civilization owes to this whole continent, where man -has so long degraded his fellow-man, will begin to be -discharged, while the voice of the Great Shepherd is -heard among its people.</p> - -<p>In the large interests beyond, I would not lose sight -of the practical interests at home. It is important for -our domestic peace, not to speak of our good name as a -Republic, that this question should be settled. Long -enough has its shadow rested upon us, and now it lowers -from an opposite quarter. How often have I said in -other places that nothing can be settled which is not -right! And now I say that there can be no settlement -here except in harmony with our declared principles -and with universal truth. To this end Caste must be -forbidden. “Haply for I am black,” said Othello; -“Haply for I am yellow,” repeats the Chinese: all of -which may be ground for personal like or dislike, but -not for any denial of rights, or any exclusion from that -equal copartnership which is the promise of the Republic -to all men.</p> - -<p>Here, as always, the highest safety is in doing right. -Justice is ever practical, ever politic; it is the best -practice, the best policy. Whatever reason shows to be -just cannot, when reduced to practice, produce other -than good. And now I simply ask you to be just. To<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span> -those who find peril in the growing multitudes admitted -to citizenship I reply, that our Republic assumed these -responsibilities when it declared the equal rights of all -men, and that just government stands only on the consent -of the governed. Hospitality of citizenship is the -law of its being. This is its great first principle; this -is the talisman of its empire. Would you conquer -Nature, follow Nature; and here, would you conquer -physical diversities, follow that moral law declared by -our fathers, which is the highest law of Nature, and -supreme above all men. Welcome, then, to the stranger -hurrying from opposite shores, across two great -oceans,—from the East, from the West,—with the -sun, against the sun! Here he cannot be stranger. If -the Chinese come for labor only, we have the advantage -of their wonderful and docile industry. If they come -for citizenship, then do they offer the pledge of incorporation -in our Republic, filling it with increase. Nor is -there peril in the gifts they bring. As all rivers are -lost in the sea, which shows no sign of their presence, -so will all peoples be lost in the widening confines of -our Republic, with an ocean-bound continent for its -unparalleled expanse, and one harmonious citizenship, -where all are equal in rights, for its gentle and impartial -sway.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CURRENCY" id="CURRENCY"></a>CURRENCY.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, on introducing a Bill to amend -the Banking Act, and to promote the Return to Specie -Payments, December 7, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The bill having been read twice by its title, Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">At the proper time I shall ask the reference of this -bill to the Committee on Finance; and if I can -have the attention of my honorable friend, the Chairman -of that Committee [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>], I should like -now, as I have ventured to introduce the bill, to specify -for his consideration seven different reasons in favor -of it. It will take me only one minute.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sherman.</span> I should like to have the bill read, if the -Senator has no objection.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The Secretary accordingly read the bill in full, as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><i>Be it enacted, &c.</i>, That so much of the Banking Act as limits the issue -of bills to $300,000,000 is hereby repealed, and existing banks may be enlarged -and new banks may be organized at the discretion of the Secretary -of the Treasury; but no more bills than are now authorized by the Banking -Act shall hereafter be issued, unless the Secretary of the Treasury, at -the time of their issue, can and does cancel and destroy a like amount of -legal-tenders; and the increase of bank-bills hereby authorized shall not -exceed $50,000,000 a year, which amount shall be so distributed by the -Secretary of the Treasury as to equalize, as near as possible, the banking -interest of the different States.</p> - -</div> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Now, Mr. President, I wish at this -moment merel<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span>y to indicate the reasons in favor of that -proposition.</p> - -<p>1. It will create a demand for national bonds, and to -this extent fortify the national credit.</p> - -<p>2. It will tend to satisfy those parts of the country, -especially at the South and West, where currency and -banks are wanting, and thus arrest a difficult question.</p> - -<p>3. It will not expand or contract the currency; so -that the opposite parties on these questions may support -it.</p> - -<p>4. Under it the banks will gradually strengthen -themselves and prepare to resume specie payments.</p> - -<p>5. It will give the South and West the opportunity -to organize banks, and will interest those parts of -the country to this extent in the national securities -and the national banking system, by which both will -be strengthened.</p> - -<p>6. It will within a reasonable time relieve the country -of the whole greenback system, and thus dispose of -an important question.</p> - -<p>7. It will hasten the return to specie payments.</p> - -<p>Now I believe every one of these reasons is valid, -and I commend them to my excellent friend from -Ohio.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span></p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The bill was then laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.</p> - -</div> - - - -<hr class="chap" /> -<h2><a name="COLORED_PHYSICIANS" id="COLORED_PHYSICIANS"></a>COLORED PHYSICIANS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, on the Exclusion -of Colored Physicians from the Medical Society of -the District of Columbia, December 9, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">I offer the following resolution, and ask for its immediate -consideration:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on the District of Columbia -be directed to consider the expediency of repealing the charter -of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, -and of such other legislation as may be necessary in order -to secure for medical practitioners in the District of Columbia -equal rights and opportunities without distinction of -color.</p> - -</div> - -<p>I hope there can be no objection to this proposition, -which has become necessary from a recent incident. A -medical practitioner in Washington, Dr. Augusta, who -had served as a surgeon in the Army of the United -States and was brevetted as a Lieutenant-Colonel, who -had enjoyed office and honor under the National Government, -has been excluded from the Medical Society of -the District of Columbia on that old reason so often and -persistently urged, merely of color. It is true that Dr. -Augusta is guilty of a skin which is a shade different -from that prevailing in the Medical Society, but nobody -can impeach his character or his professional position. -Dr. Purvis, another practitioner, obnoxious only fro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span>m -the skin, was excluded at the same time. There is no -doubt that this was accomplished by an organized effort, -quickened by color-phobia.</p> - -<p>This exclusion, besides its stigma on a race, is a practical -injury to these gentlemen, and to their patients -also, who are thus shut out from valuable opportunities -and advantages. By a rule of the Medical Society, -“No member of this association shall consult with or -meet in a professional way any resident practitioner -of the District who is not a member thereof, after -said practitioner shall have resided six months in said -District.” Thus do members of the Society constitute -themselves a medical oligarchy. When asked to consult -with Dr. Augusta, some of them have replied: -“We would like to consult with Dr. Augusta; we believe -him to be a good doctor; but he does not belong -to our Society, and therefore we must decline; but we -will take charge of the case”: and this has been sometimes -done. Is not this a hardship? Should it be allowed -to exist?</p> - -<p>Details illustrate still further the character of this -wrong. These colored practitioners are licensed, like -members of the Society; but this license does not give -them the privilege of attending the meetings of the Society, -where medical and surgical subjects are discussed, -and where peculiar and interesting cases with their appropriate -treatment are communicated for the benefit of -the profession; so that they are shut out from this interesting -source of information, which is like a constant -education, and also from the opportunity of submitting -the cases in their own practice.</p> - -<p>I confess, Sir, that I cannot think of the medical profession -at the National Capital engaged in this warfare<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span> -on their colored brethren without sentiments which it is -difficult to restrain. Their conduct, in its direct effect, -degrades a long-suffering and deeply injured race; but -it also degrades themselves. Nobody can do such a -meanness without degradation. In my opinion these -white oligarchs ought to have notice, and I give them -notice now, that this outrage shall not be allowed to -continue without remedy, if I can obtain it through -Congress. The time has passed for any such pretension.</p> - -<p>I hope, Sir, there can be no objection to the resolution. -It ought to pass unanimously. Who will array -himself on the side of this wrong?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The resolution was agreed to, and the Committee proceeded to a full -investigation, of which they made extended report,<a name="FNanchor_184" id="FNanchor_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> accompanied by a -bill for the repeal of the Society’s charter; but adverse influence, continued -through two sessions to the expiration of the Congress, succeeded -in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span> preventing action.</p> - -</div> - - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<h2><a name="THE_LATE_HON_WILLIAM_PITT_FESSENDEN" id="THE_LATE_HON_WILLIAM_PITT_FESSENDEN"></a>THE LATE HON. WILLIAM PITT FESSENDEN, -SENATOR OF MAINE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate on his Death, December 14, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—A seat in this Chamber is vacant. -But this is a very inadequate expression -for the present occasion. Much more than a seat is vacant. -There is a void difficult to measure, as it will be -difficult to fill. Always eminent from the beginning, -Mr. Fessenden during these latter years became so large -a part of the Senate that without him it seems to be a -different body. His guiding judgment, his ready power, -his presence so conspicuous in debate, are gone, taking -away from this Chamber that identity which it received -so considerably from him.</p> - -<p>Of all the present Senate, one only besides myself -witnessed his entry into this Chamber. I cannot forget -it. He came in the midst of that terrible debate on the -Kansas and Nebraska Bill by which the country was -convulsed to its centre, and his arrival had the effect of -a reinforcement on a field of battle. Those who stood -for Freedom then were few in numbers,—not more -than fourteen,—while thirty-seven Senators in solid -column voted to break the faith originally plighted to -Freedom, and to overturn a time-honored landmark, -opening that vast Mesopotamian region to the curse of -Slavery. Those anxious days are with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span> difficulty comprehended -by a Senate where Freedom rules. One -more in our small number was a sensible addition. -We were no longer fourteen, but fifteen. His reputation -at the bar and his fame in the other House gave -assurance which was promptly sustained. He did not -wait, but at once entered into the debate with all those -resources which afterwards became so famous. The -scene that ensued exhibited his readiness and courage. -While saying that the people of the North were fatigued -with the threat of Disunion, that they considered -it as “mere noise and nothing else,” he was interrupted -by Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, always ready -to speak for Slavery, exclaiming, “If such sentiments -as yours prevail, I want a dissolution right away,”—a -characteristic intrusion doubly out of order,—to which -the new-comer rejoined, “Do not delay it on my account; -do not delay it on account of anybody at the -North.” The effect was electric; but this instance was -not alone. Douglas, Cass, and Butler interrupted only -to be worsted by one who had just ridden into the lists. -The feelings of the other side were expressed by the -Senator from South Carolina, who, after one of the -flashes of debate which he had provoked, exclaimed: -“Very well, go on; I have no hope for you.” All this -will be found in the “Globe,”<a name="FNanchor_185" id="FNanchor_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> precisely as I give it; -but the “Globe” could not picture the exciting scene,—the -Senator from Maine erect, firm, immovable as a -jutting promontory against which the waves of Ocean -tossed and broke in dissolving spray. There he stood. -Not a Senator, loving Freedom, who did not feel on that -day that a champion had come.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span></p> -<p>This scene, so brilliant in character, illustrates Mr. -Fessenden’s long career in the Senate. All present -were moved, while those at a distance were less affected. -His speech, which was argumentative, direct, -and pungent, exerted more influence on those who -heard it than on those who only read it, vindicating -his place as debater rather than orator. This place he -held to the end, without a superior,—without a peer. -Nobody could match him in immediate and incisive -reply. His words were swift, and sharp as a cimeter,—or, -borrowing an illustration from an opposite quarter, -he “shot flying” and with unerring aim. But -while this great talent secured for him always the first -honors of debate, it was less important with the country, -which, except in rare instances, is more impressed -by ideas and by those forms in which truth is manifest.</p> - -<p>The Senate has changed much from its original character, -when, shortly after the formation of the National -Government, a Nova Scotia paper, in a passage copied -by one of our own journals, while declaring that “the -habits of the people here are very favorable to oratory,” -could say, “There is but one assembly in the whole -range of the Federal Union in which eloquence is -deemed unnecessary, and, I believe, even absurd and -obtrusive,—to wit, the Senate, or upper house of -Congress. They are merely a deliberative meeting, in -which every man delivers his concise opinion, one leg -over the other, as they did in the first Congress, where -an harangue was a great rarity.”<a name="FNanchor_186" id="FNanchor_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> Speech was th<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span>en for -business and immediate effect in the Chamber. Since -then the transformation has proceeded, speech becoming -constantly more important, until now, without neglect -of business, the Senate has become a centre from -which to address the country. A seat here is a lofty -pulpit with a mighty sounding-board, and the whole -wide-spread people is the congregation.</p> - -<p>As Mr. Fessenden rarely spoke except for business, -what he said was restricted in its influence, but it was -most effective in this Chamber. Here was his empire, -and his undisputed throne. Of perfect integrity and -austerest virtue, he was inaccessible to those temptations -which in various forms beset the avenues of public -life. Most faithfully and constantly did he watch -the interests intrusted to him. Here he was a model. -Holding the position of Chairman of the Finance Committee, -while it yet had those double duties which are -now divided between two important committees, he became -the guardian of the National Treasury, both in its -receipts and its expenditures, so that nothing was added -to it or taken from it without his knowledge; and -how truly he discharged this immense trust all will attest. -Nothing could leave the Treasury without showing -a passport. This service was the more momentous -from the magnitude of the transactions involved; for it -was during the whole period of the war, when appropriations -responded to loans and taxes,—all being on -a scale beyond precedent in the world’s history. On -these questions, sometimes so sensitive and difficult -and always so grave, his influence was beyond that of -any other Senator and constantly swayed the Senate. -All that our best generals were in arms he was in the -financial field.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span></p> -<p>Absorbed in his great duties, and confined too much -by the training of a profession which too often makes -its follower slave where he is not master, he forgot -sometimes that championship which shone so brightly -when he first entered the Senate. Ill-health came with -its disturbing influence, and, without any of the nature -of Hamlet, his conduct at times suggested those words -by which Hamlet pictures the short-comings of life. -Too often, in his case, “the native hue of resolution -was sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought”; and -perhaps I might follow the words of Shakespeare further, -and picture “enterprises of great pith and moment,” -which, “with this regard, their currents turned -awry and lost the name of action.”</p> - -<p>Men are tempted by the talent which they possess; -and he could not resist the impulse to employ, sometimes -out of place, those extraordinary powers which he -commanded so easily. More penetrating than grasping, -he easily pierced the argument of his opponent, and, -once engaged, he yielded to the excitement of the moment -and the joy of conflict. His words warmed, as -the Olympic wheel caught fire in the swiftness of the -race. If on these occasions there were sparkles which -fell where they should not have fallen, they cannot be -remembered now. Were he still among us, face to face, -it were better to say, in the words of that earliest recorded -reconciliation,—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse indent5">“Let us no more contend nor blame</div> -<div class="verse">Each other, blamed enough elsewhere, but strive</div> -<div class="verse">In offices of love how we may lighten</div> -<div class="verse">Each other’s burden in our share of woe.”<a name="FNanchor_187" id="FNanchor_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a></div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Error and frailty checker the life of man. If this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span> -were not so, earth would be heaven; for what could add -to the happiness of life free from error and frailty? -The Senator we mourn was human; but the error and -frailty which belonged to him often took their color -from virtue itself. On these he needs no silence, even -if the grave which is now closing <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span>over him did not refuse -its echoes except to what is good.</p> - - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<h2><a name="CUBAN_BELLIGERENCY" id="CUBAN_BELLIGERENCY"></a>CUBAN BELLIGERENCY.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, December 15, 1869.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, having moved to proceed to the consideration -of a resolution previously introduced by him, setting forth,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That in the opinion of the Senate the thirty gun-boats purchased or -contracted for in the United States by or on behalf of the Government of -Spain, to be employed against the revolted district of Cuba, should not be -allowed to depart from the United States during the continuance of that -rebellion,”—</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">I shall interpose no objection to that; but I feel it -my duty to suggest that it does seem to me that a -discussion of that question is premature, and for this -reason: there is no information with regard to those -gun-boats now before the Senate, except what we derive -from the newspapers. I understand that the Department -of State will in a few days, as soon as the -documents can be copied, communicate to the Senate -all that it has with reference to our relations with -Cuba, which will probably cover the question of the -gun-boats. There is a question of fact and of law, and -I for one am indisposed to approach its discussion until -I have all the information now in the possession of the -Government. At the same time my friend from Wisconsin -will understand that I have no disposition to interfere -with any desires he may have. If he wishes, -therefore, to go <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span>on, I shall content myself with the suggestions -that I have made.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Carpenter’s motion prevailing, he proceeded with an argument -in support of the resolution in question, to which Mr. Sumner replied -as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—The Senator from Wisconsin closed -by saying that he understood that eighteen of the gun-boats -would leave to-morrow. I have had put into my -hands a telegram received last night from New York, -which I will read, as it relates to that subject:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The vessels delivered by Delamater to the representatives -of the Spanish Navy have their officers and crews on -board and fly the flag of Spain. They are now as completely -the property of that Government as is the Pizarro. Unless -something not foreseen occurs, they will be at sea to-morrow -morning, if not already gone.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>“To-morrow morning” is this morning.</p> - -<p>But there are eight other boats, that are still unfinished, -on the stocks, to which the resolution of the -Senator from Wisconsin is applicable.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I have no disposition now to discuss the great question -involved in the speech of the Senator from Wisconsin; -but the Senator will pardon me, if I venture to -suggest that he has misapprehended the meaning of the -statute on which he relies. Certainly he has misapprehended -it or I have. He has misapprehended it or the -Administration has. I do not conceive that the question -which he has presented can arise under the statute. -The language on which he relies is as follows:—</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span></p> -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“If any person shall within the limits of the United States -fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to -be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly be concerned in -the furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel, -with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the -service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, -or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against the -subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, -or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United -States are at peace,” &c.<a name="FNanchor_188" id="FNanchor_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The operative words on which the Senator relies being -“any colony, district, or people,” I understand the -Senator to insist that under these words Spain cannot -purchase ships in the United States to cruise against -her Cuban subjects now in revolt. That is the position -of the Senator. He states it frankly. To that I specifically -reply, that the language of the statute is entirely -inapplicable. Those words, if the Senator will consult -their history, were introduced for a specific purpose. It -was to meet the case of the revolted Spanish colonies -already for eight years in arms against the parent Government, -having ships in every sea, largely possessing -the territories on the Spanish main, and with independence -nearly achieved.</p> - -<p>There was no question of belligerence. It was admitted -by all the civilized world. Nation after nation -practically recognized it. Our Government, our courts, -every department of the Government, recognized the -belligerence of those Spanish colonies. Their independence -was recognized more tardily, after ample discussion -in these two Chambers as late as 1820; but their -belligerence was a fact perfectly established and recognized -by every branch of the Government. To meet -their case, and for no other object, as I understand i<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span>t, -Mr. Miller, a Representative of South Carolina, on the -30th day of December, 1817, introduced the following -resolution:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Resolved</i>, That a committee be appointed to inquire into -the expediency of so amending the fourth section of the Act -passed on the 3d of March, 1817, entitled ‘An Act more -effectually to preserve the neutral relations of the United -States,’ as to embrace within the provisions thereof the -armed vessels of a Government at peace with the United -States and at war with any colony, district, or people with -whom the United States are or may be at peace.”<a name="FNanchor_189" id="FNanchor_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The important words “any colony, district, or people” -were introduced to cover the precise case of the -revolted Spanish colonies and their precise condition at -that moment, there being no question of belligerence. -Now the practical question is, whether these words, introduced -originally for a specific purpose, having an historic -character beyond question, can be extended so as -to be applied to insurgents who have not yet achieved -a corporate existence,—who have no provinces, no cities, -no towns, no ports, no prize courts. Such is the -fact. I cannot supply the fact, if it does not exist; nor -can the Senator, with his eloquence and with his ardor -enlisted in this cause. We must seek the truth. The -truth is found in the actual facts. Now do those facts -justify the concession which the Senator requires?</p> - -<p>The Cuban insurgents, whatever the inspiration of -their action, have not reached the condition of belligerents. -Such, I repeat, is the fact, and we cannot alter -the fact. Here we must rely upon the evidence, which, -according to all the information within my reach,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span> is adverse. -They do not come within any of the prerequisites. -They have no provinces, no towns, no ports, no -prize courts. Without these I am at a loss to see how -they can be treated as belligerents by foreign powers. -Before this great concession there must be assurance of -their capacity to administer justice. Above all, there -must be a Prize Court. But nobody pretends that there -is any such thing.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> Will the Senator now allow me to ask -him one question?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> My question is, if it be not the most -favorable opportunity to obtain the facts to libel those boats -and get proof on the question?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> The Senator will pardon me, if I say -I do not think it is. I think that the better way of ascertaining -the facts is to send to our authorized agents -in Cuba,—we have consuls at every considerable place,—and -direct them to report on the facts. I understand -such reports have been received by the Department -of State. They will be communicated to the -Senate. They are expected day by day, and they are -explicit, unless I have been misinformed, on this single -point,—that, whatever may be the inspiration of that -insurrection, it has not yet reached that condition of -maturity, that corporate character, which in point of -fact makes it belligerent in character.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Howard.</span> I do not wish to interrupt the Senator, -but I should like to ask a question at this point.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Howard.</span> I wish for information on this subject,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span> -and I think we all stand in need of it; and I should be very -much obliged to the Senator from Massachusetts, if he is -able to do so, if he would give us a statement of the amount -of military force actually in the field in Cuba, or the amount -of force that is available; and whether the insurgents have -established a civil government for themselves,—whether it -be or be not in operation as a government. On these subjects -I confess my ignorance.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> The Senator confesses we are in the -dark, and on this account I consider the debate premature. -We all need information, and I understand it -will be supplied by the Department of State. There -is information on the precise point to which the Senator -calls attention, and that is as to the number of the -forces on both sides. I understand on the side of the -insurgents it has latterly very much diminished; and I -have been told that they are now little more than <i>guerrilleros</i>, -and that the war they are carrying on is little -more than a guerrilla contest,—that they are not in -possession of any town or considerable place. Such is -my information.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Howard.</span> Have they any government?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I understand they have the government -that is in a camp. With regard to that the Senator -knows as well as I; but that brings us back again -to the necessity of information.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Howard.</span> Any civil government, any legislative power -for the actual exercise of legislative functions?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I think there is no evidence that t<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span>here -is a legislative body; and I must say I await with great -anxiety the evidence of their action on the subject of -Slavery itself. What assurance have we that slavery -will be terminated by these insurgents? Have they the -will? Have they the power? I know the report that -they have abolished slavery, but this report leaves much -to be desired. I wish it to be authenticated and relieved -from all doubt. It is said that there are two decrees,—one -to be read at home, and another to be read abroad. -Is this true? And even if not true, is there any assurance -that the insurrectionists are able to make this decree -good? But while I require the surrender of slavery -from the insurrectionists, I make the same requirement -of Spain. Why has this power delayed?</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> I ask the Senator if Spain has not recently -affirmed the existence of slavery in Cuba and Porto Rico, -especially in Porto Rico, by publishing a new constitution -guarantying the existence of slavery?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I am not able to inform the Senator -precisely on that point. I do know enough, however, -to satisfy me that Spain is a laggard on this question; -and if my voice could reach her now, it would plead -with her to be quick, to make haste to abolish slavery, -not only in Cuba, but in Porto Rico. Its continued existence -is a shame, and it should cease.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I have no disposition to go into this subject at length. -There is, however, one other remark that the Senator -from Wisconsin made to which I shall be justified in -replying. He alludes to the case of the Hornet, and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span> -proceedings against that vessel.<a name="FNanchor_190" id="FNanchor_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> It is not for me now -to vindicate those proceedings. They may have been -proper under the statute, or may not; but it is very -clear to me that the cases of the Hornet and the Spanish -gun-boats are plainly distinguishable, and, if the -Senate will pardon me one moment, I will make the -distinction, I think, perfectly apparent. We all know -that two or three or four or a dozen persons may levy -war against the Government, may levy war against -the king. A traitor levies war against the king. The -king, when he proceeds against the traitor, does not -levy war. He simply proceeds in the exercise of his -executive functions in order to establish his authority. -And in the spirit of this illustration I am disposed to -believe that the United States were perfectly justifiable, -even under this statute, in arresting the Hornet; but -they would not be justifiable in arresting the Spanish -gun-boats. The Hornet was levying war against -Spain, and therefore subject to arrest. The gun-boats -are levying no war, simply because the insurrection -against which they are to be used has not reached the -condition of war.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> Will the Senator allow me to ask one -other question?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> What I want to know is this: whether<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span> -the condition of neutrality does not necessarily depend upon -the fact that war is progressing between two parties? Can -there be any neutrality, unless there is a contest of arms going -on between two somebodies? Now, if it be a violation -of our Neutrality Act for one of those bodies to come in and -fit out vessels in the United States, is it not equally so for -the other?—or is our pretence of neutrality a falsehood, -a cheat, and a delusion?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Mr. President, I do not regard it as a -question of neutrality. Until the belligerence of these -people is recognized, they are not of themselves a power, -they are not a people. Therefore there can be no -neutrality on the part of our Government between -Spain and her revolted subjects, until they come up -to the condition of a people. They have not reached -that point; and therefore I submit that there is at this -moment no question of neutrality, and that the argument -of the Senator in that respect was inapplicable. -When the belligerence of the insurgents is recognize<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span>d -there will be a case for neutrality, and not before.</p> - - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<h2><a name="ADMISSION_OF_VIRGINIA_TO_REPRESENTATION" id="ADMISSION_OF_VIRGINIA_TO_REPRESENTATION"></a>ADMISSION OF VIRGINIA TO REPRESENTATION -IN CONGRESS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speeches in the Senate, January 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, -1870.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 10, 1870, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of a -Joint Resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, declaring, -“That the State of Virginia is entitled to representation in -the Congress of the United States,”—she having, as was said, “complied -in all respects with the Reconstruction Acts.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Sumner, apprehending that this compliance had been merely -formal, and that the Rebel spirit was still the dominant influence in -Virginia, urged postponement of the measure for a few days, to afford -opportunity for information, remarking:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">I am assured that there are resolutions of public -meetings in different parts of Virginia, that there -are papers, letters, communications, all tending to throw -light on the actual condition of things in that State, -which in the course of a short time, of a few days at -furthest, will be presented to the Senate. Under these -circumstances, I submit most respectfully, and without -preferring any request with reference to myself, that -the measure should be allowed to go over for a few -days, perhaps for a week, till Monday next, and that it -then should be taken up and proceeded with to the end. -My object is, that, when the Senate acts on this important -measure, it may act wisely, with adequate knowledge, -and so that hereafter it may have no occasion to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span> -regret its conclusion. How many are there now, Sir, -who, on the information in our papers to-day, would -not recall the vote by which Tennessee was declared -entitled to her place as a State! You, Sir, have read -that report signed by the Representatives of Tennessee, -and by her honored Senator here on my right [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Brownlow</span>]. From that you will see the condition of -things in that State at this moment. Is there not a lesson, -Sir, in that condition of things? Does it not teach -us to be cautious before we commit this great State of -Virginia back to the hands of the people that have -swayed it in war against the National Government? -Sir, this is a great responsibility. I am anxious that -the Senate should exercise it only after adequate knowledge -and inquiry. I do not believe that they have the -means at this moment of coming to a proper determination.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>After extended debate, Mr. Sumner’s proposition finally took shape -in a motion by his colleague [Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span>] to postpone the further -consideration of the resolution for three days. In response to Mr. -Stewart, of Nevada, who had charge of the measure, and who insisted -that “no one had been able to find a reason worthy of consideration -why they should not proceed and act affirmatively at once,” Mr. Sumner -said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—It seems to me that this discussion -to-day tends irresistibly to one conclusion,—that -the Senate is not now prepared to act. I do not say -that it will not be prepared in one, two, or three days, -or in a week; but it is not now prepared to act. Not a -Senator has spoken, either on one side or the other, who -has not made points of law, some of them presented for -the first time in this Chamber. Hardly a Senator has -spoken who has not presented questions of fact. <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span>How -are we to determine these? Time is essential. We -must be able to look into the papers, to examine the -evidence, and, if my friend will pardon me, to examine -also the law, to see whether the conclusion on which he -stands so firmly is one on which the Senate can plant -itself forevermore. The Senator must bear in mind that -what we do now with reference to Virginia we do permanently -and irrepealably, and that we affect the interests -of that great State, and I submit also the safety of -a large portion of its population. Sir, I am not willing -to go forward in haste and in ignorance to deal with -so great a question. Let us consider it, let us approach -it carefully, and give to it something of that attention -which the grandeur of the interest involved requires.</p> - -<p>I think, therefore, the suggestion of my colleague, -that this matter be postponed for several days, is proper; -it is only according to the ordinary course of business -of the Senate, and it is sustained by manifest reason -in this particular case. I should prefer that the -postponement were till next Monday, and I will be precise -in assigning my reason. It is nothing personal to -myself. My friend from New York said, or intimated, -that, if the Senator from Massachusetts wished to be -accommodated, he would be ready, of course, to consent -to gratify him. Now I would not have it placed on -that ground; I present it as a question of business; -and I, as a Senator interested in the decision of this -business, wish to have time to peruse these papers and -to obtain that knowledge which will enable me to -decide ultimately on the case. I have not now the -knowledge that I desire with reference to the actual -condition of things in Virginia. I am assured by those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> -in whom I place confidence that in the course of a few -days that evidence will be forthcoming. Will not the -Senate receive it? Will it press hastily, heedlessly, -recklessly, to a conclusion, which, when reached, it may -hereafter find occasion to regret? Let us, Sir, so act -that we shall have hereafter no regrets; let us so act -that the people of Virginia hereafter may be safe, and -that they may express their gratitude to the Congress of -the United States which has helped to protect them.</p> - -<p>The Senator from Nevada said, that, if we oppose the -present bill, we sacrifice the Legislature of the State. -I suggest to that Senator, that, if we do not oppose this -bill, we sacrifice the people of the State. What, Sir, is -a Legislature chosen as this recent Legislature has been -chosen in Virginia, composed of recent Rebels still filled -and seething with that old Rebel fire,—what is that -Legislature in the scale, compared with the safety of -that great people? Sir, I put in one scale the welfare -of the State of Virginia, the future security of its large -population, historic and memorable in our annals, and -in the other scale I put a Legislature composed of recent -Rebels. To save that Legislature the Senator from -Nevada presses forward to sacrifice the people of the -State.