diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50386-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50386-0.txt | 10743 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 10743 deletions
diff --git a/old/50386-0.txt b/old/50386-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 22aa00f..0000000 --- a/old/50386-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10743 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume -19 (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 19 (of 20) - -Author: Charles Sumner - -Editor: George Frisbie Hoar - -Release Date: November 4, 2015 [EBook #50386] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER; COMPLETE WORKS, VOL 19 *** - - - - -Produced by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - - [Illustration: A. W. Elson & Co. Boston: FREDERICK DOUGLASS] - - Statesman Edition Vol. XIX - - Charles Sumner - - HIS COMPLETE WORKS - - With Introduction - BY - HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR - - [Illustration] - - BOSTON - LEE AND SHEPARD - MCM - - COPYRIGHT, 1882, - BY - FRANCIS V. BALCH, EXECUTOR. - - COPYRIGHT, 1900, - BY - LEE AND SHEPARD. - - Statesman Edition. - LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES. - OF WHICH THIS IS - No. 320 - - Norwood Press: - NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A. - - - - -CONTENTS OF VOLUME XIX. - - - PAGE - - COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON. Speech in the Senate, February - 8, 1871 1 - - HON. JOHN COVODE, LATE REPRESENTATIVE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Speech - in the Senate, on his Death, February 10, 1871 12 - - ITALIAN UNITY AGAIN. Letter to a Public Meeting at Pittsburg, - Pennsylvania, February 21, 1871 15 - - VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND USURPATIONS OF WAR POWERS. - Speech in the Senate, on his San Domingo Resolutions, March 27, - 1871 16 - - PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF STATE. - AN EXPLANATION IN REPLY TO AN ASSAULT. Statement prepared for - Presentation to the Senate, March, 1871 99 - - THE KU-KLUX-KLAN. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill to enforce - the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, - April 13, 1871 125 - - OUR DUTY AGAINST WRONG. Letter to the Reform League, New York, - May 8, 1871 131 - - POWER OF THE SENATE TO IMPRISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. Speeches in - the Senate, May 18 and 27, 1871 132 - - THE HAYTIAN MEDAL. Response to the Letter of Presentation, July - 13, 1871 154 - - EQUALITY OF RIGHTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Letter to George - W. Walker, President of the Board of School Directors of - Jefferson, Texas, July 28, 1871 158 - - PEACE AND THE REPUBLIC FOR FRANCE. Remarks in Music Hall, - Boston, introducing M. Athanase Coquerel, of Paris, October 9, - 1871 159 - - THE GREAT FIRE AT CHICAGO, AND OUR DUTY. Speech at Faneuil - Hall, at a Meeting for the Relief of Sufferers at Chicago, - October 10, 1871 161 - - RIGHTS AND DUTIES OR OUR COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS. Letter to - the National Convention of Colored Citizens at Columbia, South - Carolina, October 12, 1871 164 - - ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, - December 21, 1871 168 - - THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. Article in “The City,” an - Illustrated Magazine, New York, January 1, 1872 175 - - EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW PROTECTED BY NATIONAL STATUTE. Speeches - in the Senate, on his Supplementary Civil Rights Bill, as an - Amendment to the Amnesty Bill. January 15, 17, 31, February 5, - and May 21, 1872 203 - - - - -COLORED SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 8, 1871. - - - On the motion of Mr. Patterson, of New Hampshire, Chairman of - the Committee on the District of Columbia, to strike out from a - bill relative to schools in the District the clause,-- - - “And no distinction, on account of race, color, or previous - condition of servitude, shall be made in the admission of - pupils to any of the schools under the control of the Board - of Education, or in the mode of education or treatment of - pupils in such schools,”-- - - Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--My friend, the Chairman of the Committee, says that -this proposition is correct in principle. But to my mind nothing is -clearer than that where anything is correct in principle it must by -inevitable law be correct in practice. Nobody here makes this law,--not -the Senate, not Congress. By a higher law than any from human power, -whatever is correct in principle must be correct in practice. - -I stand on this rule. It is the teaching of all history; it is the -teaching of human life; especially is it the teaching of our national -experience during these latter eventful years. How often have -propositions been opposed in this Chamber as correct in principle, but -not practical! And how often what was correct in principle triumphed -over every obstacle! When the proposition for the abolition of Slavery -in the District was brought forward, we were told that it was correct -in principle, but that it would not work well,--that it was not -practical! So when the proposition was brought forward to give the -colored people the right to testify in court, we were assured that it -was correct in principle, but that it would not be practical. - -The same objection was made to the proposition that colored people -should ride in the horse-cars; and I was gravely told that white -people would not use the cars, if they were opened to colored people. -The proposition prevailed, and you and others know whether any injury -therefrom has been done to the cars. - -Then, again, when it was proposed to give the ballot to all, it was -announced that it might be correct in principle, but that it was not -practical; and I, Sir, was seriously assured by an eminent citizen that -it would bring about massacre at the polls. - -Now that it is proposed to apply the same principle to the schools, we -are again assured, with equal seriousness and gravity, that, though -correct in principle, it is not practical. Sir, I take issue on that -general proposition. I insist that whatever is correct in principle is -practical. Anything else would make this world a failure, and obedience -to the laws of God impossible. - -The provision which my friend would strike out is simply to carry into -education the same principle which we have carried into the court-room, -into the horse-car, and to the ballot-box: that is all. If there be any -argument in favor of the provision in these other cases, allow me to -say that it is stronger in the school-room, inasmuch as the child is -more impressionable than the man. You should not begin life with a rule -that sanctions a prejudice. Therefore do I insist, especially for the -sake of children, for the sake of those tender years most susceptible -to human influence, that we should banish a rule which will make them -grow up with a separation which will be to them a burden: a burden to -the white; for every prejudice is a burden to him who has it; and a -burden to the black, who will suffer always under the degradation. - -With what consistency can you deny to the child equal rights in the -school-room and then give him equal rights at the ballot-box? Having -already accorded equal rights at the ballot-box, I insist upon his -equal right in the school-room also. One is the complement of the -other. It is not enough to give him a separate school, where he may -have the same kind of education with the white child. He will not have -the same kind of education. Every child, white or black, has a right to -be placed under precisely the same influences, with the same teachers, -in the same school-room, without any discrimination founded on his -color. You disown distinctions of sect: why keep up those of color? - -A great protection to the colored child, and a great assurance of his -education, will be that he is educated on the same benches and by the -same teachers with the white child. You may give him what is sometimes -called an equivalent in another school; but this is not equality. His -right is to equality, and not to equivalency. He has equality only -when he comes into your common-school and finds no exclusion there on -account of his skin. - -Strike out this provision, and you will say to the children of this -District: “There is a prejudice of color which we sanction; continue -it; grow up with it in your souls.” And worse still, the prejudice -which you sanction will extend from this centre over the whole country. -This is a centre, and not a corner. What we do here will be an example -in distant places. - -My friend says that this provision will hurt the schools. Pardon me; -he is mistaken. It will help the schools. Everything that brings the -schools into harmony with great principles and with divine truth must -help them. Anything that makes them antagonistic to great principles -and to divine truth hurts them. Strike out this provision, and you hurt -them seriously, vitally,--you stab them here in the house of their -friends. In a bill to promote education you deal it a fatal blow. - -Sir, as I cherish education, as I love freedom, as at all times I stand -by human rights, so do I cherish, love, and stand by this safeguard. It -is worth the whole bill. Strike it out, and the bill is too poor to be -adopted. If it should be passed, thus shorn,--I say it, Sir, because I -must say it,--it will bring disgrace upon Congress. - -To the colored people here we owe, certainly, equality; we owe to -them the practical recognition of the promises of the Declaration of -Independence; and still further, we must see that the common schools of -this District are an example throughout the country. We cannot afford -to do less. Everywhere throughout the region lately cursed by Slavery -this dark prejudice still lingers and lowers. From our vantage-ground -here we must strike it, and, according to our power, destroy it. But if -the proposition of my friend prevails, you will encourage and foster it. - -Now, Sir, against the statement of my friend, the Chairman, I oppose -the statement of experts,--I oppose a statement which, I venture to say -here, cannot be answered. It is not my statement. I should not venture -to say anything like that of anything that I said. I oppose a Report -made by the Trustees of the Colored Schools in Washington, and I ask -the attention of the Senate to what I read. It is a Report made to the -Secretary of the Interior, December 31, 1870, and communicated to the -Senate by the Secretary, January 18, 1871.[1] Under the head of “Need -of Additional Legislation” the Trustees of the Colored Schools express -themselves as follows:-- - - “It is our judgment that the best interests of the colored - people of this capital, and not theirs alone, but those of all - classes, require the abrogation of all laws and institutions - creating or tending to perpetuate distinctions based on color, - and the enactment in their stead of such provisions as shall - secure equal privileges to all classes of citizens. The laws - creating the present system of separate schools for colored - children in this District were enacted as a temporary expedient - to meet a condition of things which has now passed away.”[2] - -How wise is that remark! These are colored men who wrote this. They -say:-- - - “The laws creating the present system of separate schools for - colored children in this District were enacted as a temporary - expedient to meet a condition of things which has now passed - away.” - -That condition of things was a part of the legacy of Slavery. They then -proceed:-- - - “That they recognize and tend to perpetuate a cruel, - unreasonable, and unchristian prejudice, which has been and - is the source of untold wrong and injustice to that class of - the community which we represent, is ample reason for their - modification. The experience of this community for the last few - years has fully demonstrated that the association of different - races, in their daily occupations and civic duties, is as - consistent with the general convenience as it is with justice. - And custom is now fully reconciled at this capital to the - seating side by side of white and colored people in the railway - car, the jury-box, the municipal and Government offices, in - the city councils, and even in the Halls of the two Houses of - Congress. Yet, while the fathers may sit together in those high - places of honor and trust, the children are required by law to - be educated apart. We see neither reason nor justice in this - discrimination. If the fathers are fit to associate, why are - not the children equally so?”[3] - -I should like my honorable friend, the Chairman, to answer that -question, when I have finished this Report: “If the fathers are fit -to associate, why are not the children equally so?” The Report then -proceeds:-- - - “Children, naturally, are not affected by this prejudice of - race or color. To educate them in separate schools tends - to beget and intensify it in their young minds, and so to - perpetuate it to future generations. If it is the intention of - the United States that these children shall become citizens in - fact, equal before the law with all others, why train them to - recognize these unjust and impolitic distinctions?”[4] - -Here I would interpose the further inquiry, Why will you make your -school-house the nursery of prejudice inconsistent with the declared -principles of your institutions? The Report proceeds:-- - - “To do so is not only contrary to reason, but also to the - injunction of Scripture, which says, ‘Train up a child in the - way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from - it.’”[5] - -And yet, could my friend prevail, he would train up a child in the way -he should _not_ go; but he would not, I know, encourage him in this -prejudice. The Report proceeds:-- - - “Objection to the step here recommended has been made on the - ground of expediency. Every advanced step in the same direction - has been opposed on the same superficial allegation. - - “The right of the colored man to ride in the railway cars, - to cast the ballot, to sit on the jury, to hold office, and - even to bear arms in defence of his country, has encountered - the same objection. We are confident that it will prove of no - greater weight in the present case than it has in the others. - There is no argument for equality at the ballot-box, in the - cars, on the jury, in holding office and bearing arms, which - is not equally applicable in the present case. We may go - further, and insist that equality in the other cases requires - equality here; otherwise the whole system is incomplete and - inharmonious.”[6] - -Now my friend, the Chairman, would make the system incomplete and -inharmonious. He would continue here at the base that discord which he -would be one of the last to recognize in the higher stages. The Report -proceeds:-- - - “It is worthy of note in this connection, that some of the most - distinguished men in literary, social, and political circles in - this section of the country have recently, in setting forth - their claims to be considered the best and truest friends of - the people of color, taken pains to inform the public that they - were reared with colored children, played with them in the - sports of childhood, and were even suckled by colored nurses in - infancy; hence, that no prejudice against color exists on their - part. If this be so, then with what show of consistency or - reason can they object to the children of both classes sitting - side by side in school? - - “That the custom of separation on account of color must - disappear from our public schools, as it has from our halls - of justice and of legislation, we regard as but a question - of time. Whether this unjust, unreasonable, and unchristian - discrimination against our children shall continue at the - capital of this great Republic is for the wisdom of Congress to - determine. - - “We deem it proper to add, that a bill now before the honorable - Senate, entitled ‘A bill to secure equal rights in the public - schools of Washington and Georgetown,’ (Senate, No. 361, - Forty-First Congress, Second Session,) reported to that body - May 6, 1870, by Mr. Senator Sumner, meets our approbation. - It is plain and simple, and prescribes the true rule of - equality for our schools. This bill is in the nature of a - ‘corner-stone.’”[7] - -This Report, so honorable to these Trustees, showing that they have a -true appreciation of principle, also of what they owe to themselves -and their race, and I trust also a true appreciation of what they may -justly expect from Congress, concludes as follows:-- - - “In conclusion, the Trustees suggest that those equal - educational advantages to which all children are entitled, - in accordance with the great principle of Equality before - the Law, can be obtained only through the common school, - where all children meet together in the enjoyment of the - same opportunities, the same improvements, and the same - instructions. Whatever then is done for white children will be - shared by their colored brethren, and all shall enjoy the same - care and supervision.”[8] - -This is signed, “William Syphax, William H. A. Wormley, Trustees of -Colored Schools.” - -There is then a Minority Report, signed, “Charles King, Trustee of -Colored Schools of Washington and Georgetown,” dissenting in some -respects from the Majority Report, but coïnciding with it absolutely -on this most important question. From the Minority Report I read as -follows:-- - - “In reference to schools of mixed races I think a difference of - opinion may exist among the real friends of the colored people; - but the time is rapidly approaching when this discrimination - must be obliterated all over our country, and I know of no - better locality in which to make a beginning than in the - District of Columbia, and no better time than the present.”[9] - -Sir, these are wise words. That is well put; whatever may be the -difficulties elsewhere, they should not be allowed to prevail here. -This member of the Board knows “no better locality in which to make a -beginning than in the District of Columbia, and no better time than the -present.” - -He then proceeds:-- - - “Let all discrimination on account of color be avoided in the - public schools of Washington, let them be amply provided for in - respect to funds and teachers, and a very few years will see - the example followed all over our free country. The colored - race will feel the stimulating effects of direct competition - with the white race, their ambition and self-respect will grow - under its influence and add dignity to their character, and - rapidly develop a style and type of manhood that must place - them on an equality with any of the other races of men. - - “We have seen this prejudice die out on the field of battle, - where white and colored have fought together for the same flag. - It has been met and conquered at the ballot-box and in the - halls of our local and general Legislatures, and why should - it not receive the same fate in our school-rooms? Why educate - American youth in the idea that superiority exists in the color - of the skin, when our Declaration of Independence, of which we - boast so much, flatly contradicts it?”[10] - -Now, Sir, I might well leave this whole question on this remarkable -statement by these colored Trustees. They have spoken for themselves, -for their race, and for us. Who can speak better? I know not if -anything can be added to their Reports. I content myself with one -further word, concluding as I began. - -The Senator from New Hampshire finds the principle correct, but not -practical. To that I say, Try it. Try the principle, and it will be -found practical. It will work. Never was there any correct principle -that would not work. I know it is sometimes said that white parents -would not send their children to the schools. How long would that be? -One week, two weeks, one month, two months. Some might do so possibly -for a brief time, just as for a brief time white persons refused to -enter the street cars when they were opened to colored persons. It did -not last long. According to my experience, men are not in the habit of -biting off their own noses for any very long time. Life is too short -to prolong this process; and I do not believe that the people of the -District of Columbia would reject for their children the advantages -of the common schools simply because these schools were brought into -harmony with the promises of the Declaration of Independence. - - - - -HON. JOHN COVODE, LATE REPRESENTATIVE OF PENNSYLVANIA. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS DEATH, FEBRUARY 10, 1871. