diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50370-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50370-0.txt | 10758 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 10758 deletions
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. - |