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The motion to postpone was rejected,—Yeas 25, Nays 26,—and -the debate on the Joint Resolution proceeded: the first question being -on an amendment offered by Mr. Drake, of Missouri, providing that -the passage by the Legislature of Virginia, at any time thereafter, of -any act or resolution rescinding or annulling its ratification of the Fifteenth -Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -should operate to exclude the State from representation in Congress -and remand it to its former provisional government.</p> - -<p>January 11th, Mr. Sumner, following Mr. Morton, of Indiana, in -support of Mr. Drake’s proposed amendment, and, with him, maintaining -the continued power of Congress over a State after reconstruction, -sa<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span>id:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—I have but one word to say, and it -is one of gratitude to the Senator from Indiana for the -complete adhesion he now makes to a principle of Constitutional -Law which I have no doubt is unassailable. -The Congress of the United States will have forevermore -the power to protect Reconstruction. No one of -these States, by anything that it may do hereafter, can -escape from that far-reaching power. I call it far-reaching: -it will reach just as far as the endeavor to counteract -it; it is coextensive with the Constitution itself. I -have no doubt of it, and I am delighted that the distinguished -Senator from Indiana has given to it the support -of his authority.</p> - -<p>While I feel so grateful to my friend from Indiana -for what he has said on this point, he will allow me to -express my dissent from another proposition of his. He -says that we are now bound under our Reconstruction -Acts to admit Virginia. I deny it.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> Will the Senator allow me one moment?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> I do not pretend that there is any clause -in the Reconstruction Acts which in express words requires -us to admit Virginia upon the compliance with certain conditions; -but what I mean to say is, that there went forth with -those laws an understanding to the country, as clear and distinct -as if it had been written in the statute, that upon a full -and honorable compliance with them those States should be -admitted. I will ask my friend from Massachusetts if that -understanding did not exist?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> My answer to the Senator is found in -the last section of the Act authorizing the submiss<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span>ion, -of the Constitutions of these States, as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That the proceedings in any of said States shall not be -deemed final, or operate as a complete restoration thereof, -until their action respectively shall be approved by Congress.”<a name="FNanchor_191" id="FNanchor_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>What is the meaning of that? The whole case is -brought before Congress for consideration. We are to -look into it, and consider the circumstances under which -these elections have taken place, and see whether we -can justly give to them our approval. Is that vain language? -Was it not introduced for a purpose? Was it -merely for show? Was it for deception? Was it a -cheat? No, Sir; it was there with a view to a practical -result, to meet precisely the case now before the -Senate,—that is, a seeming compliance with the requirements -of our Reconstruction policy, but a failure -in substance.</p> - -<p>Now I will read what was in the bill of March 2, -1867, entitled “An Act to provide for the more efficient -government of the Rebel States.”<a name="FNanchor_192" id="FNanchor_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> It declares in the -preamble that “it is necessary that peace and good order -should be enforced in said States,”—strong language -that!—“until loyal and republican State governments -can be legally established.” That is what -Congress is to require. To that end Congress must -look into the circumstances of the case; it must consider -what the condition of the people there is,—whether -this new government is loyal, whether it is -in the hands of loyal people. To that duty Congress -is summoned by its very legislation; the duty is laid -down in advance.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span></p> -<p>And so you may go through all these Reconstruction -statutes, and you will find that under all of them the -whole subject is brought back ultimately to the discretion -of Congress. This whole subject now is in the discretion -of Congress. I trust that Congress will exercise -it so that life and liberty and property shall be safe.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 12th, Mr. Sumner presented a memorial from citizens of -Virginia then in Washington, claiming to represent the loyal people -of that State, in which they declare themselves “anxious for the -prompt admission of the State to representation upon such terms -that a loyal civil government may be maintained and the rights of -loyal men secured; which,” they say, “we feel assured cannot be the -case, if any condition less than the application of the test oath to the -Legislature shall be imposed by the Congress.” As the grounds of this -conviction, they point, among other matters, to the continued manifestations -of the Rebel spirit in the community,—the ascendency of -the Rebel party in the recently elected Legislature, gained, as they insist, -“by intimidation, fraud, violence, and prevention of free speech,”—and -particularly to the evidences of disloyalty, and of meditated bad -faith in regard to the new State Constitution, exhibited in speeches -and other utterances of the Governor and Members of Assembly,—utterances, -on the part of some of the latter, accompanied with gross -contumely of a distinguished Member of Congress from Massachusetts: -all of which, the memorialists say, “if a hearing can now be had, and -which we respectfully request may be granted, we pledge ourselves -to show by sworn witnesses of irreproachable character, residing in -Virginia.”</p> - -<p>The memorial was received with denunciation, as “disrespectful,” -“unjust and abusive,” “merely the wailing of those who were defeated,” -“originating with the view of keeping out Virginia,” “trifling -with our own plighted faith and honor,”—and its presentation criticized -with corresponding severity,—the Senators from Nevada leading -the assault. Mr. Sumner responded:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—Has it come to this, that the loyal -people of Virginia cannot be heard on this floor? that a -petition presented by a member of this body, proceeding -from them, is to have first the denunciation of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span> -Senator from Nevada on my right [Mr. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>], and then -the denunciation of the Senator from Nevada on my -left [Mr. <span class="smcap">Stewart</span>]? Why are the loyal people of Virginia -to be thus exposed? What have they done? Sir, -in what respect is that petition open to exception? The -Senator says it is disrespectful. To whom? To this -body? To the other Chamber? To the President of -the United States? To any branch of this Government? -Not in the least. It is disrespectful, according -to the Senator from Nevada, to the present Governor of -Virginia, and he undertakes to state his case.</p> - -<p>Now, Sir, I have nothing to say of the present Governor -of Virginia. I am told that he is on this floor; -but I have not the honor of his acquaintance, and I -know very little about him. I make no allegation, no -suggestion, with regard to his former course. He may -have been as sound always as the Senator from Nevada -himself; but the petitioners from Virginia say the contrary. -They are so circumstanced as to know more -about him than the Senator from Nevada, or than myself; -and they are so circumstanced as to have a great -stake in his future conduct. Thus circumstanced, they -send their respectful petition to this Chamber, asking a -hearing; and what is the answer? Denunciation from -one Senator of Nevada echoed by denunciation from the -other Senator of Nevada. The voice of Nevada on this -occasion is united, it is one, to denounce a loyal petition -from Virginia.</p> - -<p>Was I not right in presenting the petition? Shall -these people be unheard? The Committee which the -Senator represents, led by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>], and now led by himself, are pressing this -measure to a precipitate conclusion. These petitioners,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span> -having this great interest in the result, ask for a hearing. -Several days ago I presumed, respectfully, deferentially, -to ask that this measure should be postponed -a few days in order to give an opportunity for such a -hearing. I was refused. The Senator from Nevada -would not consent, and with the assistance of Democrats -he crowds this measure forward. Sir, it is natural, -allow me to say, that one acting in this new conjunction -should trifle with the right of petition. When -one begins to act with such allies, I can well imagine -that he loses something of his original devotion to the -great fundamental principles of our Government.</p> - -<p>Something was said by my friend, the other Senator -from Nevada [Mr. <span class="smcap">Nye</span>], on another passage of the petition, -referring to a distinguished colleague of my own. -Why, Sir, that very passage furnishes testimony against -the cause represented by the Senator from Nevada. It -shows how little to be trusted are these men. It shows -the game of treachery which they have undertaken. It -shows how they are intending to press this measure -through Congress so as to obtain for Virginia the independence -of a State. Are you ready for that conclusion? -Are you ready to part with this great control -which yet remains to Congress, through which security -may be maintained for the rights of all?</p> - -<p>Something has been said by different Senators of -plighted faith. Sir, there is a faith that is plighted, -and by that I will stand, God willing, to the end. It -is nothing less than this: to secure the rights of all, -without distinction of color, in the State of Virginia. -When I can secure those rights, when I can see that -they are firmly established beyond the reach of fraud, -beyond the violence of opposition, then I am willing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> -that that State shall again assume its independent position. -But until then I say, Wait! In the name of Justice, -in the name of Liberty, for the sake of Human -Rights, I entreat the Senate to wait.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 13th, in response to criticisms by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, -Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>It was in pursuance of the effort I made on the first -day of this week that yesterday I presented a memorial -from loyal citizens of Virginia here in Washington. I -presented it as a memorial, and asked to have it read. -The Senator from Nevada [Mr. <span class="smcap">Stewart</span>], in the remarks -which he so kindly made with regard to me later -in the day, said that in asking to have it read I adopted -it. I can pardon that remark to the Senator from Nevada, -who is less experienced in this Chamber than the -Senator from Illinois; but the latter Senator has repeated -substantially the same remark. Sir, this is a new -position, that in presenting a memorial one adopts it, -especially when he asks to have it read. Why, Sir, -what is the right of petition? Is it reduced to this, -that no petition can be presented unless the Senator -approves it, or that no petition can be read at the request -of a Senator unless he approves it? Such a limitation -on the right of petition would go far to cut it -down to its unhappy condition in those pro-slavery -days which some of us remember. Sir, I was right -in presenting the memorial, and right in asking to -have it read.</p> - -<p>And now what is its character? It sets forth a condition -of things in Virginia which might well make the -Senate pause. I think no candid person can have listened -to that memorial without seeing that it contains<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> -statements with regard to which the Senate ought to be -instructed before it proceeds to a vote. Do you consider, -Sir, that when you install this Legislature you consign -the people of Virginia to its power? Do you consider -that to this body belongs the choice of judges? -The whole judiciary of the State is to be organized by -it. This may be done in the interests of Freedom and -Humanity, or in the ancient interests of the Rebellion. -I am anxious that this judiciary should be pure -and devoted to Human Rights. But if the policy is -pursued which finds such strenuous support, especially -from the Senator from Illinois, farewell then to such a -judiciary!—that judiciary which is often called the -Palladium of the Commonwealth, through which justice -is secured, rights protected, and all men are made -safe. Instead of that, you will have a judiciary true -only to those who have lately been in rebellion. You -will have a judiciary that will set its face like flint -against those loyalists that find so little favor with the -Senator from Illinois. You will have a judiciary that -will follow out the spirit which the Senator has shown -to-day, and do little else than pursue vindictively these -loyalists.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>There has been allusion to the Governor of Virginia. -The Senator says I have made an assault upon him. -Oh, no! How have I assaulted him? I said simply -that I understood he was on the floor, as the member-elect -from Richmond was on the floor. That is all that -I said. But now there is something with regard to this -Governor to which I should like to have an answer: -possibly the Senator may be able to answer it. I have -here a speech purporting to have been made by him at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> -an agricultural fair in the southwest part of Virginia -after the election, from which, with your permission, -but, Sir, without adopting it at all or making myself in -any way responsible for its contents, I will read.</p> - -<p>Mr. Walker, addressing the audience, says:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“A little talking sometimes does a great deal of good; -and that expended in the late canvass I heard in a voice of -thunder on the 6th of July, when the people of your noble -old Commonwealth declared themselves against vandalism, -fraud, and treachery. Virginia has freed herself from the -tyranny of a horde of greedy cormorants and unprincipled -carpet-baggers, who came to sap her very vitals. I have no -other feeling but that of pity for the opposition party, who -were deceived and led by adventurers having only their own -personal aggrandizement and aims in view, with neither interest, -character, nor self-respect at stake; for this a majority -of them never had.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Now, Sir, what are the operative words of this remarkable -speech? That this very Governor Walker, -who finds a vindicator—I may say, adopting a term of -the early law, a compurgator—in the Senator from Illinois, -announces that by this recent election Virginia has -“declared against vandalism, fraud, and treachery,—has -freed herself from the tyranny of a horde of greedy cormorants -and unprincipled carpet-baggers, who came to -sap her very vitals.”</p> - -<p>Such is the language by which this Governor characterizes -loyal people from the North, from the West, -from all parts of the country, who since the overthrow -of the Rebellion have gone there with their household -gods, with their energies, with their character, with -their means, to contribute to the resources of the State! -Sir, what does all this suggest? To my mind unhappy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span> -days in the future; to my mind anything but justice -for the devoted loyal people and Unionists of that -State. And now, Sir, while I make this plea for them, -again let me say I present no exclusive claim to represent -them; I speak now only because others do -not speak; and as in other days when I encountered -the opposition of the Senator from Illinois I was often -in a small minority, sometimes almost alone, I may -be so now; but I have a complete conviction that -the course I am now taking will be justified by the -future. Sad enough, if it be so! I hope it may be -otherwise.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Drake’s amendment was rejected. Another, thereupon offered -by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, and as subsequently amended, requiring -members of the Legislature before taking or resuming their seats, -and State officers before entering upon office, to make oath to past loyalty -or removal of disabilities, was adopted. Other provisions, against -exclusion from civil rights on account of race or color, either by future -amendments of the existing State Constitution or by rescinding the -State’s ratification of any amendment to the National Constitution, -were moved as “fundamental conditions” of admission. In an argument, -January 14th, maintaining the validity of such conditions, -the pending question being on a provision of this character offered by -Mr. Drake, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—Something has been said of the -term by which this proposition should be designated. -One will not call it “compact,” finding in this term -much danger, but at the same time he refuses to the -unhappy people in Virginia now looking to us for protection -such safeguard as may be found in this proposition. -For myself, Sir, I make no question of terms. -Call it one thing or another, it is the same, for it has in -it protection. Call it a compact, I accept it. Call it a -law, I accept it. Call it a condition, I accept it. It i<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span>s -all three,—condition, law, compact,—and, as all three, -binding. The old law-books speak of a triple cord. -Here you have it.</p> - -<p>My friend from Wisconsin [Mr. <span class="smcap">Carpenter</span>] falls into -another mistake,—he will pardon me, if I suggest it,—which -I notice with regret. He exalts the technical -State above the real State. He knows well what is the -technical State, which is found in form, in technicality, -in privilege, if you please,—for he has made himself -to-night the advocate of privilege. To my mind the -State is the people, and its highest office is their just -safeguard; and when it is declared that a State hereafter -shall not take away the right of any of its people, -here is no infringement of anything that belongs to a -State. I entreat my friend to bear the distinction in -mind. A State can have no right or privilege to do -wrong; nor can the denial of this pretension disparage -the State, or in any way impair its complete equality -with other States. The States have no power except to -do justice. Any power beyond this is contrary to the -Harmonies of the Universe.</p> - -<p>Since the Senator spoke, I sent into the other room -for the Declaration of Independence, in order to read -a sentence which is beyond question the touchstone -of our institutions, to which all the powers of a State -must be brought. Here it is:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of -America in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme -Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, -do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of -these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United -Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent -States.”</p> - -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span></p> -<p>And then it proceeds to say that—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“They have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract -alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts -and things which independent States may of right do.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Here is the claim, with its limitation,—the great -claim, and its great limitation. The claim was Independence; -the limitation was Justice.</p> - -<p>“Which independent States may of right do”: nothing -else, nothing which a State may not of right do. -Now, Sir, bear in mind, do not forget, that there is not -one thing prohibited by these fundamental conditions -that a State may of right do. Therefore, Sir, in the -name of Right, do I insist that it is binding upon the -State. It is binding, even if not there; and it is binding, -being there. Its insertion is like notice or proclamation -of the perpetual obligation.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</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. Carpenter.</span> In speaking of a State of this Union, -does not the Senator understand the term to apply to the -corporation, so to speak,—the Government of the State?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I do not.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> I ask the Senator, then, in what way -the State of Virginia got out of the Union, except by destroying -the State Government which was a member of the -Union? Her territory was always in; her people were always -subject to the laws of the United States.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> There I agree with the Senator. Her people -were always in; her territory was always in.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> But her Government was not.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Not out. Her Government was destroyed.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> Yes, and thereby she ceased to be a -me<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span>mber of the Union.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Rather than say that she had ceased to be -a member of the Union, I would say that her Government -was destroyed. She never was able to take one foot of her -soil or one of her people beyond the jurisdiction of the Nation. -The people constitute the State in the just sense, and -it has been always our duty to protect them, and this I now -propose to do.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I return to the point, that what it is proposed to prohibit -by these fundamental conditions no State can of -right do. Therefore to require that Virginia shall not -do these things is no infringement of anything that belongs -to a State, for a State can have no such privilege. -My friend made himself, I said, the advocate of privilege. -He complained, that, if we imposed these conditions, -we should impair the “privileges” of a State. -No such thing. The State can have no such thing. -The Senator would not curtail a State of its fair proportions. -When will it be apparent that the license -to do wrong is only a barbarism?</p> - -<p>Then, again, the Senator says, if this is already forbidden, -why repeat the prohibition in the form of a -new condition? Why, Sir, my friend is too well read -in the history of Liberty and of its struggles to make -that inquiry seriously. Does he not remember how in -English history Liberty has been won by just such repetitions? -It began with Magna Charta, followed shortly -afterward by a repetition; then again, in the time of -Charles the First, by another repetition; and then again, -at the Revolution of 1688, by still another repetition. -But did anybody at either of those great epochs say -that the repetition was needless, because all contained -in Magna Charta? True, it was all there; but the repetition -was needed in order to press it home upon the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span> -knowledge and the conscience of the people.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> Will the Senator allow me?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> Certainly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Carpenter.</span> Is not the great distinction in this fact, -that England has no written Constitution,—that the Great -Charter is a mere Act of Parliament, which may be repealed -to-morrow? With us we have a written Constitution; and -when its terms and provisions are once clear, do we not -weaken, do we not show our lack of faith, that is, our lack -of confidence in the value of the provisions, by reënacting it -in the form of a statute?</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I must say I cannot follow my friend -to that conclusion, nor do I see the difference he makes -between Magna Charta in England and our Constitution. -I believe they are very much alike. And I believe -that the time is at hand when another document -of our history will stand side by side with the Constitution, -and enjoy with it coëqual authority, as it has more -than the renown of the Constitution: I mean the Declaration -of Independence. This is the first Constitution -of our history. It is our first Magna Charta. Nor can -any State depart from it; nor can this Nation depart -from it. To all the promises and the pledges of that -great Declaration are we all pledged, whether as Nation -or as State. The Nation, when it bends before them, -exalts itself; and when it requires their performance of -a State, again exalts itself, and exalts the State also.</p> - -<p>So I see it. Full well, Sir, I know that in other -days, when Slavery prevailed in this Chamber, there -was a different rule of interpretation; but I had thought -that our war had changed all that. Sir, to my mind -the greatest victory in that terrible conflict was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span> not at -Appomattox: oh, no, by no means! Nor was it in the -triumphal march of Sherman: oh, no, by no means! -This greatest victory was the establishment of a new -rule of interpretation by which the institutions of our -country are dedicated forevermore to Human Rights, -and the Declaration of Independence is made a living -letter instead of a promise. Clearly, unquestionably, -beyond all doubt, that, Sir, was the greatest victory -of our war,—greater than any found on any field of -blood: as a victory of ideas is above any victory of the -sword; as the establishment of Human Rights is the -end and consummation of government, without which -government is hard to bear, if not a sham.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 17th, the Joint Resolution as amended was laid on the table, -and the Senate took up the House bill, which admitted the State -to representation clear of all conditions; immediately whereupon Mr. -Edmunds moved the proviso concerning the oath to be taken by members -of the Legislature and State officers which had been attached to -the former measure.</p> - -<p>The renewal of this proviso gave rise to renewed and protracted debate, -in the course of which, Mr. Sumner, in speeches on the 18th and -19th, in reply to an elaborate defence of Governor Walker by Mr. -Stewart against the charges of disloyalty and meditated bad faith, adduced -copious extracts from speeches of the Governor and others, together -with numerous letters from various parts of the State, all serving -to show, as he conceived, that the late election was “one huge, -colossal fraud.”</p> - -<p>Meanwhile Mr. Sumner’s colleague, Mr. Wilson, with a view to “a -bill in which all could unite,” moved the reference of the pending bill -to the Committee on the Judiciary, “for the purpose of having the -whole question thoroughly examined,”—a motion which on the part -of the Committee itself was strenuously opposed.</p> - -<p>Upon this posture of the case, January 19th, Mr. Morton, of Indiana, -remarked, that “there seemed to be an obstinate determination -that Virginia must come in according to the bill reported by the Committee -or not come in at all,”—that “the Senator from Nevada [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Stewart</span>], with all h<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span>is zeal and his good intentions, was standing as -substantially in the way of the admission of Virginia as the Senator -from Massachusetts [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sumner</span>]”; and turning to the latter, he said: -“It seems that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is unwilling -that Virginia shall come in now upon any terms; and the Senator -has developed more clearly this morning than he has done before -what his desire is. It is that there shall be a new election in Virginia. -Am I right in regard to that?”</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I have not said that.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Morton.</span> Then what does the Senator’s argument mean, that the -last election was a monstrous fraud? What is the object in proving that -the last election was a monstrous fraud, unless the Senator wants a new -election? Let us have an understanding about that.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> I wish to purge the Legislature of its Rebels. I understand -that three-fourths of the Legislature, if not more, cannot take the -test oath. That is what I first propose to do.</p> - -</div> - -<p>After further remarks by Mr. Morton, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—In what the Senator from Indiana -has said in reply to the Senator from Nevada I entirely -sympathize. I unite with the Senator from Indiana in -his amendments. I unite with him in his aspirations -for that security in the future which I say is the first -great object now of our legislation in matters of Reconstruction. -Without security in the future Reconstruction -is a failure; and that now should be our first, prime -object. But while I unite with the Senator on those -points, he will pardon me, if I suggest to him that he -has not done me justice in his reference to what I said. -And now, Sir, before I comment on his remarks, I ask -to have the pending motion read.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p><span class="smcap">The Presiding Officer.</span> (Mr. <span class="smcap">Anthony</span>, of Rhode Island, -in the chair.) The pending motion is the motion of -the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span>] to refer the -bill to the Committee on the Judiciary.</p> - -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span></p> -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Sumner.</span> So I understood, Sir, and it was to -that motion that I spoke. I argued that the bill and -all pending questions should be referred to the Committee,—and -on what ground? That the election was -carried by a colossal fraud. The Senator complains because -I did not go further, and say whether I would -have a new election or not. The occasion did not require -it. I am not in the habit, the Senator knows -well, of hesitating in the expression of my opinions; -but logically the time had not come for the expression -of any opinion on that point. My argument was, that -there must be inquiry. To that point the Senate knows -well I have directed attention from the beginning of -this debate. I have said: “Why speed this matter? -Why hurry it to this rash consummation? Why, without -inquiry, hand over the loyalists of Virginia, bound -hand and foot, as victims?” That is what I have said; -and it is no answer for my friend to say that I do not -declare whether I would have a new election or not.</p> - -<p>When an inquiry has been made, and we know officially -and in authentic form the precise facts, I shall be -ready to meet all the requirements of the occasion,—so, -at least, I trust. My friend, therefore, was premature -in his proposition to me. May I remind him of -that incident in the history of our profession, when a -very learned and eminent chief-justice of England said -to a counsellor at the bar, “Do not leap before you -come to the stile,”—in other words, Do not speak to -a point until the point has arisen?<a name="FNanchor_193" id="FNanchor_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> The point which -the Senator presents to me had not yet arisen; the question -was not before the Senate, whether there should be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span> -a new election or not. There was no such motion; nor -did the occasion require its consideration. My aim was -in all simplicity to show the reasons for inquiry. Now -it may be, that, when that inquiry is made, it will appear -that I am mistaken,—that this election is not the -terrible fraud that I believe it,—that the loyal people, -black and white, will hereafter be secure in the State of -Virginia under the proposed Constitution. It may be -that all that will become apparent on the report of your -Committee. It is not apparent now. On the contrary, -just the opposite is apparent. It is apparent that loyalists -will not be secure, that freedmen will suffer unknown -peril, unless you now throw over them your protecting -arm.</p> - -<p>That is my object. I wish to secure safety. I wish -to surround all my fellow-citizens in that State with an -impenetrable ægis. Is not that an honest desire? Is -it not a just aspiration? I know that my friend from -Indiana shares it with me; I claim no monopoly of -it, but I mention it in order to explain the argument -which I have made.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In the course of this debate there has been an iteration -of assertion on certain points. I mention two,—one -of fact, and the other of law. It has been said that -we are pledged to admit Virginia, and this assertion has -been repeated in every variety of form; and then it is -said that in point of law the test oath is not required. -Now to both these assertions, whether of fact or law, I -reply, “You are mistaken.” The pledge to admit Virginia -cannot be shown, and the requirement of the test -oath can be shown.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span></p> -<p>It is strange to see the forgetfulness of great principles -into which Senators have been led by partisanship. -Certain Senators forget the people, forget the lowly, -only to remember Rebels. They forget that our constant -duty is to protect our fellow-citizens in Virginia -at all hazards. This is our first duty, which cannot be -postponed. In the reconstruction of Virginia it must -be an ever-present touchstone.</p> - -<p>Look at the text of the Reconstruction Acts, or their -spirit, and it is the same. By their text the first and -commanding duty is, “that peace and good order should -be enforced in said States <i>until loyal and republican -State governments can be legally established</i>”; and until -then “any civil governments which may exist therein -shall be deemed <i>provisional</i> only, and in all respects -subject to the paramount authority of the United States -at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the -same.” Such are the duties and powers devolved upon -Congress by the very terms of the first Reconstruction -Act.<a name="FNanchor_194" id="FNanchor_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> The duty is to see that “loyal and republican -State governments” be established; and the power is -“to abolish, modify, control, or supersede” the provisional -governments.</p> - -<p>It is not enough to say that Virginia has performed -certain things required by the statute. This is not -enough. The Senate must be satisfied that her government -is loyal and republican. This opens the question -of fact. Is Virginia loyal? Is her Legislature -loyal? Is the new Government loyal? These questions -must be answered. How is the fact? Do not -tell me that Virginia has complied with c<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span>ertain formal -requirements. Behind all these is the great requirement -of Loyalty. Let Senators who insist upon her -present swift admission show this loyalty. There is no -plighted faith of Congress which can supersede this -duty. Disloyalty is like fraud; it vitiates the whole -proceeding. Such is the plain meaning of the text in -its words.</p> - -<p>But if we look at the spirit of the Acts, the conclusion -becomes still more irresistible. It is contrary to -reason and to common sense to suppose that Congress -intended to blind its eyes and tie its hands, so that it -could see nothing and do nothing, although the State -continued disloyal to the core. And yet this is the -argument of Senators who set up the pretension of -plighted faith. There is Virginia with a Constitution -dabbled in blood, with a Legislature smoking with Rebellion, -and with a Governor commending himself to -Rebels throughout a long canvass by promising to strike -at common schools; and here is Congress blindfold and -with hands tied behind the back. Such is the picture. -To look at it is enough.</p> - -<p>Sir, the case is clear,—too clear for argument. Congress -is not blindfold, nor are its hands tied. Congress -must see, and it must act. But the loyalty of a State -should be like the sun in the heavens, so that all can -see it. At present we see nothing but disloyalty.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The next assertion concerns the test oath; and on -this point I desire to be precise.</p> - -<p>General Canby, the military commander in Virginia, -thought that the test oath, or “iron-clad,” should be required -in the organization of the Virginia Legislature. -This opinion was given after careful examination<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> of the -statutes, and was reaffirmed by him at different times. -According to him, the test oath must be applied until -the Constitution has been approved by Congress; and -in one of his letters the commander says, “Its application -to the seceded States before they were represented -in Congress appears to be the natural result of their -political relation to the Union, independent of the requirements -of the ninth section of the law of July 19, -1867.”<a name="FNanchor_195" id="FNanchor_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> To my mind this opinion is unanswerable, -and it is reinforced by the reason assigned. Nothing -could be more natural than that the test oath, which -was expressly required of the Boards of Registration -and of other functionaries, should be required of the -Legislature, so long as the same was within the power -of Congress. The reason for it in one case was equally -applicable in the other case; nay, it was stronger, if -possible, in the case of the Legislature, inasmuch as -the powers of the latter are the most vital. It is this -Legislature which is to begin the new State government. -Two essential parts of the system depend upon -it,—the courts of justice, which are to be reorganized, -and the common schools. To my mind it is contrary -to reason that the establishment and control of these -two great agencies should be committed to a disloyal -Legislature,—in other words, to a Legislature that cannot -take the test oath. The requirement of this oath -is only a natural and reasonable precaution, without -harshness or proscription. It is simply for the sake of -security. Therefore is General Canby clearly right on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span> -grounds of reason.</p> - -<p>Looking at the text of the Reconstruction Acts, the -conclusion of reason is confirmed by a positive requirement. -By the ninth section of the Act of July 19, -1867,<a name="FNanchor_196" id="FNanchor_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> it is provided,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That all members of said Boards of Registration, and all -persons hereafter elected or appointed to office in said military -districts, <i>under any so-called State or municipal authority</i>, -… shall be required to take and to subscribe the oath -of office prescribed by law for officers of the United States.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Senators find ambiguity in the terms “under any <i>so-called -State</i> or municipal authority”; but I submit, Sir, -that this is because they do not sufficiently regard the -whole series of Reconstruction Acts and construe these -words in their light. If there be any ambiguity, it is -removed by other words, which furnish a precise and -unassailable definition of the term “so-called State authority.” -By the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, -it is provided, “that, until the people of said Rebel -States shall be by law admitted to representation in the -Congress of the United States, any civil governments -which may exist therein shall be deemed <i>provisional -only</i>, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority -of the United States.”<a name="FNanchor_197" id="FNanchor_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> This is clear and precise. -Until the people are admitted to representation, -the State government is “provisional only,”—or, in -other words, it is a “so-called State authority.” Now -the Legislature was elected under “so-called State authority,”—that -is, under a State constitution which -was “provisional only.” Therefore, according to the -very text of the Reconstruction Acts, one interpret<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span>ing -another, must this test oath be required.</p> - -<p>If it be insisted that the Legislature was not elected -under “so-called State authority,” pray under what authority -was it elected? Perhaps it will be said, of the -United States. Then surely it would fall under the -general requirement of the Act of July 2, 1862,<a name="FNanchor_198" id="FNanchor_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> prescribing -the test oath to all officers of the United States. -But I insist upon this application of the statute only in -reply to those who would exclude the Legislature from -the requirement of the Reconstruction Act. I cannot -doubt that it comes precisely and specifically within -this requirement.