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I venture to interpose a brief word of sincere homage -to the late JOHN COVODE. I call him John Covode, for so I heard him -called always. Others are known by some title of honor or office, but -he was known only by the simple name he bore. This familiar designation -harmonized with his unassuming life and character. - -During his long service in Congress I was in the Senate, so that I have -been his contemporary. And now that he has gone before me, I owe my -testimony to the simplicity, integrity, and patriotism of his public -life. Always simple, always honest, always patriotic, he leaves a -name which must be preserved in the history of Congress. In the long -list of its members he will stand forth with an individuality not to -be forgotten. How constantly and indefatigably he toiled the records -of the other House declare. He was a doer rather than a speaker; but -is not doing more than speech, unless in those rare cases where a -speech is an act? But his speech had a plainness not without effect, -especially before the people, where the facts and figures which he -presented with honest voice were eloquent. - -The Rebellion found this faithful Representative in his place, and -from the first moment to the last he gave to its suppression time, -inexhaustible energy, and that infinite treasure, the life of a son. -He was for the most vigorous measures, whether in the field or in -statesmanship. Slavery had no sanctity for him, and he insisted upon -striking it. So also, when the Rebellion was suppressed, he insisted -always upon those Equal Rights for All, without which the Declaration -of Independence is an unperformed promise, and our nation a political -bankrupt. In all these things he showed character and became a -practical leader. There is heroism elsewhere than on fields of battle, -and he displayed it. He was a civic hero. And here the bitterness which -he encountered was the tribute to his virtue. - -In doing honor to this much-deserving servant, I cannot err, if I add -that nobody had more at heart the welfare of the Republican Party, -with which, in his judgment, were associated the best interests of the -Nation. He felt, that, giving to his party, he gave to his country -and to mankind. His strong sense and the completeness of his devotion -to party made him strenuous always for those commanding principles -by which Humanity is advanced. Therefore was he for the unity of the -party, that it might be directed with all its force for the good cause. -Therefore was he against outside and disturbing questions, calculated -to distract and divide. He saw the wrong they did to the party, and, -in the relation of cause and effect, to the country. And here that -frankness which was part of his nature became a power. He was always -frank, whether with the people, with Congress, or with the President. -I cannot forget his frankness with Abraham Lincoln, who, you know, -liked frankness. On more than one occasion, with this good President -his frankness conquered. Honorable as was such a victory to the simple -Representative, it was more honorable to the President. - -His honest indignation at wrong was doubtless quickened by the -blood which coursed in his veins and the story which it constantly -whispered. He was descended from one of those “Redemptioners,” or -indented servants, transported to Pennsylvania in the middle of the -last century, being a species of white slaves, among whom was one of -the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The eminence which John -Covode reached attests the hospitality of our institutions, and shows -how character triumphs over difficulties. With nothing but a common -education, he improved his condition, gained riches, enlarged his mind -with wisdom, and won the confidence of his fellow-citizens, until he -became an example. - -The death of such a citizen makes a void, but it leaves behind a life -which in itself is a monument. - - - - -ITALIAN UNITY AGAIN. - -LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT PITTSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, FEBRUARY 21, -1871. - - - WASHINGTON, February 21, 1871. - - DEAR SIR,--I cannot be at your meeting, but there will be none - among you to rejoice in Italian Unity more than I do. Long has it - been a desire of my heart. - - May it stand firm against all its enemies, especially its - greatest enemy, the temporal autocracy of the Pope! - - Faithfully yours, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - FELIX R. BRUNOT, ESQ., Chairman. - - - - -VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND USURPATIONS OF WAR POWERS. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS SAN DOMINGO RESOLUTIONS, MARCH 27, 1871. - - - The official returns to Mr. Sumner’s resolutions of December - 9, 1870, and February 15, 1871, calling for the documents in - the State and Navy Departments relative to the case of San - Domingo,[11] gave occasion to the introduction by him, March - 24, 1871, of a series of resolutions, subsequently amended to - read as follows:-- - - Resolutions regarding the employment of the Navy of the - United States on the coasts of San Domingo during the - pendency of negotiations for the acquisition of part of - that island. - - Whereas any negotiation by one nation with a people - inferior in population and power, having in view the - acquisition of territory, should be above all suspicion - of influence from superior force, and in testimony to - this principle Spain boasted that the reïncorporation - of Dominica with her monarchy in 1861 was accomplished - without the presence of a single Spanish ship on the coast - or a Spanish soldier on the land, all of which appears in - official documents; and whereas the United States, being a - Republic founded on the Rights of Man, cannot depart from - such a principle and such a precedent without weakening the - obligations of justice between nations and inflicting a - blow upon Republican Institutions: Therefore,-- - - 1. _Resolved_, That in obedience to correct principle, and - that Republican Institutions may not suffer, the naval - forces of the United States should be withdrawn from the - coasts of San Domingo during the pendency of negotiations - for the acquisition of any part of that island. - - 2. _Resolved_, That every sentiment of justice is disturbed - by the employment of foreign force in the maintenance of - a ruler engaged in selling his country, and this moral - repugnance is increased when it is known that the attempted - sale is in violation of the Constitution of the country - to be sold; that, therefore, the employment of our Navy - to maintain Baez in usurped power while attempting to - sell his country to the United States, in open violation - of the Dominican Constitution, is morally wrong, and any - transaction founded upon it must be null and void. - - 3. _Resolved_, That since the Equality of All Nations, - without regard to population, size, or power, is an axiom - of International Law, as the Equality of All Men is an - axiom of our Declaration of Independence, nothing can be - done to a small or weak nation that would not be done to - a large or powerful nation, or that we would not allow - to be done to ourselves; and therefore any treatment of - the Republic of Hayti by the Navy of the United States - inconsistent with this principle is an infraction of - International Law in one of its great safeguards, and - should be disavowed by the Government of the United States. - - 4. _Resolved_, That since certain naval officers of the - United States, commanding large war-ships, including the - monitor Dictator and the frigate Severn, with powerful - armaments, acting under instructions from the Executive, - and without the authority of an Act of Congress, have - entered one or more ports of the Republic of Hayti, - a friendly nation, and under the menace of open and - instant war have coerced and restrained that republic - in its sovereignty and independence under International - Law,--therefore, in justice to the Republic of Hayti, - also in recognition of its equal rights in the Family of - Nations, and in deference to the fundamental principles of - our institutions, these hostile acts should be disavowed by - the Government of the United States. - - 5. _Resolved_, That under the Constitution of the United - States the power to declare war is placed under the - safeguard of an Act of Congress; that the President alone - cannot declare war; that this is a peculiar principle - of our Government by which it is distinguished from - monarchical Governments, where power to declare war, as - also the treaty-making power, is in the Executive alone; - that in pursuance of this principle the President cannot, - by any act of his own, as by an unratified treaty, obtain - any such power, and thus divest Congress of its control; - and that therefore the employment of the Navy without - the authority of Congress in acts of hostility against a - friendly foreign nation, or in belligerent intervention - in the affairs of a foreign nation, is an infraction of - the Constitution of the United States, and a usurpation of - power not conferred upon the President. - - 6. _Resolved_, That while the President, without any - previous declaration of war by Act of Congress, may defend - the country against invasion by foreign enemies, he is - not justified in exercising the same power in an outlying - foreign island, which has not yet become part of the United - States; that a title under an unratified treaty is at - most inchoate and contingent while it is created by the - President alone, in which respect it differs from any such - title created by Act of Congress; and since it is created - by the President alone, without the support of law, whether - in legislation or a ratified treaty, the employment of the - Navy in the maintenance of the Government there is without - any excuse of national defence, as also without any excuse - of a previous declaration of war by Congress. - - 7. _Resolved_, That whatever may be the title to territory - under an unratified treaty, it is positive that after - the failure of the treaty in the Senate all pretext of - title ceases, so that our Government is in all respects a - stranger to the territory, without excuse or apology for - any interference against its enemies, foreign or domestic; - and therefore any belligerent intervention or act of war - on the coasts of San Domingo after the failure of the - Dominican treaty in the Senate is unauthorized violence, - utterly without support in law or reason, and proceeding - directly from that kingly prerogative which is disowned by - the Constitution of the United States. - - 8. _Resolved_, That in any proceedings for the acquisition - of part of the island of San Domingo, whatever may be - its temptations of soil, climate, and productions, there - must be no exercise of influence by superior force, nor - any violation of Public Law, whether International or - Constitutional; and therefore the present proceedings, - which have been conducted at great cost of money, under - the constant shadow of superior force, and through the - belligerent intervention of our Navy, acting in violation - of International Law, and initiating war without an Act of - Congress, must be abandoned, to the end that justice may - be maintained, and that proceedings so adverse to correct - principles may not become an example for the future. - - 9. _Resolved_, That, instead of seeking to acquire part - of the island of San Domingo by belligerent intervention - without the authority of an Act of Congress, it would - have been in better accord with the principles of our - Republic and its mission of peace and beneficence, had - our Government, in the spirit of good neighborhood and - by friendly appeal, instead of belligerent intervention, - striven for the establishment of tranquillity throughout - the whole island, so that the internal dissensions of - Dominica and its disturbed relations with Hayti might be - brought to a close, thus obtaining that security which is - the first condition of prosperity, all of which, being in - the nature of good offices, would have been without any - violation of International Law, and without any usurpation - of War Powers under the Constitution of the United States. - - On these Resolutions Mr. Sumner, March 27th, spoke as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--Entering again upon this discussion, I perform a -duty which cannot be avoided. I wish it were otherwise, but duty is -a taskmaster to be obeyed. On evidence now before the Senate, it is -plain that the Navy of the United States, acting under orders from -Washington, has been engaged in measures of violence and of belligerent -intervention, being war without the authority of Congress. An act of -war without the authority of Congress is no common event. This is -the simplest statement of the case. The whole business is aggravated, -when it is considered that the declared object of this violence is the -acquisition of foreign territory, being half an island in the Caribbean -Sea,--and still further, that this violence has been employed, first, -to prop and maintain a weak ruler, himself a usurper, upholding him -in power that he might sell his country, and, secondly, to menace the -Black Republic of Hayti. - -Such a case cannot pass without inquiry. It is too grave for silence. -For the sake of the Navy, which has been the agent, for the sake of the -Administration, under which the Navy acted, for the sake of Republican -Institutions, which suffer when the Great Republic makes itself a -pattern of violence, and for the sake of the Republican Party, which -cannot afford to become responsible for such conduct, the case must be -examined on the facts and the law, and also in the light of precedent, -so far as precedent holds its torch. When I speak for Republican -Institutions, it is because I would not have our great example weakened -before the world, and our good name tarnished. And when I speak for -the Republican Party, it is because from the beginning I have been -the faithful servant of that party and aspire to see it strong and -triumphant. But beyond all these considerations is the commanding rule -of Justice, which cannot be disobeyed with impunity. - - -THE QUESTION STATED. - -The question which I present is very simple. It is not, whether the -acquisition of the island of San Domingo, in whole or part, with -a population foreign in origin, language, and institutions, is -desirable, but whether we are justified in the means employed to -accomplish this acquisition. The question is essentially preliminary -in character, and entirely independent of the main question. On the -main question there may be difference of opinion: some thinking the -acquisition desirable, and others not desirable; some anxious for -empire, or at least a _sanitarium_, in the tropics,--and others more -anxious for a Black Republic, where the African race shall show an -example of self-government by which the whole race may be uplifted; -some thinking of gold mines, salt mountains, hogsheads of sugar, bags -of coffee, and boxes of cigars,--others thinking more of what we owe to -the African race. But whatever the difference of opinion on the main -question, the evidence now before us shows too clearly that means have -been employed which cannot be justified. And this is the question to -which I now ask the attention of the Senate. - - -REASON FOR INTEREST IN THE QUESTION. - -Here, Sir, I venture to relate how and at what time I became specially -aroused on this question. The treaty for the annexion of the Dominican -people was pending before the Senate, and I was occupied in considering -it, asking two questions: first, Is it good for us? and, secondly, Is -it good for them? The more I meditated these two questions I found -myself forgetting the former and considering the latter,--or rather, -the former was absorbed in the latter. Thinking of our giant strength, -my anxiety increased for the weaker party, and I thought more of what -was good for them than for us. Is annexion good for them? This was the -question on my mind, when I was honored by a visit from the Assistant -Secretary of State, bringing with him a handful of dispatches from San -Domingo. Among these were dispatches from our Consular Agent there, who -signed the treaty of annexion, from which it distinctly appeared that -Baez, while engaged in selling his country, was maintained in power by -the Navy of the United States. That such was the official report of -our Consular Agent, who signed the treaty, there can be no question; -and this official report was sustained by at least one other consular -dispatch. I confess now my emotion as I read this painful revelation. -Until then I had supposed the proceeding blameless, although -precipitate. I had not imagined any such indefensible transgressions. - -These dispatches became more important as testimony when it appeared -that the writers were personally in favor of annexion. Thus, then, it -stood,--that, on the official report of our own agents, we were engaged -in forcing upon a weak people the sacrifice of their country. To me it -was apparent at once that the acquisition of this foreign territory -would not be respectable or even tolerable, unless by the consent of -the people there, through rulers of their own choice, and without force -on our part. The treaty was a contract, which, according to our own -witnesses, was obtained through a ruler owing power to our war-ships. -As such, it was beyond all question a contract obtained under duress, -and therefore void, while the duress was an interference with the -internal affairs of a foreign country, and therefore contrary to that -principle of Non-Intervention which is now a rule of International -Law. As this question presented itself, I lost no time in visiting -the Navy Department, in order to examine the instructions under which -our naval officers were acting, and also their reports. Unhappily, -these instructions and reports were too much in harmony with the other -testimony; so that the State Department and Navy Department each -contained the record of the deplorable proceedings, and still they -pressed the consummation. I could not have believed it, had not the -evidence been explicit. The story of Naboth’s Vineyard was revived. - -Violence begets violence, and that in San Domingo naturally extended. -It is with nations as with individuals,--once stepped in, they go -forward. The harsh menace by which the independence of the Black -Republic was rudely assailed came next. It was another stage in -belligerent intervention. As these things were unfolded, I felt that -I could not hesitate. Here was a shocking wrong. It must be arrested; -and to this end I have labored in good faith. If I am earnest, it -is because I cannot see a wrong done without seeking to arrest it. -Especially am I moved, if this wrong be done to the weak and humble. -Then, by the efforts of my life and the commission I have received -from Massachusetts, am I vowed to do what I can for the protection and -elevation of the African race. If I can help them, I will; if I can -save them from outrage, I must. And never before was the occasion more -imminent than now. - - -CONTRACT FOR CESSION OF TERRITORY. - -I speak only according to unquestionable reason and the instincts of -the human heart, when I assert that a contract for the cession of -territory must be fair and without suspicion of overawing force. Nobody -can doubt this rule, whether for individuals or nations. And where -one party is more powerful than another it becomes more imperative. -Especially must it be sacred with a Republic, for it is nothing but -the mandate of Justice. The rule is general in its application; nay, -more, it is part of Universal Law, common to all municipal systems -and to International Law. Any departure from this requirement makes -negotiation for the time impossible. Plainly there can be no cession of -territory, and especially no surrender of national independence, except -as the result of war, so long as hostile cannon are frowning. The first -step in negotiation must be the withdrawal of all force, coercive or -minatory. - - -BOAST OF SPAIN. - -Here the example of Spain furnishes a beacon-light. Yielding to an -invitation not unlike that of Baez to the United States, this Ancient -Monarchy was induced by Santana, President of Dominica, to entertain -the proposition of reannexion to the Crown. Here let it be remarked -that Santana was legitimate President, while Baez is a usurping -Dictator. And now mark the contrast between the Ancient Monarchy and -our Republic, as attested in documents. Spain boasted, in official -papers, that in the act of reannexion the Dominicans were spontaneous, -free, and unanimous,--that no Spanish emissaries were in the territory -to influence its people, nor was there a Spanish bottom in its waters -or a Spanish soldier on its land. On the question whether this -boast was justified by historic facts I say nothing. My purpose is -accomplished, when I show, that, in self-defence and for the good name -of Spain, it was necessary to make this boast. Unhappily, no such -boast can be made now. American emissaries were in the territory, with -Cazneau and Fabens as leaders,--while American war-ships, including the -Dictator, our most powerful monitor, properly named for the service, -were in the waters with guns pointed at the people to be annexed, and -American soldiers with bayonets glancing in the sun were on the decks -of these war-ships, if not on the land. The contrast is complete. In -the case of Spain the proceeding was an act of peace; in our case it is -an act of war. The two cases are as wide asunder as peace and war. - -All must feel the importance of this statement, which, I have to say, -is not without official authority. I now hold in my hand the Spanish -documents relating to the reannexion of Dominica, as published by the -Cortes, and with your permission I will open these authentic pages. And -here allow me to say that I speak only according to the documents. That -Spain made the boast attests the principle. - -Omitting particularities and coming at once to the precise point, -I read from a circular by the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, -addressed to diplomatic agents abroad, under date of Aranjuez, April -25, 1861, which declares the proper forbearance and caution of Spain, -and establishes a precedent from which there can be no appeal:-- - - “The first condition, necessary and indispensable, which - the Government of her Majesty requires in accepting - the consequences of these events, is that the act of - reïncorporation of San Domingo with the Spanish Monarchy shall - be the unanimous, spontaneous, and explicit expression of the - will of the Dominicans.” - -The dispatch then proceeds to describe the attitude of the Spanish -Government. And here it says of the events in Dominica:-- - - “Nor have they been the work of Spanish emigrants who have - penetrated the territory of San Domingo; nor has the superior - authority of Havana, nor the forces of sea and land at its - disposition, contributed to them. The Captain-General of Cuba - has not separated himself, nor could he depart for a moment, - from the principles of the Government, and from the policy - which it has followed with regard to them. _Not a Spanish - bottom or soldier was on the coast or in the territory of the - Republic_ when the latter by a unanimous movement proclaimed - its reunion to Spain.”