</p> - -<p>This conclusion is enforced by three additional arguments.</p> - -<p>1. By a resolution of Congress bearing date February -6, 1869, “respecting the provisional governments of -Virginia and Texas,”<a name="FNanchor_199" id="FNanchor_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> it is declared “that the persons -now holding civil offices in the provisional governments -of Virginia and Texas, who cannot take and subscribe -the oath prescribed by the Act entitled ‘An Act to prescribe -an Oath of Office, and for other Purposes,’ approved -July 2, 1862, shall, on the passage of this Resolution, -be removed therefrom.” By these plain words -is the purpose of Congress manifest. The test oath is -prescribed for all persons “holding civil offices in the -provisional government of Virginia.” But, by requirement -in the first Reconstruction Act, the provisional -government lasts until the State is admitted to representation.</p> - -<p>2. Then comes a well-known rule of interpretation, -requiring that words shall be construed <i>ut res <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span>magis valeat -quam pereat</i>,—in other words, so that the object -shall prevail rather than perish. But the very object -of the Reconstruction Act on which this question arises -was to keep Rebels from the State government. This -object is apparent from beginning to end. But this -object is defeated by any interpretation disallowing the -test oath.</p> - -<p>3. Then comes another rule of interpretation, which -is of equal obligation. It is, that we are always to incline -so as to protect Liberty and Right; and this rule, -for double assurance, is embodied in the very text of -the statute whose meaning is now under consideration, -being the last section, as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That all the provisions of this Act, and of the Acts to -which this is supplementary, shall be construed liberally, to -the end that all the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly -carried out.”<a name="FNanchor_200" id="FNanchor_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Following this rule, we find still another reason for -so interpreting the statute as to require the test oath.</p> - -<p>Thus by the reason of the case, by the natural signification -of the text, by the light furnished from the supplementary -statute, by the rule of interpretation that -the object must prevail rather than perish, and by that -other commanding rule which requires a liberal interpretation -favorable to Liberty and Human Rights,—by -all these considerations, any one of which alone is -enough, while the whole make a combination of irresistible, -infinite force, are we bound to require the test -oath.</p> - -<p>There is one remark of Andrew Johnson, just, wise, -and patriotic, for which I can forget many derelic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span>tions -of duty, when he said, “For the Rebels back seats.” I -borrow this language. The time will come when Rebels -will be welcome to the full copartnership of government; -but this can be only when all are secure in their -rights. Until then, “for the Rebels back seats.”</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 21st, the long debate terminated with an arraignment by -Mr. Trumbull of Mr. Sumner’s course in reference not only to the -pending bill, but to former measures of Reconstruction, and an answer -of similar scope by Mr. Sumner, concluding with regard to Virginia<a name="FNanchor_201" id="FNanchor_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> -as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>The next count in the Senator’s indictment was, that -I had called the late election in Virginia a fraud; and -how did he encounter this truthful allegation? He proceeded -to show that General Canby designated only five -counties in which there were cases of fraud. Is that an -answer to my entirely different allegation? Does the -Senator misunderstand me, or is it an unintentional -change of issue? My statement was entirely different -from that which he attributes to me. I made no allegation -of frauds in different counties, be they few or -many.</p> - -<p>I said that the election in the whole State was carried -by a conspiracy reaching from one end of the State -to the other, of which the candidate for Governor was -the head, to obtain the control of the State, and by this -means take the loyalists away from the protecting arms -of Congress. That was my allegation. Is that met by -saying to me that I do not adduce evidence of fraud in -districts, or that there were only five districts with regard -to which we have such evidence? How do I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span> -know, that, if you should go into an inquiry, you might -not find that very evidence with regard to all the districts? -The Senator sets his face against inquiry, as we -all know. But I did not intend to open this question. -My object was entirely different: it was to show that -from beginning to end the whole canvass was a gigantic -fraud; that Walker by a fraudulent conspiracy imposed -himself upon the State; that by appeals to the -Rebels he obtained their votes and thus installed himself -in power, with the understanding that when once -installed he should administer the State in their interest.</p> - -<p>Then, Sir, farewell the equal rights of all! farewell an -equal judiciary, which is the Palladium of just government! -farewell trial by jury! farewell suffrage for all! -farewell that system of public schools which is essential -to the welfare of the community!—all sacrificed to this -conspiracy. Such, Sir, is my allegation; and it was in -making this allegation I challenged reply. I challenge -it now. When I first made it, I looked about the Senate, -I looked at those who are most strenuous for this -sacrifice, and none answered. None can answer. The -evidence is before the Senate in the speeches of the -Governor and in the election.</p> - -<p>Sir, shall I follow the Senator in other things? I -hesitate. I began by saying I would not follow him in -his personalities. I began by saying that I would meet -the counts of his indictment, one by one, precisely on -the facts. Have I not done so, turning neither to the -right nor to the left? I have no taste for controversy; -much rather would I give the little of strength that -now remains for me to the direct advocacy of those -great principles to which my life in humble measur<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span>e -has been dedicated, not forgetting any of my other duties -as a Senator. If I have in any respect failed, I regret -it. Let me say in all simplicity, I have done much -less than I wish I had. I have failed often,—oh, how -often!—when I wish I had prevailed. No one can regret -it more than I. But I have been constant and -earnest always. Such, God willing, such I mean to be -to the end.</p> - -<p>And now, Sir, as I stand before the Senate, trying by -a last effort to prevent the sacrifice of Unionists, white -and black, in Virginia, I feel that I am discharging only -a simple duty. To do less would be wretched failure. -I must persevere. This cause I have at heart; this people -I long to save; this great State of Virginia I long -to secure as a true and loyal State in the National Union. -Show that such is her character, and no welcome -shall surpass mine.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Wilson’s motion for a reference of the bill having been withdrawn, -the Senate proceeded to vote on the various amendments offered. -Mr. Edmunds’s Proviso was carried by Yeas 45, Nays 16. -Other amendments, imposing “fundamental conditions,” to secure -equality in suffrage, in eligibility to office, and in school rights and -privileges, passed by small majorities. A Preamble, moved by Mr. -Morton, declaring “good faith” in the framing and adoption of a republican -State Constitution and in the ratification of the Fourteenth -and Fifteenth Amendments to the National Constitution “a condition -precedent to representation of the State in Congress,” was adopted by -Yeas 39, Nays 20. The bill as thus amended then passed by Yeas 47, -Nays 10. Mr. Sumner voted for all the amendments, but did not vote -upon the bill itself,—it being his opinion, as shown by his speeches -during the debates, that the admission of Virginia at that time, with -its legislative and executive departments as then constituted, would -endanger the rights and security of her loyal people.</p> - -</div> -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span></p> - - - -<h2><a name="FINANCIAL_RECONSTRUCTION_AND_SPECIE" id="FINANCIAL_RECONSTRUCTION_AND_SPECIE"></a>FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND SPECIE -PAYMENTS.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speeches in the Senate, January 12, 26, February 1, March -2, 10, 11, 1870.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>January 12, 1870, Mr. Sumner, in accordance with previous notice, -asked and obtained leave to introduce the following bill:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="center">A Bill to authorize the refunding and consolidation of the national debt, -to extend banking facilities, and to establish specie payments.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> <i>Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives -in Congress assembled</i>, That, for the purpose of refunding the debt of the -United States and reducing the interest thereon, the Secretary of the -Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to issue, on the credit of the -United States, coupon or registered bonds, of such denominations not less -than fifty dollars as he may think proper, to an amount not exceeding -$500,000,000, redeemable in coin, at the pleasure of the Government, at -any time after ten years, and payable in coin at forty years from date, and -bearing interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum, payable semiannually -in coin; and the bonds thus authorized may be disposed of at the discretion -of the Secretary, under such regulations as he shall prescribe, either -in the United States or elsewhere, at not less than their par value, for coin; -or they may be exchanged for any of the outstanding bonds, of an equal aggregate -par value, heretofore issued under the Act of February 25, 1862, and -known as the Five-Twenty bonds of 1862, and for no other purpose; and -the proceeds of so much thereof as may be disposed of for coin shall be -placed in the Treasury, to be used for the redemption of such six per cent. -bonds at par as may not be offered in exchange, or to replace such amount -of coin as may have been used for that purpose.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That the Secretary of the Treasury -be, and he is hereby, authorized to issue, on the credit of the United States, -coupon or registered bonds to the amount of $500,000,000, of such denominations -not less than fifty dollars as he may think proper, redeemable in -coin, at the pleasure of the Government, at any time after fifteen years, -and payable in coin at fifty years from date, and bearing interest not exceeding -four and one half per cent. per annum, payable semiannually in -coin; and the bonds authorized by this section may be disposed of under -such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe, in the United States<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span> or -elsewhere, at not less than par, for coin; or they may be exchanged at par -for any of the outstanding obligations of the Government bearing a higher -rate of interest; and the proceeds of such bonds as may be sold for coin -shall be deposited in the Treasury, to be used for the redemption of such -obligations as by the terms of issue may be or may become redeemable or -payable, or to replace such coin as may have been used for that purpose.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 3.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That the Secretary of the Treasury -be, and he is hereby, authorized to issue, on the credit of the United -States, from time to time, coupon or registered bonds, of such denominations -not less than fifty dollars as he may think proper, to the amount of -$500,000,000, redeemable in coin, at the pleasure of the Government, at -any time after twenty years, and payable in coin at sixty years from date, -and bearing interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum, payable semiannually -in coin; and such bonds may be disposed of at the discretion of -the Secretary, either in the United States or elsewhere, at not less than -their par value, for coin, or for United States notes, national-bank notes, or -fractional currency; or may be exchanged for any of the obligations of the -United States, of whatever character, that may be outstanding at the date -of the issue of such bonds. And if in the opinion of the Secretary of the -Treasury it is thought advisable to issue a larger amount of four per cent. -bonds for any of the purposes herein or hereinafter recited than would be -otherwise authorized by this section of this Act, such further issues are -hereby authorized: <i>Provided</i>, That there shall be no increase in the aggregate -debt of the United States in consequence of any issues authorized by -this Act.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 4.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That the bonds authorized by this -Act shall be exempt from all taxation by or under national, State, or municipal -authority. Nor shall there be any tax upon, or abatement from, the -interest or income thereof.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 5.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That the present limit of $300,000,000 -as the aggregate amount of issues of circulating notes by national banks be, -and the same is hereby, extended, so that the aggregate amount issued and -to be issued may amount to, but shall not exceed, $500,000,000; and the -additional issue hereby authorized shall be so distributed, if demanded, as -to give to each State and Territory its just proportion of the whole amount -of circulating notes according to population, subject to all the provisions -of law authorizing national banks, in so far as such provisions are not modified -by this Act: <i>Provided</i>, That for each dollar of additional currency -issued under the provisions of this Act there shall be withdrawn and cancelled -one dollar of legal-tender issues.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 6.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That the Secretary of the Treasury -shall require the national banks, to whom may be awarded any part or portion -of the additional circulating notes authorized by the fifth section of -this Act, to deposit, before the delivery thereto of any such notes, with the -Treasurer of the United States, as security for such circulation, registered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> -bonds of the description authorized by the third section of this Act, in the -proportion of not less than one hundred dollars of bonds for each and every -eighty dollars of notes to be delivered; and the Secretary of the Treasury -shall require from existing national banks, in substitution of the bonds already -deposited with the Treasurer of the United States as security for -their circulating notes, a deposit of registered bonds authorized by the -third section of this Act to an amount not less than one hundred dollars -of bonds for every eighty dollars of notes that have been or may hereafter -be delivered to such banks, exclusive of such amounts as have been cancelled. -And if any national bank shall not furnish to the Treasurer of the -United States the new bonds, as required by this Act, within three months -after having been notified by the Secretary of the Treasury of his readiness -to deliver such bonds, it shall be the duty of the Treasurer, so long as such -delinquency exists, to retain from the interest, as it may become due and -payable, on the bonds belonging to such delinquent banks on deposit with -him as security for circulating notes, so much of such interest as shall be -in excess of four per cent. per annum on the amount of such bonds, which -excess shall be placed to the credit of the sinking fund of the United States; -and all claims thereto on the part of such delinquent banks shall cease and -determine from that date; and the percentage of currency delivered or to -be delivered to any bank shall in no case exceed eighty per cent. of the face -value of the bonds deposited with the Treasurer as security therefor.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 7.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That, whenever the premium on gold -shall fall to or within five per cent., it shall be the duty of the Secretary of -the Treasury to give public notice that the outstanding United States notes, -or other legal-tender issues of the Government, will thereafter be received -at par for customs duties; and the interest on the issues known as three -per cent. legal-tender certificates shall cease from and after the date of such -notice; and all such legal-tender obligations, when so received, shall not -again be uttered, but shall forthwith be cancelled and destroyed. And so -much of the Act of February 25, 1862, and of all subsequent Acts, as creates -or declares any of the issues of the United States, other than coin, a -legal tender, be, and the same is hereby, repealed; such repeal to take effect -on and after the first day of January, 1871.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 8.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That all the provisions of existing -laws in relation to forms, inscriptions, devices, dies, and paper, and the -printing, attestation, sealing, signing, and counterfeiting, as may be applicable, -shall apply to the bonds issued under this Act; and a sum not exceeding -one per cent. of the amount of bonds issued under this Act is hereby -appropriated to pay the expense of preparing and issuing the same and -disposing thereof.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 9.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That all Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent -with this Act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span></p> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—I have already during this session -introduced a bill providing for the extension -of the national banking system and the withdrawal of -greenbacks in proportion to the new bank-notes issued,<a name="FNanchor_202" id="FNanchor_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> -thus preparing the way for specie payments. The more -I reflect upon this simple proposition, the more I am -satisfied of its value. It promises to be as efficacious as -it is unquestionably simple. But it does not pretend to -deal with the whole financial problem.</p> - -<p>The bill which I now introduce is more comprehensive -in character. While embodying the original proposition -of substituting bank-notes for greenbacks, it provides -for the refunding and consolidation of the national -debt in such a way as to make it easy to bear, while it -brings the existing currency to a par with coin. In -making this attempt I am moved by the desire to do -something for the business interests of the country, -which suffer inconceivably from the derangement of -the currency. Whether at home or abroad, it is the -same. At home values are uncertain; abroad commerce -is disturbed and out of gear. Political Reconstruction -is not enough; there must be Financial Reconstruction -also. The peace which we covet must enter into our -finances; the reconciliation which we long for must embrace -the disordered business of the country.</p> - -<p>In any measure having this object there are two -things which must not be forgotten: first, the preservation -of the national credit; and, secondly, the reduction -of existing taxation. Happily, there is a universal -prevailing sentiment for the national credit, showing itself -in a fixed determination that it shall be maintained -at all hazards. Nobody can exaggerate the value of t<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span>his -determination, which is the corner-stone of Financial -Reconstruction. On the reduction of taxation there is -at present more difference of opinion; but I cannot -doubt that here, too, there will be a speedy harmony. -The country is uneasy under the heavy burden. Willingly, -gladly, patriotically, it submitted to this burden -while the Republic was in peril; but now there is a -yearning for relief. War taxes should not be peace -taxes; and so long as the present system continues, -there is a constant and painful memento of war, while -business halts in chains and life bends under the load.</p> - -<p>The national credit being safe, relief from the pressure -of existing taxation is the first practical object in -our finances. But so entirely natural and consistent is -this object, that it harmonizes with all other proper objects, -especially with the refunding of the national debt, -and with specie payments. As the people feel easy in -their affairs, they will be ready for the work of Reconstruction. -Therefore do I say, as an essential stage in -what we all desire, <i>Down with the taxes!</i></p> - -<p>The proper reduction of taxation involves two other -things: first, the reduction of the present annual interest -on the national debt, thus affording immense relief; -and, secondly, the spread or extension of the national -debt over succeeding generations, for whom, as well as -for ourselves, it was incurred. The practical value of -the first is apparent on the simple statement. The -second may be less apparent, as it opens a question of -policy, on both sides of which much has been already -said.</p> - -<p>Nobody doubts the brilliancy of the movement to pay -off the national debt,—calling to mind the charge of the -six hundred at Balaclava riding into the jaws of Death,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span> -so that the beholder exclaimed, in memorable words, -“It is magnificent, but it is not war.”<a name="FNanchor_203" id="FNanchor_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> In other words, -it was a feat of hardihood and immolation, abnormal, -eccentric, and beyond even the terrible requirements of -battle. In similar spirit might a beholder, witnessing -the present sacrifice of our people in the redemption of -a debt so large a part of which justly belongs to posterity, -exclaim, “It is magnificent, but it is not business.” -Unquestionably business requires that we should meet -existing obligations according to their letter and spirit; -but it does not require payment in advance, nor payment -of obligations resting upon others. To do this is -magnificent, but beyond the line of business.</p> - -<p>President Lincoln, in one of his earliest propositions of -Emancipation, before he had determined upon the great -Proclamation, contemplated compensation to slave-masters, -and, in order to commend this large expenditure, -went into an elaborate calculation to show how easy it -would be, if proportioned upon the giant shoulders of -posterity. Dismissing the idea of payment by the existing -generation, he proceeded to exhibit the growing -capacity of the country,—how from the beginning there -had been a decennial increase in population of 34.60 -per cent.,—how during a period of seventy years the -ratio had never been two per cent. below or two per -cent. above this average, thus attesting the inflexibility -of this law of increase. Assuming its continuance, he -proceeded to show that in 1870 our population would -be 42,323,341,—in 1880 it would be 56,967,216,—in -1890 it would be 76,677,872,—and in 1900 it would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span> -be 103,208,415,—while in 1930 it would amount to -251,680,914.<a name="FNanchor_204" id="FNanchor_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> Nobody has impeached these estimates. -There they stand in that Presidential Message as colossal -mile-stones of the Republic.</p> - -<p>The increase in material resources is beyond that of -population. The most recent calculation, founded on -the last census, shows that for the previous decade it -was at the rate of eighty per cent.,<a name="FNanchor_205" id="FNanchor_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> although other calculations -have placed it as high as one hundred and -twenty-six per cent.<a name="FNanchor_206" id="FNanchor_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> Whether the one or the other, -the rate of increase is enormous, and, unless arrested in -some way not now foreseen, it must carry our national -resources to a fabulous extent. What is a burden -now will be scarcely a feather’s weight in the early decades -of the next century, when a population counted -by hundreds of millions will wield resources counted -by thousands of millions. On this head details are superfluous. -All must see at once the irresistible conclusion.</p> - -<p>It is much in this discussion, when we have ascertained -how easy it will be for posterity to bear this responsibility. -But the case is strengthened, when it is -considered that the war was for the life of the Republic, -so that throughout all time, so long as the Republic -endures, all who enjoy its transcendent citizenship -will share the benefits. Should they not contribute to -the unparalleled cost? Recent estimates, deemed to be -moderate and reasonable, show an aggregate destruction -of wealth or diversion of wealth-producing industry in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span> -the United States since 1861 approximating nine thousand -millions of dollars, being the cost of the war, or, in -other words, the cost of the destruction of Slavery.<a name="FNanchor_207" id="FNanchor_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> If -from this estimate be dropped the item for expenditures -and loss of property in the Rebel States, amounting to -$2,700,000,000,<a name="FNanchor_208" id="FNanchor_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> we shall have $6,300,000,000 as the -sum-total of cost to the loyal people, of which the existing -national debt represents less than half. Thus, -besides precious blood beyond any calculation of arithmetic, -the present generation has already contributed -immensely to that result in which succeeding generations -have a stake even greater than theirs.</p> - -<p>Assuming, then, that there is to be no considerable -taxation for the immediate payment of the debt, we -have one economy. If to this be added another economy -from the reduction of the interest, we shall be able -to relieve materially all the business interests of the -country. Two such economies will be of infinite value -to the people, whose riches will be proportionally increased. -In the development of wealth, next to making -money is saving money.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Bearing these things in mind, Financial Reconstruction -is relieved of its difficulties. It only remains to -find the proper machinery or process. And here we encounter -the propositions of the Secretary of the Treasury -in his Annual Report,<a name="FNanchor_209" id="FNanchor_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> which are threefold:—</p> - -<p>1. To refund twelve hundred millions of six per cent. -Five-Twenty bonds in four and a half per cent. Fiftee<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span>n-Twenties, -Twenty-Twenty-Fives, and Twenty-Five-Thirties.</p> - -<p>2. To make our exports equal in value with our imports, -and to restore our commercial marine.</p> - -<p>3. To regard these as essential conditions of reduced -taxation and specie payments.</p> - -<p>Considering these propositions with the best attention -I could give to them, I have been impressed by -their inadequacy as a system at the present moment. -I cannot easily consent to the postponement which they -imply. They hand over to the future what I wish to -see accomplished at once, and what I cannot doubt with -a firm will can be accomplished at an early day. But -besides this capital defect, apparent on the face, I find -in the system proposed no assurance of success. Will -it work? I doubt. Here I wish to be understood as -expressing myself with proper caution; and I wish further -to declare my anxiety to obtain the substituted -loans at the smallest rate of interest, and also my conviction -that within a short time, at some slight present -cost, this may be accomplished.</p> - -<p>Looking at this question in the light of business, I -am driven to the conclusion that twelve hundred millions -of six per cents. cannot be refunded either now or -hereafter in four or four and a half per cents. without -offering compensation in an additional running period -of the bonds which is not found in the Fifteen-Twenties -nor in the Twenty-Five-Thirties proposed by the -Secretary. With such bonds there would be a practical -difficulty in the way of any such refunding to any considerable -amount, from the inability to command a sufficient -amount of coin under the “option of coin,” which -must accompany the offer; nor is there any fund <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span>applicable -to the purchase of coin in open market, were such -a course desirable. Obviously, to induce the voluntary -relinquishment of bonds at a high rate of interest for -other bonds at a less rate, the holders must be offered -something preferable to the coin tendered as an alternative.</p> - -<p>The time has passed when holders can be menaced -with payment in greenbacks. Whatever we do must be -in coin, or in some bond which will be taken rather -than coin. The attempt at too low a rate of interest -would cause the coin to be taken rather than the bond, -if we had the article at command,—and would end in -a deluge of coin, sweeping away the premium on gold. -A return to specie payments, thus precipitated, would -be of doubtful value, if not illusive, without other and -sustaining measures.</p> - -<p>In the suggestion that our exports must be augmented, -and our commercial marine restored, I sympathize -cordially; but I do not see how this can be accomplished -so long as the present taxation is maintained, -exercising such a depressing influence on all industry, -making the necessaries of life dearer, adding to the cost -of raw material, and generally enhancing the price of -our products so as to prevent them from competing in -foreign markets with the products of other nations.</p> - -<p>The proposition to make the interest on the new -bonds payable at various points in Europe, at the option -of the holder, seems unnecessary, while it is open -to objections. Such agencies would be onerous and -cumbersome. At London, Paris, Frankfort, and Berlin, -there must be a machinery, with constant complications, -continuing through the lifetime of the bonds, to -secure the transfers from point to point and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span> obligatory -remittances in gold; nor am I sure that in this -way foreign powers might not obtain a certain jurisdiction -over our monetary transactions. But I confess -that the ruling objection with me is of a different character. -New York is our commercial centre, designated -by Providence and confirmed by man. Already it has -made a great advance, but it is not yet quoted abroad as -one of the clearing points of the world. At New York -quotations are obtained daily on London and Paris; but -in these places no such recognized quotations can be -now obtained on New York. That the agencies proposed -will tend to postpone this condition is a sufficient -objection.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I have made these remarks with hesitation, but in -order to prepare the way for the bill which I have introduced. -It was my duty to show why the propositions -of the Secretary were not sufficient for the occasion, -and this I have tried to do simply and frankly. It -is long since I avowed my conviction that specie payments -should be resumed; and I should now do less -than my duty, if I did not at least attempt to show -the way which seems to me so natural and easy. While -the present system continues, we are poor. The payment -of the national debt and the accumulation of coin -in the Treasury are the signs of unparalleled national -wealth, but our financial condition is not in harmony -with these signs. The latest figures from the Treasury -are such as no other nation can exhibit. From these it -appears that the amount of bonds purchased since March -1, 1869, for the sinking fund was $22,000,000, and the -amount purchased subject to Congress $64,000,000, being -in all $86,000,000.<a name="FNanchor_210" id="FNanchor_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> The same proportion of purchas<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span>e -for January and February would be $23,000,000, -making a sum-total of $109,000,000 for one year. And -notwithstanding this outlay, we find in the Treasury, -January 1, 1870, in coin no less than $109,159,000, -and in currency $12,773,000, making a sum-total of -$121,932,000. And yet, with these tokens of national -resources manifest to the world, our bonds are below -par, and our currency is inconvertible paper. This -should not be permitted longer. With all these resources -there must be a way, even if we were not taught -that a will always finds a way.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The refunding of an existing loan implies two distinct -and independent transactions: first, the extinction, -by payment in some form, of the existing loan; and, -secondly, the negotiation of a new loan to an amount -equal to that extinguished.</p> - -<p>The bill now before the Senate contemplates the -prompt extinguishment of the Five-Twenties of 1862. -But I would not have this important work entered upon -until the Government is fully prepared to say, that, after -a certain period of notice, say six months, in order -that distant holders in Europe may be advised, interest -on the Five-Twenties of 1862 shall cease, and the bonds -be forthwith redeemed in coin. There should be no coercion -of any kind upon any holder, at home or abroad, -to induce the acceptance of a substitute bond. I am -happy to believe, that, with the judicious use of five per -cent. Ten-Forties, all the coin necessary for such indepen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span>dent -action may be assured in advance. Believing -that such five per cent. bonds will be regarded by investors -as preferable to coin, I would give the holders of -the old bonds the first opportunity to subscribe for the -new. Those who elect coin will make room for others -ready to give coin in exchange for such bonds.</p> - -<p>If we look at the practical consequences, we shall -be encouraged in this course. The refunding of the -sixes of 1862, being upward of five hundred millions, -in fives, as authorized by the first section of the bill, -contemplates the payment from present funds of little -more than fourteen millions, being the excess of Five-Twenties -above the five hundred millions provided for. -The annual reduction of interest on that loan will be -$5,886,296. The substitution of three hundred millions -of fours for a like amount of sixes, as provided -in the bill, will operate a further saving of $6,000,000, -making a sum-total of $11,886,296, or near twelve millions. -There will then remain but $129,443,800, subject -to redemption, being Five-Twenties of 1864.</p> - -<p>During the year 1870 the further sum of $536,326,200, -being Five-Twenties of 1865, will fall within the control -of the Government, when, as it seems to me, and -according to the contemplation of the bill, the credit of -the Government will be at such a pitch that five hundred -millions can be refunded in four and a half per -cents., with the addition of thirty-six millions paid from -the Treasury,—thus insuring a further annual reduction -of $9,679,572, or a total annual saving of $21,565,868, -of which about twelve millions may be saved during the -current year.</p> - -<p>Here for the present we stop. Our interest-paying -debt cannot be further ameliorated before 1872, w<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span>hen -three hundred and seventy-nine millions, being Five-Twenties -of 1867, will become redeemable, and then -in 1873, when forty-two millions, being Five-Twenties -of 1868, and constituting the balance of our optional -sixes, will become redeemable,—all of which I gladly -believe may be refunded in the four per cents. provided -by the present bill, to be followed in 1874 by a reduction -of the original Ten-Forties into similar bonds.</p> - -<p>I would remark here that the bill undertakes to deal -with the whole disposable national debt. The amounts -which I have given will be found in the Treasury tables -of January 1st, and are irrespective of the sinking fund -and invested surplus.</p> - -<p>From these details I pass to consider the bill in its -aims and principles.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The proposition with which I begin is to refund our -six per cent. Five-Twenties of 1862, amounting to upward -of five hundred millions, in five per cent. Ten-Forties. -In taking the term “Ten-Forties,” I adopt the -description of a bond well known and popular at home -and abroad, whose payment “in coin” is expressly stipulated -by the original Act authorizing the issue.<a name="FNanchor_211" id="FNanchor_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> The -bond begins with a good name, which will commend it. -The interest which I propose is larger than I would propose -for any late bond. It is important, if not necessary, -in order to counteract the suspicion which has -been allowed to fall upon our national credit. Even -our sixes are now below par in Europe. But they will -unquestionably share the elevation of the new fives substituted. -Our first attempt should be with the latter. -Let these be carried to par, and we shall ha<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span>ve par everywhere.</p> - -<p>In this process the first stage is the conviction that -all our bonds will be paid in the universal money of the -world. All bonds, whether fives or sixes, will then advance. -I know no way in which this conviction can be -created so promptly and easily as by redeeming in gold -some one of our six per cent. loans; and that most naturally -selected is the first, which is already so noted -from the discussion to which it has been subjected. But -this can be done only by offering to holders the option -of coin or a satisfactory substitute bond. With a new -issue of five per cent. Ten-Forties, limited in amount to -about the aggregate of the six per cent. Five-Twenties -of 1862,—say five hundred millions,—I cannot doubt -that every foreign holder of such sixes will accept the -fives in lieu of coin; and so much of that loan as is held -at home may be paid in coin, if preferred by the holders, -from the proceeds of an equal amount of fives placed -in Europe at par for coin.</p> - -<p>Then will follow the advantage of this positive policy. -The national credit will be beyond question. Nobody -will doubt it. The public faith will be vindicated. -The time will have come, which is the condition-precedent -named by the Secretary of the Treasury, when -“the want of faith in the Government” will be removed, -and the door will be open to cheap loans. This will be -of course: it cannot be otherwise, if we only do our -duty. Our fives, being limited in amount, after being -taken at par in preference to coin, will advance in value, -so that the investment will become popular. People -will desire more, but there will be no more; so that, -without difficulty or delay, we may hope to refund five -hundred millions of our subsequent sixes, or so much as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span> -may be desirable, at four and a half per cent. in Fifteen-Fifties, -if not at four per cent. in Twenty-Sixties.</p> - -<p>In this operation the <i>initial point</i> is the national -credit. With this starting-point all is easy. Our fives -will at once ascend above par, while a market is opened -for four and a half or four per cents. The stigma of Repudiation, -whether breathed in doubt or hurled in taunt, -will be silenced. There are other fields of glory than in -war, and such a triumph will be among the most important -in the annals of finance. But to this end there -must be no hesitation. The offer must be plain,—“Bonds -or coin,”—giving the world assurance of our -determination. The answer will be as prompt as the -offer,—“Bonds, and not coin.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In the process of Financial Reconstruction we cannot -forget the National Banks, which have already done -so much. The uniform currency which they supply -throughout the country commends them to our care. -Accustomed to the facilities this currency supplies, it -is difficult to understand how business was conducted -under the old system, when every bank had its separate -currency, taking its color, like the chameleon, from what -was about it, so that there were as many currencies, with -as many colors, as there were banks.</p> - -<p>Two things must be done for the national banks: -first, the bonds deposited by them with the Government -must be reduced in interest; and, secondly, the -system must be extended, so as to supply much-needed -facilities, especially at the West and South.</p> - -<p>I doubt if the national banks can expect to receive in -the future more than four per cent. from the bonds deposited -by them with the Government; and considering<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span> -the profits attributed to their business, it may be that -there would be a reluctant consent even to this allowance. -Here it must be observed, that the whole system -of national banks is founded upon the bonds of the nation; -so that, at the rate of liquidation now adopted for -the national debt, the system will be without support in -the lapse of twelve or fifteen years. The stability of the -banks, which is so vital alike to the national currency -and to the pecuniary interests involved in the business, -can be assured only by an issue of bonds for a longer -term. Of course, the longer the period, the more valuable -the bond. To reduce the interest arbitrarily on the -existing short bonds of the banks, without offering compensation -in some form, would be positively unjust, besides -being an infringement of the guaranties surrounding -such bonds, and therefore a violation of good faith. -A substitute Twenty-Sixty bond will be assurance of -stability for this length of time, while the additional life -of the bond will be a compensation for the reduction of -interest. As it is not proposed to issue such bonds immediately, -except for banking purposes, they will not -fall below par, and this par will be coin, which, I need -not say, the sixes now held by the banks will not command. -If, through the failure or winding-up of any -bank, an amount of the substituted bonds should be -liberated, there will be an instant demand for them at -par by new banks arising to secure the relinquished circulation.</p> - -<p>The extension of bank-notes from three to five hundred -millions, which I propose, will extend the banking -system where it is now needed. This alone is much. -How long the Senate debated this question at the last -session, without any practical result, cannot be forg<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span>otten. -That debate certifies to the necessity of this extension. -The proposition I offer shows how it may -be accomplished and made especially beneficent. The -requirement from all the banks of new four per cent. -bonds, at the rate of one hundred dollars for eighty -dollars of notes issued and to be issued, would absorb -six hundred and twenty-five millions of the national -debt into four per cents., while the withdrawal -of one dollar of greenbacks for each additional dollar -of notes will go far to extinguish the outstanding greenbacks, -thus quietly, and without any appreciable contraction, -removing an impediment to specie payments. -Naturally, as by a process of gestation, will this birth -be accomplished: it will come, and nobody can prevent -it.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In presenting this series of measures, I am penetrated -by the conviction, that, if adopted, they cannot fail -to bring all the national obligations to a par with coin, -and then specie payments will be resumed without effort. -Our bonds will be among the most popular in the -market. No longer below par, they will continue to -advance, while the national credit lifts its head unimpeached, -unimpeachable. Under this influence the remainder -of our outstanding debt may be refunded in -Fifteen-Fifties at four and a half per cent., if not in -Twenty-Sixties at four per cent. There will then be -sixteen hundred and twenty-five millions refunded at -an average of less than four and a half per cent., and -the whole debt, including the irredeemable sixes of -1881, at an average of less than five per cent., while -all will be within our control five years earlier than in -the maximum period proposed by the Secretary of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span> -Treasury.</p> - -<p>One immediate consequence of these measures would -be the relief of the people from eighty to one hundred -millions of taxation, while there would remain a surplus -revenue of two millions a month applicable to the reduction -of the debt, being more than enough to liquidate -the whole prior to the maturity of the new obligations, -if it were thought advisable to complete the -liquidation at so early a day. The country will breathe -freer, business will be more elastic, life will be easier, -as the assurance goes forth that no heavy taxation shall -be continued in order to pay the debt in eleven years, -as is now proposed, nor in fifteen years, nor in twenty -years. By the present measures, while retaining the -privilege of paying the debt within twenty years, we -shall secure the alternative of sixty years, and at a -largely reduced interest,—leaving the opportunity of -paying it at any intermediate time, according to the -best advantage of the country. With diminished taxation -and resources increasing immeasurably, the national -debt will cease to be a burden,—becoming “fine -by degrees and beautifully less” until it gradually ceases -to exist.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In making this statement, I offer my contribution to -the settlement of a great question. If I am wrong, what -I have said will soon be forgotten. Meanwhile I ask -for it your candid attention, adding one further remark, -with which I shall close. I never have doubted, I cannot -doubt, the ease with which the transition to specie -payments may be accomplished, especially as compared -with the ominous fears which this simple proposition -seems to excite in certain quarters. We are gravely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span> -warned against it as a period of crisis. I do not believe -there will be anything to which this term can be -reasonably applied. Like every measure of essential -justice, it will at once harmonize with the life of the -community, and people will be astonished at the long -postponement of an act so truly beneficent in all its influences, -so important to the national character, and so -congenial with the business interests of the country.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The bill was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on -Finance.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>January 25th, a bill from the Committee on Finance, “to provide a -national currency of coin notes and to equalize the distribution of -circulating notes,” being under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved an -amendment embracing the provisions of his bill, with the exception of -the first, second, and seventh sections, as a substitute,—in support of -which he the next day spoke as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—Some things seem to be admitted -in this debate as starting-points,—at least if I may -judge from the remarks of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Sherman</span>]. One of these is the unequal distribution of -the bank-note currency, and another is that to take -from the Northern and Eastern banks circulation already -awarded to them would disturb trade. I venture -to add, that the remedy would be worse than the -disease.</p> - -<p>The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. <span class="smcap">Howe</span>] and the -Senator from Kentucky [Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span>] justly claim for -the West and South a fair proportion of bank circulation. -The Senator from Indiana [Mr. <span class="smcap">Morton</span>] demands -more. While neither asks for expansion, neither -is ready for contraction. The last-named Senator -argues, that at this time the currency is not too much -for the area of country and the amount of business,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span> -which, from the new spaces opened to settlement and -the increase of commerce, require facilities beyond those -that are adequate in thickly settled and wealthy communities. -His premises may be in the main sound; -but he might have made a further application of them. -If, in the absence of local banks and banking facilities, -a larger amount of circulation is needed,—and I do not -mean to question this assertion,—would it not follow -that the establishment of such local banks and banking -facilities, with new bank credits, checks of depositors, -and other agencies of exchange, and with the increase of -circulation, would more than counterbalance any slight -contraction from the withdrawal of greenbacks, and that -thus we should be tending toward specie payments?</p> - -<p>The Senator from Kentucky said aptly, that, if we -wait until all are ready, we shall never resume. If the -Senator from Indiana is right in saying that prices have -already settled down in the expectation of an early resumption, -then to my mind the battle is half won and -we have only to proceed always in the right direction.</p> - -<p>A simple redistribution of the existing currency cannot -be made without serious consequences to the business -of the country, while it will do nothing to correct -the evils of our present financial condition. It will -do nothing for Financial Reconstruction, nor will these -consequences be confined to any geographical section. -They will affect the South and West as well as the -North and East. I need only add that disturbance in -New York means disturbance everywhere in our country.</p> - -<p>Nor is it easy to see how any redistribution can be -made, which, however just to-day, may not be unjust -to-morrow. As business develops and population exte<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span>nds -there will be new demand, with new inequalities -and new disturbances.</p> - -<p>The original Banking Act<a name="FNanchor_212" id="FNanchor_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> authorized a circulation of -$300,000,000, a large part of which went to the Northern -and Eastern States. All this was very natural; for -at that time there was no demand at the South, and -comparatively little at the West. With the supply of -capital at the East banks were promptly formed, even -before the State banks were permitted to come into the -new system. Subsequently the State banks were not -only permitted to come into the new system, but their -circulation was taxed out of existence. Here, then, was -banking capital idle. It was reasonable that the circulation -which was not demanded in other parts of the -country should be allotted to these banks. This I state -in simple justice to these banks. I might remind you -also of the patriotic service rendered by the banks of -New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, which in 1861 -furnished the means by which our forces were organized -against the Rebellion. One hundred and fifty millions -in gold were furnished by these banks, of which -less than fifty millions were subsequently subscribed by -the people;<a name="FNanchor_213" id="FNanchor_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> and this was at a moment when the national -securities had received a terrible shock. Not -from the South, not from the West, did financial succor -come at that time.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In considering briefly the questions presented by the -pending measure I shall take them in their order. They -are two: first, to enlarge the national bank currency;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span> -and, secondly, to create a system of free banking founded -on coin notes. This leaves out of view the question -of refunding and consolidating the national debt; nor -does it touch the great question of specie payments.</p> - -<p>I begin with the proposed enlargement of the currency. -The object is excellent, as is admitted by all; -but the practical question arises on the way it shall be -done.</p> - -<p>If you look at the bill now before the Senate, you -will see that it authorizes an enlargement to the extent -of $45,000,000, and the withdrawal to that amount of -what are called three per cent. temporary loan certificates, -of which little more than this amount exists. The -extinction of this debt will accomplish an annual saving -of about $1,366,000. So far, so good. This amount of -$45,000,000 is allotted to banks organized in States and -Territories having less than their proportion under the -general Banking Act. This is right, and it removes to a -certain extent objections successfully urged at the last -session of Congress against a measure for the redistribution -of currency.</p> - -<p>But, plainly and obviously, the measure of relief proposed -is not sufficient to meet the just demands of the -South and West; nor is it sufficient to prevent taking -from the North and East a portion of the currency now -enjoyed by them. Therefore in one part of the country -it will be inadequate, while in another it is unjust. Inadequacy -and injustice are bad recommendations.</p> - -<p>When a complete remedy is in our power, why propose -a partial remedy? When a just remedy is in our -power, why propose an unjust remedy? There is another -question. I would ask also, Why unnecessarily -disturb existing and well-settled channels of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span> trade?—for -such must be the effect of a new apportionment, as -proposed, under the census of this year. Why not at -once provide another source from which to draw the -new supplies under the new apportionment? I open -this subject with these inquiries, which to my mind -answer themselves.</p> - -<p>The proposition of the Committee is further embarrassed -by the provision for the cancellation each month -of the three per cent. certificates to an amount equal to -the aggregate of new notes issued during the previous -month. In order to judge the expediency of this -measure we must understand the origin and character -of these certificates.</p> - -<p>The Secretary of the Treasury, desiring to avoid the -further issue of greenbacks, conceived the idea of a note -which could be used in the payment of Government obligations, -but in such form as not to enter into and inflate -the currency. This resulted in an interest-bearing -note payable three years after date, with six per cent. -interest compounded every six months and payable at -the maturity of the note in its redemption. This anomalous -note was made legal-tender for its face value only.<a name="FNanchor_214" id="FNanchor_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> -It was not doubted that such notes, on the accumulation -of interest, would be withdrawn as an investment. Being -legal-tender, if they were allowed to be used by the -banks as part of their reserves, they would become, contrary -to the original purpose, part of the national circulation, -while the Government would be paying interest -on bank reserves, which no bank could demand. But -the <i>ipse dixit</i> of the Secretary could not prevent their -use by the banks as part of the reserves. The intervention<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span> -of Congress was required, which, by the second -section of the Loan Act of June 30, 1864, provided as -follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Nor shall any Treasury note bearing interest, issued under -this Act, be a legal tender in payment or redemption of -any notes issued by any bank, banking association, or banker, -calculated or intended to circulate as money.”<a name="FNanchor_215" id="FNanchor_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>From this statement it seems clear that neither the -Secretary originating these compound-interest legal-tender -notes, nor the Act of Congress authorizing them, nor -the banks receiving them, contemplated their employment -as part of the bank reserves. How they reached -this condition remains to be told.</p> - -<p>The whole issue of the compound-interest legal-tender -notes amounted to upward of two hundred and seventeen -millions.<a name="FNanchor_216" id="FNanchor_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> These were funded at or before maturity, -except some fifty millions, which as they matured -were exchanged for certificates to that amount bearing -three per cent. interest, and constituted part of the bank -reserves.<a name="FNanchor_217" id="FNanchor_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> Here was an innovation as improvident as -new, being nothing less than bank reserves on interest. -This improvidence was increased by the manner of distribution, -which, instead of being ratable, seems to have -been according to the rule of “Who speaks first?” Of -course the banks within easy access of Washington had -peculiar opportunities, by which they were enabled to -secure these notes, and thus obtain interest on part of -their reserves, while banks at a distance, and especially -in the country, were not equal in opportunity. Besides<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span> -its partiality, this provision operates like a gratuity to -the banks having these notes.</p> - -<p>Obviously these three per cent. certificates ought to -be withdrawn; but I do not like to see their withdrawal -conditioned on the extension of banking facilities. -Their case is peculiar, and they should be treated -accordingly. Nor should their accidental amount be -made the measure of banking facilities. They constitute -a part of the national debt, and should be considered -in the refunding and consolidation of this debt, -and not on a bill to provide banking facilities.</p> - -<p>I think I do not err, if I conclude that the first part -of the pending measure is inadequate, while the cancellation -of the three per cent. certificates in the manner -proposed is inexpedient. All this is more observable -when it is considered that there is another way, ample -and natural.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>From the first part of the pending measure I pass to -the second part, being sections three, four, and five, -which, if I am not mistaken, authorize free banking, -with coin notes as a declared basis of coin. This is -plausible, but to my mind illusory and impracticable. -The machine will not work; but if it does work, its -first and most obvious operation will be to create a new -currency, adding a third to the greenbacks and bank-notes -already existing, besides creating a new class of -banks. Here I put the practical question, Can any -national bank issue and maintain a circulation of coin -notes with a reserve of only twenty-five per cent., so -long as gold commands a premium? How long would -the reserve last? It is easy to see that until specie -payments this idea is impracticable. It will not work<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span>. -In proportion to the premium on gold would be the run -on the banks, until their outstanding notes were redeemed -or their vaults emptied.</p> - -<p>But the measure is not only impracticable,—it is -inexpedient, as multiplying, instead of simplifying, the -forms of currency. We have now two paper currencies, -distinct in form and with different attributes. Everybody -feels that this is unfortunate; and yet it is now -proposed to add another. Surely it is the dictate of -wisdom, instead of creating a third paper currency, to -disembarrass the country of one of those now existing -and make the other convertible into coin, so that we -may hereafter enjoy one uniform currency. I confess -my constant desire for measures to withdraw our greenbacks -and to make our present bank-notes coin notes. -Coin notes should be universal. Under any circumstances -the conclusion is irresistible, that the proposed plan, -if not utterly impracticable, is a too partial and timid -experiment, calculated to exercise very little influence -over the great question of specie payments.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>If I am right in this review, the bill of the Committee -does not deserve our support. But I do not confine -myself to criticism. I offer a substitute. Could I have -my way, I would treat the whole financial question as -a unit, providing at the same time for all the points involved -in what I have called Financial Reconstruction. -This I have attempted in the bill which I have already -introduced. But on the present occasion I content myself -with a substitute for the present measure. The -amendment of which I have given notice has the twofold -object of the pending bill: first, to enlarge the currency; -and, secondly, to change the existing banking<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span> -system, so as to provide practically for free banking and -to enlarge banking facilities.</p> - -<p>If you will look at my amendment, you will see that -it enlarges the limit of bank-notes from $300,000,000 -to $500,000,000. This is practically a provision for free -banking, at least for some years. Practically it leaves -the volume of currency to be regulated by legitimate -demand, with a proviso for the withdrawal of legal-tender -notes to an amount equal to the new issues. The -amendment then proceeds to provide bonds to be deposited -with the Government as the basis of the new banks. -And here is a just and much-needed economy,—just to -the Government, and not unjust to the banks. It is -proposed for the future to allow but four per cent. interest -on the bonds deposited by the banks. Thus far the -banks have enjoyed large benefits, and in part at the -expense of the Government. Under the operation of -my amendment these profits would be slightly reduced, -but not unduly, while the Treasury would receive an -annual benefit of not far from six million dollars in -coin. In this respect the proposition harmonizes with -the idea, which is constantly present to my mind, of diminishing -our taxes.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Sir, in the remarks submitted by me on a former occasion -I ventured to say that the first great duty of Congress -was to mitigate the burdens now pressing upon -the energies of the people and upon the business of the -country, and, as one means of accomplishing this important -result, to extend these burdens, in a diminishing -annual ratio, over a large population entering upon the -enjoyment of the blessings which the present generation -at such enormous cost has assured to the Republic.<a name="FNanchor_218" id="FNanchor_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span> -Upon the assumption that the national revenues and -the national expenditures would continue relatively the -same as now, a sum extending from eighty to one -hundred millions would be the measure of relief that -might be accorded at once, without arresting the continuous -reduction of the debt at the rate of $2,000,000 -a month.</p> - -<p>In proposing this large reduction of taxation at this -time, with the hope of larger reductions in the near -future, it was necessary to keep in view the possibility -of increased expenditure or of decreased receipts. To -guard against such contingency we must keep strict -watch over the expenditures, and, if possible, diminish -the positive annual obligations of the nation. And here -the mind is naturally and irresistibly attracted to the -prodigious item of interest. Cannot this be reduced at -an early day by a large amount, and then subsequently, -though contingently, by a much larger amount? And -should not this result be one of our first endeavors? Is -it not the first considerable stage in the reduction of -taxation?</p> - -<p>The credit of the country is injured by two causes: -first, the refusal to redeem past-due obligations, being -so much <i>failed paper</i>, which condition must necessarily -continue so long as we deliberately sanction an inconvertible -currency; and, secondly, the menace of Repudiation, -with slurs upon the integrity of the people -uttered in important quarters. These two causes are -impediments to the national credit. How long shall -they continue? Loyally and emphatically has Congress -declared that all the obligations of the nation shall -be paid according to their spirit as well as letter. <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span>But -this is not enough. More must be done. And here -Congress must act, not partially, nor timidly, nor in -the interests of the few only, but impartially, comprehensively, -firmly, and in the interests of the many. It -must help the recognized ability of the nation by removing -its disabilities.</p> - -<p>Nearly five years have now passed since the Rebellion -sheathed its sword. But the national expenditures -did not cease at once when the sword no longer plied -its bloody work. They still continued, sometimes under -existing contracts which could not be broken, sometimes -in guarding the transition from war to peace. -Meanwhile the national faith was preserved, while the -people carried the unexampled burden willingly, if not -cheerfully. The large unliquidated debt, the <i>débris</i> of -the war, has been paid off or reduced to a form satisfactory -to the creditor, and the world has been assured -that the people are ready for any sacrifices according to -the exigency. Is more necessary? Should these sacrifices -be continued when the exigency has ceased?</p> - -<p>These sacrifices are twofold, being direct and indirect. -The direct are measured by the known amount of -taxation. The indirect are also traced to existing taxation, -and their witnesses are crippled trade, unsettled -values, oppressive prices, and an inconvertible currency, -which of itself is a constant sacrifice. Therefore do I -say again, <i>Down with the taxes!</i></p> - -<p>Bills relating to taxation do not originate in the -Senate; but Senators are not shut out from expressing -themselves freely on the proper policy which is demanded -at this time. On the finances and the banks -the Senate has the same powers as the other House. -Here it may take the initiative, as is shown by th<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span>e -present bill. But what it does should be equal to the -occasion; it should be large, and not petty,—far-reaching, -and not restricted in its sphere. The present bill, -I fear, has none of these qualities which we desire at -this time. It is a patch or plaster only, when we need -a comprehensive cure.</p> - -<p>To my mind it is easy to see what must be done. -The country must be relieved from its heavy burdens. -Taxation must be made lighter,—also less complex -and inquisitorial. Simplification will be a form of relief. -Our banking system is ready to adapt itself to the -wants of the country, if you will only say the word. -Speak, Sir, and it will do what you desire. But instead -of this we are asked by the Committee to begin by making -the system more complex, without adding to its efficiency; -we are asked to construct a third currency, -which so long as it continues must be a stumbling-block; -we are asked to establish discord instead of concord.</p> - -<p>Now, Sir, in order to bring the Senate to a precise -vote on what I regard as the fundamental proposition -of my amendment, I shall withdraw the amendment as -a whole, and move to strike out the first two sections of -the Committee’s bill, and to insert as a substitute what -I send to the Chair.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The proposed substitute, being Section 5 of Mr. Sumner’s bill, having -been read, he continued:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>On that proposition I have one word to say. It is -brief: that you will admit. It is simple: that you will -admit. It enlarges the existing national bank circulation -by $200,000,000: that is ample, as I believe you -will admit. Practically it is a system of free b<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span>anking: -that is, it is such until the enlarged circulation is absorbed,—that -is, for some time to come. But free -banking is what, as I understand, Senators desire.</p> - -<p>Then, again, it has in it no element of injustice. -There is no injustice to the North or to the East. All -parts of the country are equally accommodated and -equally protected. But this cannot be said of the -pending measure.</p> - -<p>Then, again, it is elastic, adapting itself everywhere -to the exigencies of the place. If banking facilities are -needed, and the capital is ready, under that amendment -they can be enjoyed. Unlike the proposition of the -Committee, it is not of cast-iron, but is so as to adapt -itself to all the conditions of business in every part of -the country.</p> - -<p>Then, again, in the final provision, that for every -bank-note issued a greenback shall be withdrawn, you -find the great highway to specie payments. All your -greenbacks will speedily be withdrawn. You will have -then only the bank-notes, making one paper currency; -and then speedily, within a brief period, you will have -specie payments. The banks must have their reserves; -there will be no greenbacks for them; they must find -them in specie. The banks, then, and every stockholder, -will find a motive to press for specie payments, and -you will have that great result quietly accomplished, -absolutely without shock, while the business interests of -the country will rejoice.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>February 1st, in further advocacy of this amendment, Mr. Sumner -said:—</p> - -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span></p> -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—As it is understood that the Senate -is to vote to-day on the bill and all pending propositions, -I seize this moment to say a last word for the -proposition which I have had the honor of moving, and -which is now pending. But before I proceed with the -discussion, allow me to say, that, while sitting at my -desk here, I have received expressions of opinion from -different parts of the country, one or two of which I -will read. For instance, here is a telegraphic dispatch -from a leading financial gentleman in Chicago:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Your views on Currency Question much approved here. -Authorize new bank circulation to extent named, retiring -greenbacks <i>pari passu</i>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>This is the very rule which I seek to establish.</p> - -<p>At the same time I received a communication from -Circleville, Ohio, dated January 25th, the first sentences -of which I will read:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Please pardon me for this intrusion. I desire to ask, if -you are willing to indicate, what will likely be the result of -your financial bill. I think I only utter the sentiment of -three fourths of all the commercial men through our great -and growing West, when I say it should become a law, and -thereby secure to us our equal share of the national banking -capital, which we now need so much.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>This, again, is what I seek to accomplish.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>At this stage, I hope I may have the indulgence of -the Senate, if I ask one moment’s attention to the bill -of the Committee. On a former occasion I ventured to -say that it was inadequate.<a name="FNanchor_219" id="FNanchor_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> The more I reflect upon -it, the longer this debate is continued, the more I am<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span> -impressed with its inadequacy. It does not do what -should be done by the first measure of legislation on -our finances adopted by the present Congress. It is incomplete. -I wish I could stop there; but I am obliged -to go further, and say that it is not only incomplete, but -it is, in certainly one of its features, to which I shall -call attention, mischievous. I take advantage of this -moment to present this point, because it has not been -mentioned before, and because at a later stage I may -not have the opportunity of doing so. It is this provision -at the end of the first section:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“But a new apportionment shall be made as soon as practicable, -based upon the census of 1870.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>At the proper time I shall move to strike out these -words, and I will now very briefly assign my reasons.</p> - -<p>The proposition is objectionable, first, because it is -mischievous,—and, secondly, because it is difficult, if -not impracticable, in its operation; and if I can have -the attention of the Senate, unless figures deceive me, -and unless facts are at fault, I think that the Senate -must agree in my conclusion.</p> - -<p>We are told by the Comptroller of the Currency that -$45,000,000 is a large allowance of currency at this -moment for the South and West; indeed, I believe -he puts the limit at $40,000,000. Now suppose only -$40,000,000 are taken up during the coming year,—that -is, till the completion of the census; that would -leave $5,000,000 still outstanding, which might be employed -for the benefit of the South and West. That -circumstance indicates to a certain extent the financial -condition of those parts of the country. Do they need -larger facilities, and, if so, to what extent? Can yo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span>u -determine in advance? I doubt it. But, Sir, in the -face of this uncertainty, this bill steps in and declares -positively that “a new apportionment shall be made as -soon as practicable, based upon the census of 1870.” -What will be the effect of such a new apportionment? -Even according to the census of 1860, such new apportionment -would transfer some sixty million dollars from -banks that enjoy it to other parts of the country; it -would take away from those banks what they want, and -transfer it where it is not wanted. The language is imperative. -But, Sir, it is not to be under the census of -1860, but under the census of 1870; and unless figures -deceive, by that census the empire of the great West -will be more than ever manifest. And if the transfer is -made accordingly, it will take some ninety or one hundred -million dollars from where it now is, and is needed, -and carry it to other places where certainly it will -not be needed in the same degree. What will be the -effect of such a transfer?</p> - -<p>Mark, Sir, the statute is mandatory and unconditional. -There is no chance for discretion; it is to be done; -the transfer is to be made. And now what must be the -consequence? A derangement of business which it is -difficult to imagine, a contraction of currency instantaneous -and spasmodic to the amount of these large sums -that I have indicated.</p> - -<p>I do not shrink from contraction. I am ready to -say to the people of Massachusetts, “If the Senate will -adopt any policy of contraction that is healthy, well-considered, -and with proper conditions, I would recommend -its acceptance.” But a contraction like that proposed -by this bill, which arbitrarily takes from North -and East this vast amount, and transfers it to a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span>nother -part of the country, where it may not be needed, such -a contraction I oppose as mischievous. I see no good -in it. I see a disturbance of all the channels of business; -and I see a contraction which must be itself infinitely -detrimental to the financial interests of the Republic.</p> - -<p>But then, Sir, have you considered whether you can -do it? Is it practicable? I have shown that it is mischievous: -is it practicable? Can you take this large -amount of currency from one part of the country and -transfer it to another? Have you ever reflected upon -the history of the bank-note after it has commenced its -travels, when it has once left the maternal bank? It -goes you know not where. I have been informed by -bank-officers, and by those most familiar with such -things, that a bank-note, when once issued, very rarely -returns home. I have been assured that it is hardly -ever seen again. The banks, indeed, may go into liquidation, -but their notes are still current. The maternal -bank may be mouldering in the earth; but these its -children are moving about, performing the work of circulation. -Why? The credit of the nation is behind -them; and everybody knows, when he takes one of -them, that he is safe. Therefore, I ask, how can the -proposed requirement be carried into execution? how -can you bring back these runaways, when once in circulation -on their perpetual travels?</p> - -<p>There is but one way, and that is by the return to -specie payments. Hold up before them coin, and they -will all come running back to the original bank; but -until then they will continue abroad. The proposed requirement -seems to go on the idea that bank-notes, like -cows, return from pasture at night; whereas w<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span>e all -know, that, until specie payments, they are more like -the wild cattle of the prairies and the pampas; you -cannot find them; they are everywhere. Surely I am -not wrong, when I suggest that the proposed requirement -is impracticable as well as mischievous; and at -the proper time I shall move to strike it out.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The amendment which I have moved has been under -discussion for several days. It has had the valuable -support of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. <span class="smcap">Chandler</span>], -who brings to financial questions practical experience. -It has been opposed by other Senators, and with considerable -ardor by my excellent friend from Indiana -[Mr. <span class="smcap">Morton</span>].</p> - -<p>On Thursday last, the Senator from Indiana, addressing -himself to me, and inviting a reply, which I was -then prevented from making, took issue with me directly -upon the position I have assumed, that the withdrawal -of legal-tender notes would materially assist the -effort for specie payments; and he further declared that -the two currencies of bank-notes and United States -notes were kept together because one was redeemable -with the other. I do not quote his precise words, but I -give the substance.<a name="FNanchor_220" id="FNanchor_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a></p> - -<p>Under the policy we are now pursuing, it seems to -me, that, with $356,000,000 of legal-tender notes in circulation, -the Government will not for many years, if -ever again, pay specie. With that amount of United -States notes, under the actual policy, the bank currency -will forever remain inconvertible. And the correctness -of these positions I will endeavor briefly to demonstr<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span>ate.</p> - -<p>A convertible currency is nothing more nor less than -the servant of coin. If there is no coin, it can neither -be servant nor representative, though it may attempt to -perform the functions of coin. Presenting itself under -false pretences, it but partially succeeds in this attempt; -and the discredit attaching to it compels it to pay more -for any property than would be the price of such property -in coin, or the acknowledged representative of coin,—just -as doubtful people must submit to ten, fifteen, or -twenty per cent. discount, when what is known as “gilt-edged” -commercial paper is discounted at five, six, or -seven per cent. Thus far we have had no coin in the -Treasury appropriated to the stability of the United -States notes,—and under our present policy, dictated -by the restrictive laws that hedge the Secretary of the -Treasury and confine his liberty of action, we never -shall have, until the whole bonded debt of the country -is extinguished,—while at the same time the banks -are excused under the law from all attempts to fortify -their notes with coin.</p> - -<p>And what is it that successfully discourages us from -direct steps toward specie payments?</p> - -<p>In the first place, it is the mistrust of the people in -our ability to resume, and to maintain resumption. In -the next place, the monthly publication of the Treasury -discloses precisely our weakness as well as our strength; -and the great element of our weakness is the volume -of our past-due and demand obligations. In ordinary -times,—that is, when the people have confidence in the -ability of the banks to redeem their demand obligations -in coin,—a reserve of twenty to twenty-five per cent. -in coin is more than sufficient to meet any probable d<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span>emand -that may be made. Let mistrust arise in relation -to the solvency of any bank or of the system of banks, -and the reserve of twenty-five per cent. will vanish as -the dew before the sun, and the individual bank or all -the banks must close their doors to all demands for -specie.</p> - -<p>In our present legislation we encounter this mistrust -wide-spread among the people; and so long as we ourselves -exhibit so great timidity in our attempts at legislation -upon this subject, just so long do we minister to -and strengthen this mistrust.</p> - -<p>The amount of demand obligations which the Treasury -must be prepared to meet upon a moment’s notice, -including three per cent. certificates and fractional currency, -is more than four hundred and forty million dollars. -With the existing mistrust, measured by the premium -on gold, a reserve of twenty-five per cent. of coin -in the Treasury appropriated to these demands would -be totally insufficient. This reserve must bear a proportion -to the aggregate of liabilities so large as to remove -mistrust, and this can be accomplished only by -presenting as in the vaults of the Treasury an amount -of coin nearly equal to the sum of liabilities.</p> - -<p>If during the last three years we had retained the surplus -of coin that has reached the Treasury, we should -now have enough; but, as a consequence of such accumulation, -speculation would have run riot,—and I fear, -if we should now by legislative enactment decree that -course for the future, we should aggravate the situation.</p> - -<p>What, then, is left for us to do? What but to lessen -our liabilities?—which, as the laws now stand, must -remain the same to-morrow as to-day, and one, two, o<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span>r -five years hence immutably as now.