[12] - -It will be observed with what energy of phrase the Spanish Minister -excludes all suspicion of force on the part of Spain. Not only was -there no Spanish ship on the coast, but not a single Spanish bottom. -And then it is alleged that “the first condition” of reannexion must -be “the unanimous, spontaneous, and explicit expression of the will of -the Dominicans.” No foreign influence, no Spanish influence, was to -interfere with the popular will. But this is nothing more than justice. -Anything else is wrong. - -The Spanish Government, not content with announcing this important rule -in the dispatch which I have quoted, return to it in another similar -dispatch, dated at Madrid, 26th May, 1861, as follows:-- - - “The Government of the Queen, before adopting a definitive - resolution on this question, sought to acquire absolute - assurance that the votes of the Dominican people had been - spontaneous, free, and unanimous. The reception of the - proclamation of the Queen as sovereign in all the villages of - the territory of San Domingo proves _the spontaneousness and - the unanimity of the movement_.”[13] - -Here again is the allegation that the movement was spontaneous and -unanimous, and that the Spanish Government sought to acquire absolute -assurance on this essential point. This was openly recognized as the -condition-precedent; and I cite it as unanswerable testimony to what -was deemed essential. - -On this absolute assurance the Ministers laid before the Queen in -Council a decree of reannexion, with an explanatory paper, under date -of 19th May, 1861, where the unanimity of the Dominican people is again -asserted, and also the absence of any influence on the part of Spain:-- - - “Everywhere was manifested jubilee and enthusiasm in a manner - unequivocal and solemn. The public authorities, following - their own impulses, have obeyed the sentiment of the country, - which has put its trust in them. Rarely has been seen such a - concurrence, such a unanimity of wills to realize an idea, a - common thought. _And all this, without having on the coast of - San Domingo a single bottom, nor on the territory a soldier of - Spain._”[14] - -Such is the official record on which the decree of reannexion was -adopted. Mark well, Sir,--a unanimous people, and not a single Spanish -bottom on the coast or Spanish soldier on the territory. - - -CONTRAST BETWEEN SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. - -And now mark the contrast between the Old Monarchy and the Great -Republic. The recent return of the Navy Department to the Senate, in -reply to a resolution introduced by me, shows how the whole island has -been beleaguered by our Navy, sailing from port to port, and hugging -the land with its guns. Here is the return:-- - - “The following are the names of the vessels which have been in - the waters of the island of San Domingo since the commencement - of the negotiations with Dominica, with their armaments:-- - - “Severn,--14 9-inch and 1 60-pounder rifle. - - “Congress,--14 9-inch and 2 60-pounder rifles. - - “Nantasket,--6 32-pounders, 4,500 pounds; 1 60-pounder rifle. - - “Swatara,--6 32-pounders, 4,500 pounds; 1 11-inch. - - “Yantic,--1 11-inch and 2 9-inch. - - “Dictator,--2 15-inch. - - “Saugus,--2 15-inch. - - “Terror,--4 15-inch. - - “Albany,--14 9-inch and 1 60-pounder rifle. - - “Nipsic,--1 11-inch and 2 9-inch. - - “Seminole,--1 11-inch and 4 32-pounders of 4,200 pounds. - - “Tennessee,--On spar-deck 2 11-inch, 2 9-inch, 2 100-pounders, - and 1 60-pounder; on gun-deck, 16 9-inch. - - “The ships now [February 17, 1871] in those waters are, as far - as is known to the Department, the Congress, the Nantasket, the - Yantic, and the Tennessee.”[15] - -Twelve mighty war-ships, including two, if not three, powerful -monitors, maintained at the cost of millions of dollars, being part of -the price of the pending negotiation. Besides what we pay to Baez, here -are millions down. Rarely have we had such a fleet in any waters: not -in the Mediterranean, not in the Pacific, not in the East Indies. It is -in the waters of San Domingo that our Navy finds its chosen field. Here -is its flag, and here also is its frown. And why this array? If our -purpose is peace, why these engines of war? If we seek annexion by the -declared will of the people, spontaneous, free, and unanimous, as was -the boast of Spain, why these floating batteries to overawe them? If we -would do good to the African race, why begin with violence to the Black -Republic? - -Before the Commissioners left our shores, there were already three -war-ships with powerful armaments in those waters: the Congress, with -fourteen 9-inch guns and two 60-pounder rifles; the Nantasket, with six -32-pounders of 4,500 pounds, and one 60-pounder rifle; and the Yantic, -with one 11-inch gun and two 9-inch. And then came the Tennessee, with -two 11-inch and two 9-inch guns, two 100-pounders and one 60-pounder, -on its spar-deck, and sixteen 9-inch guns on its gun-deck, to augment -these forces, already disproportioned to any proper object. The -Commissioners are announced as ministers of peace; at all events, their -declared duty is to ascertain the real sentiments of the people. Why -send them in a war-ship? Why cram the dove into a cannon’s mouth? There -are good steamers at New York, safe and sea-worthy, whose presence -would not swell the array of war, nor subject the Great Republic to the -grave imputation of seeking to accomplish its purpose by violence. - - -TRAGICAL END OF SPANISH OCCUPATION. - -If while negotiating with the Dominicans for their territory, and -what is more than territory, their national life, you will not follow -Spanish example and withdraw your war-ships with their flashing arms -and threatening thunder, at least be taught by the tragedy which -attended even this most propitious attempt. The same volumes of -authentic documents from which I have read show how, notwithstanding -the apparent spontaneousness, freedom, and unanimity of the invitation, -the forbearance of Spain was followed by resistance, where sun and -climate united with the people. An official report laid before the -Cortes describes nine thousand Spanish soldiers dead with disease, -while the Spanish occupation was reduced to three towns on the -seaboard, and it was perilous for small parties to go any distance -outside the walls of the City of San Domingo. The same report declares -that twenty thousand troops, provided for a campaign of six months, -would be required to penetrate “the heart of Cibao,”--more accessible -than the region occupied by General Cabral, who disputes the power of -Baez. At last Spain submitted. The spirit of independence prevailed -once more on the island; and the proud banner of Castile, which had -come in peace, amid general congratulations, and with the boast of not -a Spanish bottom or Spanish soldier near, was withdrawn. - - -AN ENGLISH PRECEDENT. - -The example of Spain is reinforced by an English precedent, where may -be seen in the light of analogy the true rule of conduct. By a statute -of the last century, all soldiers quartered at the place of an election -for members of Parliament were removed, at least one day before the -election, to the distance of two miles or more;[16] and though this -statute has been modified latterly, the principle is preserved. No -soldier within two miles of a place of election is allowed to go out of -the barracks or quarters in which he is stationed, unless to mount or -relieve guard or to vote.[17] This safeguard of elections is vindicated -by the great commentator, Sir William Blackstone, when he says, “It -is essential to the very being of Parliament that elections should be -_absolutely free_; therefore all undue influences upon the electors -are illegal and strongly prohibited.”[18] In accordance with this -principle, as early as 1794, a committee of the other House of Congress -reported against the seat of a Representative partly on the ground that -United States troops were quartered near the place of election and were -marched in a body several times round the court-house.[19] And now that -an election is to occur in Dominica, where National Independence is the -question, nothing is clearer than that it should be, in the language of -Blackstone, “absolutely free,” and to this end all naval force should -be withdrawn at least until the “election” is determined. - - -NICE AND SAVOY. - -In harmony with this rule, when Nice and Savoy voted on the question of -annexion to France, the French army was punctiliously withdrawn from -the borders,--all of which was in simple obedience to International -Ethics; but, instead of any such obedience, our war-ships have hovered -with constant menace on the whole coast. - - -SEIZURE OF WAR POWERS BY OUR GOVERNMENT. - -All this is preliminary, although pointing the way to a just -conclusion. Only when we enter into details and consider what has been -done by our Government, do we recognize the magnitude of the question. -Unless the evidence supplied by the agents of our Government is at -fault, unless the reports of the State Department and Navy Department -are discredited, it is obvious beyond doubt, most painfully plain and -indisputable, that the President has seized the war powers carefully -guarded by the Constitution, and without the authority of Congress -has employed them to trample on the independence and equal rights of -two nations coëqual with ours,--unless, to carry out this project of -territorial acquisition, you begin by setting at defiance a first -principle of International Law. This is no hasty or idle allegation; -nor is it made without immeasurable regret. And the regret is increased -by the very strength of the evidence, which is strictly official and -beyond all question. - - -BAEZ, THE USURPER. - -In this melancholy business the central figure is Buenaventura -Baez,--unless we except President Grant, to whom some would accord -the place of honor. The two have acted together as copartners. To -appreciate the case, and especially to comprehend the breach of Public -Law, you must know something of the former, and how he has been enabled -to play his part. Dominican by birth, with much of Spanish blood, and -with a French education, he is a cross where these different elements -are somewhat rudely intermixed. One in whom I have entire confidence -describes him, in a letter to myself, as “the worst man living of whom -he has any personal knowledge”; and he adds, that so must say “every -honest and honorable man who knows his history and his character.” -All his life he has been adventurer, conspirator, and trickster, -uncertain in opinions, without character, without patriotism, without -truth, looking out supremely for himself, and on any side according -to imagined personal interest, being once violent against the United -States as he now professes to be for them. - -By the influence of General Santana, Baez obtained his first election -as President in 1849; and in 1856, contrary to a positive provision of -the Constitution against a second term except after the intervention -of an entire term, he managed by fraud and intrigue to obtain -another lease of power. Beginning thus early his violations of the -Constitution, he became an expert. But the people rose against him, -and he was driven to find shelter within the walls of the city. He -had never been friendly to the United States, and at this time was -especially abusive. His capitulation soon followed, and after a year of -usurped power he left for France. Santana succeeded to the Presidency, -and under him in 1861 the country was reincorporated with Spain, amidst -the prevailing enthusiasm of the people. Anxious to propitiate the -different political chiefs, the Spanish Government offered Baez a -major-general’s commission in the Army, on condition that he should -remain in Europe, which he accepted. For some time there was peace in -Dominica, when the people, under the lead of the patriot Cabral, rose -against the Spanish power. During this protracted period of revolution, -while the patriotism of the country was stirred to its inmost depths, -the Dominican adventurer clung to his Spanish commission with its -honors and emoluments, not parting with them until after the Cortes at -Madrid had renounced the country and ordered its evacuation; and then, -in his letter of resignation addressed to the Queen, under date of June -15, 1865, he again outraged the feelings of his countrymen by declaring -his regret at the failure of annexion to Spain, and his “regard for -her august person and the noble Spanish nation,” against whose arms -they had been fighting for Independence. Losing his Spanish honors and -emoluments, the adventurer was at once changed into a conspirator, -being always a trickster, and from his European retreat began his -machinations for power. Are we not told by the proverb that the Devil -has a long arm? - -On the disappearance of the Spanish flag, Cabral became Protector, -and a National Convention was summoned to frame a Constitution and to -organize a new Government. The people were largely in favor of Cabral, -when armed men, in the name of Baez, and stimulated by his emissaries, -overwhelmed the Assembly with violence, forcing the conspirator into -power. Cabral, who seems to have been always prudent and humane, -anxious to avoid bloodshed, and thinking that his considerable European -residence might have improved the usurper, consented to accept a place -in the Cabinet, which was inaugurated December 8, 1865. Ill-gotten -power is short-lived; revolution soon began, and in the month of May, -1866, Baez, after first finding asylum in the French Consulate, fled to -foreign parts. - -The official journal of San Domingo, “El Monitor,” (June 2, 1866,) now -before me, shows how the fugitive tyrant was regarded at this time. In -the leading article it is said:-- - - “The administration of General Buenaventura Baez has just - fallen under the weight of a great revolution, in which figure - the principal notabilities of the country. A spontaneous - cry, which may be called national, because it has risen from - the depths of the majority, reveals the proportions of the - movement, its character, and its legitimacy.” - -Then follows in the same journal a manifesto signed by the principal -inhabitants of Dominica, where are set forth with much particularity -the grounds of his overthrow, alleging that he became President not by -the free and spontaneous choice of the people, but was imposed upon the -nation by an armed movement; that he treated the chief magistracy as if -it were his own patrimony, and monopolized for himself and his brothers -all the lucrative enterprises of the country without regard to the -public advantage; that, instead of recognizing the merit of those who -had by their sacrifices served their country, he degraded, imprisoned, -and banished them; that, in violation of the immunity belonging to -members of the Constituent Assembly, he sent them to a most horrible -prison,--and here numerous persons are named; that, without any -judicial proceedings, contrary to the Constitution, and in the spirit -of vengeance, he shut up many deserving men in obscure dungeons,--and -here also are many names; that, since his occupation of the Presidency, -he has kept the capital in constant alarm, and has established a system -of terrorism in the bosom of the national representation. All this and -much more will be found in this manifesto. There is also a manifesto -of Cabral, assigning at still greater length reasons for the overthrow -of Baez, and holding him up as the enemy of peace and union; also a -manifesto by the Triumvirate constituting the Provisional Government, -declaring his infractions of the Constitution; also a manifesto from -the general in command at the City of San Domingo, where, after -denouncing the misdeeds of one man, it says, “This man, this monster, -this speculator, this tyrant, is the General Buenaventura Baez.” - -Soon after the disappearance of Baez, his rival became legitimate -President by the direct vote of the people, according to the -requirement of the Constitution. Different numbers of the official -journal now before me contain the election returns in September, 1866, -where the name of General José María Cabral appears at the head of the -poll. This is memorable as the first time in the history of Dominica -that a question was submitted to the direct vote of the people. By that -direct vote Cabral became President, and peace ensued. Since then there -has been no election; so that this was last as well as first, leaving -Cabral the last legitimate President. - -During his enforced exile, Baez found his way to Washington. Mr. -Seward declined to see him, but referred him to me. I had several -conversations with him at my house. His avowed object was to obtain -money and arms to aid him in the overthrow of the existing Government. -Be assured, Mr. President, he obtained no encouragement from -me,--although I did not hesitate to say, as I always have said, that I -hoped my country would never fail to do all possible good to Dominica, -extending to it a helping hand. It was at a later day that belligerent -intervention began. - -Meanwhile Cabral, embarrassed by financial difficulties and a dead -weight of paper money, the legacy of the fugitive conspirator, turned -to the United States for assistance, offering a lease of the Bay of -Samana. Then spoke Baez from his retreat, denouncing what he called -“the sale of his country to the United States,” adopting the most -inflammatory language. By his far-reaching and unscrupulous activity a -hostile force was organized, which, with the help of Salnave, the late -ruler of Hayti, compelled the capitulation of Cabral, February 8, 1868. -A Convention was appointed, not elected, which proceeded to nominate -Baez for the term of four years, not as President, but as Dictator. -Declining the latter title, the triumphant conspirator accepted that of -_Gran Ciudadano_, or Grand Citizen, with unlimited powers. At the same -time his enemies were driven into exile. The prisons were gorged, and -the most respectable citizens were his victims. Naturally such a man -would sell his country. Wanting money, he cared little how it was got. -Anything for money, even his country. - - -ORIGIN OF THE SCHEME. - -Cabral withdrew to the interior, keeping up a menace of war, while -the country was indignant with the unscrupulous usurper, who for -the second time obtained power by violence. Power thus obtained was -naturally uncertain, and Baez soon found himself obliged to invoke -foreign assistance. “Help me, Cassius, or I sink!” cried the Grand -Citizen. European powers would not listen. None of them wanted his -half-island,--not Spain, not France, not England. None would take it. -But still the Grand Citizen cried, when at last he was relieved by an -answering voice from our Republic. A young officer, inexperienced in -life, ignorant of the world, untaught in the Spanish language, unversed -in International Law, knowing absolutely nothing of the intercourse -between nations, and unconscious of the Constitution of his country, -was selected by the President to answer the cry of the Grand Citizen. -I wish that I could say something better of General Babcock; but -if I spoke according to the evidence, much from his own lips, the -portraiture would be more painful, and his unfitness more manifest. In -closest association with Baez, and with profitable concessions not easy -to measure, was the American Cazneau, known as disloyal to our country, -and so thoroughly suspected that the military missionary, before -leaving Washington, was expressly warned against him; but like seeks -like, and he at once rushed into the embrace of the selfish speculator, -who boasted that “no one American had been more intimately connected -with the Samana and annexation negotiations, from their inception to -their close, than himself,”--and who did not hesitate to instruct Baez -that it was not only his right, but duty, to keep an American citizen -in prison “to serve and protect negotiations in which our President -was so deeply interested,” which he denominates “the great business in -hand.”[20] - -By the side of Cazneau was Fabens, also a speculator and life-long -intriguer, afterwards Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary -of Baez in “the great business.” Sparing details, which would make the -picture more sombre, I come at once to the conclusion. A treaty was -signed by which the usurper pretended to sell his country to the United -States in consideration of $1,500,000; also another treaty leasing the -Bay of Samana for an annual rent of $150,000. The latter sum was paid -down by the young plenipotentiary, or $100,000 in cash and $50,000 in -muskets and a battery. No longer able to pocket the doubloons of Spain, -the usurper sought to pocket our eagles, and not content with muskets -and a battery to be used against his indignant fellow-countrymen, -obtained the Navy of the United States to maintain him in his treason. -It was a plot worthy of the hardened conspirator and his well-tried -confederates. - - -OPEN INFRACTION OF THE DOMINICAN CONSTITUTION. - -The case was aggravated by the open infraction of the Constitution of -Dominica with which it proceeded. By that Constitution, adopted 27th -September, 1866, a copy of which is now before me, it is solemnly -declared that “neither the whole nor part of the territory of the -Republic can ever be alienated,” while the President takes the -following oath of office: “I swear by God and the Holy Gospels to -observe and cause to be observed the Constitution and the Laws of the -Dominican People, to respect their rights, and to maintain the National -Independence.” The Constitution of 1865 had said simply, “_No part_ of -the territory of the Republic can ever be alienated”; but now, as if -anticipating recent events, it was declared, “_Neither the whole_ nor -part,”--thus explicitly excluding the power exercised. All this was set -aside while the plot went on. Even if Baez defied the Constitution of -his country, our Government, in dealing with him, could not do so. In -negotiation with another power, the Great Republic, which is an example -to nations, cannot be insensible to the restrictions imposed by the -Constitution of the contracting party; and this duty becomes stronger -from the very weakness of the other side. Defied by the Dominican -usurper, all these restrictions must be sacredly regarded by us. Than -this nothing can be clearer in International Ethics; but the rule of -Law is like that of Ethics. Ancient Rome, speaking in the text of -Ulpian, says: “He who contracts with another either knows or ought to -know his condition,”--_Qui cum alio contrahit vel est vel DEBET esse -non ignarus conditionis ejus_;[21] and this rule has the authority of -Wheaton as part of International Law.[22] Another writer gives to it -this practical statement, precisely applicable to the present case: -“Nevertheless, in order to make such transfer valid, the authority, -whether _de facto_ or _de jure_, must be competent to bind the State. -Hence the necessity of examining into and ascertaining the powers of -the rulers, as the municipal constitutions of different states throw -many difficulties in the way of alienations of their public property, -_and particularly of their territory_.”[23] Thus, according to -International Law, as expounded by American authority, was this treaty -forbidden. - -Treaties negotiated in violation of the Dominican Constitution and -of International Law were to be maintained at all hazards, even that -last terrible hazard of war; nor was Public Law in any of its forms, -Constitutional or International, allowed to stand in the way. The War -Powers, so carefully guarded in every Republican Government, and so -jealously defended against the One-Man Power, were instantly seized, in -open violation of the Constitution of the United States, which was as -little regarded as that of Dominica, while the Law of Nations in its -most commanding principles was set at defiance: all of which appears -too plainly on the facts. - - -ALLEGATIONS IN FORMER SPEECH NOW REPEATED. - -When last I had the honor of addressing the Senate on this grave -question, you will remember, Sir, my twofold allegation: first, that -the usurper Baez was maintained in power by our Navy to enable him -to carry out the sale of his country; and, secondly, that further to -assure this sale the neighbor Republic of Hayti was violently menaced -by an admiral of our fleet,--both acts being unquestionable breaches of -Public Law, Constitutional and International. That these allegations -were beyond question, at least by our Government, I knew well at the -time, for I had the official evidence on my table; but I was unable to -use it. Since then it has been communicated to the Senate. What I then -asserted on my own authority I now present on documentary evidence. -My witnesses are the officers of the Government and their official -declarations. Let the country judge if I was not right in every word -that I then employed. And still further, let the country judge if the -time has not come to cry “Halt!” in this business, which already has -the front of war. - - -WAR. - -War, Sir, is the saddest chapter of history. It is known as “the -last reason of kings.” Alas, that it should ever be the reason of a -Republic! “There can be no such thing, my Lords, as a little war for a -great nation,” was the exclamation of the Duke of Wellington,[24] which -I heard from his own lips, as he protested against what to some seemed -petty. Gathering all the vigor of his venerable form, the warrior -seasoned in a hundred fights cried out, and all within the sound of his -voice felt the testimony. The reason is obvious. War, whether great or -little, whether on the fields of France or the island of San Domingo, -is war, over which hovers not only Death, but every demon of wrath. Nor -is war merely conflict on a chosen field; it is force employed by one -nation against another, or in the affairs of another,--as in the direct -menace to Hayti, and the intermeddling between Baez and Cabral. There -may be war without battle. Hercules conquered by manifest strength the -moment he appeared on the ground, so that his club rested unused. And -so our Navy has thus far conquered without a shot; but its presence in -the waters of Hayti and Dominica was war. - - -TWO SOURCES OF TESTIMONY. - -All this will be found under two different heads, or in two different -sources: first, what is furnished by the State Department, and, -secondly, what is furnished by the Navy Department. These two -Departments are witnesses, with their agents, confessing and acting. -From the former we have confession; from the latter we have acts: -confessions and acts all in harmony and supporting each other. I begin -with the confession. - - -CONFESSION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT. - -In the strange report of the Secretary of State, responsive to a -resolution moved by me in the Senate, the dependence of Baez upon our -Navy is confessed in various forms. Nobody can read this document -without noting the confession, first from the reluctant Secretary, and -then from his agent. - -Referring to the correspondence of Raymond H. Perry, our Commercial -Agent at San Domingo, who signed the treaties, the Secretary presents -a summary, which, though obnoxious to just criticism, is a confession. -According to him, the correspondence “tends to show that the presence -of a United States man-of-war in the port was supposed to have _a -peaceful influence_.”[25] The term “peaceful influence” is the pleonasm -of the Secretary, confessing the maintenance of Baez in his usurpation. -There is no such thing as stealing; “_convey_ the wise it call”; and -so with the Secretary the maintenance of a usurper by our war-ships -is only “a peaceful influence.” A discovery of the Secretary. But in -the levity of his statement the Secretary forgets that a United States -man-of-war has nothing to do within a foreign jurisdiction, and cannot -exert influence there without unlawful intervention. - -The Secretary alludes also to the probability of “another revolution,” -of course against Baez, in the event of the failure of the annexion -plot; and here is another confession of the dependence of the usurper -upon our Navy. - -But the correspondence of Mr. Perry, as communicated to the Senate, -shows more plainly than the confession of the Secretary how completely -the usurper was maintained in power by the strong arm of the United -States. - -The anxiety of the usurper was betrayed at an early day, even while -vaunting the popular enthusiasm for annexion. In a dispatch dated at -San Domingo, January 20, 1870, Mr. Perry thus reports:-- - - “The Nantasket left this port January 1, 1870, and we have not - heard from her since. She was to go to Puerto Plata [a port of - Dominica] and return _viâ_ Samana Bay [also in Dominica]. _We - need the protection of a man-of-war very much_, but anticipate - her return very soon.”[26] - -Why the man-of-war was needed is easily inferred from what is said in -the same dispatch:-- - - “The President tells me that it is almost impossible to prevent - the people pronouncing for annexation before the proper time. - _He prefers to await the arrival of a United States man-of-war - before their opinion is publicly expressed._”[27] - -If the truth were told, the usurper felt that it was almost impossible -to prevent the people from pronouncing for his overthrow, and therefore -he wanted war-ships. - -Then under date of February 8, 1870, Mr. Perry reports again:-- - - “President Baez daily remarks that the United States Government - has not kept its promises to send men-of-war to the coast. He - seems very timid and lacks energy.”[28] - -The truth becomes still more apparent in the dispatch of February 20, -1870,--nearly three months after the signature of the treaties, and -while they were still pending before the Senate,--where it is openly -reported:-- - - _“If the United States ships were withdrawn, he [Baez] could - not hold the reins of this Government._ I have told him - this.”[29] - -Nothing can be plainer. In other words, the usurper was maintained in -power by our guns. Such was the official communication of the very -agent who had signed the treaties, and who was himself an ardent -annexionist. Desiring annexion, he confesses the means employed to -accomplish it. How the President did not at once abandon, unfinished, -treaties maintained by violence, how the Secretary of State did not -at once resign rather than be a party to this transaction, is beyond -comprehension. - -Nor was the State Department left uninformed with regard to the -distribution of this naval force. Here is the report, under date of San -Domingo, March 12, 1870, while the vote was proceeding:-- - - “The Severn lies at this port; the Swatara left for Samana - the 9th; the Nantasket goes to Puerto Plata to-morrow, the - 13th; the Yantic lies in the river in this city. Admiral Poor, - on board the Severn, is expected to remain at this port for - some time. Everything is very quiet at present throughout the - country.”[30] - -Thus under the guns of our Navy was quiet maintained, while Baez, like -another usurper, exclaimed, “Now, by St. Paul, the work goes bravely -on!” - -What this same official reported to the State Department he afterward -reaffirmed under oath, in his testimony before the committee of the -Senate on the case of Mr. Hatch. The words were few, but decisive, -touching the acts of our Navy,--“committed since we had been there, -_protecting Baez from the citizens of San Domingo_.”[31] - -Then, again, in a private letter to myself, under date of Bristol, -Rhode Island, February 10, 1871, after stating that he had reported -what the record shows to be true, “that Baez was sustained and held in -power by the United States Navy,” he adds, “This fact Baez acknowledged -to me.” - -So that we have the confession of the Secretary of State, also the -confession of his agent at San Domingo, and the confession of Baez -himself, that the usurper depended for support on our Navy. - - -AN AMERICAN CITIZEN SACRIFICED TO HELP THE TREATY. - -This drama of a usurper sustained by foreign power is illustrated by -an episode, where the liberty of an American citizen was sacrificed to -the consummation of the plot. It appears that Davis Hatch, of Norwalk, -Connecticut, intimately known to one of the Senators of that State -[Mr. FERRY] and respected by the other [Mr. BUCKINGHAM], lived in -Dominica, engaged in business there, while Cabral was the legitimate -President. During this time he wrote letters to a New York paper, in -which he exposed the character of the conspirator Baez, then an exile. -When the latter succeeded by violence in overthrowing the regular -Government, one of his first acts was to arrest Mr. Hatch, on the -ground that he had coöperated with Cabral. How utterly groundless was -this charge appears by a letter to Baez from his own brother, governor -of the province where the former resided,[32] and also by the testimony -of Mr. Somers Smith, our Commercial Agent in San Domingo, who spoke -and acted as became a representative of our country.[33] Read the -correspondence and testimony candidly, and you will confess that the -whole charge was trumped up to serve the purpose of the usurper. - -Sparing all details of trial and pardon, where everything testifies -against Baez, I come to the single decisive point, on which there can -be no question, that, even after his formal pardon, Mr. Hatch was -detained in prison by the authority of the usurper, at the special -instance of Cazneau and with the connivance of Babcock, in order to -prevent his influence against the treaty of annexion. The evidence -is explicit and unanswerable. Gautier, the Minister of Baez, who -had signed the treaty, in an official note to our representative, -Mr. Raymond H. Perry, dated at San Domingo, February 19, 1870, and -communicated to the State Department, says: “I desire that you will -be good enough to assure his Excellency, the Secretary of State in -Washington, that _the prolonged sojourn of Mr. Hatch here_ has been -only to prevent his hostile action in New York.”[34] Nor is this -all. Under the same date, Cazneau had the equal hardihood to write -to Babcock, then at Washington, a similar version of the conspiracy, -where, after denunciation of Perry as “embarrassing affairs here,” in -San Domingo, by his persistency in urging the release of Mr. Hatch, -he relates, that, on occasion of a recent peremptory demand of this -sort in his presence, Baez replied, that Hatch “would certainly make -use of his liberty to join the enemies of annexation,” and “that _a -few weeks’ restraint_ would not be so inconvenient to him as his -slanderous statements might become to _the success of General Grant’s -policy in the Antilles_,”--and he adds, that he himself, in response -to the simultaneous charge of “opposing the liberation of an innocent -man,” declared, that, in his opinion, “President Baez had the right, -_and ought_, to do everything in his power _to serve and protect -negotiations_ in which our President was so deeply interested.”[35] -All this is clear, plain, and documentary. Nor is there any drawback -or deduction on account of the character of Mr. Hatch, who, according -to the best testimony, is an excellent citizen, enjoying the good-will -and esteem of his neighbors at home, being respected there “as much as -Governor Buckingham is in Norwich,”[36]--and we all know that no higher -standard can be reached. - -In other days it was said that the best government is where an injury -to a single citizen is resented as an injury to the whole State. Here -was an American citizen, declared by our representative to be “an -innocent man,” and already pardoned for the crimes falsely alleged -against him, incarcerated, or, according to the polite term of the -Minister of Baez, compelled to a “prolonged sojourn,” in order to -assure the consummation of the plot for the acceptance of the treaty, -or, in the words of Cazneau, “to serve and protect negotiations in -which our President [Grant] was so deeply interested.” The cry, “I -am an American citizen,” was nothing to Baez, nothing to Cazneau, -nothing to Babcock. The young missionary heard the cry and answered -not. Annexion was in peril. Annexion could not stand the testimony of -Mr. Hatch, who would write in New York papers. Therefore was he doomed -to a prison. Here again I forbear details, though at each point they -testify. And yet the Great Republic, instead of spurning at once the -heartless usurper who trampled on the liberty of an American citizen, -and spurning the ill-omened treaty which required this sacrifice, -continued to lend its strong arm in the maintenance of the trampler, -while with unexampled assiduity it pressed the treaty upon a reluctant -Senate. - - -CONFESSION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD TO HAYTI. - -But intervention in Dominica is only one part of the story, even -according to the confession of the State Department. Side by side -with Dominica on the same tempting island is the Black Republic of -Hayti, with a numerous population, which more than two generations ago -achieved national independence, and at a later day, by the recognition -of our Government, took its place under the Law of Nations as equal -and peer of the Great Republic. To all its paramount titles of -Independence and Equality, sacred and unimpeachable, must be added its -special character as an example of self-government, being the first -in the history of the African race, and a promise of the future. Who -can doubt that as such this Black Republic has a value beyond all the -products of its teeming tropical soil? Like other Governments, not -excepting our own, it has complications, domestic and foreign. Among -the latter is chronic hostility with Dominica, arising from claims -territorial and pecuniary. To these claims I refer without undertaking -to consider their justice. It is enough that they exist. And here -comes the wrong perpetuated by the Great Republic. In the effort -to secure the much-coveted territory, our Government, not content -with maintaining the usurper Baez in power, occupying the harbors of -Dominica with the war-ships of the United States, sent other war-ships, -being none other than our most powerful monitor, the Dictator, with the -frigate Severn as consort, and with yet other monitors in their train, -to menace the Black Republic by an act of war. An American admiral was -found to do this thing, and an American minister, himself of African -blood, was found to aid the admiral. - -The dispatch of the Secretary of State instituting this act of war does -not appear in his Report; but we are sufficiently enlightened by that -of Mr. Bassett, our Minister Resident at Port-au-Prince, who, under -date of February 17, 1870, informs the State Department in Washington -that he had “transmitted to the Haytian Government notification that -the United States asked and expected it to observe a strict neutrality -in reference to the internal affairs of San Domingo”; and then, -with superserviceable alacrity, he lets the Department know that he -communicated to Commander Owen, of the Seminole, reports that “persons -in authority under the Haytian Government were planning clandestinely -schemes for interference in San Domingo affairs.”[37] But a moment of -contrition seems to have overtaken the Minister; for he adds, that he -did not regard these reports “as sufficiently reliable to make them -the basis for a recommendation of _severe or extreme measures_.”[38] -Pray, by what title, Mr. Minister, could you recommend any such -measures, being nothing less than war against the Black Republic? By -what title could you launch these great thunders? The menacing note of -the Minister was acknowledged by the Black Republic without one word of -submission,--as also without one word of proper resentment.