</p> - -<p>Difficulties beset the contraction of those liabilities, -as there are difficulties that impede the accumulation of -coin in sufficient amount to meet our purpose; but the -former may be neutralized, if not removed, by judicious -compensations that will not in any serious degree retard -the object for which I would legislate.</p> - -<p>Sound financial authorities unite in declaring, that, if -the Government resumes specie payments, the banks of -New York can resume; and when the banks of New -York resume, the whole country can resume. Evidently, -then, our care is the Government.</p> - -<p>And what is the first step? To my mind we must -lessen the demand obligations of the Government, while -the Secretary of the Treasury at the same time strengthens -the reserves in the national vaults. Neither should -be done suddenly or violently, but gradually, judiciously, -and wisely. As the statutes now stand, the obligations -cannot be reduced. With the present volume of -obligations, the laws of trade prevent the Secretary of -the Treasury from sufficiently strengthening his reserves. -It therefore devolves upon the National Legislature -to take the initiative in the effort to resume -specie payments.</p> - -<p>The difficulties that impede the reduction of the national -liabilities lie in the fact that such obligations are -a part, and a large part, of the currency of the country. -To withdraw that currency without giving a substitute -is to create stringency, burden trade, and invite chaos: -at least, so it seems. These obligations, so far as they -relate to the currency, are larger in amount than those -of the national banks combined; and furthermore, they -are the head and front of all. They are so large as t<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span>o -be beyond the point of manageability, and I would -therefore reduce them within control. It is their volume -that puts them beyond control, and it is our want -of control that causes them to be depreciated. Thus, -Sir, I would offer inducements to fund them, or part -of them, in bonds that would be sought after because of -their valuable uses beyond a mere investment, and to -neutralize the evils of contraction of Treasury liabilities -by authorizing their assumption, with the consent of -the people, by various parties in different sections of the -country, each one of whom would be fully equal to the -task thus voluntarily assumed. I would issue a bank-note -for every dollar of Treasury obligation cancelled; -but I would issue no bank-note that did not absorb an -equal obligation of the Treasury. By this distribution -of a portion of the demand obligations you restore to -the Government the full ability to meet the remainder; -and at the same time the people know, that, so far as -the currency goes,—and it is of this only we are treating,—every -promise of any bank has its ultimate recourse -in the Treasury of the United States.</p> - -<p>The absorption of one hundred and fifty or two hundred -millions cannot fail to enhance the remaining legal-tender -nearly, if not quite, to par with gold. The -volume of currency in the channels of trade and in the -hands of the people will be about the same as now. -The aggregate of United States notes and national bank-notes -outstanding will be precisely the same. Therefore -the indirect contraction so much dwelt upon will scarcely -be felt. The volume of greenbacks will be ample for -the reserves of the banks, and their growing scarcity -will cause them to become more and more valuable; -and as they approach the standard of gold, so wil<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span>l they -sustain with golden support the bank-notes into which -they are convertible.</p> - -<p>The demand by the people for legal-tender will not be -appreciably increased, as the bank-note is receivable by -the Government for all dues except customs, and those -demands are necessarily localized. While the growing -scarcity of greenbacks, because of their replacement -by bank-notes fulfilling all the requirements of general -trade, will not be noticed by the people, the banks will -take heed lest they fall, and at an early day begin to -strengthen themselves. Legal-tender reserves they must -have, and, with the honest eyes of our Secretary of the -Treasury to detect any deficiency, they will begin their -strengthening policy at once. Instead of putting gold -received as interest forthwith on the market for sale, -they will put it snugly away in their vaults. The gold -which comes to them in the course of banking operations -will be added thereto; and almost imperceptibly -the country banks will arrive at the condition of the -city banks, whose reserves in coin and legal-tender notes -are now far beyond the requirements of law. In the -mean time, and without derangement of business, the -Treasury may strengthen its reserve,—while, on the -other hand, the quiet reduction of its liabilities advances -the percentage of the reserve to the whole amount -of liabilities in almost a compound ratio. With this -strengthening of the condition of the Treasury, made -manifest to all the world by its monthly publications, -the mistrust of the people will be gradually, but surely, -dissipated, and as surely be replaced by confidence -that all demand obligations will be redeemed at an early -day,—a confidence as wide-spread and deep-seated as -is that now prevailing in relation to our bonded deb<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span>t, -that it will be paid according to the spirit as well as -the letter of the law.</p> - -<p>It will thus be seen that just in proportion to the -strengthening of the legal-tender do we strengthen the -bank-note. Strike out of existence in a single day the -legal-tender notes, and I fear that the bank-note would -for a time fall in comparative value: so would everything -else. But I advocate no such violent measure.</p> - -<p>The Senator from Indiana in his remarks appeared to -forget that we have in the country two or three hundred -millions of another legal-tender,—being coin, now displaced, -of which no legitimate use is made in connection -with the currency,—that should resume its proper position -in the paper circulation of the country. Here are -two or three hundred millions of money, now by force -of law demonetized, which I would have relieved of its -disabilities. I would change the relation of master it -now occupies to that of servant, where it properly belongs; -and I would inflate the currency with it to the -extent that we possess it. Inflation by coin is simply -specie payment, or very near it.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I have endeavored, Mr. President, thus briefly to respond -to the questions propounded to me. I do not -know that I have entered sufficiently into detail to explain -clearly my convictions as to the necessity for reducing -the volume of legal-tender obligations, and to -prove, as I desire to prove, that their gradual withdrawal -will enhance not only the value of the remainder, but -also the value of the bank-note. Both will ascend in -the scale. This enhancement of the whole paper currency -will tend to draw the coin of the country from its -seclusion. As in the early period of the war, befo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span>re the -present currency was created, we were astonished at the -positive, but hidden, money resources of the people, so -will the outflow of hidden coin confound the calculations -of those who suppose that its volume is to be -measured by the amount in the Treasury and in the -New York banks.</p> - -<p>Mr. President, I am not alone in asking for the reformation -of our currency as the first stage of our financial -efforts. I read from the “Commercial and Financial -Chronicle”<a name="FNanchor_221" id="FNanchor_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> of New York, an authoritative paper -on this subject, as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“In any practical scheme to improve the Government -finances and credit, or to restore prosperous activities, or -both at once, the first thing to be done <i>must be</i> the restoration -of a sound currency. That done or provided for, all the -rest will be easy; the best credit and the lowest rates of interest -will follow.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>To this end our greenbacks must be absorbed or paid, -and my proposition provides a way. As the greenbacks -are withdrawn, coin will reappear to take their place in -the banks and the business of the country. This will -be specie payments.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Here I wish to remark that I fail to see the asserted -dependence of our demand notes on our bonds. The -bonds may be at par without bringing the notes to par, -and so the notes may be at par without bringing the -bonds to par. According to the experience of other -countries, bonds and notes do not materially affect each -other. The two travel on parallel lines without touching. -Each must be provided for; and my present purpose<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span> -is to provide for the demand notes.</p> - -<p>There is strong reason why this is the very moment -for this effort. According to statistical tables now before -me, our exports are tending to an equality with our -imports. During the five months of July, August, September, -October, and November, 1869, there has been a -nominal balance in our favor of $1,752,416; whereas -during the same months of last year there was an adverse -balance of $32,163,339. The movement of specie -is equally advantageous. During the five months -above mentioned there has been an import in specie of -$10,056,316 against $5,273,116 during the same months -last year, and an export in specie of $19,031,875 against -$21,599,758 during the same months last year.<a name="FNanchor_222" id="FNanchor_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> According -to these indubitable figures, the tide of specie as -well as of business is beginning to turn. It remains for -us by wise legislation to take advantage of the propitious -moment. Take the proper steps and you will have -specie payments,—having which, all the rest will follow. -Because I desire to secure this great boon for my -country I now make this effort.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The amendment was rejected.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>March 2d, Mr. Sumner’s bill having been reported back from the -Committee on Finance with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, -he spoke in review of their respective provisions as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—The measure now before the Senate -concerns interests vast in amount and influence. I -doubt if ever before any nation has attempted to deal at -once with so large a mass of financial obligations, being -nothing less than the whole national debt of the United<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span> -States. But beyond the proper disposition of this mass -is the question of taxation, and also of the extent to -which the payment of the national debt shall be assumed -by the present generation, and beyond all is the -question of specie payments. On all these heads my -own conclusions are fixed. The mass of financial obligations -should be promptly adjusted in some new form -at smaller interest; taxes must be reduced; the payment -of the national debt must be left in part to posterity; -specie payments must be provided for.</p> - -<p>The immediate question before the Senate is on a -substitute reported by the Committee for the bill which -I had the honor of introducing some weeks ago. Considering -my connection with this measure, I hope that I -shall not intrude too much, if I recur to the original bill -and explain its provisions.</p> - -<p>There are certain general objects which must not be -forgotten in our present endeavor. I have already said -that the taxes must be reduced. Here I am happy to -observe that the popular branch of Congress, in the exercise -of its constitutional prerogative, has taken the initiative -and is perfecting measures to this end. I trust -that they will proceed prudently, but boldly.</p> - -<p>In harmony with this effort the expenditures of the -Government should be revised and cut down to the lowest -point consistent with efficiency. Economy will be -an important ally. Even in small affairs it will be the -witness to our purposes. Through these agencies our -currency will be improved, and we shall be brought to -specie payments, while the national credit will be established. -Not at once can all this be accomplished, but I -am sure that we may now do much.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span></p> -<p>As often as I return to this subject I am impressed -by the damage the country has already suffered through -menacing propositions affecting the national credit. I -cannot doubt that in this way the national burdens have -been sensibly increased. By counter-propositions in the -name of Congress we have attempted to counteract these -injurious influences. We have met words with words. -But this is not enough.</p> - -<p>There is another remark which I wish to make, although -I do little more than repeat what I said on another -occasion.<a name="FNanchor_223" id="FNanchor_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> It is that a national debt, when once -funded, does not seem to affect largely the condition of -the currency. The value of the former is maintained or -depressed by circumstances independent of the currency. -But, on the other hand, the condition of the currency -bears directly upon all efforts for increased loans; and -this is of practical importance on the present occasion. -The rules of business are the same for the nation as for -an individual; nor can a nation, when it becomes a borrower, -hope to escape the scrutiny which is applied to -an individual under similar circumstances. Applying -this scrutiny to our case, it appears that on our existing -bonded debt we have thus far performed all existing obligations,—not -without discussion, I regret to add, that -has left in some quarters a lingering doubt with regard -to the future, and not without an opposition still alive, -if not formidable. But the case is worse with regard to -that other branch of the national debt known as legal-tenders, -where we daily fail to perform existing obligations, -so that these notes are nothing more than so -much <i>failed paper</i>. With regard to this branch of the -national debt there is an open confession of insolvency, -and each day renews the confession. Now, by the immutabl<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span>e -laws of credit, which all legislative enactments -are impotent to counteract or expunge, the nation must -suffer when it enters the market as a borrower. Failing -to pay these obligations already due, it must pay more -for what it borrows. Nor can we hope for more than -partial success, until this dishonor is removed.</p> - -<p>With these preliminary remarks, which are rather -hints than arguments, I come directly to the measure -before the Senate; and here I begin with the first section.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I wish the Senate would note the difference between -this section in my bill and in the substitute of -the Committee. I proposed to authorize the issue of -$500,000,000 of Ten-Forty five per cents., and prescribe -the use to which the proceeds of such bonds should be -applied. The Committee propose $400,000,000 of Ten-Twenty -five per cents., and leave the application of the -proceeds the subject of discretion. Between the two -propositions there are several differences: first, in the -amount; secondly, in the length of the bond; and, thirdly, -in the application of the proceeds.</p> - -<p>Here I beg to observe that the original sum of -$500,000,000 was not inserted by accident, or because -it was a round and euphonious sum. Nothing of the -kind. It was the result of a careful examination of the -national debt in its details, especially in the light of -the national credit. It was adopted because it was the -very sum required by the nature of the case. At least -so it seemed to me. A brief explanation will show if -I was not right.</p> - -<p>The year 1862, which marks the date of our legal-tenders, -marks also the date of a new system in regard<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span> -to our loans. Senators are hardly aware of this change. -Previously our standard for sixes was an immutable loan -for twenty years. By the new system this immutability -was continued as to the right of demand by the bondholder, -but the right of payment was reserved to the -nation at any time after five years. This change, as -we now see, gave positive advantages to the nation. -Its disadvantages to the bondholder were so apparent -that it encountered resistance, which was overcome only -after undaunted perseverance and final appeal to the -people. Now, by recurring to the schedule of the national -debt, you will find that the first loan within the -sphere of this discretionary system is the Five-Twenties -of 1862, which, on the 1st of February last, after deducting -the purchased bonds, were $500,000,000. This, -therefore, is the first loan falling within our discretion, -the first loan we are privileged to pay before maturity, -and the first loan presenting itself for payment. In -these incidents the loan of 1862 has precedence,—it -stands first.</p> - -<p>But there is a reason, which to my mind is of peculiar -force, why this first loan should be paid in coin at -the earliest possible day. It seems to me that I do -not deceive myself, when I consider it conclusive on -this question. The loan of 1862 is the specific loan -which has been made the objective point of all the -movements under the banner of Repudiation. It is -the loan to which this idea first attached itself. It is -the loan first menaced. Therefore, to my mind, it is the -loan which should be first provided for. I know no -way, short of universal specie payments, by which the -national credit can be so effectually advanced.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span></p> -<p>Why in the amendment of the Committee the amount -of the proposed issue is placed at $400,000,000 I am at -a loss to conceive. Here is no equivalent of any one -loan, nor of two or more loans. It is an accidental sum, -and might have been more or less for the same reason -that it is what it is. The term Ten-Twenties seems -also accidental, as it is unquestionably new. Of course -it is assumed that the amount proposed of Ten-Twenties -at five per cent. will absorb an equal amount of -Five-Twenties at six per cent., irrespective of any particular -loan; but I am at a loss to see on what grounds -the holders of the sixes can be induced to make the -exchange. Will the substitute bonds be considered of -equal value? I affirm not. But assuming that they -are acceptable, how shall they be acceptably distributed? -Shall the first comer be first served? If all were -at the same starting-point, the palm might be justly -bestowed upon the most swift. In the latitude allowed, -stretching over all the Five-Twenties, there would be -opportunity for favoritism; and with this opportunity -there would be temptation and suspicion.</p> - -<p>The change from a Ten-Forty bond to a Ten-Twenty -bond, as proposed by the Committee, is a change, so far -as I can perceive, made up of disadvantages. To the -nation there is the same rate of interest, and there is -the same fixed period during which this interest must -be paid; while, on the other hand, the period of optional -payment is reduced from thirty years to ten years. -If there be advantage in this reduction, I do not perceive -it. If at the expiration of ten years we are in a -condition to pay, we may do so as readily under a Ten-Forty -as under the Ten-Twenty proposed. If during -the subsequent ten years of option our advancing credit -enables us to command a lower rate of interest, surely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span> -we may do so just as favorably under one as under the -other. There is no benefit within the bounds of imagination, -so far at least as I can discern, which will not -redound to the nation from Ten-Forties as much as -from Ten-Twenties. On the other hand, it is within -possibilities, from disturbance in the money markets of -the world, or from other unforeseen circumstances, that -it may not be convenient during the short optional period -of the Committee to obtain the necessary coin without -a sacrifice. The greater latitude of payment leaves -the nation master of the situation, to pay or not to pay, -as is most for the national advantage.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, the loan proposed by the Committee -has not, to my mind, the elements of success promised -by the other loan. It is assumed in both cases that the -coin for the redemption of the existing obligations shall -be obtained in Europe. Then we must look to the European -market in determining the form of the new loan. -Now I have reason to believe that a coin loan to the -amount of $500,000,000 may be obtained in Europe on -Ten-Forties at par, provided the new bonds are of the -same form and purport as the Ten-Forties which are -already so popular, and provided further that the proceeds -of the loan are applied to the payment in coin at -par of the Five-Twenties of 1862. The reasons are obvious. -The Ten-Forties have a good name, which is -much to start with. It is like the credit or good-will -of an established mercantile house, which stands often -instead of capital; and then the fact that the proceeds -are to be absorbed in the redemption of the first Five-Twenties, -so often assailed, will most signally attest -the determination of the country to maintain its credit. -These advantages cost nothing, and it is difficult to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> -see why they should be renounced.</p> - -<p>We must not make an effort and fail. Our course -must be guided by such prudence that success will be -at least reasonably certain. For the nation to offer a -loan and be refused in the market will not do. Here, -as elsewhere, we must organize victory. Now it is to -my mind doubtful, according to the information within -my reach, if the loan proposed by the Committee -can be negotiated successfully at par. Bankers there -may be who would gladly see themselves announced as -financial agents of the great Republic; but it remains -to be seen if there are any competent to handle a -loan of $500,000,000 who would undertake it on the -terms of the Committee. I am clear that it is not prudent -to make the experiment, when it is easy to offer -another loan with positive advantages sufficient to turn -the scale. Washington, in his Farewell Address, said, -“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? -Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?” -In the same spirit I would say, Why forego the advantages -of a well-known and peculiar security? Why -quit our Ten-Forties to stand upon a security which -is unknown, and practically foreign, whether at home -or abroad?</p> - -<p>In the loan proposed by the original bill we find -assurance of success, with the promise of reduced taxation, -Repudiation silenced, and the coin reserves in -the banks strengthened by sales in Europe, it may be, -$150,000,000. Should the amendment of the Committee -prevail, I see small chance of any near accomplishment -of these objects, and meanwhile our financial -question is handed over to prolonged uncertainty.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span></p> -<p>I pass now to the substitute of the Committee -for the second and third sections of the original bill. -Here again the amount is changed from $500,000,000 -to $400,000,000. I am not aware of any reason for -this change; nor is there, indeed, any peculiar reason, -as in the case of the Five-Twenties of 1862, for the -amount of $500,000,000. The question between the -two amounts may properly be determined by considerations -of expediency, among which will be that of uniformity -with outstanding loans. A more important -change is in the time the bonds are to run, which is -Fifteen-Thirty years for the bonds at four and a half -per cent., and Twenty-Forty years for the bonds at four -per cent. Here occurs again the argument with regard -to the inferiority of Ten-Twenties, as compared with -Ten-Forties. By the same reason the Fifteen-Thirties -will be inferior to the Fifteen-Fifties, and the Twenty-Forties -will be inferior to the Twenty-Sixties, of the -original bill.</p> - -<p>The prolongation of the bond is in the nature of -compensation for the reduction of interest. Already -we have established the ratio of compensation for such -reduction,—already for a loan at six per cent. we have -offered Five-Twenties, but for a loan at five per cent. we -have offered Ten-Forties,—and I see no reason why -by a tentative process we should so materially change -this standard as is now proposed. The experiment can -do no good, while it may do harm. It is in the nature -of a restriction on our discretion, and a limitation of the -duration of the bond, which, I apprehend, must interfere -essentially with its marketable character. While -the prolongation of time enlarges the option of the nation, -it increases the value of the bond in the market. -That which is most favorable to the nation is mos<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span>t -favorable to the market value of the bond; and that -which is unfavorable to the nation is unfavorable also -to the market value of the bond, rendering its negotiation -and sale more difficult and protracted. Thus at -every turn are we brought back to the original proposition.</p> - -<p>Against this conclusion is the argument founded on -the idea of English consols. It is sometimes said, If -the short term of Five-Twenty years is the standard for -a six per cent. bond with a graduation to Twenty-Sixty -for a four per cent. bond, why may we not go further, -and establish consols at three per cent., running, if you -please, to eternity?—The technical term “consols” is an -abbreviation for the consolidated debt of Great Britain, -and in the eyes of a British subject has its own signification. -It means a debt never to be paid, or at least it -is an inscribed debt carrying no promise of payment. -I would not have any debt of the United States assume -either the form or name of consols. I would rigidly adhere -to definite periods of payment. This is the American -system, in contradistinction to the British system. -I would not only avoid the idea that our debt is permanent, -but I would adhere to the form of positive payment -at some fixed period, and keep this idea always -present in the minds of the people. Without the requirement -of law, I doubt if the debt would be paid. -Political parties would court popularity by a reduction -of taxation. The Treasury of the United States, like -the British Treasury, would always be without a surplus, -and the national debt would be recognized as a -burden to be endured forever. Therefore do I say, <i>No -consols</i>.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span></p> -<p>There is another consideration, having a wide influence, -but especially important at the West and South, -which should induce us to press for a reduction of the -interest on our bonds; and here I present an argument -which, if not advanced before, is none the less applicable.</p> - -<p>Do Senators consider to what extent the Government -determines the rates of interest in the money centres of -the country? Not only for itself does it determine, but -for others also. Government bonds enjoy preëminence -as an investment,—and if the interest is high, they attract -the disposable money of the country. Government -sixes are worth more than a six per cent. bond of any -private corporation or individual, no matter how well -secured. Therefore, it is easy to see, so long as we retain -our standard at six per cent., so long as we have -sixes, will the capital of the country seek these bonds -for investment, permanent or temporary, to the detriment -of numerous enterprises important to the national -development, which are driven to be the stipendiaries -of foreign capital. Railroads, especially at the West and -South, are sufferers, being sometimes delayed by the difficulty -of borrowing money, and sometimes becoming -bankrupt from ruinous rates of interest, always in competition -with the Government. But what is true of -railroads is also true of other enterprises, which are -pinched, and even killed, by these exactions in which -the Government plays such a part. All are familiar -with the recurring appeals for money on bonds even -at eight per cent., which is more than can be paid permanently -without loss; and even at such a ruinous rate -there is difficulty in obtaining the required amount.</p> - -<p>Doubtless the excessive interest now demanded is -partly due to our fictitious currency, where <i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span>failed</i> paper -is forced upon the market; but beyond this influence -is that of our sixes, absorbing disposable capital. I -venture to assert, that, if we could at an early day reduce -these sixes to fives, there are millions which would -be released to seek investment in other securities at six -per cent., especially to the relief of the West and South. -The reduction of interest to four and a half per cent. -and four per cent. would release further millions. A -recent incident in the financial history of Massachusetts -illustrates the disturbing influence of our sixes. An attempt -to obtain a loan in Europe at five per cent. was -unsuccessful, chiefly because the National Government -offered six per cent.</p> - -<p>Therefore, for the sake of public enterprise in its -manifold forms, for the sake of that prosperity which -depends on human industry, for the sake of manufactures, -for the sake of commerce, and especially for the -sake of railroads, by which all these are quickened, we -must do what we can to reduce the general rate of interest, -which is now such a curb on enterprise; and -here we must begin with our own bonds. Without -any adverse intention, the National Government is a -victorious competitor, and the defeated parties are those -very enterprises whose success is so important to the -country. A competition so destructive should cease. -Keeping this before us in the new loan, we shall adopt -that form of bond by which the interest will most surely -be reduced. Thus, while refunding the national debt, -we shall open the way to improvements of all kinds.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>This is what I have to say for the present on the refunding -propositions of the Committee. Their object is -the same as mine. If I differ from them in det<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span>ails, it is -because after careful consideration it seems to me that -in some particulars their system may be improved.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Proceeding from these pivotal propositions, I find -other things where I must again differ. When I first -addressed the Senate on this subject, I took occasion to -declare my objection to the idea of agencies or offices in -the commercial centres of Europe, where interest should -be paid. I am not ready to withdraw that objection,—though, -if I could be tempted, it would be by the Senator -from Ohio [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>], when he held up the -prospect of a common money among nations. This is -one of the desires of my heart, as it is one of the necessities -of civilization; but I fail to see how this aspiration -will be promoted by the system proposed,—which -must be judged on its own merits, without any such -recommendation. It is easy to see that such a system, -besides being the beginning of a new policy on the part -of the Government, may entail serious embarrassments. -Sub-treasuries must be created in foreign capitals, which -must be continued so long as the bonds last. Remittances -of coin must be semiannual; and should such -remittances fail at any time, there must be advances at -no little cost to the Government. I cannot imagine any -advantage from this new system sufficient to induce us -to encounter the possible embarrassments or entanglements -which it may cause.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I would not take too much of the time of the Senate, -and therefore I pass at once to the proposition of the -Committee, being section seven, providing for the very -early payment of the national debt.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span></p> -<p>Mr. President, the payment of the national debt is an -American idea, and I would say nothing to weaken it -among the people. Whatever we owe must be paid; -but it is the part of prudence to make the payment in -such way as, while consistent with our obligations, shall -promote the national prosperity. In this spirit I approach -the proposition of the Committee, in which there -is so much of good, only to examine and measure it, in -order to ascertain its probable influence, especially on -the question of Taxation.</p> - -<p>Here it must be borne in mind, that the present -measure in all its parts, so far as applicable, and especially -with its guaranties and pledges, must be taken as -the basis of our new engagements. The provision that -so much of the debt shall be paid annually will become -in a certain sense a part of the contract, although not -so expressed in the bond. Not less than $150,000,000 -are set apart annually to be applied “to the payment -of the interest and to the reduction of the principal of -the public debt.” This is a large sum, and we should -consider carefully if such a guaranty or pledge has in -it the promise of financial stability. Promising too -much is sometimes as bad as promising too little. Our -promise must be according to our means prudently employed.</p> - -<p>If we assume obligations so large as to bear heavily -upon the business of the country and to compel unreasonable -taxation, there will be little chance of financial -stability. They will become the object of attack, and -will enter into the conflict of parties,—and if repealed, -the national faith may be called in question. I need -not say that business must suffer. A less ambitious -effort on our part will be less obnoxious to attack,—thus -leaving the bonds to their natural position in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span> -money market, and strengthening all the movements of -commerce.</p> - -<p>In order to determine the operation of this provision -we must look into details. I have the estimates before -me, showing our present and prospective liabilities for -interest; but I content myself with presenting compendiously -the result, in order to determine the question -of taxation. Suffice it to say, that under the operation -of the present measure there will be in 1871, after -the payment of all liabilities for interest, a surplus of -$43,000,000 to be applied to the payment of the national -debt. With each succeeding year the reduction -of interest will rapidly increase this surplus; and when -we bring into operation other provisions of the bill, and -convert $500,000,000 of sixes into a like amount of four -and a half per cents., effecting a further saving of interest, -equal to $7,500,000 annually, the surplus revenue, -as compared with necessary expenditures, will in a brief -period approach $100,000,000 annually.</p> - -<p>Here the question arises, Is not this unnecessarily -large? Is it not beyond the bounds of prudence and -wise economy? Shall we declare in this fundamental -measure a determination to redeem the whole national -debt within a period of twenty-five years? Can the industries -of the country sustain such taxation? I put -the question. You shall answer it. The future has its -great claims upon us; so also has the present. I submit -that the pending measure sacrifices the present. I -conclude, therefore, as I began, with another appeal for -reduced taxation. At the proper time I shall move an -amendment, in order to aid this result.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span></p> -<div class="medium"> - -<p>In the course of the proceedings which followed, the bill of the Committee -underwent important amendments, in accordance with the views -expressed by Mr. Sumner,—for the Ten-Twenties and Fifteen-Thirties -therein proposed, a prolongation to Ten-Forties and Fifteen-Forties -being effected,—and the provision for the payment of interest at the -money-centres and in the moneys of Europe stricken out. Some of -its more objectionable features being thus removed, he gave it a qualified -support.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>March 10th, the question being on striking out a provision in the -bill of the Committee requiring the national banks to exchange the -bonds of the United States deposited by them as security for their -circulation for those bearing a lower rate of interest, Mr. Sumner -said:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—There is a word which has been -introduced into this debate with which we were all very -familiar in another relation some years ago. It is the -word <i>Coercion</i>. A President of the United States announced -in most formal phrase that we could not coerce -a State; and now, borrowing a phrase from Mr. -Buchanan, we are told we cannot coerce a national -bank. Well, Sir, is the phrase applicable? If it be -applicable, then I insist that we can coerce a national -bank; but I do not admit its applicability. What I insist -on has already been so ably and clearly stated by -the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>] that -perhaps I need not add another word. I do not like to -occupy your time; yet I cannot forbear reminding you, -Sir, of the plenary power which Congress has reserved -over the banking system in that very Act by which it -was established.<a name="FNanchor_224" id="FNanchor_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a></p> - -<p>The Senator from California [Mr. <span class="smcap">Casserly</span>] has read -to you the clause. We have been reminded to-day by -a Senator on this floor that these are formal word<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span>s, -words that often appear in statutes. But are they not -significant words? Have they not a meaning? Why -are they there? Because they have a meaning; because -they reserve to Congress what I call plenary power over -the whole system. That system may be readjusted, -modified, shaped anew, and the banks cannot complain. -They began their existence under that law; they knew -the conditions of their being; and they cannot now -murmur, if Congress chooses to exercise the prerogative -which it reserved at the very inception of the whole -system.</p> - -<p>Sir, I approach this question, therefore, with the conviction -that the whole matter is open to our discretion. -Nobody can say safely that what is now proposed is not -within the power of Congress. Congress may do it, if -the occasion justifies, if in its discretion it thinks best -to do it. It may do it, if it thinks that the financial -policy of this country will be thereby promoted. The -banks are all parties to that policy. May not the country -turn around and ask the banks to do their part in -this great work of renovation? To a certain extent the -banks are in partnership with the Government. May -not the Government insist that they shall do their part -on this great occasion? Shall this effort of ours to readjust -our finances and to save this large interest to our -country be thwarted by a pretension on the part of the -banks that we have not the power to interfere?</p> - -<p>But we are reminded that there is a difference between -power and right. How often, Sir, on other occasions, -have I so insisted in this Chamber! A great, -broad, vital distinction there always is between power -and right. A nation or an individual may have a power -without right. Now is there not here a right as well<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span> -as a power? I cannot doubt it. I cannot doubt that -Congress may rightfully exercise what I cannot doubt is -an existing power. Why should it not? It could exercise -it—who can doubt?—with reference to the public -interests, to promote the national credit. It will not -exercise it in any spirit of wantonness, in any spirit of -injustice,—but to promote the national credit. Is not -that a rightful object? No one will say the contrary. -Why, then, shall we hesitate?</p> - -<p>We are reminded that these banks have secured certain -privileges, and it is said often that those are -vested, and the old phrase “vested rights” has been -repeated. But how can they have vested rights under -a statute which contains the provision just read to us, -securing to Congress full power to change it in every -respect? What, then, is the simple aspect of this question? -It is that certain securities have been lodged -with the Government by these banks on which they -transact their business, and now in readjusting the national -debt it is deemed advisable and for the public interests -that the securities should be at a lower rate of -interest than when they were originally deposited. Is -it not right for Congress to require that? I cannot see -the wrong in it. I cannot see any doubt on the question. -To my mind it is clear; it is absolutely within -the province of Congress, in the exercise of the discretion -which it originally retained over this whole subject.</p> - -<p>I hope, therefore, that in this debate we shall not be -pressed too much with the suggestion that we cannot -coerce these banks. If the occasion requires, and if the -term be applicable, then do I say we may coerce these -banks to the extent of obliging them to take these se<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span>curities -at a reduced rate of interest. I find no Repudiation -in that. I find nothing wrong in that. I find -nothing in it but a simple measure in harmony with -this great process of Financial Reconstruction in which -we are now engaged. I call it Financial Reconstruction; -and in this work ought not the banks to take -their place and perform their part?</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Now, Sir, I have a criticism on this section. It does -not go far enough. The Committee propose that the -banks shall take one third of the three different kinds -of bonds, the five, the four and a half, and the four per -cents. I think they ought to be required to take all in -fours, and I propose to give the Senate an opportunity -of expressing its judgment on that proposition. I may -be voted down; perhaps I shall be; but I shall make -a motion, in the honest endeavor to render this bill a -practical measure, which can best succeed. I wish to -mature it; I wish to put it in the best shape possible; -and for the sake of the banks, and in the interest of the -banks, I wish such a measure as shall have a reasonable -chance of stability in the future. If you allow the -banks gains that are too large, there will necessarily be -a constant opposition, growing and developing as their -gains become more conspicuous. Why expose the system -to any such criticism? Let us now revise it carefully, -place it on sure, but moderate foundations, so that -it will have in itself the elements of future stability.</p> - -<p>To my mind that is the more politic course, and I am -sure it is not unjust. You and I, Mr. President, remember -very well what was done on another occasion. The -State banks were taxed out of existence. It was the -cry, “Tax them out of existence! do not let them li<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span>ve! -drive them from competition with these new children of -ours, the national banks!” It was done. Was not that -coercion? If the phrase is to be employed, there was an -occasion for it. But I am not aware that it was argued, -certainly it was with no great confidence argued, that to -do that was unjust. It was a measure of policy wisely -adopted at the time, and which we all now see has answered -well. But if we could tax the State banks out -of existence, can we not, under the very specific terms -of the Act of Congress to which these national banks -owe their existence, apply a rule not unlike to them? -We do not propose to tax them out of existence, but we -propose to require that they shall lodge with the Government -securities at a lower rate of interest.</p> - -<p>Something has been said, perhaps much, in this debate, -with regard to the burden that this will impose -upon the banks. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>] -has already answered that objection, and I do not -know that I can add to his answer; and yet I am not -aware that he reminded the Senate that in this very -bill there is a new and important provision in favor of -the banks, or in favor of all bondholders,—being an -exemption from all taxation, not only State and municipal, -but national.</p> - -<p>There is but one other remark I will make, and that -is, we all know, unless I am much deceived, that the -banks have during these last years made great profits. -I am told that the profits of the national banks are two -or three times greater than those of the old State banks, -which we did not hesitate to tax out of existence. Now -is not that a fact in this case? Is it not an essential -element? Should it not be taken into consideration on -this occasion? If these national banks are the recipi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span>ents -of such large profits, should we not exercise all the -power that belongs to us to compel them to their full -contribution to this great measure of Financial Reconstruction? -I cannot hesitate in my conclusion.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>March 11th, Mr. Sumner moved the addition of a section providing -for the resumption of specie payments,—being the seventh section of -the original bill,—remarking:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—Interested as I am in this bill, -desirous of its passage hardly less than the Senator -from Ohio, I am bound to say, that, in my judgment, -the passage of this single section would be worth more -than the whole bill. It would do more for the credit -of the country; it would do more for its business. It -would help us all to the completion of Financial Reconstruction. -How often have I insisted that all our efforts -to fund and refund are to a certain extent vain and impotent, -unless we begin by specie payments! That, Sir, -is the Alpha of this whole subject; and until Congress -is ready to begin with that, I fear that all the rest will -be of little avail. It is in the light of expedient rather -than of remedy. There is the remedy.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The proposition was negatived,—Congress not being yet ready for -this step.</p> - -</div> -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span></p> - - - -<h2><a name="MAJOR-GENERAL_NATHANAEL_GREENE" id="MAJOR-GENERAL_NATHANAEL_GREENE"></a>MAJOR-GENERAL NATHANAEL GREENE, -OF THE REVOLUTION.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Speech in the Senate, on the Presentation of his Statue, -January 20, 1870.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>In the Senate, January 20, 1870, Senator Anthony announced the -presentation by Rhode Island of a statue of Major-General Nathanael -Greene, of the Revolution, executed by the sculptor Brown, to be -placed in the old Hall of the House of Representatives. Mr. Sumner -moved its acceptance by the following Concurrent Resolution:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="center">A Resolution accepting the Statue of Major-General Greene.</p> - -<p><i>Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring</i>, That -the thanks of this Congress be presented to the Governor, and through him -to the people, of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, for -the statue of Major-General Greene, whose name is so honorably identified -with our Revolutionary history; that this work of art is accepted in the -name of the nation, and assigned a place in the old Hall of the House of -Representatives, already set aside by Act of Congress for the statues of eminent -citizens; and that a copy of this Resolution, signed by the President -of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, be transmitted -to the Governor of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.</p> - -</div> - -<p>On this he spoke as follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">MR. PRESIDENT,—How brief is life! how long is -art! Nathanael Greene died at the age of forty-four, -and now Congress receives his marble statue, destined -to endure until this Capitol crumbles to dust. -But art lends its longevity only to lives extended by -deeds. Therefore is the present an attestation of the -fame that has been won.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span></p> -<p>Beyond his own deserts, Greene was fortunate during -life in the praise of Washington, who wrote of “the singular -abilities which that officer possesses,”<a name="FNanchor_225" id="FNanchor_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a>—and then -again fortunate after death in the praise of Hamilton, -whose remarkable tribute is no ordinary record.<a name="FNanchor_226" id="FNanchor_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> He -has been fortunate since in his biographer, whose work -promises to be classical in our literature.<a name="FNanchor_227" id="FNanchor_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> And now he -is fortunate again in a statue, which, while taking an -honorable place in American art, is the first to be received -in our Pantheon. Such are the honors of patriot -service.</p> - -<p>Among the generals of the Revolution Greene was -next after Washington. His campaign at the South -showed military genius of no common order. He saved -the South. Had he lived to take part in the National -Government, his character and judgment must have -secured for him an eminent post of service. Unlike -his two great associates, Washington and Hamilton, his -life was confined to war; but the capacities he manifested -in command gave assurance that he would have -excelled in civil life. His resources in the field would -have been the same in the council chamber.</p> - -<p>Of Quaker extraction, Greene was originally a Quaker. -The Quaker became a soldier and commander of armies. -Such was the requirement of the epoch. Should a soldier -and commander of armies in our day accept ideas -which enter into the life of the Quaker, the change -would only be in harmony with those principles which -must soon prevail, ordaining peace and good-will among -men. Looking at his statue, with military coat and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span> -with sword in hand, I seem to see his early garb beneath. -The Quaker general could never have been -other than the friend of peace.</p> - -<p>Standing always in that beautiful Hall, the statue -will be a perpetual, though silent orator. The marble -will speak; nor is it difficult to divine the lesson it -must teach. He lived for his country, and his whole -country,—nothing less. Born in the North, he died -in the South, which he had made his home. The grateful -South honored him as the North had already done. -His life exhibits the beauty and the reward of patriotism. -How can his marble speak except for country in -all its parts and at all points of the compass? It was -for the whole country that he drew his sword of “ice-brook -temper.” So also for the whole country was the -sword drawn in these latter days. And yet there was a -difference between the two occasions easy to state.</p> - -<p>Our country’s cause for which Greene contended was -National Independence. Our country’s cause recently -triumphant in bloodiest war was Liberty and Equality, -the declared heritage of all mankind. The first war was -for separation from the mother country, according to -the terms of the Declaration, “That these United Colonies -are and of right ought to be Free and Independent -States,”—the object being elevated by the great -principles announced. The second war was for the establishment -of these great principles, without which republican -government is a name and nothing more. But -both were for country. The larger masses, with the -larger scale of military operations, in the latter may -eclipse the earlier; and it is impossible not to see that -a war for Liberty and Equality, making the promises of -the Declaration a reality, and giving to mankind an ir<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span>resistible -example, is loftier in character than a war for -separation. If hereafter Greene finds rivals near his -statue, they will be those who represented our country’s -cause in its later peril and its larger triumph. Just in -proportion as ideas are involved is conflict elevated, especially -if those ideas concern the Equal Rights of All.</p> - -<p>Greene died at the South, and nobody knows the -place of his burial. He lies without epitaph or tombstone. -To-day a grateful country writes his epitaph -and gives him a monument in the Capitol.</p> -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span></p> - - - -<h2><a name="PERSONAL_RECORD_ON_RECONSTRUCTION" id="PERSONAL_RECORD_ON_RECONSTRUCTION"></a>PERSONAL RECORD ON RECONSTRUCTION -WITH COLORED SUFFRAGE.</h2> - -<p class="plabeln"><span class="smcap">Remarks in the Senate, January 21 and February 10, -1870.</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/line.png" width="80" height="16" alt="" /> -</div> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The arraignment of Mr. Sumner by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, in -the closing debate on the Virginia Bill, January 21st, included, as -remarked in that connection,<a name="FNanchor_228" id="FNanchor_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> a reference to matters of earlier date,—specifically -among these being the Reconstruction Act of March 2, -1867, conferring upon the colored people of the Rebel States equality -of suffrage with the whites.<a name="FNanchor_229" id="FNanchor_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> Adverting to the fact that this bill was an -amendment in the nature of a substitute for one from the House, and -then reading the names of the Senators who voted for it, Mr. Trumbull -asked,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Mr. President, do you miss the name of any Senator from that list of -Yeas?—That was the vote by which that amendment was adopted.—The -‘Absent’ were, among others, ‘Mr. Sumner.’”</p> - -</div> - -<p>And upon this showing, Mr. Trumbull concluded, that,</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Unfortunately the colored citizens of the South have nothing to thank -the Senator from Massachusetts for, in having the right of suffrage conferred -upon them.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Trumbull continued:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Mr. President, this was not the only vote. A vote was taken, after -this amendment was adopted, upon the passage of the bill thus amended; -and the vote on the passage of the bill was Yeas 29, Nays 10, and among -those Yeas is not found the name of the Senator from Massachusetts.</p> - -<p>“But, Sir, it sometimes happens that malice and hatred will produce -results which reason and good-will can never accomplish; and when we -passed this bill giving the right of suffrage to the colored men in the South -without the aid of the Senator from Massachusetts and sent it to the President -[Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>] he vetoed it, and on the question of passing it over hi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span>s -veto the Senator from Massachusetts voted with us. His affection for the -President was not such as to allow him to coincide with him in anything. -So we got his vote at last, but we had two-thirds without him.</p> - -<p>“This is the record, Mr. President.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mr. Sumner answered:—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="dropcap">This assault to-day compels me to make a statement -now which I never supposed I should be called to -make. I make it now with hesitation, but rather to -show the Senator’s course than my own. Sir, I am the -author of the provision in that Act conferring suffrage; -and when I brought it forward, the Senator from Illinois -was one of my opponents,—then as now. Senators -who were here at that time remember well that this -whole subject was practically taken for the time from -the jurisdiction of the Senate into a caucus of the Republican -party, where a committee was created to whom -all pending measures of Reconstruction were referred. -I had the honor of being a member of that committee. -So was the Senator from Illinois. So was my friend -from Michigan [Mr. <span class="smcap">Howard</span>]. The Senator from Ohio -[Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>] was our chairman. In that committee -this Reconstruction Bill was debated and matured sentence -by sentence, word for word; and then and there, -in that committee, I moved that we should require the -suffrage of all persons, without distinction of color, in -the organization of new governments, and in all the -constitutions to be made.</p> - -<p>In making this proposition at that time I only followed -the proposition I had made in the Senate two -years before,<a name="FNanchor_230" id="FNanchor_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> which I had urged upon the people in an -elaborate address at a political convention in Massachuset<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span>ts,<a name="FNanchor_231" id="FNanchor_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> -which I had again upheld in an elaborate effort -for two days in this Chamber,<a name="FNanchor_232" id="FNanchor_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> and which from the beginning -I had never lost from my mind or heart. It -was natural that I should press it in committee; but -I was overruled,—the Senator opposing me with his -accustomed determination. I was voted down. The -chairman observed my discontent and said, “You can -renew your motion in caucus.” I did so, stating that I -had been voted down in committee, but that I appealed -from the committee to the caucus. My colleague [Mr. -<span class="smcap">Wilson</span>], who sits before me, called out, “Do so”; and -then rising, said, in language which he will pardon me -for quoting, but which will do him honor always, “The -report of the committee will leave a great question open -to debate on every square mile of the South. We must -close that question up.” Another Senator, who is not -now here,—I can therefore name him,—Mr. Gratz -Brown [of Missouri], cried out most earnestly, “Push -it to a vote; we will stand by you.” I needed no such -encouragement, for my determination was fixed. There -sat the Senator from Illinois, sullen in his accustomed -opposition. I pushed it to a vote, and it was carried by -only two majority, Senators rising to be counted. My -colleague, in his joy on the occasion, exclaimed, “This -is the greatest vote that has been taken on this continent!” -He felt, I felt, we all felt, that the question of -the suffrage was then and there secured. By that vote -the committee was directed to make it a part of Recon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span>struction. -This was done, and the measure thus amended -was reported by the Senator from Ohio as chairman -of the committee.</p> - -<p>I am compelled to this statement by the assault of -the Senator. I had no disposition to make it. I do -not claim anything for myself. I did nothing but my -duty. Had I done less, I should have been faithless,—I -should have been where the Senator from Illinois -placed himself.</p> - -<p>The Senator read from the “Globe” the vote on the -passage of the bill, and exulted because my name was -not there. Sir, is there any Senator in this Chamber -whose name will be found oftener on the yeas and nays -than my own? Is there any Senator in this Chamber -who is away from his seat less than I am? There was -a reason for my absence on that occasion. I left this -Chamber at midnight, fatigued, not well, knowing that -the great cause was assured, notwithstanding the opposition -of the Senator from Illinois,—knowing that -at last the right of the colored people to suffrage was -recognized. I had seen it placed in the bill reported -from the committee. There it was on my motion, safe -against the assaults of the Senator from Illinois. Why -should I, fatigued, and not well, remain till morning to -swell the large and ascertained majority which it was -destined to receive?<a name="FNanchor_233" id="FNanchor_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> I have no occasion to make up -any such record. You know my fidelity to this cause. -You know if I am in the habit of avoiding the responsibilities -of my position. I cannot disguise, also, that -there was another influence on my mind. Reconstruction, -even with the suffrage, was defective. More was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</a></span> -needed. There should have been a system of public -schools, greater protection to the freedmen, and more -security against the Rebels, all of which I sought in -vain to obtain in committee, and I found all effort in -the Senate foreclosed by our action in caucus. Pained -by this failure, and feeling that there was nothing more -for me to do, after midnight I withdrew. On the return -of the Act to the Senate on the veto of the President, I -recorded my vote in its favor.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>What Mr. Trumbull calls “the record” in this case, and which Mr. -Sumner, in the surprise of the occasion, seemingly accepts, according -to the obvious import of the term, as substantially the complete record, -inspection of either the Congressional Globe or the Senate Journal -shows to be very far from complete. The vote following the Presidential -veto was by no means the only one in which Mr. Sumner’s -name appears: between this and the vote which would seem from the -representation to have next preceded, designated as “the vote on the -passage of the bill,” there intervened another, involving in an important -degree the character and fate of the whole measure.</p> - -<p>The bill in its original form, as it came from the House, was purely, -as indicated by its title, “a bill to provide for the more efficient government -of the insurrectionary States,” dividing them into military -districts and placing them under military rule,—this being deemed -the only effectual means of suppressing the outrages continually perpetrated -upon the loyalists of the South, black and white,—its Reconstruction -features, which included the provision for colored suffrage, -being engrafted upon it by the Senate, coupled with considerable modifications -of its military details. It was on the votes at this stage, February -16th, that Mr. Sumner’s name was wanting.</p> - -<p>On the return of the bill to the House for concurrence in these -amendments, it at once encountered on the Republican side severe animadversion, -aptly expressed in the remark,—“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.” Concurrence was refused, and a committee -of conference asked. The Senate insisting, and declining the -proposed conference, the House proceeded alone, supplementing the -Reconstruction provisions with others guarding against Rebel domi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</a></span>nation,<a name="FNanchor_234" id="FNanchor_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> -and crowning their work with the emphatic vote of 128 Yeas to -46 Nays. To this vote the Senate yielded, by a concurrent vote of -Yeas 35, Nays 7,—with “the effect,” as announced, “of passing the -bill.” Mr. Sumner, hailing these amendments as what he had required, -of course voted with the Yeas,—and his name so stands on -both of the official registers, in immediate conjunction with Mr. Trumbull’s.<a name="FNanchor_235" id="FNanchor_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> -This was on the 20th of February. The vote consequent upon -the Veto was ten days later, when his name was again recorded with -the Yeas.<a name="FNanchor_236" id="FNanchor_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> These two were the only votes in the Senate on the Reconstruction -Act of March 2, 1867, in the completeness of its provisions, -as it appears in the Statute-Book.<a name="FNanchor_237" id="FNanchor_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>February 10th, 1870, the bill for the admission of Mississippi having -come up for consideration in the Senate, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, availed -himself of the opportunity to reopen the personal controversy with Mr. -Sumner, in an acrimonious speech denying his claim to the authorship -of the provision for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of 1867, -and ascribing it to Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, a member of the other House,—quoting -Mr. Sumner’s opening declaration on this point, but resisting -the reading of what followed in explanation and support of that -declaration, under the plea that “he did not want it printed as part of -his own speech.”<a name="FNanchor_238" id="FNanchor_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a></p> - -<p>On the conclusion of Mr. Stewart’s speech, Mr. Sumner answered as -follows:—</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. President</span>,—You will bear witness that I am -no volunteer now. I have been no volunteer on any -of these recurring occasions when I have been assailed -in this Chamber. I have begun no question. I began -no question with the Senator from Nevada. I began no -question with the other Senator on my right [Mr. <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</a></span><span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>]. -I began no question yesterday with the Senator -from New York [Mr. <span class="smcap">Conkling</span>].<a name="FNanchor_239" id="FNanchor_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> I began no question, -either, with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. <span class="smcap">Carpenter</span>].<a name="FNanchor_240" id="FNanchor_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> -But I am here to answer; and I begin by asking -to have read at the desk what I did say, and what -the Senator from Nevada was unwilling, as he declared, -to have incorporated in his speech. I can understand -that he was very unwilling. I send the passage to the -Chair.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>The passage referred to, embracing the first three paragraphs of Mr. -Sumner’s statement in answer to Mr. Trumbull, January 21st,<a name="FNanchor_241" id="FNanchor_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> having -been read, he proceeded:—</p> - -</div> - -<p>That statement is to the effect that on my motion that -important proposition was put into the bill. Does anybody -question it? Has the impeachment of the Senator -to-day impaired that statement by a hair’s-breadth? -He shows that in another part of this Capitol patriot -Representatives were striving in the same direction. -All honor to them! God forbid that I should ever -grudge to any of my associates in this great controversy -any of the fame that belongs to them! There is -enough for all, provided we have been faithful. Sir, it -is not in my nature to take from any one credit, character, -fame, to which he is justly entitled. The world -is wide enough for all. Let each enjoy what he has -earned. I ask nothing for myself. I asked nothing the -other day; what I said was only in reply to the impeachment, -the arraignment let me call it, by the Senator -from Illinois.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</a></span></p> -<p>I then simply said it was on my motion that this -identical requirement went into the bill. The Senator, -in reply, seeks to show that in the other Chamber -a similar proposition was brought forward; but it did -not become a part of the bill. He shows that it was -brought forward in this Chamber, but did not become a -part of the bill. It was on my motion that it did become -a part of the bill. It was not unnatural, perhaps, -that I should go further, as I did, and say that in making -this motion I only acted in harmony with my life -and best exertions for years. I have the whole record -here. Shall I open it? I hesitate. In doing so I -break a vow with myself. And yet it cannot be necessary. -You know me in this Chamber; you know how -I have devoted myself from the beginning to this idea, -how constantly I have maintained it and urged it from -the earliest date.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The first stage in this series—you [Mr. <span class="smcap">Anthony</span>, -of Rhode Island, in the chair] remember it; you were -here; the Senator from Nevada was not here—goes to -February 11, 1862, when</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Mr. Sumner submitted resolutions declaratory of the relations -between the United States and the territory once occupied -by certain States, and now usurped by pretended governments -without constitutional or legal right.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>In these resolutions it is declared, that, after an act of -secession followed by war,</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of -Congress, as other territory, and the State becomes, according -to the language of the law, <i>felo de se</i>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The resolutions conclude as follows:—</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</a></span></p> -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“And that, in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, -and further enjoined by the Constitution, Congress will assume -complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory where -such unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, -and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of government -under the Constitution, and, in the execution of this -trust, will provide carefully for the protection of all the inhabitants -thereof, for the security of families, the organization -of labor, the encouragement of industry, and the welfare of -society, and will in every way discharge the duties of a just, -merciful, and paternal government.”<a name="FNanchor_242" id="FNanchor_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Sir, there was the beginning of Reconstruction in this -Chamber. That was its earliest expression.</p> - -<p>On the 8th of February, 1864, it appears that</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Mr. Sumner submitted resolutions defining the character -of the national contest, and protesting against any premature -restoration of Rebel States without proper guaranties and safeguards -against Slavery and for the protection of freedmen.”<a name="FNanchor_243" id="FNanchor_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>And on the same day it appears that he submitted -the following Amendment to the Constitution, which, -had it been adopted then, would have cured many of -the difficulties that have since occurred, entitled—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Amendment of the Constitution, securing Equality before -the Law and the Abolition of Slavery.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>It is as follows:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“All persons are equal before the law, so that no person -can hold another as a slave; and the Congress shall have -power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry this -declaration into effect everywhere within the United States -and the jurisdiction thereof.”<a name="FNanchor_244" id="FNanchor_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>There, Sir, was the beginning of Civil-Rights Bills -and Political-Rights Bills. On the same day it appears -that Mr. Sumner introduced into the Senate “A bill to -secure equality before the law in the courts of the United -States.”<a name="FNanchor_245" id="FNanchor_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a></p> - -<p>The debate went on. On the 25th of February, 1865, -a resolution of the Judiciary Committee was pending, -recognizing the State Government of Louisiana. Mr. -Sumner on that day introduced resolutions thus entitled:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Resolutions declaring the duty of the United States to -guaranty Republican Governments in the Rebel States on the -basis of the Declaration of Independence, so that <i>the new -governments</i>”—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent">that is, the reconstructed governments—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="noindent">“shall be founded on the consent of the governed and the -equality of all persons before the law.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Of this series of resolutions I will read two.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That the path of justice is also the path of peace; and -that for the sake of peace it is better to obey the Constitution, -and, in conformity with its requirements, in the performance -of the guaranty, to reëstablish State governments -on the consent of the governed and the equality of all persons -before the law, to the end that the foundations thereof -may be permanent, and that no loyal majorities may be -again overthrown or ruled by any oligarchical class.”</p> - -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</a></span></p> -<p>Then comes another resolution:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That considerations of expediency are in harmony with -the requirements of the Constitution and the dictates of justice -and reason, especially now, when colored soldiers have -shown their military value; that, as their muskets are needed -for the national defence against Rebels in the field, so are -their ballots yet more needed against the subtle enemies of -the Union at home; and that without their support at the -ballot-box the cause of Human Rights and of the Union itself -will be in constant peril.”<a name="FNanchor_246" id="FNanchor_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>On the resolution reported by the Senator from Illinois -for the admission of Louisiana without Equal -Rights, I had the honor of moving the very proposition -now in question, under date of February 25, 1865:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<i>Provided</i>, That this shall not take effect, except upon the -fundamental condition <i>that within the State there shall be no -denial of the electoral franchise or of any other rights on account -of color or race, but all persons shall be equal before the -law</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_247" id="FNanchor_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Here was the first motion in this Chamber for equality -of suffrage as a measure of Reconstruction. I entitled -it at the time “the corner-stone of Reconstruction.” -But here, Sir, it was my misfortune to encounter the -strenuous opposition of the Senator from Illinois. I -allude to this with reluctance; I have not opened this -debate; and I quote what I do now simply in reply to -the Senator from Nevada. Replying on that occasion -to the Senator from Illinois, I said:—</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</a></span></p> -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The United States are bound by the Constitution to -‘guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form -of government.’ Now, when called to perform this guaranty, -it is proposed to recognize an oligarchy of the skin. The -pretended State government in Louisiana is utterly indefensible, -whether you look at its origin or its character. -To describe it, I must use plain language. It is a mere -seven-months’ abortion, begotten by the bayonet in criminal -conjunction with the spirit of Caste, and born before its -time, rickety, unformed, unfinished, whose continued existence -will be a burden, a reproach, and a wrong. That is the -whole case; and yet the Senator from Illinois now presses it -upon the Senate at this moment, to the exclusion of the important -public business of the country.”<a name="FNanchor_248" id="FNanchor_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The Louisiana Bill, though pressed by the Senator -from Illinois, was defeated; and the equal rights of the -colored race were happily vindicated. His opposition -was strenuous.</p> - -<p>But, Sir, I did not content myself with action in -this Chamber. Our good President was assassinated. -The Vice-President succeeded to his place. Being here -in Washington, I entered at once into relations with -him,—hoping to bring, if possible, his great influence -in favor of this measure of Reconstruction; and here is -a record, made shortly afterward, which I will read.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“During this period I saw the President frequently,—sometimes -at the private house he then occupied, and sometimes -at his office in the Treasury. On these occasions the -constant topic was ‘Reconstruction,’ which was considered in -every variety of aspect. More than once I ventured to press -upon him the duty and the renown of carrying out the principles -of the Declaration of Independence, and of founding -the new governments in the Rebel States on the consent of -the governed, without any distinction of color. To this earnest -appeal he replied, on one occasion, 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 in favor of the Equal -Rights of All, the good cause must prevail without controversy.”<a name="FNanchor_249" id="FNanchor_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Then followed another incident:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“On another occasion, during the same period, the case of -Tennessee was discussed. I expressed the hope most earnestly -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 that this was accomplished. I could not help -rejoining promptly, 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 which the -President might exercise in his own State by the expression -of his desires.”<a name="FNanchor_250" id="FNanchor_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Then, again, as I was about to leave on my return -home to Massachusetts, in an interview with him I -ventured to express my desires and aspirations as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</a></span> follows: -this was in May, 1865:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“After remarking that the Rebel region was still in military -occupation, and that it was the plain duty of the President -to use his temporary power for the establishment of -correct principles, I proceeded to say: ‘First, see to it that -no newspaper is allowed which is not thoroughly loyal and -does not speak well of the National Government and of -Equal Rights’; and here I reminded him of the saying of -the Duke of Wellington, that in a place under martial law an -unlicensed press was 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 their 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 Rebel 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 -at the time with perfect kindness; and I mention this -with the more readiness because I remember to have seen in -the papers a very different statement.”<a name="FNanchor_251" id="FNanchor_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Before I left Washington, and in the midst of my -interviews with the President, I was honored by a -communication from colored citizens of North Carolina, -asking my counsel with regard to their rights, -especially the right to vote. I will not read <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</a></span>their letter,—it -was published in the papers of the time, and -much commented upon,—but I will read my reply.<a name="FNanchor_252" id="FNanchor_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="right">“<span class="smcap">Washington</span>, May 13, 1865.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>,—I am glad that the colored citizens of -North Carolina are ready to take part in the organization -of Government. It is unquestionably their right and -duty.</p> - -<p>“I see little chance of peace or tranquillity in any Rebel -State, unless the rights of all are recognized, without distinction -of color. On this foundation we must build.</p> - -<p>“The article on Reconstruction to which you call my attention -proceeds on the idea, born of Slavery, that persons -with a white skin are the only ‘citizens.’ This is a mistake.</p> - -<p>“As you do me the honor to ask me the proper stand for -you to make, I have no hesitation in replying that you must -insist on all the rights and privileges of a citizen. They belong -to you; they are yours; and whoever undertakes to rob -you of them is a usurper and impostor.</p> - -<p>“Of course you will take part in any primary meetings for -political organization open to citizens generally, and will not -miss any opportunity to show your loyalty and fidelity.</p> - -<p>“Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen, faithfully -yours,</p> - -<p class="sig">“<span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Such was my earnestness in this work, that, when invited -by the municipality of Boston, where I was born -and have always lived, to address my fellow-citizens -in commemoration of the late President, I deemed it -my duty to dedicate the day mainly to a vindication -of Equal Rights as represented by him. I hold in -my hand the address on that occasion, from which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</a></span> I -will read one passage. This was on the 1st of June, -1865.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The argument for Colored Suffrage is overwhelming. It -springs from the necessity of the case, as well as from the -Rights of Man. This suffrage is needed for the security of -the colored people, for the stability of the local government, -and for the strength of the Union. Without it there is nothing -but insecurity for the colored people, instability for the -local government, and weakness for the Union, involving of -course the national credit.”<a name="FNanchor_253" id="FNanchor_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This was followed by a letter, dated Boston, July 8, -1865, addressed to the colored people of Savannah, who -had done me the honor of forwarding to me a petition -asking for the right to vote, with the request that I -would present it to the President. After saying, that, -had I been at Washington, I should have had great -pleasure in presenting the petition personally, but that -I was obliged to content myself with another method, -I proceeded in this way:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Allow me to add, that you must not be impatient. You -have borne the heavier burdens of Slavery; and as these are -now removed, believe the others surely will be also. This -enfranchised Republic, setting an example to mankind, cannot -continue to sanction an odious oligarchy whose single -distinctive element is color. I have no doubt that you will -be admitted to the privileges of citizens.</p> - -<p>“It is impossible to suppose that Congress will sanction -governments in the Rebel States which are not founded on -‘the consent of the governed.’ This is the corner-stone of -republican institutions. Of course, by the ‘governed’ is -meant all the loyal citizens, without distinction of col<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</a></span>or. -Anything else is mockery.</p> - -<p>“Never neglect your work; but, meanwhile, prepare yourselves -for the privileges of citizens. They are yours of right, -and I do not doubt that they will be yours soon in reality. -The prejudice of Caste and a false interpretation of the Constitution -cannot prevail against justice and common sense, -both of which are on your side,—and I may add, the Constitution -also, which, when properly interpreted, is clearly on -your side.</p> - -<p>“Accept my best wishes, and believe me, fellow-citizens, -faithfully yours,</p> - -<p class="sig">“<span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>.”<a name="FNanchor_254" id="FNanchor_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>This was followed by an elaborate speech before the -Republican State Convention at Worcester, September -14, 1865, entitled “The National Security and the National -Faith: Guaranties for the National Freedman and -the National Creditor,”—where I insisted that national -peace and tranquillity could be had only from <i>impartial -suffrage</i>; and I believe that it was on this occasion that -this phrase, which has since become a formula of politics, -was first publicly employed. My language was as -follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“As the national peace and tranquillity depend essentially -upon the overthrow of monopoly and tyranny, here is another -occasion for special guaranty against the whole pretension -of color. <i>No Rebel State can be readmitted with this controversy -still raging and ready to break forth.</i>”</p> - -</div> - -<p>Mark the words, if you please.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“So long as it continues, the land will be barren, agriculture -and business of all kinds will be uncertain, and the country -will be handed over to a fearful struggle, with the terrors -of San Domingo to darken the prospect. In shutting out the -freedman from his equal rights at the ballot-box, you open -the doors of discontent and insurrection. Cavaignac, the -patriotic President of the French Republic, met the present -case, when, speaking for France, he said: ‘I do not believe -repose possible, either in the present or the future, except -so far as you found your political condition on universal suffrage, -loyally, sincerely, completely accepted and observed.’”<a name="FNanchor_255" id="FNanchor_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>I then proceeded,—not adopting the term “universal -suffrage,” employed by the eminent Frenchman,—as -follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“It is <i>impartial suffrage</i> that I claim, without distinction -of color, so that there shall be one equal rule for all men. -And this, too, must be placed under the safeguard of Constitutional -Law.”<a name="FNanchor_256" id="FNanchor_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>I followed up this effort by a communication to that -powerful and extensively circulated paper, the New -York “Independent,” under date of Boston, October -29, 1865, where I expressed myself as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“For the sake of the whole country, which suffers from -weakness in any part,—for the sake of the States lately distracted -by war, which above all things need security and repose,—for -the sake of agriculture, which is neglected there,—for -the sake of commerce, which has fled,—for the sake -of the national creditor, whose generous trust is exposed to -repudiation,—and, finally, for the sake of reconciliation, -which can be complete only when justice prevails, we must -insist upon Equal Rights as the condition of the new order -of things.”</p> - -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</a></span></p> -<p>Mark, if you please, Sir, “as the condition of the new -order of things,”—or, as I called it on other occasions, -the corner-stone of Reconstruction.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“So long as this question remains unsettled, there can be -no true peace. Therefore I would say to the merchant who -wishes to open trade with this region, to the capitalist who -would send his money there, to the emigrant who seeks to -find a home there, Begin by assuring justice to all men. This -is the one essential condition of prosperity, of credit, and of -tranquillity. Without this, mercantile houses, banks, and -emigration societies having anything to do with this region -must all fail, or at least suffer in business and resources. To -Congress we must look as guardian, under the Constitution, -of the national safety.”<a name="FNanchor_257" id="FNanchor_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Meanwhile the President adopted a policy of reaction. -I was at home in Massachusetts, and from Boston, under -date of November 12, 1865, I addressed him a telegraphic -dispatch, as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</a></span> -continue divided against itself.</p> - -<p class="sig">“<span class="smcap">Charles Sumner</span>,<br /> -“<i>Senator of the United States</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_258" id="FNanchor_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Not content with these efforts, in an article more literary -than political in its character, which found a place -in the “Atlantic Monthly” for December, 1865, entitled, -“Clemency and Common Sense: a Curiosity of -Literature, with a Moral,” I again returned to this same -question. I will quote only a brief passage.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Again, we are told gravely that the national power which -decreed Emancipation cannot maintain it by assuring universal -enfranchisement, because an imperial government must be -discountenanced,—as if the whole suggestion of ‘Imperialism’ -or ‘Centralism’ were not out of place, until the national -security is established, and our debts, whether to the national -freedman or the national creditor, are placed where they cannot -be repudiated. A phantom is created, and, to avoid this -phantom, we drive towards concession and compromise, as -from Charybdis to Scylla.”<a name="FNanchor_259" id="FNanchor_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The session of Congress opened December 4, 1865, -and you will find that on the first day I introduced two -distinct measures of Reconstruction, with Equality before -the Law as their corner-stone. The first was a bill -in the following terms:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="center">“A Bill in part execution of the guaranty of a republican form -of government in the Constitution of the United States.</p> - -<p>“Whereas it is declared in the Constitution that the United -States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican -form of government; and whereas certain States have -allowed their governments to be subverted by rebell<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</a></span>ion, so -that the duty is now cast upon Congress of executing this -guaranty: Now, therefore,</p> - -<p>“<i>Be it enacted, &c.</i>, That in all States lately declared to be -in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy invested with peculiar -privileges and powers, and there shall be no denial of rights, -civil or political, on account of race or color; but all persons -shall be equal before the law, whether in the court-room or at -the ballot-box. And this statute, made in pursuance of the -Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything -in the Constitution or laws of any such State to the contrary -notwithstanding.”<a name="FNanchor_260" id="FNanchor_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The second was “A Bill to enforce the guaranty of a -republican form of government in certain States whose -governments have been usurped or overthrown.”<a name="FNanchor_261" id="FNanchor_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> Read -this bill, if you please, Sir. I challenge criticism of it -at this date, in the light of all our present experience. -It is in twelve sections, and you will find in it the very -proposition which is now in question,—being the requirement -of Equal Rights for All in the reconstruction -of the Rebel States.</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Sec. 5.</span> <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That the delegates”—</p> - -</div> - -<p class="noindent">that is, the delegates to the Convention for the reëstablishment -of a State government—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p class="noindent">“shall be elected by <i>the loyal male citizens</i> of the United -States, of the age of twenty-one years, and resident at the -time in the county, parish, or district in which they shall -offer to vote, and enrolled as aforesaid, or absent in the military -service of the United States.”<a name="FNanchor_262" id="FNanchor_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a></p> - -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</a></span></p> -<p>And then the bill proceeds to provide,—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Sec. 8.</span> … That the Convention shall declare, on -behalf of the people of the State, their submission to the -Constitution and laws of the United States, and shall adopt -the following provisions, hereby prescribed by the United -States in the execution of the constitutional duty to guaranty -a republican form of government to every State, and -incorporate them in the Constitution of the State: that is -to say:—”</p> - -</div> - -<p>After one—two—three—four provisions, the section -proceeds as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Fifthly, There shall be no distinction among the inhabitants -of this State founded on race, former condition, or -color. Every such inhabitant shall be entitled to all the -privileges before the law enjoyed by the most favored class -of such inhabitants.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>And the section concludes:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Sixthly, These provisions shall be perpetual, not to be -abolished or changed hereafter.”<a name="FNanchor_263" id="FNanchor_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Nor is this all. On the same day I introduced “A -Bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the -Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery,”<a name="FNanchor_264" id="FNanchor_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a> -of which I will read the third section:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">[Pg 325]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“That, in further enforcement of the provision of the -Constitution prohibiting Slavery, and in order to remove all -relics of this wrong from the States where this constitutional -prohibition takes effect, it is hereby declared that all laws or -customs in such States, establishing any oligarchical privileges, -and any distinction of rights on account of race or -color, are hereby annulled, <i>and all persons in such States are -recognized as equal before the law</i>; and the penalties provided -in the last section are hereby made applicable to any violation -of this provision, which is made in pursuance of the -Constitution of the United States.”<a name="FNanchor_265" id="FNanchor_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Still further, on the same day I introduced “Resolutions -declaratory of the duty of Congress in respect to -guaranties of the national security and the national faith -in the Rebel States.” One of these guaranties which I -proposed to establish was as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The complete suppression of all oligarchical pretensions, -and the complete enfranchisement of all citizens, <i>so that there -shall be no denial of rights on account of color or race</i>; but -justice shall be impartial, and all shall be equal before the -law.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>I added also a provision which I was unable to carry,—it -was lost by a tie vote,—as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The organization of an educational system for the equal -benefit of all, without distinction of color or race.”<a name="FNanchor_266" id="FNanchor_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Such, Sir, were the measures which I had the honor -of bringing forward at the very beginning of the session. -During the same session, in an elaborate effort -which occupied two days, February 5 and 6, 1866, and -is entitled “The Equal Rights of All: the great Guaranty -and present Necessity, for the sake of Security, -and to maintain a Republican Government,” I vindicated -the necessity of the colored suffrage in order to -obtain peace and reconciliation, and I placed it on the -foundations of Constitutional Law as well as natural<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">[Pg 326]</a></span> -justice. Here is a passage from this speech:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“And here, after this long review, I am brought back to -more general considerations, and end as I began, by showing -the necessity of Enfranchisement for the sake of public security -and public faith. I plead now for the ballot, as the -great guaranty, and <i>the only sufficient guaranty</i>,—being in -itself peacemaker, reconciler, schoolmaster, and protector,—to -which we are bound by every necessity and every reason; -and I speak also for the good of the States lately in rebellion, -as well as for the glory and safety of the Republic, that -it may be an example to mankind.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>The speech closed as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The Roman Cato, after declaring his belief in the immortality -of the soul, added, that, if this were an error, it was an -error he loved. And now, declaring my belief in Liberty -and Equality as the God-given birthright of all men, let me -say, in the same spirit, if this be an error, it is an error I -love,—if this be a fault, it is a fault I shall be slow to renounce,—if -this be an illusion, it is an illusion which I -pray may wrap the world in its angelic forms.”<a name="FNanchor_267" id="FNanchor_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>The discussion still proceeded, and only a month later, -March 7, 1866, I made another elaborate effort with -the same object, from which I read my constant testimony:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">[Pg 327]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“I do not stop to exhibit the elective franchise as essential -to the security of the freedman, without which he will -be the prey of Slavery in some new form, and cannot rise -to the stature of manhood. In opening this debate I presented -the argument fully. Suffice it to say that Emancipation -will fail in beneficence, if you do not assure to the -former slave all the rights of the citizen. Until you do this, -your work will be only <i>half done</i>, and the freedman only -<i>half a man</i>.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>This speech closed as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“Recall the precious words of the early English writer, -who, describing ‘the Good Sea-Captain,’ tells us that he -‘counts the image of God nevertheless His image, cut in -ebony, as if done in ivory.’<a name="FNanchor_268" id="FNanchor_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> The good statesman must be -like the good sea-captain. His ship is the State, which he -keeps safe on its track. He, too, must see the image of God -in all his fellow-men, and, in the discharge of his responsible -duties, must set his face forever against any recognition of -inequality in human rights. Other things you may do, but -this you must not do.”<a name="FNanchor_269" id="FNanchor_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>I do not quote other efforts, other speeches, but pass -to the next session of Congress, when, at the beginning, -under date of December 5, 1866, I introduced resolutions -thus entitled:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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>Of these resolutions the fourth is as follows:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">[Pg 328]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“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 <i>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</i>.”<a name="FNanchor_270" id="FNanchor_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a></p> - -</div> - -<p>Meanwhile the subject of Reconstruction was practically -discussed in both Houses of Congress. In this -Chamber a bill was introduced by the Senator from -Oregon [Mr. <span class="smcap">Williams</span>], providing a military government. -In the House there was another bill, and on -that bill good Representatives—to whom be all honor!—sought -to ingraft the requirement of colored suffrage. -This effort, unhappily, did not prevail. The bill -came to this Chamber without it. In this Chamber the -same effort was made; but the bill, while it was still -immatured, passed into our caucus. The effort which -had thus far failed was then renewed by me in the committee, -where it again failed. It was then renewed by -me in the caucus, where it triumphed. This is the history -of that proposition. I claim nothing for myself. -I alluded to it the other day only in direct reply to the -arraignment of the Senator from Illinois. I allude to -it now reluctantly, and only in direct reply to the arraignment -of the Senator from Nevada. I regret to be -obliged to make any allusion to it. I think there is no -occasion for any. I have erred, perhaps, in taking so -much time in this explanation; but when the Senator, -after days and weeks of interval, came here with his -second indictment, I felt that I might without impropriety -throw myself upon the indulgence of this Chamber -to make the simple explanation that I have made.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">[Pg 329]</a></span></p> -<p>I have shown that as early as February 25, 1865, I -proposed in this Chamber to require the colored suffrage -as the corner-stone of Reconstruction. I have -shown that in an elaborate bill introduced December -4, 1865, being a bill of Reconstruction, I required the -very things which were afterward introduced in the -Reconstruction Act of 1867; and I have shown also -that here in this Chamber, at home among my constituents, -in direct intercourse with the President, and also -in communication with colored persons at the South, -from the beginning, I insisted upon the colored suffrage -as the essential condition of Reconstruction. It so happened -that I was a member of the committee appointed -by the caucus to consider this question, giving me the -opportunity there of moving it again; and then I had -another opportunity in the caucus of renewing the effort. -I did renew it, and, thank God, it was successful.</p> - -<p>Had Mr. Bingham or Mr. Blaine, who made a kindred -effort in the House, been of our committee, and -then of our caucus, I do not doubt they would have -done the same thing. My colleague did not use too -strong language, when he said that then and there, in -that small room, in that caucus, was decided the greatest -pending question on the North American Continent. -I remember his delight, his ecstasy, at the result. I remember -other language that he employed on that occasion, -which I do not quote. I know he was elevated by -the triumph; and yet it was carried only by two votes. -There are Senators who were present at that caucus according -to whose recollection it was carried only by one -vote. The Postmaster-General, in conversing with me -on this subject lately, told me that he had often, in addressing -his constituents, alluded to this result as illustrating<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">[Pg 330]</a></span> -the importance of one vote in deciding a great -question. The Postmaster-General was in error. It -was not by one vote, but by two votes, that it was -carried.</p> - -<div class="medium"> - -<p>Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, following with personal recollections concerning -the provision for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of -1867, said it was his “impression” that the motion for its adoption -“in caucus” was made by “the Senator’s colleague [Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span>],” -“but undoubtedly the other Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. <span class="smcap">Sumner</span>] -made it in committee, and advocated it,”—adding, however, -“Neither the Senator from Massachusetts nor any other Senator can -claim any great merit in voting for universal suffrage in February or -March, 1867. His record was made long before that.” In reference -to the latter Mr. Sherman remarked:—</p> - -<div class="blockquote"> - -<p>“The Senator from Massachusetts needs no defender of his course on the -question of universal suffrage. No man can deny that from the first, and -I think the very first, he has advocated and maintained the necessity of -giving to the colored people of the Southern States the right to vote.… -Early and late he has repeated to us the necessity of conferring suffrage -upon the colored people of the South as the basis of Reconstruction. I -think, therefore, that he is justified in stating that he was the first to propose -it in this body; and why should the Senator deem it necessary to -spend one hour of our valuable time now to prove this fact? In my judgment -it would be just as well for George Washington to defend himself -against the charge of disloyalty to the American Colonies, for whom he was -fighting, as for the honorable Senator to defend his record on this question.”</p> - -</div> - -<p>After further remarks by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Trumbull, of the -same character as the first, Mr. Wilson rose and addressed the Chair; -but a previous motion for adjournment being insisted upon and prevailing, -he was cut off, and the matter subsided.</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> - -<div class="footnotes"> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1" id="Footnote_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Wordsworth, The Excursion, Book IV. 1293-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2" id="Footnote_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Speech on the Bill for the Admission of Nebraska, January 15, 1867: -Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 478.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_3" id="Footnote_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> “Non hoc præcipuum amicorum munus est, prosequi defunctum ignavo -questu, sed quæ voluerit meminisse, quæ mandaverit exsequi.”—<span class="smcap">Tacitus</span>, -<i>Annalia</i>, Lib. II. cap. 71.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_4" id="Footnote_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Senate Reports, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 128.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_5" id="Footnote_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Quæstiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_6" id="Footnote_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Quæstiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_7" id="Footnote_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Letter to Mr. Hammond, May 29, 1792: Writings, Vol. III. p. 369.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_8" id="Footnote_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 9, § 168.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_9" id="Footnote_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Law of Nations, pp. 138, 139.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_10" id="Footnote_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Coleridge, The Piccolomini, Act I. Scene 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_11" id="Footnote_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 18, §§ 293-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_12" id="Footnote_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Prize Cases: 2 Black, R., 674.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_13" id="Footnote_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Mrs. Alexander’s Cotton: 2 Wallace, R., 419.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_14" id="Footnote_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_15" id="Footnote_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 15, § 232.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_16" id="Footnote_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur, (Boston, 1825,) pp. 305-6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_17" id="Footnote_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur, (Boston, 1825,) p. 304.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_18" id="Footnote_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Secretary Marcy to General Taylor, Sept. 22, 1846: Executive Documents, -30th Cong. 1st Sess., Senate. No. 1, p. 564.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_19" id="Footnote_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> International Law, Ch. XIX. § 17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_20" id="Footnote_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Vol. XI. p. 169, note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_21" id="Footnote_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Alison, History of Europe, (Edinburgh, 1843,) Vol. IX. p. 880.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_22" id="Footnote_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Letter to Lieut. Gen. Sir John Hope, Oct. 8, 1813: Dispatches, Vol. XI. -pp. 169-170.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_23" id="Footnote_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Sabine, Loyalists of the American Revolution, (Boston, 1864,) Vol. I. -p. 112.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_24" id="Footnote_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Debate in the House of Commons, on the Compensation to the American -Loyalists, June 6, 1788: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XXVII. -col. 610.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_25" id="Footnote_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Ibid., col. 614.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_26" id="Footnote_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Ibid., col. 616.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_27" id="Footnote_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Ibid., col. 617.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_28" id="Footnote_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> American State Papers: Claims, p. 198.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_29" id="Footnote_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_30" id="Footnote_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Ibid., p. 199.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_31" id="Footnote_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> House Reports, 1830-1, No. 68; 1831-2, No. 88; 1832-3, No. 11. -Act, March 2, 1833: Private Laws, p. 546.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_32" id="Footnote_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> American State Papers: Claims, p. 446. Act, March 1, 1815: Private -Laws, p. 151.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_33" id="Footnote_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> American State Papers: Claims, p. 444. Act, February 27, 1815: Private -Laws, p. 150.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_34" id="Footnote_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> American State Papers: Claims, p. 462.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_35" id="Footnote_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> American State Papers: Claims, p. 521. Acts, March 3, 1817: Private -Laws, pp. 194, 187.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_36" id="Footnote_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> American State Papers: Claims, pp. 521, 522. Annals of Congress, -14th Cong. 2d Sess., coll. 215, 1036.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_37" id="Footnote_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> American State Papers: Claims, p. 835. Annals of Congress, 17th -Cong. 1st Sess., col. 311.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_38" id="Footnote_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. III. p. 263.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_39" id="Footnote_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> American State Papers: Claims, p. 590.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_40" id="Footnote_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_41" id="Footnote_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> January 14th, Mr. Wilson moved, as an amendment to the pending -bill, a substitute providing for the appointment of “commissioners to examine -and report all claims for quartermasters’ stores and subsistence supplies -furnished the military forces of the United States, during the late -civil war, by loyal persons in the States lately in rebellion.”—<i>Congressional -Globe</i>, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 359.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_42" id="Footnote_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Speech in the House of Commons, January 14, 1766: Hansard’s Parliamentary -History, Vol. XVI. col. 104.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_43" id="Footnote_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Speeches in the Senate on “Political Equality without Distinction -of Color,” March 7, 1866, and the “Validity and Necessity of Fundamental -Conditions on States,” June 10, 1868: <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 307-9; -Vol. XVI. pp. 246-9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_44" id="Footnote_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Chap. XXV., Title.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_45" id="Footnote_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Chap. XXIX.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_46" id="Footnote_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Speech in the Senate, February 5 and 6, 1866: <i>Ante</i>, Vol. X. p. 184.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_47" id="Footnote_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> The Federalist, No. LIV., by Alexander Hamilton.—Concerning the -authorship of this paper, see the Historical Notice, by J. C. Hamilton, -pp. xcv-cvi, and cxix-cxxvii, prefixed to his edition of the Federalist -(Philadelphia, 1864).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_48" id="Footnote_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Elliot’s Debates, (2d edit.,) Vol. III. p. 367.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_49" id="Footnote_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> 19 Howard, R., 476.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_50" id="Footnote_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> M’Culloch <i>v.</i> State of Maryland: 4 Wheaton, R., 408-21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_51" id="Footnote_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> For the full text of the Convention, see Parliamentary Papers, 1868-9, -Vol. LXIII.,—North America, No. 1, pp. 36-38; Executive Documents, -41st Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, No. 11,—Correspondence concerning Claims -against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 752-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_52" id="Footnote_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> A term applied in England to the Ashburton Treaty,—and Lord Palmerston -thought “<i>most properly</i>.”—<i>Debate in the House of Commons</i>, -February 2, 1843: Hansard, 3d Ser., Vol. LXVI. coll. 87, 121, 127.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_53" id="Footnote_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Stapleton’s Political Life of Canning, (London, 1831,) Vol. II. p. 408. -Speech of Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, May 6, 1861: -Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 1566.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_54" id="Footnote_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Speech in the House of Lords, May 16, 1861: Hansard’s Parliamentary -Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 2084.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_55" id="Footnote_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> On Foreign Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals, (London, -1859,) p. 75. See also pp. 59, 65-67.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_56" id="Footnote_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. I. pp. -21-22: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, No. 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_57" id="Footnote_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Hautefeuille, Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres, (2ème -Édit., Paris, 1858,) Tit. IX. chap. 7. Parliamentary Papers, 1837, Vol. -LIV.; 1837-8, Vol. LII.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_58" id="Footnote_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Le Droit International Public de l’Europe, (Berlin et Paris, 1857,) -§§ 112, 121.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_59" id="Footnote_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, July 24, 1862: Correspondence concerning -Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 26, 29.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_60" id="Footnote_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, March 27, 1863: Parliamentary Papers, -1864, Vol. LXII.,—North America, No. I. pp. 2, 3. Speech in the House -of Lords, February 16, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., -Vol. CLXXIII. coll. 632, 633.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_61" id="Footnote_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Deposition of William Passmore, July 21, 1862,—in Note of Mr. Adams -to Earl Russell, July 22, 1862: Correspondence concerning Claims against -Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 25-26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_62" id="Footnote_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> Schedule annexed to Deposition of John Latham, in Note of Mr. Adams -to Earl Russell, January 13, 1864: Ibid., Vol. III. pp. 213-16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_63" id="Footnote_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Speech in the House of Commons, March 27, 1863: Hansard’s Parliamentary -Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXX. coll. 71-72; The Times (London), -March 28, 1863.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_64" id="Footnote_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Circular of May 11, 1841,—inclosing Circular to British functionaries -abroad, dated May 8, 1841, together with a Memorial of the General -Antislavery Convention held at London, June 20, 1840: Parliamentary -Papers, 1842, Vols. XLIII., XLIV.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_65" id="Footnote_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, (London, 1868,) Vol. I. p. 239.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_66" id="Footnote_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> Rebellion Record, Vol. VII., Part 3, p. 52.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_67" id="Footnote_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Speech, May 13, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. -CLXXV. col. 505.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_68" id="Footnote_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Speech at Rochdale, February 3, 1863: See preceding page.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_69" id="Footnote_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Speech of Prof. Goldwin Smith, at a Meeting of the Union and Emancipation -Society, Manchester, England, April 6, 1863, on the Subject of War -Ships for the Southern Confederacy: Report, p. 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_70" id="Footnote_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Mr. Canning to Mr. Monroe, August 3, 1807: American State Papers, -Foreign Relations, Vol. III. p. 188.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_71" id="Footnote_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe, November 1, 1811: American State Papers, -Foreign Relations, Vol. III. pp. 499-500.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_72" id="Footnote_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton, July 27, 1842: Executive Documents, -27th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, p. 124.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_73" id="Footnote_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, July 28, 1842: Executive Documents, -27th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, p. 134.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_74" id="Footnote_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Speech in the House of Commons, May 13, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary -Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXV. coll. 496-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_75" id="Footnote_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Speech in the House of Commons, May 13, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary -Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXV. col. 498.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_76" id="Footnote_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Ibid., col. 493.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_77" id="Footnote_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> Page 27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_78" id="Footnote_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXV. col. 493.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_79" id="Footnote_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Ibid., col. 498. For official returns cited in the text, see Parliamentary -Papers for 1864, Vol. LX. No. 137.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_80" id="Footnote_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 1, 1868, Appendix -B: Executive Documents, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, p. 496.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_81" id="Footnote_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_82" id="Footnote_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> Report of F. H. Morse, U. S. Consul at London, dated January 1, 1868: -Commercial Relations of the United States with Foreign Nations for the -Year ending September 30, 1867: Executive Documents, 40th Cong. 2d -Sess., H. of R., No. 160, p. 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_83" id="Footnote_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> See Statement of Tonnage of United States from 1789 to 1866, in Report -of Secretary of Treasury for 1866: Executive Documents, 39th Cong. 2d -Sess., H. of R., No. 4, pp. 355-6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_84" id="Footnote_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the National Board of Trade, -December, 1868, p. 186.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_85" id="Footnote_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> Speech, May 13, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. -CLXXV. col. 496.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_86" id="Footnote_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> Greenleaf on the Law of Evidence, Part IV. § 256.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_87" id="Footnote_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> Digest. Lib. XLVI. Tit. 8, cap. 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_88" id="Footnote_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Pothier on the Law of Obligations, tr. Evans, Part I. Ch. 2, Art. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_89" id="Footnote_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Commentaries, Vol. III. p. 219.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_90" id="Footnote_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> Tomlins, Law Dictionary, art. <span class="smcap">Nuisance</span>, IV.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_91" id="Footnote_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> Ovid, Metamorph. Lib. I. 185-6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_92" id="Footnote_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Nov. 20, 1862: Correspondence concerning -Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 70-73.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_93" id="Footnote_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Same to same: Ibid., pp. 180-2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_94" id="Footnote_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Ibid., p. 562.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_95" id="Footnote_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Ibid., pp. 581-2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_96" id="Footnote_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> Ibid., p. 632; and General Appendix, No. XV., Vol. IV. pp. 422, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_97" id="Footnote_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Vol. VI. p. 150.