[39] - -The officious Minister of the Great Republic reports to the State -Department that he had addressed a diplomatic note to the Black -Republic, under date of February 9, 1870, where, referring to the -answer of the latter, he says, “It would nevertheless have been more -satisfactory and agreeable to my Government _and myself_, if you, in -speaking for your Government, had felt authorized to give assurance -of the neutrality asked and expected by the United States.”[40] This -letter was written with the guns of the Dictator and Severn behind. It -appears from the Minister’s report, that these two war-ships arrived at -the capital of the Black Republic on the morning of February 9th, when -the Minister, as he says, “arranged for a formal call on the Haytian -Government the same day.” The Minister then records, and no blush -appears on his paper, that “the Admiral availed himself of this visit -to communicate, _quite pointedly_, to the President and his advisers -the tenor of his instructions.”[41] This assault upon the Independence -and Equality of the Black Republic will appear more fully in the Report -transmitted to the Senate by the Navy Department. For the present I -present the case on the confession of the State Department. - - -RECORD OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. - -If the Report of the State Department is a confession, that of -the Navy Department is an authentic record of acts flagrant and -indefensible,--unless we are ready to set aside the Law of Nations and -the Constitution of the United States, two paramount safeguards. Both -of these are degraded in order to advance the scheme. If I called it -plot, I should not err; for this term is suggested by the machination. -The record is complete. - -The scheme first shows itself in a letter from the Secretary of State -to the Secretary of the Navy, under date of May 17, 1869, informing -the latter that the President deems it “desirable that _a man-of-war_, -commanded by a discreet and intelligent officer, should be ordered _to -visit the several ports of the Dominican Republic_, and to report upon -the condition of affairs in that quarter.” The Secretary adds:-- - - “It is also important that we should have full and accurate - information in regard to the views of the Dominican people - of all parties in regard to annexation to the United States, - or the sale or lease of the Bay of Samana, or of territory - adjacent thereto.”[42] - -No invitation from the island appears,--not a word even from any of its -people. The beginning is in the letter of the Secretary; and here we -see how “a man-of-war” formed part of the first stage. A mere inquiry -is inaugurated by “a man-of-war.” Nor was it to stop at a single place; -it was to visit the several ports of the Dominican Republic. - -The Secretary of the Navy obeyed. Orders were given, and under date -of June 29, 1869, Rear-Admiral Hoff reports that the Nipsic, with an -armament of one 11-inch and two 9-inch guns, “is to visit all the -ports of the Dominican Republic.”[43] Here again is a revelation, -foreshadowing the future; all the ports are to be visited by this -powerful war-ship. Why? To what just end? If for negotiation, then was -force, _force_, FORCE our earliest, as it has been since our constant -plenipotentiary. Already we discern the contrast with Old Spain. - -The loss of a screw occurred to prevent this war-breathing -perambulation. The Nipsic did not go beyond Port-au-Prince; but -Lieutenant-Commander Selfridge, in his report, under date of July 14, -1869, lets drop an honest judgment, which causes regret that he did not -visit the whole island. Thus he wrote:-- - - “While my short stay in the island will not permit me to - speak with authority, it is my individual opinion, that, if the - United States should annex Hayti _on the representation of a - party_, it would be found an elephant both costly in money and - lives.”[44] - -The whole case is opened when we are warned against annexion “on the -representation of a party.” - -Still the scheme proceeded. On the 17th July, 1869, General Babcock -sailed from New York for San Domingo, as special agent of the State -Department. The records of the Department, so far as communicated -to the Senate, show no authority to open negotiations of any kind, -much less to treat for the acquisition of this half-island. His -instructions, which are dated July 13, 1869, are simply to make certain -inquiries;[45] but, under the same date, the Secretary of the Navy -addresses a letter to Commander Owen, of the Seminole, with an armament -of one 11-inch gun and four 32-pounders, of 4,200 pounds, in which he -says:-- - - “You will remain at Samana, or on the coast of San Domingo, - while General Babcock is there, _and give him the moral support - of your guns_.”[46] - -The phrase of the Secretary is at least curious. And who is General -Babcock, that on his visit the Navy is to be at his back? Nothing on -this head is said. All that we know from the record is that he was to -make certain inquiries, and in this business “guns” play a part. To -be sure, it was their “_moral_ support” he was to have; but they were -nevertheless “guns.” Thus in all times has lawless force sought to -disguise itself. Before any negotiation was begun, while only a few -interrogatories were ordered by the State Department, under which this -missionary acted, “the moral support of guns” was ordered by the Navy -Department. Here, Sir, permit me to say, is the first sign of war, -being an undoubted usurpation, whether by President or Secretary. War -is hostile force, and here it is ordered. But this is only a squint, -compared with the open declaration which ensued. And here again we -witness the contrast with Old Spain. - -But the “guns” of the Seminole were not enough to support the -missionary in his inquiries. The Navy Department, under date of August -23, 1869, telegraphed to the commandant at Key West:-- - - “Direct a vessel to proceed without a moment’s delay to San - Domingo City, _to be placed at the disposal of General Babcock - while on that coast_. If not at San Domingo City, to find - him.”[47] - -Here is nothing less than the terrible earnestness of war itself. -Accordingly, the Tuscarora was dispatched; and the missionary finds -himself changed to a commodore. Again the contrast with Old Spain! - -How many days the Tuscarora took to reach the coast does not appear; -but on the 4th September the famous protocol was executed by Orville -E. Babcock, entitling himself “Aide-de-Camp to his Excellency, -General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America,” -where, besides stipulating the annexion of Dominica to the United -States in consideration of $1,500,000, it is further provided that -“his Excellency, General Grant, President of the United States, -promises, privately, to use all his influence in order that the idea -of annexing the Dominican Republic to the United States may acquire -such a degree of popularity among members of Congress as will be -necessary for its accomplishment.”[48] Such was the work which needed -so suddenly--“without a moment’s delay”--a second war-ship besides the -Seminole, which was already ordered to lend “the _moral_ support of its -guns.” How unlike that boast of Old Spain, that there was not a Spanish -bottom in those waters! - -Returning to Washington with his protocol, the missionary was now -sent back with instructions to negotiate two treaties,--one for the -annexion of the half-island, and the other for the lease of the Bay -of Samana. By the Constitution ambassadors and other public ministers -are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent -of the Senate; but our missionary held no such commission. How the -business sped appears from the State Department. The Report of the -Navy Department shows how it was sustained by force. By a letter under -date of December 3, 1869, on board the ship Albany, off San Domingo, -addressed to Lieutenant-Commander Bunce on board the Nantasket, the -missionary, after announcing the conclusion of a treaty for the lease -of Samana and other purposes, imparts this important information:-- - - “In this negotiation the President has guarantied to the - Dominican Republic protection from all foreign interposition - during the time specified in the treaties for submitting the - same to the people of the Dominican Republic.” - -Of the absolute futility and nullity of this Presidential guaranty -until after the ratification of the treaties I shall speak hereafter. -Meanwhile we behold the missionary changed to plenipotentiary:-- - - “For this purpose the honorable Secretary of the Navy was - directed to place _three armed vessels in this harbor, subject - to my instruction_.” - -Why three armed vessels? For what purpose? How unlike the boast of Old -Spain! What follows reveals the menace of war:-- - - “I shall raise the United States flag on shore, and shall leave - a small guard with it.” - -Here is nothing less than military occupation. Besides war-ships in the -waters, the flag is to be raised on shore, and soldiers of the United -States are to be left with it. Again the contrast with Old Spain, -boasting not only that there was not a single Spanish “bottom” on the -coast, but not a single Spanish soldier on the land. Then follows an -order to make war:-- - - “Should you find any foreign intervention intended, _you will - use all your force_ to carry out to the letter the guaranties - given in the treaties.” - -Nothing could be stronger. Here is war. Then comes a direct menace by -the young plenipotentiary, launched at the neighboring Black Republic:-- - - “The Dominican Republic fears trouble from the Haytian border, - about Jacmel. You will please inform the people, in case you - are satisfied there is an intended intervention, that such - intervention, direct or indirect, will be regarded as an - unfriendly act toward the United States, _and take such steps - as you think necessary_.”[49] - -The Dominican Republic fears trouble, or in other words the usurper -Baez trembles for his power, and therefore the guns of our Navy are -to be pointed at Hayti. Again, how little like Old Spain! And this -was the way in which our negotiation began. We have heard of an -“_armed_ neutrality,” and of an “_armed_ peace”; but here is an _armed_ -negotiation. - -The force employed in the negotiation naturally fructified in other -force. Violence follows violence in new forms. Armed negotiation was -changed to armed intervention, being an act of war,--all of which -is placed beyond question. There is repetition and reduplication of -testimony. - -The swiftness of war appears in the telegram dated at the Navy -Department January 29, 1870, addressed to Rear-Admiral Poor, at Key -West. Here is this painful dispatch:-- - - “Proceed at once with the Severn and Dictator to - Port-au-Prince; communicate with our Consul there, and inform - the present Haytian authorities that this Government is - determined to protect the present Dominican Government _with - all its power_. You will then proceed to Dominica, and use - your force to give the most ample protection to the Dominican - Government _against any Power attempting to interfere with it_. - Visit Samana Bay and the capital, _and see the United States - power and authority secure there_. _There must be no failure in - this matter._ If the Haytians attack the Dominicans with their - ships, _destroy or capture them_. See that there is a proper - force at both San Domingo City and Samana. - - “If Admiral Poor is not at Key West, this dispatch must be - forwarded to him without delay.”[50] - -“Proceed at once.” Mark the warlike energy. What then? Inform the -Haytian Government “that this Government is determined to protect the -present Dominican Government [the usurper Baez] with _all its power_.” -Strong words, and vast in scope! Not only the whole Navy of the United -States, but all the power of our Republic is promised to the usurper. -At Dominica, where the Admiral is to go next, he is directed to use his -force “to give the most ample protection to the Dominican Government -[the usurper Baez] _against any Power attempting to interfere with -it_.” Then comes a new direction. At Samana and the City of San Domingo -“see the United States power and authority secure there.” Here is -nothing less than military occupation. Pray, by what title? Mark again -the warlike energy. And then giving to the war a new character, the -Admiral is told: “If the Haytians attack the Dominicans with their -ships, _destroy or capture them_.” Such is this many-shotted dispatch, -which is like a mitrailleuse in death-dealing missives. - -This belligerent intervention in the affairs of another country, with -a declaration of war against the Black Republic, all without any -authority from Congress, or any sanction under the Constitution, was -followed by a dispatch dated January 31, 1870, to Lieutenant-Commander -Allen, of the Swatara, with an armament of six 32-pounders, 4,500 -pounds, and one 11-inch gun, where is the breath of war. After hurrying -the ship off to the City of San Domingo, the dispatch says:-- - - “If you find, when you get there, that the Dominican Government - require any assistance against the enemies of that Republic, - _you will not hesitate to give it to them_.”[51] - -What is this but war, at the call of the usurper Baez, against the -enemies of his Government, whether domestic or foreign? Let the usurper -cry out, and our flag is engaged. Our cannon must fire, it may be upon -Dominicans rising against the usurper, or it may be upon Haytians -warring on the usurper for their rights, or it may be upon some other -foreign power claiming rights. The order is peremptory, leaving no -discretion. The assistance must be rendered. “You will not hesitate to -give it to them”: so says the order. On which I observe, This is war. - -This was not enough. The Navy Department, by still another order, dated -February 9, 1870, addressed to Commodore Green, of the ship Congress, -with an armament of fourteen 9-inch guns and two 60-pounder rifles, -enforces this same conduct. After mentioning the treaty, the order -says:-- - - “While that treaty is pending, the Government of the United - States has agreed to afford countenance and assistance to the - Dominican people _against their enemies now in the island and - in revolution against the lawfully constituted Government_, - and you will use the force at your command to resist any - attempts by the enemies of the Dominican Republic to invade the - Dominican territory, _by land or sea_, so far as your power can - reach them.”[52] - -Here again is belligerent intervention in Dominica, with a declaration -of war against the Black Republic, included under the head “enemies of -the Dominican Republic,” or perhaps it is a case of “running amuck,” -according to Malay example, for the sake of the usurper Baez. - -Thus much for the orders putting in motion the powers of war. I have -set them forth in their precise words. Soon I shall show wherein they -offend International Law and the Constitution. Meanwhile the case is -not complete without showing what was done under these orders. Already -the State Department has testified. The Navy Department testifies in -harmony with the State Department. And here the record may be seen -under two heads,--first, belligerent intervention in Dominica, and, -secondly, belligerent intervention in Hayti. - - -BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION IN DOMINICA. - -In Dominica there was constant promise of protection and constant -appeal for it, with recurring incidents, showing the dependence of the -usurper upon our naval force. And here I proceed according to the order -of dates. - -Rear-Admiral Poor, of the flag-ship Severn, reports from the City of -San Domingo, under date of March 12, 1870, that the President--meaning -the usurper Baez--informed him that he was obliged to keep a -considerable force against Cabral and Luperon, and then added, “If -annexation was delayed, it would be absolutely necessary for him -to call upon the United States Government for pecuniary aid.”[53] -Not content with our guns, the usurper wanted our dollars. Next -Lieutenant-Commander Bunce, under date of March 21, 1870, reports from -Puerto Plata that “the authorities think that the excitement has not -yet passed, and that _the presence of a man-of-war here for a time will -have a great moral effect_.”[54] The man-of-war becomes a preacher. -The same officer, under date of March 24, 1870, reports a speech of his -own at Puerto Plata, that Rear-Admiral Poor “had a heavy squadron about -the island, and would drive him [Luperon] out,--probably, in doing so, -_destroying the town and all the property in it_.”[55] And this was -followed, March 26, 1870, by formal notice from Lieutenant-Commander -Bunce to the British Vice-Consul at Puerto Plata, in these terms:-- - - “As to my objects here, one of them certainly is, and I desire - to accomplish it as plainly as possible, to inform the foreign - residents here, that, if any such league or party is formed - among them, and, with or without their aid, Luperon, Cabral, - or any others hostile to the Dominican Government, should get - possession of this port, _the naval forces of the United States - would retake it_, and, in so doing, the foreign residents, as - the largest property-holders, as well as the most interested in - the business of the port, would be the greatest sufferers.”[56] - -Here is the menace of war. The naval forces of the United States will -retake a port. - -Meanwhile the work of protection proceeds. Rear-Admiral Poor reports, -under date of May 7, 1870:-- - - “Upon my arrival there [at San Domingo City], I found it - necessary, _properly to protect the Dominican Government_, - to dispatch one of the sloops I found there to the northwest - portion of the island and the other to Puerto Plata, intending, - as soon as able to do so, to dispatch one to Samana Bay and to - station the other off San Domingo City.”[57] - -Here is belligerent protection at four different points. - -Meanwhile the treaty for annexion, and also the treaty for the lease -of Samana, had both expired by lapse of time March 29, 1870, while the -treaty for annexion was rejected by solemn vote June 30, 1870,--so that -no treaty remained even as apology for the illegitimate protection -which had been continued at such cost to the country. But this made no -difference in the aid supplied by our Navy. Nor was the Administration -here unadvised with regard to the constant dependence of the usurper. -Commodore Green reports from off San Domingo City, under date of July -21, 1870:-- - - “I am inclined to the opinion that a withdrawal of the - protection of the United States, and of the prospect of - annexation at some future time, would instantly lead to a - revolution, headed by Cabral, who would be supported by - the enemies of the present Government, and assisted by the - Haytians.”[58] - -This is followed by a report from Lieutenant-Commander Allen at Samana -Bay, under date of August 28, 1870, announcing that he has received -a communication from “his Excellency, President Baez, requesting the -presence of a vessel on the north side of the island, on account of -an intended invasion by Cabral.”[59] In the communication, which is -inclosed, the usurper says that he “deems the presence of a ship-of-war -in the Bay of Manzanillo of immediate importance.”[60] Cabral, it -appears, was near this place. Other points are mentioned to be visited. - -Then follow other reports from Commander Irwin of the Yantic, with -inclosures from Baez, where the dependence of the usurper is -confessed. In a letter from the Executive Mansion at San Domingo City, -under date of August 30, 1870, he desires Commander Irwin to “proceed -to Tortuguero de Azua for a few hours, for the purpose of transporting -to this city the rest of the Dominican battalion Restauracion, as it is -thought convenient by the Government.”[61] Upon which Commander Irwin, -under date of September 3, 1870, remarks:-- - - “The President was anxious to add to the force at his disposal - in the City of San Domingo, _as he feared an outbreak_.… - I acceded to his request, … and on the 2d instant landed - sixty-five officers and men that we had brought from Azua.”[62] - -Here is a confession, showing again the part played by our Navy. -War-ships of the United States dance attendance on the usurper, and -save him from the outbreak of the people. - -Then, again, under date of September 2, 1870, the usurper declares “the -necessity at present of a man-of-war in this port, and that none would -be more convenient than the Yantic _for the facility of entering the -river Ozama, owing to her size_.”[63] Thus not merely on the coasts, -but in a river, was our Navy invoked. - -But this was not enough. Under date of October 8, 1870, the usurper -writes from the Executive Residence “to reiterate the necessity of the -vessels now in that bay [Samana] coming to these southern coasts.”