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_98" id="Footnote_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> Speech in the House of Commons, December 5, 1774: Hansard’s Parliamentary -History, Vol. XVIII. col. 45.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_99" id="Footnote_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> Speech, September 14, 1865: <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 305, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_100" id="Footnote_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> North American Review for January, 1844, Vol. LVIII. p. 150.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_101" id="Footnote_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> Report of the Special Commissioner of the Revenue for 1868: Executive -Documents, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., H. of R., No. 16, p. 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_102" id="Footnote_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> $300,000,000.—Act of June 3, 1864, Sec. 22: Statutes at Large, Vol.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_103" id="Footnote_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> De l’Esprit des Lois, Liv. III. chs. 3, 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_104" id="Footnote_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> Paradise Lost, Book I. 742-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_105" id="Footnote_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> Sallust, Catilina, Cap. 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_106" id="Footnote_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> 2 Henry IV., Act IV. Scene 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_107" id="Footnote_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> Not a transcript of the famous epitaph on the tomb at Seville,—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“A Castilla y á Leon</div> -<div class="verse">Nuevo mundo dió Colon,”—</div> -</div> -</div> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">(“To Castile and Leon Columbus gave a new world,”)—</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">but part of a Latin inscription, to the same effect, on a mural tablet in the -Cathedral at Havana, the last resting-place of the remains of the great -navigator:—</p> - -<p>“Claris. heros Ligustin. <span class="smcap">Christophorus Colombus</span> a se rei nautic. -scient. insign. nov. orb. detect. atque Castell. et Legion. regib. subject.,” -etc.—</p> - -<p>Literally rendered, “The most illustrious Genoese hero, <span class="smcap">Christopher -Columbus</span>, by himself, through remarkable nautical science, a new world -having been discovered and subjected to the kings of Castile and Leon,” -etc.</p> - -<p>See <span class="smcap">Masse</span>, <i>L’Isle de Cuba et La Havane</i>, (Paris, 1825,) p. 201.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_108" id="Footnote_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> Discours sur les Progrès successifs de l’Esprit Humain: Œuvres, éd. -Daire, (Paris, 1844,) Tom. II. p. 602.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_109" id="Footnote_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> Coxe, Memoirs of the Kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon, Ch. -LXXIII.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_110" id="Footnote_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> Letter to Robert R. Livingston, December 14, 1782: Diplomatic Correspondence -of the American Revolution, ed. Sparks, Vol. VII. p. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_111" id="Footnote_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> Speech in Executive Session of the Senate on the Johnson-Clarendon -Treaty, April 13, 1869: <i>Ante</i>, pp. 53, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_112" id="Footnote_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> Journals of Congress, October 26, 1774; May 29, 1775; January 24, -February 15, March 20, 1776. American Archives, 4th Ser., Vol. I. coll. -930-4; II. 1838-9; IV. 1653, 1672; V. 411-13, 1643-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_113" id="Footnote_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> “I, fili mi, ut videas quantulâ sapientiâ regatur mundus.”—<span class="smcap">Oxenstiern</span>, -to his son, “as he was departing to assist at the congress of statesmen.” -(<span class="smcap">Brougham</span>, <i>Speech in the House of Lords</i>, January 18, 1838: -Hansard, 3d Ser., Vol. XL. col. 207.) “The congress of statesmen” alluded -to was that convened in 1648 for the negotiation of the Treaty of -Westphalia, which terminated the Thirty Years’ War.—It may be remarked -that other authorities represent the occasion of this famous saying -to have been a letter from the young envoy to his father, while in attendance -at the congress, expressing a sense of need of the most mature wisdom -for a mission so important and difficult,—the old Chancellor replying in -terms variously cited thus:—“Mi fili, parvo mundus regitur intellectu”;—“Nescis, -mi fili, quantillâ prudentiâ homines regantur”;—“An nescis, mi -fili, quantillâ prudentiâ regatur orbis?”—See <span class="smcap">Harte</span>, <i>History of Gustavus -Adolphus</i>, (London, 1807,) Vol. II. p. 142; <i>Biographie Universelle</i>, (Michaud, -Paris, 1822,) art. <span class="smcap">Oxenstierna</span>, Axel; <span class="smcap">Boiteau</span>, <i>Les Reines du -Nord</i>, in <i>Le Magasin de Librairie</i>, (Charpentier, Paris, 1858,) Tom. I. -p. 436.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_114" id="Footnote_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> Discorsi, Lib. I. capp. 2, 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_115" id="Footnote_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> McPherson’s History of the United States during the Great Rebellion, -p. 606.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_116" id="Footnote_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> Manual of Political Ethics, (Boston, 1838,) Part I. p. 171.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_117" id="Footnote_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> Plato, Protagoras, § 82, p. 343. Pliny, Nat. Hist., Lib. VII. cap. 32.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_118" id="Footnote_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> “Eunt homines admirari alta montium, et ingentes fluctus maris, et -latissimos lapsus fluminum, et Oceani ambitum, et gyros siderum, et relinquunt -seipsos.”—<i>Confessiones</i>, Edit. Benedict., Lib. X. Cap. VIII. 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_119" id="Footnote_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> Essays, <i>John Bunyan</i>, (New York, 1862,) Vol. VI. p. 132.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_120" id="Footnote_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. VI. pp. 314-16, art. <span class="smcap">Caste</span>, -and the authorities there cited.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_121" id="Footnote_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> Institutes of Hindoo Law, or the Ordinances of Menu, translated by -Sir William Jones: Works, (London, 1807,) Vols. VII., VIII. Mill, British -India, Book II. ch. 2; also, Art. <span class="smcap">Caste</span>, Encyclopædia Britannica, -(8th edit.,) Vol. VI. Robertson, Ancient India, Note LVIII. [Appendix, -Note I.]. Dubois, People of India, Part III. ch. 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_122" id="Footnote_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> Narrative of a Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, etc., -(London, 1829,) Vol. III. p. 355.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_123" id="Footnote_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> Mill, Art. <span class="smcap">Caste</span>, Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. VI. p. -319.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_124" id="Footnote_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> Gurowski, Slavery in History, (New York, 1860,) p. 237.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_125" id="Footnote_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> Genesis, i. 27-28.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_126" id="Footnote_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> Acts, xvii. 26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_127" id="Footnote_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> Legend on the coat-of-arms beneath the portrait in Stoever’s Life of -Linnæus, (London, 1794,)—said to have originated with an eminent scientific -friend of the great naturalist.—<i>Preface</i>, pp. xi-xii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_128" id="Footnote_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> Richard the Second, Act I. Scene 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_129" id="Footnote_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> Nott and Gliddon, Types of Mankind, p. 169.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_130" id="Footnote_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> The Races of Man, p. 306.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_131" id="Footnote_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> Dissertation sur les Variétés Naturelles qui caractérisent la Physionomie -des Hommes, tr. Jansen, (Paris, 1792,) Ch. III.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_132" id="Footnote_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> For a notice of the principal writers and theories on the subject of Races, -including those mentioned in the text, see the article on <span class="smcap">Ethnology</span>, -by Dr. Kneeland, in the “New American Cyclopædia,” (1st edit.,) Vol. -VII. pp. 306-11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_133" id="Footnote_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> In reference to the theory of many Homers instead of one, the German -Voss used to say, “It would be a greater miracle, had there been many -Homers, than it is that there was one.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_134" id="Footnote_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> Egypt’s Place in Universal History, (London, 1860,) Vol. IV. p. 480.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_135" id="Footnote_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, (London, 1838,) pp. 34, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_136" id="Footnote_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> Letter to Mr. Lyell, February 20, 1836: Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, -Appendix, Note I, p. 226.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_137" id="Footnote_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. IX. p. 354,—art. <span class="smcap">Ethnology</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_138" id="Footnote_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> Voyage de l’Astrolabe, Tom. II. pp. 627, 628.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_139" id="Footnote_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> Histoire Naturelle, (2me édit.,) Tom. III. pp. 529-30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_140" id="Footnote_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen, (Coblenz, 1840,) Band II. -s. 773.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_141" id="Footnote_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> Cosmos, tr. Otté, (London, 1848,) pp. 364-8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_142" id="Footnote_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> Merchant of Venice, Act III. Scene 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_143" id="Footnote_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a> Pope, Essay on Man, Ep. I. 112.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_144" id="Footnote_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> Natural Provinces of the Animal World, and their Relation to the Different -Types of Man: prefixed to Nott and Gliddon’s “Types of Mankind,” -p. lxxv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_145" id="Footnote_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> Ueber die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java, (Berlin, 1839,) Band III. -s. 426.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_146" id="Footnote_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> Cosmos, tr. Otté, Vol. I. pp. 368, 369.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_147" id="Footnote_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> Plutarch, Symposiaca, Lib. VIII. Quæst. 2: Moralia, ed. Wyttenbach, -Tom. III. p. 961.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_148" id="Footnote_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> Metaphysica, Lib. XIII. cap. 3, § 9: Opera, ed. Bekker, (Oxonii, 1837,) -Tom. VIII. p. 277.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_149" id="Footnote_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, 2 Theil, Beschluss: Sämmtliche Werke, -herausg. von Hartenstein, (Leipzig, 1867,) Band V. s. 167.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_150" id="Footnote_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> Isaiah, xiii. 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_151" id="Footnote_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> Cæsar, De Bello Gallico, Lib. V. cap. 14; VI. 13, 16. Prichard, Physical -History of Mankind, (London, 1841,) Vol. III. pp. 179, 187.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_152" id="Footnote_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> History of England, (London, 1849,) Vol. I. p. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_153" id="Footnote_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> Physical History of Mankind, Vol. III. p. 182.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_154" id="Footnote_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> Geographica, Lib. IV. cap. 5, § 2, p. 200. Prichard, Physical History -of Mankind, Vol. III. pp. 196-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_155" id="Footnote_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> Herodian, Hist., Lib. III. cap. 14, § 13. Dion Cassius, Hist. Rom., -Lib. LXXVI. cap. 12. Prichard, Vol. III. pp. 155-6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_156" id="Footnote_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> For details, see Prichard, Vol. III. pp. 137-8, and the authorities -there cited.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_157" id="Footnote_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> De Bello Gallico, Lib. V. cap. 14.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_158" id="Footnote_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> Diodorus Siculus, Biblioth. Histor., Lib. V. cap. 31, p. 213. Encyclopædia -Britannica, (8th edit.,) Vol. V. p. 375, art. <span class="smcap">Britain</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_159" id="Footnote_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> Procopius, De Bello Gothico, Lib. IV. cap. 20, p. 623, D. Macaulay, -History of England, Vol. I. p. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_160" id="Footnote_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> Macaulay, Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_161" id="Footnote_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> Ibid., p. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_162" id="Footnote_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> Henry, History of Great Britain, (London, 1805,) Vol. IV. pp. 237, -239.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_163" id="Footnote_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> Leges Regis Edwardi Confessoris, xxv. <i>De Judeis</i>: Ancient Laws and -Institutes of England, ed. Thorpe, Vol. I. p. 453. Milman, History of the -Jews, (London, 1863,) Vol. III. pp. 238, 249.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_164" id="Footnote_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> Pii Secundi Commentarii Rerum Memorabilium quæ Temporibus suis -contigerunt, (Romæ, 1584,) pp. 6-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_165" id="Footnote_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> Erasmus Rot. Francisco, Cardinalis Eboracensis Medico [A. D. 1515],—Epist. -432, App.: Opera, (Lugd. Batav., 1703,) Tom. III. col. 1815. Jortin’s -Life of Erasmus, (London, 1808,) Vol. I. p. 69; III. p. 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_166" id="Footnote_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, (7me édit., Paris, 1866,) p. 269.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_167" id="Footnote_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> De Bello Gallico, Lib. V. cap. 14.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_168" id="Footnote_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> Ritter, Erdkunde, (Berlin, 1832,) Theil II. ss. 22-25. Guyot, The -Earth and Man, (Boston, 1850,) pp. 44-47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_169" id="Footnote_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> Cosmos, tr. Otté, Vol. I. p. 368.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_170" id="Footnote_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse">“Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona</div> -<div class="verse">Multi.”</div> -<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Horat.</span> <i>Carm.</i> Lib. IV. ix. 25-26.</p> -</div> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_171" id="Footnote_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> Métral, Histoire de l’Expédition des Français à Saint-Domingue, sous -le Consulat de Napoléon Bonaparte; suivie des Mémoires et Notes d’Isaac -Louverture sur la même Expédition, et sur la Vie de son Père. Paris, -1825.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_172" id="Footnote_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> Nell, Services of Colored Americans in the Wars of 1776 and 1812, -pp. 23-24.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_173" id="Footnote_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> Dumont, Mémoires Historiques sur la Louisiane, (Paris, 1753,) Tom. -II. pp. 244-6. Mercier, Mon Bonnet de Nuit, art. <i>Morale</i>, (Amsterdam, -1784,) Tom. II. p. 226.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_174" id="Footnote_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> Copy of a Letter from Benjamin Banneker to the Secretary of State, -with his Answer, (Philadelphia, 1792,) p. 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_175" id="Footnote_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> Chapitres VII., VIII.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_176" id="Footnote_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> Catherine Ferguson: Lossing’s Eminent Americans, p. 404.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_177" id="Footnote_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> Mungo Park, Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa, (London, 1816,) -Vol. I. pp. 45, 257. Grégoire, De la Littérature des Nègres, (Paris, 1808,) -p. 118.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_178" id="Footnote_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> Joannes Leo Africanus, Africæ Descriptio, (Lugd. Batav., Elzevir, -1632,) Lib. VII. p. 646.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_179" id="Footnote_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> Serm. XXV., De Nigredine et Formositate Sponsæ, id est Ecclesiæ: -Opera, Edit. Benedict., (Paris, 1839,) Tom. I. col. 2814.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_180" id="Footnote_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> Isaiah, xi. 9, lxvi. 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_181" id="Footnote_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> Matthew, xiii. 33.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_182" id="Footnote_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> 1 Corinthians, v. 6; Galatians, v. 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_183" id="Footnote_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> Matthew, xiii. 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_184" id="Footnote_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> Senate Reports, No. 29, 41st Cong. 2d Sess.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_185" id="Footnote_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., Appendix, pp. 321, 323: Debate -on the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, March 3, 1854.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_186" id="Footnote_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> Gazette of the United States, Philadelphia, December 31, 1791. From an -article entitled “Sketches of Boston and its Inhabitants,” purporting to be -“extracted from a series of letters published in a late Nova Scotia paper.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_187" id="Footnote_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> Paradise Lost, Book X. 958-61.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_188" id="Footnote_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> Act of April 20, 1818, Sec. 3: Statutes at Large, Vol. III. p. 448.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_189" id="Footnote_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> Annals of Congress, 15th Cong. 1st Sess., col. 519.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_190" id="Footnote_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> The case of the Hornet, as stated by Mr. Carpenter, was as follows:—“The -Hornet was purchased in this country by Cubans, was taken into the -open sea outside of the United States, and there armed and manned to -cruise against Spain, and started on her way toward the waters of Cuba -with arms and supplies for the revolutionists. Owing to the poor quality -of her coal, she was unable to pursue her voyage, and put into a port of -the United States, when she was libelled by the United States, upon the -ground that she was intended for the ‘service of the people of a certain colony -of the kingdom of Spain, to wit, the island of Cuba,’ etc. All of which -is charged to be against the third section of the Neutrality Law.”—<i>Congressional -Globe</i>, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., p. 144.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_191" id="Footnote_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> Act of April 10, 1869, Sec. 7: Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI. p. 41.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_192" id="Footnote_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 428.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_193" id="Footnote_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> “’Tis out of time to set it forth in the Declaration; but it should have -come in the Replication. ’Tis like leaping (as Hale, Chief-Justice, said) -before one come to the stile.”—<i>Sir Ralph Bovy’s Case</i>: 1 Ventris, R., -217.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_194" id="Footnote_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States, -March 2, 1867, Preamble and Section 6: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. -pp. 428, 429.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_195" id="Footnote_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> Letter to Adjutant-General Townsend, July 10, 1869: Papers relating -to the Test Oath: House Miscellaneous Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., -No. 8, p. 28. See also Letters of June 16 and 26, 1869, to R. T. Daniel and -B. W. Gillis, respectively: Ibid., pp. 24, 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_196" id="Footnote_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. pp. 14-16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_197" id="Footnote_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> Section 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_198" id="Footnote_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 502-3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_199" id="Footnote_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> Ibid., Vol. XV. p. 344.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_200" id="Footnote_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> Act of July 19, 1867, Sec. 11: Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_201" id="Footnote_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> For some previous remarks relative to the Reconstruction Act of 1867, -see article entitled “Personal Record on Reconstruction with Colored Suffrage,” -<i>post</i>, pp. 304-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_202" id="Footnote_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> See, <i>ante</i>, pp. 184-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_203" id="Footnote_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.”—General Bosquet to -Mr. Layard: Kinglake, Invasion of the Crimea, (Edinburgh, 1868) Vol. -IV. p. 369, note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_204" id="Footnote_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> Annual Message, December 1, 1862.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_205" id="Footnote_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> Report of Special Commissioner of Revenue, December, 1869: Executive -Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 27, p. <span class="smcapuc">XIII</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_206" id="Footnote_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> Statistics of the United States in 1860, Eighth Census, Miscellaneous, -pp. 294, 295.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_207" id="Footnote_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> Report of Special Commissioner of Revenue, December, 1869: Executive -Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 27, p. <span class="smcapuc">VI</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_208" id="Footnote_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_209" id="Footnote_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, pp. <span class="smcapuc">XIII-XVIII</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_210" id="Footnote_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> Statement of the Public Debt, January 1, 1870.—Purchases of bonds -in excess of the sum required for the sinking fund first appear in the Statement -of August 1, 1869, and as then amounting, with the accrued interest, -to $15,110,590; thence to January 1, 1870, the monthly average, including -interest, was a little short of $10,000,000.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_211" id="Footnote_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> Act of March 3, 1864: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_212" id="Footnote_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> Act of February 25, 1863: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 665-82.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_213" id="Footnote_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 9, 1861: Executive -Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_214" id="Footnote_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> Acts of March 3, 1863, § 2, and June 30, 1864, § 2: Statutes at Large, -Vols. XII. p. 710, XIII. p. 218.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_215" id="Footnote_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 219.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_216" id="Footnote_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 6, 1869: Executive -Documents, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 2, p. <span class="smcapuc">XXVII</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_217" id="Footnote_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> Ibid., p. <span class="smcapuc">XVIII</span>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_218" id="Footnote_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> Speech, January 12, 1870: <i>Ante</i>, pp. 238, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_219" id="Footnote_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, p. 256.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_220" id="Footnote_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> Speech, January 17, 1870: Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., -p. 817.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_221" id="Footnote_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> January 22, 1870.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_222" id="Footnote_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> Monthly Reports on the Commerce and Navigation of the United -States for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1870, p. 200.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_223" id="Footnote_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> Speech, February 1, 1870: <i>Ante</i>, p. 277.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_224" id="Footnote_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> “That Congress reserves the right, at any time, to amend, alter, or repeal -this Act.”—<i>Act to provide a National Currency</i>, &c., February 25, -1863, Sec. 65: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 665-82.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_225" id="Footnote_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> Letter to Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens, February 18, 1782: Writings, -ed. Sparks, Vol. VIII. p. 241.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_226" id="Footnote_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> Eulogy on Major-General Greene, before the Society of the Cincinnati, -July 4, 1789: Works, ed. J. C. Hamilton, Vol. II. pp. 480-95.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_227" id="Footnote_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> Life, by G. W. Greene, 3 vols. 8vo, New York, 1867-71.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_228" id="Footnote_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, p. 231.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_229" id="Footnote_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States, -Section 5: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 428-9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_230" id="Footnote_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> Proviso in Amendment of Resolution recognizing the New State Government -of Louisiana, February 25, 1865: No Reconstruction without the -Votes of the Blacks: Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1099; -<i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. p. 185.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_231" id="Footnote_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> Speech at the Republican State Convention in Worcester, Mass., -September 14, 1865: The National Security and the National Faith: -<i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 327-8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_232" id="Footnote_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> Speech on a proposed Amendment of the Constitution, February -5 and 6, 1866: The Equal Rights of All: Congressional Globe, 39th -Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 673-87; <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 115, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_233" id="Footnote_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> The vote on its adoption was Yeas 32, Nays 3.—<i>Senate Journal</i>, 39th -Cong. 2d Sess., p. 293.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_234" id="Footnote_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> These supplementary amendments consisted of the Proviso at the end -of Section 5, together with Section 6, of the Act as finally passed: Statutes -at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 428-9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_235" id="Footnote_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1645; Senate Journal, -p. 320.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_236" id="Footnote_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> Congressional Globe, p. 1976; Senate Journal, p. 424.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_237" id="Footnote_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> See further, concerning the matters here referred to, Mr. Sumner’s -speeches in the debates on this bill, with the accompanying notes: <i>Ante</i>, -Vol. XI. pp. 102, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_238" id="Footnote_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1177.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_239" id="Footnote_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> Debate on the Census Bill: Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., -pp. 1143, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_240" id="Footnote_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> Debate, February 3d, on the Neutrality Laws: Ibid., pp. 1001, seqq.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_241" id="Footnote_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, pp. 304-6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_242" id="Footnote_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 736-7. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. -VIII. pp. 163-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_243" id="Footnote_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 523. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. X. -pp. 295-9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_244" id="Footnote_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244"><span class="label">[244]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 521.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_245" id="Footnote_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245"><span class="label">[245]</span></a> Ibid., p. 522.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_246" id="Footnote_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246"><span class="label">[246]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1091. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. -pp. 197-200.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_247" id="Footnote_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247"><span class="label">[247]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1099. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. -p. 185.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_248" id="Footnote_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248"><span class="label">[248]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1129. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. -pp. 190-1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_249" id="Footnote_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249"><span class="label">[249]</span></a> See Address at the Music Hall, Boston, October 2, 1866, entitled “The -One Man Power <i>vs.</i> Congress”: <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIV. p. 200.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_250" id="Footnote_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250"><span class="label">[250]</span></a> Ibid., p. 21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_251" id="Footnote_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251"><span class="label">[251]</span></a> Address at the Music Hall: The One Man Power <i>vs.</i> Congress: <i>Ante</i>, -Vol. XIV. pp. 201-2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_252" id="Footnote_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252"><span class="label">[252]</span></a> For both letter and reply, see, <i>ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 231-2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_253" id="Footnote_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253"><span class="label">[253]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 292-3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_254" id="Footnote_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254"><span class="label">[254]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. p. 299.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_255" id="Footnote_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255"><span class="label">[255]</span></a> Speech in the Legislative Assembly, May 21, 1850: Moniteur, May 22, -1850, p. 1761.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_256" id="Footnote_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256"><span class="label">[256]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 327-8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_257" id="Footnote_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257"><span class="label">[257]</span></a> The Independent, November 2, 1865. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. pp. 368-9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_258" id="Footnote_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258"><span class="label">[258]</span></a> The One Man Power <i>vs.</i> Congress: <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIV. p. 204.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_259" id="Footnote_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259"><span class="label">[259]</span></a> Atlantic Monthly, Vol. XVI. p. 760. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XII. p. 410.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_260" id="Footnote_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260"><span class="label">[260]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. p. 14.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_261" id="Footnote_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261"><span class="label">[261]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. p. 21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_262" id="Footnote_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262"><span class="label">[262]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. p. 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_263" id="Footnote_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263"><span class="label">[263]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. pp. 25-26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_264" id="Footnote_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264"><span class="label">[264]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. p. 16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_265" id="Footnote_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265"><span class="label">[265]</span></a> <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. p. 17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_266" id="Footnote_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266"><span class="label">[266]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 2. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. -pp. 33, 34.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_267" id="Footnote_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267"><span class="label">[267]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 685, 687. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. -XIII. pp. 219, 236-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_268" id="Footnote_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268"><span class="label">[268]</span></a> Fuller, Holy State: The Good Sea-Captain.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_269" id="Footnote_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269"><span class="label">[269]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 1231-2. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIII. -pp. 334-5, 337.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_270" id="Footnote_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270"><span class="label">[270]</span></a> Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 15. <i>Ante</i>, Vol. XIV. -pp. 224-5.</p> - -</div> - -</div> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, -volume 17 (of 20), by Charles Sumner - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: COMPLETE WORKS, VOL 17 *** - -***** This file should be named 50370-h.htm or 50370-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/3/7/50370/ - -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> diff --git a/old/50370-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/50370-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 72af59c..0000000 --- a/old/50370-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50370-h/images/frontispiece.jpg b/old/50370-h/images/frontispiece.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 77e4a17..0000000 --- a/old/50370-h/images/frontispiece.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50370-h/images/issuenumber.jpg b/old/50370-h/images/issuenumber.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 91c146f..0000000 --- a/old/50370-h/images/issuenumber.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50370-h/images/line.png b/old/50370-h/images/line.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index cc3f4a0..0000000 --- a/old/50370-h/images/line.png +++ /dev/null |