[64] -And as late as January 8, 1871, Rear-Admiral Lee reports from off San -Domingo City, that delay in accomplishing annexion has, among other -things, “risk of insurrection,”[65]--thus attesting the dependence of -the usurper upon our power. Such is the uniform story, where the cry of -the usurper is like the refrain of a ballad. - - -BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION IN HAYTI. - -The constant intervention in Dominica was supplemented by that other -intervention in Hayti, when an American admiral threatened war to the -Black Republic. Shame and indignation rise as we read the record. -Already we know it from the State Department. Rear-Admiral Poor, -under date of February 12, 1870, reports to the Navy Department his -achievement. After announcing that the Severn, with an armament of -fourteen 9-inch guns and one 60-pounder rifle, and the Dictator, with -an armament of two 15-inch guns, arrived at Port-au-Prince the 9th -instant, he narrates his call on the Provisional President of Hayti, -and how, after communicating the pendency of negotiations and the -determination of the Government of the United States “with its whole -power” to prevent any interference on the part of the Haytian or any -other Government with that of the Dominicans, (meaning the usurper -Baez,) he launched this declaration:-- - - “Therefore, if any attack should be made upon the Dominicans - [meaning the usurper Baez] during the said negotiations, under - the Haytian or any other flag, it would be regarded as an act - of hostility to the United States flag, and would provoke - hostility in return.” - -Such was his language in the Executive Mansion of the President. The -Rear-Admiral reports the dignified reply of the President and Secretary -of State, who said:-- - - “That, ‘while they were aware of their weakness, they knew - their rights, and would maintain them and their dignity as far - as they were able, and that they must be allowed to be the - judges of their own policy,’--or words to that effect.”[66] - -Such words ought to have been to the Rear-Admiral more than a -broadside. How poor were his great guns against this simple reproof! -The Black Republic spoke well. The Rear-Admiral adds, that he learned -afterward, unofficially, “that the authorities were displeased with -what they considered a menace on the part of the United States, -accompanied with force.” And was it not natural that they should be -displeased? - -All this is bad enough from the official record; but I am enabled from -another source, semi-official in character, to show yet more precisely -what occurred. I have a minute account drawn up by the gentleman -who acted as interpreter on the occasion. The Rear-Admiral could -not speak French; the President could not speak English. Instead of -waiting upon the Secretary of State and making his communication to -this functionary, he went at once to the Executive Mansion, with the -officers of his vessel and other persons, when, after announcing to the -President that he came to pay a friendly visit, he said, that, “as a -sailor, he would take the same opportunity to communicate instructions -received from his Government.” - -The President, justly surprised, said that he was not aware that -the Rear-Admiral had any official communication to make, otherwise -the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would have been present, -being the proper party to receive it. The Secretary of State and -other members of the Provisional Government were sent for, when the -Rear-Admiral proceeded to make the communication already reported, and -at the same time pointing to his great war-ships in the outside harbor, -plainly visible from the Executive Mansion, remarked, that it could be -seen he had power enough to enforce his communication, and that besides -he was expecting other forces (and in fact two other war-ships soon -arrived, one of them a monitor); and then he announced, that, “if any -vessels under Haytian or other flags were found in Dominican waters, -_he would sink or capture them_.” Brave Rear-Admiral! The interpreter, -from whose account I am drawing, says that the President felt very -sorry and humiliated by this language, especially when the Rear-Admiral -referred to the strong forces under his command, and he proceeded to -reply:-- - - “That Hayti, having the knowledge of her feebleness and of - her dignity, had taken note of the communication made in the - name of the United States; that, under present circumstances, - the Government of Hayti would not interfere in the internal - affairs of San Domingo, but the Government could not prevent - the sympathies of the Haytian people to be with the Dominican - patriots fighting against annexation.” - -Who will not say that in this transaction the Black Republic appears -better than the Rear-Admiral? - - -TWO PROPOSITIONS ESTABLISHED. - -Such is the testimony, establishing beyond question the two -propositions, first, that the usurper Baez was maintained in power -by our Navy to enable him to carry out the sale of his country, and, -secondly, that further to assure this sale the neighbor Republic of -Hayti was violently menaced,--all this being in breach of Public Law, -International and Constitutional. - -In considering how far this conduct is a violation of International Law -and of the Constitution of the United States, I begin with the former. - - -GREAT PRINCIPLE OF “EQUALITY OF NATIONS” VIOLATED. - -International Law is to nations what the National Constitution is to -our coëqual States: it is the rule by which they are governed. As among -us every State and also every citizen has an interest in upholding the -National Constitution, so has every nation and also every citizen an -interest in upholding International Law. As well disobey the former -as the latter. You cannot do so in either case without disturbing the -foundations of peace and tranquillity. To insist upon the recognition -of International Law is to uphold civilization in one of its essential -securities. To vindicate International Law is a constant duty, which is -most eminent according to the rights in jeopardy. - -Foremost among admitted principles of International Law is the axiom, -that all nations are equal, without distinction of population, size, or -power. Nor does International Law know any distinction of color. As a -natural consequence, whatever is the rule for one is the rule for all; -nor can we do to a thinly-peopled, small, weak, or black nation what -we would not do to a populous, large, strong, or white nation,--nor -what that nation might not do to us. “Do unto others as you would have -them do unto you,” is the plain law for all nations, as for all men. -The equality of nations is the first principle of International Law, -as the equality of men is the first principle in our Declaration of -Independence; and you may as well assail the one as the other. As all -men are equal before the Law, so are all nations. - -This simple statement is enough; but since this commanding principle -has been practically set aside in the operations of our Navy, I proceed -to show how it is illustrated by the authorities. - -The equality of nations, like the equality of men, was recognized -tardily, under the growing influence of civilization. Not to the -earlier writers, not even to the wonderful Grotius, whose instinct for -truth was so divine, do we repair for the elucidation of this undoubted -rule. Our Swiss teacher, Vattel, prompted, perhaps, by the experience -of his own country, surrounded by more powerful neighbors, was the -first to make it stand forth in its present character. His words, which -are as remarkable for picturesque force as for juridical accuracy, -state the whole case:-- - - “Nations composed of men, and considered as so many free - persons living together in the state of Nature, are naturally - equal, and inherit from Nature the same obligations and - rights. Power or weakness does not in this respect produce - any difference. A dwarf is as much a man as a giant; a small - republic is no less a sovereign state than the most powerful - kingdom. By a necessary consequence of that equality, whatever - is lawful for one nation is equally lawful for any other, and - whatever is unjustifiable in the one is equally so in the - other.”[67] - -Later authorities have followed this statement, with some slight -variety of expression, but with no diminution of its force. One of the -earliest to reproduce it was Sir William Scott, in one of his masterly -judgments, lending to it the vivid beauty of his style:-- - - “A fundamental principle of Public Law is the perfect equality - and entire independence of all distinct states. Relative - magnitude creates no distinction of right; relative imbecility, - whether permanent or casual, gives no additional right to the - more powerful neighbor; and any advantage seized upon that - ground is mere usurpation. This is the great foundation of - Public Law, which it mainly concerns the peace of mankind, - both in their politic and private capacities, to preserve - inviolate.”[68] - -The German Heffter states the rule more simply, but with equal force:-- - - “Nations, being sovereign or independent of each other, treat - together on a footing of complete equality. The most feeble - state has the same political rights as the strongest. In other - terms, each state exercises in their plenitude the rights which - result from its political existence and from its participation - in international association.”[69] - -The latest English writers testify likewise. Here are the words of -Phillimore:-- - - “The natural equality of states is the necessary companion - of their independence,--that primitive cardinal right upon - which the science of International Law is mainly built.… They - are entitled, in their intercourse with other states, to all - the rights incident to a natural equality. No other state is - entitled to encroach upon this equality by arrogating to itself - peculiar privileges or prerogatives as to the manner of their - mutual intercourse.”[70] - -Twiss follows Phillimore, but gives to the rule a fresh statement:-- - - “The independence of a nation is absolute, and not subject to - qualification; so that nations, in respect of their intercourse - under the Common Law, are peers or equals.… Power and weakness - do not in this respect give rise to any distinction.… It - results from this equality, that whatever is lawful for - one nation is equally lawful for another, and whatever is - unjustifiable in the one is equally unjustifiable in the - other.”[71] - -In our own country, Chancellor Kent, a great authority, gives the rule -with perfect clearness and simplicity:-- - - “Nations are equal in respect to each other, and entitled to - claim equal consideration for their rights, whatever may be - their relative dimensions or strength, or however greatly they - may differ in government, religion, or manners. This perfect - equality and entire independence of all distinct states is a - fundamental principle of Public Law.”[72] - -General Halleck, whose work is not surpassed by any other in practical -value, while quoting especially Vattel and Sir William Scott, says with -much sententiousness:-- - - “All sovereign states, without respect to their relative power, - are, in the eye of International Law, equal, being endowed with - the same natural rights, bound by the same duties, and subject - to the same obligations.”[73] - -Thus does each authority reflect the others, while the whole together -present the Equality of Nations as a guiding principle not to be -neglected or dishonored. - -The record already considered shows how this principle has been -openly defied by our Government in the treatment of the Black -Republic,--first, in the menace of war by Rear-Admiral Poor, and, -secondly, in the manner of the menace,--being in substance and in form. -In both respects the Admiral did what he would not have done to a -powerful nation, what he would not have done to any white nation, and -what we should never allow any nation to do to us. - -Hayti was weak, and the gallant Admiral, rowing ashore, pushed to the -Executive Mansion, where, after what he called “a friendly visit,” -he struck at the independence of the Black Republic, pointing from -the windows of the Executive Mansion to his powerful armament, and -threatening to employ it against the Haytian capital or in sinking -Haytian ships. For the present I consider this unprecedented insolence -only so far as it was an offence against the Equality of Nations, and -here it may be tried easily. Think you that we should have done this -thing to England, France, or Spain? Think you that any foreign power -could have done it to us? But if right in us toward Hayti, it would be -right in us toward England, France, or Spain; and it would be right -in any foreign power toward us. If it were right in us toward Hayti, -then might England, France, Spain, or Hayti herself do the same to us. -Imagine a foreign fleet anchored off Alexandria, while the admiral, -pulling ashore in his boat, hurries to the Executive Mansion, and then, -after announcing a friendly visit, points to his war-ships visible from -the windows, and menaces their thunder. Or to be more precise, suppose -the Haytian Navy to return the compliment here in the Potomac. But just -in proportion as we condemn any foreign fleet, including the Haytian -Navy, doing this thing, do we condemn ourselves. The case is clear. We -did not treat Hayti as our peer. The great principle of the Equality of -Nations was openly set at nought. - -To extenuate this plain outrage, I have heard it said, that, in our -relations with Hayti, we are not bound by the same rules of conduct -applicable to other nations. So I have heard; and this, indeed, is -the only possible defence for the outrage. As in other days it was -proclaimed that a black man had no rights which a white man was bound -to respect, so this defence assumes the same thing of the Black -Republic. But at last the black man has obtained Equal Rights; and so, -I insist, has the Black Republic. As well deny the one as the other. By -an Act of Congress, drawn by myself and approved by Abraham Lincoln in -the session of 1862, diplomatic relations were established between the -United States and Hayti, and the President was expressly authorized to -appoint diplomatic representatives there. At first we were represented -by a Commissioner and Consul-General; now it is by a Minister Resident -and Consul-General. Thus, by Act of Congress and the appointment of a -Minister, have we recognized the Equal Rights of Hayti in the Family -of Nations, and placed the Black Republic under the safeguard of that -great axiom of International Law which makes it impossible for us to do -unto her what we would not allow her to do unto us. In harmony with the -United States, the “Almanach de Gotha,” where is the authentic, if not -official, list of nations entitled to Equal Rights, contains the name -of Hayti. Thus is the Black Republic enrolled as an equal; and yet have -we struck at this equality. How often have I pleaded that all men are -equal before the Law! And now I plead that all nations are equal before -the Law, without distinction of color. - - -BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW. - -From one violation of International Law I pass to another. The -proceedings already detailed show belligerent intervention, contrary to -International Law. Here my statement will be brief. - -According to all the best authorities, in harmony with reason, no -nation has a right to interfere by belligerent intervention in -the internal affairs of another, and especially to take part in a -civil feud, except under conditions which are wanting here; nor has -it a right to interfere by belligerent intervention between two -independent nations. The general rule imposed by modern civilization -is _Non-Intervention_; but this rule is little more than a scientific -expression of that saying of Philip de Comines, the famous minister of -Louis the Eleventh, “Our Lord God does not wish that one nation should -play the devil with another.” Not to occupy time with authorities, -I content myself with some of our own country, which are clear and -explicit, and I begin with George Washington, who wrote to Lafayette, -under date of December 25, 1798:-- - - “No Government ought to interfere with the internal concerns - of another, _except for the security of what is due to - themselves_.”[74] - -Wheaton lays down the same rule substantially, when he says:-- - - “Non-Interference is the general rule, to which cases of - justifiable interference form exceptions, _limited by the - necessity of each particular case_.”[75] - -Thus does Wheaton, like Washington, found intervention in the necessity -of the case. Evidently neither thought of founding it on a scheme for -the acquisition of foreign territory. - -In harmony with Washington and Wheaton, I cite General Halleck, in his -excellent work:-- - - “Wars of intervention are to be justified or condemned - accordingly as they are or are not undertaken _strictly as - the means of self-defence_, and self-protection against the - aggrandizements of others, and without reference to treaty - obligations; for, if wrong in themselves, the stipulations of a - treaty cannot make them right.”[76] - -Then again Halleck says, in words applicable to the present case:-- - - “The invitation of one party to a civil war can afford no - right of foreign interference, as against the other party. The - same reasoning holds good with respect to armed intervention, - whether between belligerent states or between belligerent - parties in the same state.”[77] - -Armed Intervention, or, as I would say, Belligerent Intervention, is -thus defined by Halleck:-- - - “Armed intervention consists _in threatened or actual force_, - employed or to be employed by one state in regulating or - determining the conduct or affairs of another. Such an - employment of force is virtually _a war_, and must be justified - or condemned upon the same general principles as other - wars.”[78] - -Applying these principles to existing facts already set forth, it is -easy to see that the belligerent intervention of the United States -in the internal affairs of Dominica, maintaining the usurper Baez -in power, especially against Cabral, was contrary to acknowledged -principles of International Law, and that the belligerent intervention -between Dominica and Hayti was of the same character. Imagine our Navy -playing the fantastic tricks on the coast of France which it played on -the coasts of San Domingo, and then, still further, imagine it entering -the ports of France as it entered the ports of Hayti, and you will see -how utterly indefensible was its conduct. In the capital of Hayti it -committed an act of war hardly less flagrant than that of England at -the bombardment of Copenhagen. Happily blood was not shed, but there -was an act of war. Here I refer to the authorities already cited, and -challenge contradiction. - -To vindicate these things, whether in Dominica or in Hayti, you must -discard all acknowledged principles of International Law, and join -those who, regardless of rights, rely upon arms. Grotius reminds us of -Achilles, as described by Horace:-- - - “Rights he spurns - As things not made for him, claims all by arms”; - -and he quotes Lucan also, who shows a soldier exclaiming:-- - - “Now, Peace and Law, I bid you both farewell.” - -The old Antigonus, who, when besieging a city, laughed at a man who -brought him a dissertation on Justice, and Pompey, who exclaimed, “Am -I, when in arms, to think of the laws?”[79]--these seem to be the -models for our Government on the coasts of San Domingo. - - -USURPATION OF WAR POWERS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION. - -The same spirit which set at defiance great principles of International -Law, installing force instead, is equally manifest in disregard of the -Constitution of the United States; and here one of its most distinctive -principles is struck down. By the Constitution it is solemnly announced -that to Congress is given the power “to declare war.” This allotment of -power was made only after much consideration, and in obedience to those -popular rights consecrated by the American Revolution. In England, -and in all other monarchies at the time, this power was the exclusive -prerogative of the Crown, so that war was justly called “the last -reason of kings.” The framers of our Constitution naturally refused to -vest this kingly prerogative in the President. Kings were rejected in -substance as in name. The One-Man Power was set aside, and this kingly -prerogative placed under the safeguard of the people, as represented -in that highest form of national life, an Act of Congress. No other -provision in the Constitution is more distinctive, or more worthy of -veneration. I do not go too far, when I call it an essential element of -Republican Institutions, happily discovered by our fathers. - -Our authoritative commentator, Judge Story, has explained the origin of -this provision, and his testimony confirms the statement I have made. -After remarking that the power to declare war is “not only _the highest -sovereign prerogative_, but that it is in its own nature and effects so -critical and calamitous that it requires the utmost deliberation and -the successive review of all the councils of the nation,” the learned -author remarks with singular point, that “it should be difficult in -a Republic to declare war,” and that, therefore, “the coöperation of -all the branches of the _legislative_ power ought upon principle to -be required in this, _the highest act of legislation_”; and he even -goes so far as to suggest still greater restriction, “as by requiring -a concurrence of two thirds of both Houses.”[80] There is no such -conservative requirement; but war can be declared only by a majority of -both Houses with the approbation of the President. There must be the -embodied will of the Legislative and the Executive,--in other words, of -Congress and the President. Not Congress alone, without the President, -can declare war; nor can the President alone, without Congress. Both -must concur; and here is the triumph of Republican Institutions. - -But this distinctive principle of our Constitution and new-found -safeguard of popular rights has been set at nought by the President; -or rather, in rushing to the goal of his desires, he has overleaped it, -as if it were stubble. - -In harmony with the whole transaction is the apology, which insists -that the President may do indirectly what he cannot do directly,--that -he may, according to old Polonius, “by indirections find directions -out,”--in short, that, though he cannot declare war directly, he may -indirectly. We are reminded of the unratified treaty, with its futile -promise “against foreign interposition,”--that is, with the promise of -the War Powers of our Government set in motion by the President alone, -without an Act of Congress. Here are the precise terms:-- - - “The people of the Dominican Republic shall, in the shortest - possible time, express, in a manner conformable to their laws, - their will concerning the cession herein provided for; and - the United States shall, until such expression shall be had, - _protect the Dominican Republic against foreign interposition_, - in order that the national expression may be free.”[81] - -Now nothing can be clearer than that this provision, introduced on the -authority of the President alone, was beyond his powers, and therefore -_brutum fulmen_, a mere wooden gun, until after the ratification of the -treaty. Otherwise the President alone might declare war, without an -Act of Congress, doing indirectly what he cannot do directly, and thus -overturning that special safeguard which places under the guardianship -of Congress what Story justly calls “the highest sovereign prerogative.” - -Here we meet another distinctive principle of our Constitution. As the -power to declare war is lodged in Congress with the concurrence of the -President, so is the power to make a treaty lodged in the President -with the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate. War is declared only -by Congress and the President; a treaty is made only by the President -and two thirds of the Senate. As the former safeguard was new, so -was the latter. In England and all other monarchies at the time, the -treaty-making power was a kingly prerogative, like the power to declare -war. The provision in our Constitution, requiring the participation -of the Senate, was another limitation of the One-Man Power, and a new -contribution to Republican Institutions. - -“The Federalist,” in an article written by Alexander Hamilton, thus -describes the kingly prerogative:-- - - “The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute - representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He - can _of his own accord_ make treaties of peace, commerce, - alliance, and of every other description.… Every jurist of that - kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitution, - knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making - treaties exists in the Crown in its utmost plenitude; and that - the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most - complete legal validity and perfection, _independent of any - other sanction_.”[82] - -Such was the well-known kingly prerogative which our Constitution -rejected. Here let “The Federalist” speak again:-- - - “There is no comparison between the intended power of the - President and the actual power of the British sovereign. The - one can perform alone what the other can only do with the - concurrence of a branch of the Legislature.”[83] - -Then, again, after showing that a treaty is a contract with a foreign -nation, having the force of law, “The Federalist” proceeds:-- - - “The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted - opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to - commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those - which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world _to - the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as - would be a President of the United States_.”[84] - -Thus does this contemporary authority testify against handing over -to “the sole disposal” of the President the delicate and momentous -question in the unratified treaty. - -Following “The Federalist” is the eminent commentator already cited, -who insists that “it is too much to expect that a free people -would confide to a single magistrate, however respectable, _the -sole authority_ to act conclusively, as well as exclusively, upon -the subject of treaties”; and that, “however proper it may be in a -monarchy, there is no American statesman but must feel that such -a prerogative in an American President would be inexpedient and -dangerous,”--that “it would be inconsistent with that wholesome -jealousy which all republics ought to cherish of all depositaries of -power”; and then he adds:-- - - “The check which acts upon the mind, _from the consideration - that what is done is but preliminary_, and requires the assent - of other independent minds _to give it a legal conclusiveness_, - is a restraint which awakens caution and compels to - deliberation.”[85] - -The learned author then dwells with pride on the requirement of the -Constitution, which, while confiding the power to the Executive -Department, “guards it from serious abuse by placing it _under the -ultimate superintendence of a select body of high character and high -responsibility_”; and then, after remarking that “the President is -the immediate author and finisher of all treaties,” he concludes, in -decisive words, that “no treaty so formed _becomes binding upon the -country_, unless it receives the deliberate assent of two thirds of the -Senate.”[86] - -Nothing can be more positive. Therefore, even at the expense of -repetition, I insist, that, as the power to declare war is under the -safeguard of Congress with the concurrence of the President, so is the -power to make a treaty in the President with the concurrence of two -thirds of the Senate,--but the act of neither becomes binding without -this concurrence. Thus, on grounds of authority, as well as of reason, -is it clear that the undertaking of the President to employ the War -Powers without the authority of Congress was void, and every employment -of these War Powers in pursuance thereof was a usurpation. - -If the President were a king, with the kingly prerogative either to -declare war or to make treaties, he might do what he has done; but -being only President, with the limited powers established by the -Constitution, he cannot do it. The assumption in the Dominican treaty -is exceptional and abnormal, being absolutely without precedent. The -treaty with France in 1803 for the cession of Louisiana contained no -such assumption; nor did the treaty with Spain in 1819 for the cession -of Florida; nor did the treaty with Mexico in 1848, by which the title -to Texas and California was assured; nor did the treaty with Mexico -in 1853, by which new territory was obtained; nor did the treaty with -Russia in 1867 for the cession of her possessions in North America. -In none of these treaties was there any such assumption of power. -The Louisiana treaty stipulated that possession should be taken by -the United States “immediately after the ratification of the present -treaty by the President of the United States, and in case that of the -First Consul shall have been previously obtained.”[87] The Florida -treaty stipulated “six months after the exchange of the ratification -of this treaty, or sooner, if possible.”[88] But these stipulations, -by which possession on our part, with corresponding responsibilities, -was adjourned till after the exchange of ratifications, were simply -according to the dictate of reason, in harmony with the requirement of -our Constitution. - -The case of Texas had two stages: first, under an unratified treaty; -and, secondly, under a Joint Resolution of Congress. What was done -under the latter had the concurrence of Congress and the President; -so that the inchoate title of the United States was created by Act of -Congress, in plain contradiction to the present case, where the title, -whatever it may be, is under an unratified treaty, _and is created -by the President alone_. Here is a manifest difference, not to be -forgotten. - -During the pendency of the treaty, there was an attempt by John Tyler, -aided by his Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun, to commit the United -States to the military support of Texas. It was nothing but an attempt. -There was no belligerent intervention or act of war, but only what -Benton calls an “assumpsit” by Calhoun. On this “assumpsit” the veteran -Senator, in the memoirs of his Thirty Years in the Senate, breaks forth -in these indignant terms:-- - - “As to secretly lending the Army and Navy of the United States - to Texas to fight Mexico while we were at peace with her, it - would be a crime against God and man and our own Constitution, - for which heads might be brought to the block, if Presidents - and their Secretaries, like Constitutional Kings and Ministers, - should be held capitally responsible for capital crimes.”[89] - -The indignant statesman, after exposing the unconstitutional -charlatanry of the attempt, proceeds:-- - - “And that no circumstance of contradiction or folly should - be wanting to crown this plot of crime and imbecility, it so - happened, that, on the same day that our new Secretary here was - giving his written assumpsit to lend the Army and Navy to fight - Mexico while we were at peace with her, the agent Murphy was - communicating to the Texan Government, in Texas, _the refusal - of Mr. Tyler, through Mr. Nelson, to do so, because of its - unconstitutionality_.”[90] - -Mr. Nelson, Secretary of State _ad interim_, wrote Mr. Murphy, our -Minister in Texas, under date of March 11, 1844, that “the employment -of the Army or Navy against a foreign power with which the United -States are at peace is not within the competency of the President.”[91] - -Again Benton says:-- - - “The engagement to fight Mexico for Texas, while we were at - peace with Mexico, was to make war with Mexico!--_a piece of - business which belonged to the Congress_, and which should - have been referred to them, and which, on the contrary, was - concealed from them, though in session and present.”[92] - -In the face of this indignant judgment, already the undying voice of -history, the “assumpsit” of John C. Calhoun will not be accepted as a -proper example for a Republican President. But there is not a word of -that powerful utterance by which this act is forever blasted that is -not strictly applicable to the “assumpsit” in the case of Dominica. -If an engagement to fight Mexico for Texas, while we were at peace -with Mexico, was nothing less than war with Mexico, so the present -engagement to fight Hayti for Dominica, while we are at peace with -Hayti, is nothing less than war with Hayti. Nor is it any the less “a -crime against God and man and our own Constitution” in the case of -Hayti than in the case of Mexico. But the present case is stronger than -that which aroused the fervid energies of Benton. The “assumpsit” here -has been followed by belligerent intervention and acts of war. - -President Polk, in his Annual Message of December, 1846, paid homage -to the true principle, when he announced that “the moment the terms -of annexation offered by the United States were accepted by Texas, the -latter became so far a part of our own country as to make it our duty -to afford protection and defence.”[93] And accordingly he directed -those military and naval movements which ended in war with Mexico. But -it will be observed here that these movements were conditioned on the -acceptance by Texas of the terms of annexion definitively proposed by -the United States, while our title had been created by Act of Congress, -and not by the President alone. - -Therefore, according to the precedents of our history, reinforced -by reason and authority, does the “assumpsit” of the treaty fail. I -forbear from characterizing it. My duty is performed, if I exhibit it -to the Senate. - -But this story of a violated Constitution is not yet complete. Even -admitting some remote infinitesimal semblance of excuse or apology -during the pendency of the treaty, all of which I insist is absurd -beyond question, though not entirely impossible in a quarter unused -to constitutional questions and heeding them little,--conceding that -the “assumpsit” inserted in the treaty by the Secretary of State had -deceived the President into the idea that he possessed the kingly -prerogative of declaring war at his own mere motion,--and wishing -to deal most gently even with an undoubted usurpation of the kingly -prerogative, so long as the Secretary of State, sworn counsellor of -the President, supplied the formula for the usurpation, (and you -will bear witness that I have done nothing but state the case,)--it -is hard to hold back, when the same usurpation is openly prolonged -after the Senate had rejected the treaty on which the exercise of -the kingly prerogative was founded, and when the “assumpsit” devised -by the Secretary of State had passed into the limbo of things lost -on earth. Here there is no remote infinitesimal semblance of excuse -or apology,--nothing,--absolutely nothing. The usurpation pivots on -nonentity,--always excepting the kingly will of the President, which -constitutionally is a nonentity. The great artist of Bologna, in a much -admired statue, sculptured Mercury as standing on a puff of air. The -President has not even a puff of air to stand on. - -Nor is there any question with regard to the facts. Saying nothing of -the lapse of the treaty on the 29th March, 1870, being the expiration -of the period for the exchange of ratifications, I refer to its formal -rejection by the Senate, June 30, 1870, which was not unknown to the -President. In the order of business the rejection was communicated to -him, while it became at once matter of universal notoriety. Then, by -way of further fixing the President with this notice, I refer to his -own admission in the Annual Message of December last, when he announces -that “during the last session of Congress a treaty for the annexation -of the Republic of San Domingo to the United States failed to receive -the requisite two-thirds of the Senate,” and then, after denouncing the -rejection as “folly,” he proceeds as follows:-- - - “My suggestion is, that by Joint Resolution of the two Houses - of Congress the Executive be authorized to appoint a Commission - _to negotiate a treaty with the authorities of San Domingo for - the acquisition of that island_, and that an appropriation be - made to defray the expenses of such Commission. The question - may then be determined, either by the action of the Senate - upon the treaty, or the joint action of the two Houses of - Congress upon a resolution of annexation, as in the case of the - acquisition of Texas.” - -Thus by the open declaration of the President was the treaty rejected, -while six months after the rejection he asks for a Commission to -negotiate a new treaty, and an appropriation to defray the expenses of -the Commission; and not perceiving the inapplicability of the Texas -precedent, he proposes to do the deed by Joint Resolution of Congress. -And yet during this intermediate period, when there was no unratified -treaty extant, the same belligerent intervention has been proceeding, -the same war-ships have been girdling the island with their guns, and -the same naval support has been continued to the usurper Baez,--all at -great cost to the country and by the diversion of our naval forces from -other places of duty, while the Constitution has been dismissed out of -sight like a discharged soldier. - -Already you have seen how this belligerent intervention proceeded after -the rejection of the treaty; how on the 21st July, 1870, Commodore -Green reported that “a withdrawal of the protection of the United -States and of the prospect of annexation at some future time would -instantly lead to a revolution headed by Cabral”; how on the 28th -August, 1870, Lieutenant Commander Allen reported Baez as “requesting -the presence of a vessel on the north side of the island on account -of an intended invasion by Cabral”; how at the same time the usurper -cries out that he “deems the presence of a ship-of-war in the Bay of -Manzanillo of immediate importance”; how on the 3d September, 1870, -Commander Irwin reported that Baez “feared an outbreak,” and appealed -to the Commander to “bring him some of his men that were at Azua,” -which the obliging Commander did; how under date of September 2, 1870, -the usurper, after declaring the necessity of a man-of-war at the -port of San Domingo, says that “none would be more convenient than -the Yantic for the facility of entering the river Ozama, owing to -her size”; and how again under date of October 8, 1870, the usurper -writes still another letter “to reiterate the necessity of the vessels -now in that bay [Samana] coming to these southern coasts.” All these -things you have seen, attesting constantly our belligerent intervention -and the maintenance of Baez in power by our Navy, which became his -body-guard and omnipresent upholder, and all after the rejection of -the treaty. I leave them to your judgment without one word of comment, -reminding you only that no President is entitled to substitute his -kingly will for the Constitution of our country. - -In curious confirmation of the first conclusion from the official -document, the letter of Captain Temple to Mr. Wade should not be -forgotten. This letter has found its way into the papers, and if not -genuine, it ought to be. It purports to be dated, Tennessee, Azua Bay, -February 24, 1871. Here is the first paragraph:-- - - “I understand that several of the gentlemen belonging to the - expedition are to start to-morrow overland for Port-au-Prince. - It may not have occurred to these gentlemen that by so doing - they will virtually place themselves in the position of spies, - and if they are taken by Cabral’s people, they can be hung to - the nearest tree by sentence of a drum-head court-martial, - according to all the rules of civilized warfare. _For they - belong to a nation that, through the orders of its Executive - to the naval vessels here, has chosen to take part in the - internal conflicts of this country_; they come directly from - the head-quarters of Cabral’s enemies; they are without arms, - uniform, or authority of any kind for being in a hostile - region. They _are_, in fact, spies. They go expressly to learn - everything connected with the enemy’s country, and their - observations are intended for publication, and thus indirectly - to be reported back to President Baez. Surely Cabral would have - a right to prevent this, if he can.” - -It will be seen that the gallant Captain does not hesitate to recognize -the existing rights of Cabral under the Laws of War, and to warn -against any journey by members of the Commission across the island -to Hayti,--as, if taken by Cabral’s people, they could be hung to -the nearest tree by sentence of drum-head court-martial, “according -to all the rules of civilized warfare”; and the Captain gives the -reason: “For they belong to a nation that, through the orders of its -Executive to the naval vessels here, has chosen to take part in the -internal conflicts of this country.” Here is belligerent intervention -openly recognized by the gallant Captain, and without the authority of -Congress. If the gallant Captain wrote the letter, he showed himself -a master of International Law whom Senators might do well to follow. -If he did not write it, the instructive jest will at least relieve the -weariness of this discussion. - - -SUMMARY. - -Mr. President, as I draw to a close, allow me to repeat the very deep -regret with which I make this exposure. Most gladly would I avoid it. -Controversy, especially at my time of life, has no attraction for me; -but I have been reared in the school of duty, and now, as of old, I -cannot see wrong without trying to arrest it. I plead now, as I have -often pleaded before, for Justice and Peace. - -In the evidence adduced I have confined myself carefully to public -documents, not travelling out of the record. Dispatches, naval orders, -naval reports,--these are the unimpeachable authorities. And all these -have been officially communicated to the Senate, are now printed by -its order, accessible to all. On this unanswerable and cumulative -testimony, where each part confirms the rest, and the whole has the -harmony of truth, I present this transgression. And here it is not I -who speak, but the testimony. - -Thus stands the case. International Law has been violated in two of -its commanding rules, one securing the Equality of Nations, and the -other providing against Belligerent Intervention,--while a distinctive -fundamental principle of the Constitution, by which the President -is deprived of a kingly prerogative, is disregarded, and this very -kingly prerogative is asserted by the President. This is the simplest -statement. Looking still further at the facts, we see that all this -great disobedience has for its object the acquisition of an outlying -tropical island, with large promise of wealth, and that in carrying -out this scheme our Republic has forcibly maintained a usurper in -power that he might sell his country, and has dealt a blow at the -independence of the Black Republic of Hayti, which, besides being a -wrong to that Republic, was an insult to the African race. And all this -has been done by kingly prerogative alone, without the authority of -an Act of Congress. If such a transaction, many-headed in wrong, can -escape judgment, it is difficult to see what securities remain. What -other sacred rule of International Law may not be violated? What other -foreign nation may not be struck at? What other belligerent menace may -not be hurled? What other kingly prerogative may not be seized? - -On another occasion I showed how these wrongful proceedings had been -sustained by the President beyond all example, but in a corresponding -spirit. Never before has there been such Presidential intervention -in the Senate as we have been constrained to witness. Presidential -visits to the Capitol, with appeals to Senators, have been followed by -assemblies at the Executive Mansion, also with appeals to Senators; -and who can measure the pressure of all kinds by himself or agents, -especially through the appointing power, all to secure the consummation -of this scheme? In harmony with this effort was the Presidential -Message, where, while charging the Senate with “folly” in rejecting the -treaty, we are gravely assured that by the proposed acquisition “our -large debt abroad is ultimately to be extinguished,”--thus making San -Domingo the pack-horse of our vast load. - -Then, responding to the belligerent menace of his Admiral, the -President makes a kindred menace by proposing nothing less than the -acquisition of “the island of San Domingo,” thus adding the Black -Republic to his scheme. The innocent population there were startled. -Their Minister here protested. Nor is it unnatural that it should be -so. Suppose the Queen of England, in her speech at the opening of -Parliament, had proposed in formal terms the acquisition of the United -States; or suppose Louis Napoleon, in his speech at the opening of -the Chambers, during the Mexican War, while the French forces were -in Mexico, had coolly proposed the acquisition of that portion of -the United States adjoining Mexico and stretching to the Atlantic, -and, in support of his proposition, had set forth the productiveness -of the soil, the natural wealth that abounded there, and wound up by -announcing that out of this might be paid the French debt abroad, -which was to be saddled upon the coveted territory. Suppose such a -proposition by Louis Napoleon or by the English Queen, made in formal -speech to Chambers or Parliament, what would have been the feeling in -our country? Nor would that feeling have been diminished by the excuse -that the offensive proposition crept into the speech by accident. -Whether by accident or design, it would attest small consideration for -our national existence. But the Haytians love their country as we love -ours; especially are they resolute for national independence. All this -is shown by the reports which reach us now, even if their whole history -did not attest it. - -The language of the President in charging the Senate with “folly” was -not according to approved precedents. Clearly this is not a proper term -to be employed by one branch of the Government with regard to another, -least of all by the President with regard to the Senate. Folly, Sir! -Was it folly, when the Senate refused to sanction proceedings by -which the Equal Rights of the Black Republic were assailed? Was it -folly, not to sanction hostilities against the Black Republic without -the authority of Congress? Was it folly, not to sanction belligerent -intervention in a foreign country without the authority of Congress? -Was it folly, not to sanction a usurpation of the War Powers under the -Constitution? According to the President, all this was folly in the -Senate. Let the country judge. - -Thus do we discern, whether on the coasts of San Domingo or here at -Washington, the same determination, with the same disregard of great -principles, as also the same recklessness toward the people of Hayti, -who have never injured us. - - -PRESENT DUTY. - -In view of these things, the first subject of inquiry is not soil, -climate, productiveness, and possibilities of wealth, but the -exceptional and abnormal proceedings of our own Government. This -inquiry is essentially preliminary in character. Before considering the -treaty or any question of acquisition, we must at least put ourselves -right as a nation; nor do I see how this can be done without retracing -our steps, and consenting to act in subordination to International Law -and the Constitution of the United States. - -Beside the essential equity of such submission, and the moral dignity -it would confer upon the Republic, which rises when it stoops to Law, -there are two other reasons of irresistible force at this moment. I -need not remind you that the Senate is now occupied in considering how -to suppress lawlessness within our own borders and to save the African -race from outrage. Surely our efforts at home must be weakened by the -drama we are now playing abroad. Pray, Sir, with what face can we -insist upon obedience to Law and respect for the African race, while -we are openly engaged in lawlessness on the coasts of San Domingo -and outrage upon the African race represented by the Black Republic? -How can we expect to put down the Ku-Klux at the South, when we set -in motion another proceeding kindred in constant insubordination to -Law and Constitution? Differing in object, the two are identical in -this insubordination. One strikes at national life and the other at -individual life, while both strike at the African race. One molests a -people, the other a community. Lawlessness is the common element. But -it is difficult to see how we can condemn, with proper, whole-hearted -reprobation, our own domestic Ku-Klux, with its fearful outrages, -while the President puts himself at the head of a powerful and costly -proceeding operating abroad in defiance of International Law and the -Constitution of the United States. These are questions which I ask with -sorrow, and only in obedience to that truth which is the requirement -of this debate. Nor should I do otherwise than fail in justice to the -occasion, if I did not declare my unhesitating conviction, that, had -the President been so inspired as to bestow upon the protection of -Southern Unionists, white and black, one half, nay, Sir, one quarter, -of the time, money, zeal, will, personal attention, personal effort, -and personal intercession, which he has bestowed on his attempt to -obtain half an island in the Caribbean Sea, our Southern Ku-Klux would -have existed in name only, while tranquillity reigned everywhere within -our borders. [_Applause in the galleries._] - - THE VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Massachusetts will - suspend.--The Chair cannot consent that there shall be - manifestations of approval or disapproval in the galleries; - and he reprehends one as promptly as the other. If they are - repeated, the Chair must enforce the order of the Senate.--The - Senator from Massachusetts will resume. - -MR. SUMNER. Another reason for retracing the false steps already -taken will be found in our duty to the African race, of whom there -are four millions within our borders, recognized as equal before the -Law. To these new-found fellow-citizens, once degraded and trampled -down, are we bound by every sentiment of justice; nor can we see -their race dishonored anywhere through our misconduct. How vain are -professions in their behalf, if we set the example of outrage! How -vain to expect their sympathy and coöperation in the support of the -National Government, if the President, by his own mere will, and in the -plenitude of kingly prerogative, can strike at the independence of the -Black Republic, and degrade it in the Family of Nations! All this is -a thousand times wrong. It is a thousand times impolitic also; for it -teaches the African race that they are only victims for sacrifice. - -Now, Sir, as I desire the suppression of the Ku-Klux wherever it shows -itself, and as I seek the elevation of the African race, I insist -that the Presidential scheme, which instals a new form of lawlessness -on the coasts of San Domingo, and which at the same time insults the -African race represented in the Black Republic, shall be arrested. I -speak now against that lawlessness on the coasts of San Domingo, of -which the President is the head; and I speak also for the African race, -which the President has trampled down. Is there any Senator in earnest -against the Ku-Klux? Let him arrest the present lawlessness on the -coasts of San Domingo. Is there any Senator ready at all times to seek -the elevation of the African race? Here is the occasion for his best -efforts. - -On the question of acquisition I say nothing to-day, only alluding to -certain points involved. Sometimes it is insisted that emigrants will -hurry in large numbers to this tropical island when once annexed, and -thus swell its means; but this allegation forgets, that, according to -the testimony of History, peaceful emigration travels with the sun -on parallels of latitude, and not on meridians of longitude, mainly -following the isothermal line, and not turning off at right-angles, -whether North or South. Sometimes it is insisted that it will be -better for the people of this island, if annexed to our Republic; -but this allegation forgets the transcendent question, Whether it is -better for them, better for the African race, better for Civilization, -that the Black Republic should be absorbed out of sight, instead of -being fostered into a successful example of self-government for the -redemption of the race, not only on the Caribbean islands, but on the -continent of Africa? Then, again, arises that other question, Whether -we will assume the bloody hazards involved in this business, as it has -been pursued, with the alternative of expenditures for war-ships and -troops, causing most painful anxieties, while the land of Toussaint -L’Ouverture listens to the constant whisper of Independence? And there -is still that other question of debts and obligations, acknowledged -and unacknowledged, with an immense claim by Hayti and an unsettled -boundary, which I have already called a bloody lawsuit. - -Over all is that other question, Whether we will begin a system, which, -first fastening upon Dominica, must, according to the admission of -the plenipotentiary Fabens made to myself, next take Hayti, and then -in succession the whole tropical group of the Caribbean Sea,--so that -we are now to determine if all the islands of the West Indies shall -be a component part of our Republic, helping to govern us, while the -African race is dispossessed of its natural home in this hemisphere. No -question equal in magnitude, unless it be that of Slavery, has arisen -since the days of Washington. - -These questions I state only. Meanwhile to my mind there is something -better than belligerent intervention and acts of war with the menace -of absorption at untold cost of treasure. It is a sincere and humane -effort on our part, in the spirit of peace, to reconcile Hayti and -Dominica, and to establish tranquillity throughout the island. Let -this be attempted, and our Republic will become an example worthy of -its name and of the civilization which it represents, while Republican -Institutions have new glory. The blessings of good men will attend such -an effort; nor can the smile of Heaven be wanting. - -And may we not justly expect the President to unite in such a measure -of peace and good-will? He that ruleth his spirit is greater than -he that taketh a city; and so the President, ruling his spirit in -subjection to the humane principles of International Law and the -Constitution of his country, will be greater than if he had taken all -the islands of the sea. - - The Commission appointed under the Joint Resolution visited San - Domingo, and their Report, which was favorable to the proposed - annexion, the President communicated to Congress; but no - further action was taken to carry the scheme into effect. - - - - -PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF STATE. AN -EXPLANATION IN REPLY TO AN ASSAULT. - -STATEMENT PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION IN THE SENATE, MARCH, 1871. - - - Si rixa est, ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum. - Stat contra, starique jubet; parere necesse est. - Nam quid agas, cum te furiosus cogat, et idem - Fortior? - - JUVENAL, _Sat._ III. 289-92. - - -TO THE READER. - - This statement was prepared in March, shortly after the - debate in the Senate, but was withheld at that time, from - unwillingness to take part in the controversy, while able - friends regarded the question of principle involved as above - every personal issue. Yielding at last to various pressure, Mr. - Sumner concluded to present it at the recent called session of - the Senate, but the Treaty with Great Britain and the case of - the Newspaper Correspondents were so engrossing as to leave no - time for anything else. - - WASHINGTON, June, 1871. - - -NOTE. - - With the failure of an opportunity for the presentation of the - proposed statement in the Senate Mr. Sumner’s indisposition - to appeal to the public returned with increased strength, - manifested, after printing, by limiting the communication - of copies to personal friends, with the inscription, - “Unpublished,--private and confidential,--not to go out of Mr. - ----’s hands.” - - Says one to whom it was thus confided: “I frequently urged him - afterwards to make it public. His reply was, in substance, that - he should not do it for personal vindication merely; that, so - far as Mr. Motley was concerned, he thought the matter stood - well enough before the public; but if the time should come when - the ends of justice required its publication, he should remove - the injunction of secrecy. While he lived I respected his - injunction. After his death I felt that justice to his memory - not only justified, but required me to make the ‘Explanation’ - public.… Accordingly, after conferring with Mr. Whitelaw - Reid, of the ‘New York Tribune,’ I sent it to him, and it was - published in that journal of April 6, 1874.”--F. W. BIRD, - _Introductory_ to his pamphlet edition, Boston and New York, - 1878. - - The seal having been thus broken, there can obviously no longer - be question as to the propriety of including an article of such - high interest and importance in a collection of Mr. Sumner’s - Works; and it accordingly here follows in due course. - - * * * * * - - As one consequence of the leading part taken by Mr. Sumner in - opposition to the scheme for the annexation of San Domingo - to the United States, the friends of that scheme formed the - determination to depose him from the influential position long - held by him as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. - In pursuance of this determination, at the opening of the - Session of 1871, on a vote, March 10th, to proceed to the - election of the Standing Committees, Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, as - the organ of a Senatorial Caucus on the subject, sent to the - Chair a list which had been agreed upon, with the name of Mr. - Cameron, of Pennsylvania, substituted for that of Mr. Sumner, - at the head of the Committee in question,--alleging, as the - reason for this change, “that the personal relations existing - between the Senator from Massachusetts and the President of the - United States and the head of the State Department were such - as precluded all social intercourse between them.” Thereupon - ensued the debate referred to in the prefatory note to the - following paper, and characterized in the text as Mr. Sumner’s - “trial before the Senate on articles of impeachment.”[94] - - -STATEMENT. - -While I was under trial before the Senate, on articles of impeachment -presented by the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. HOWE,] I forbore taking -any part in the debate, even in reply to allegations, asserted to be -of decisive importance, touching my relations with the President and -Secretary of State. All this was trivial enough; but numerous appeals -to me from opposite parts of the country show that good people have -been diverted by these allegations from the question of principle -involved. Without intending in any way to revive the heats of that -debate, I am induced to make a plain statement of facts, so that the -precise character of those relations shall be known. I do this with -unspeakable reluctance, but in the discharge of a public duty where the -claims of patriotism are above even those of self-defence. The Senate -and the country have an interest in knowing the truth of this matter, -and so also has the Republican party, which cannot be indifferent to -pretensions in its name; nor will anything but the completest frankness -be proper for the occasion. - -In overcoming this reluctance I am aided by Senators who are determined -to make me speak. The Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. HOWE,] who appears -as prosecuting officer, after alleging these personal relations as -the _gravamen_ of accusation against me,--making the issue pointedly -on this floor, and actually challenging reply,--not content with the -opportunity of this Chamber, hurried to the public press, where he -repeated the accusation, and now circulates it, as I am told, under -his frank, crediting it in formal terms to the liberal paper in -which it appeared, but without allusion to the editorial refutation -which accompanied it. On still another occasion, appearing still as -prosecuting officer, the same Senator volunteered, out of his own -invention, to denounce me as leaving the Republican party,--and this -he did, with infinite personality of language and manner, in the very -face of my speech to which he was replying, where, in positive words, -I declare that I speak “for the sake of the Republican party,” which I -hope to save from responsibility for wrongful acts, and then, in other -words making the whole assumption of the Senator an impossibility, I -announce, that in speaking for the Republican party it is “because from -the beginning I have been the faithful servant of that party and aspire -to see it strong and triumphant.”[95] In the face of this declared -aspiration, in harmony with my whole life, the Senator delivered his -attack, and, assuming to be nothing less than Pope, launched against -me his bull of excommunication. Then, again playing Pope, he took back -his thunder, with the apology that others thought so, and this alleged -understanding of others he did not hesitate to set above my positive -and contemporaneous language that I aspired to see the Republican party -strong and triumphant. Then came the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,] -who, taking up his vacation pen, added to the articles of impeachment -by a supplementary allegation, adopted by the Senator under a -misapprehension of facts. Here was another challenge. During all this -time I have been silent. Senators have spoken, and then rushed into -print; but I have said nothing. They have had their own way with regard -to me. It is they who leave me no alternative. - - * * * * * - -It is alleged that I have no personal relations with the President. -Here the answer is easy. I have precisely the relations which he has -chosen. On reaching Washington in December last, I was assured from -various quarters that the White House was angry with me; and soon -afterward the public journals reported the President as saying to a -Senator, that, if he were not President, he “would call me to account.” -What he meant I never understood, nor would I attribute to him more -than he meant; but that he used the language reported I have no doubt, -from information independent of the newspapers. I repeat that on this -point I have no doubt. The same newspapers reported, also, that a -member of the President’s household, enjoying his peculiar confidence, -taking great part in the San Domingo scheme, had menaced me with -personal violence. I could not believe the story, except on positive, -unequivocal testimony. That the menace was made on the condition of his -not being an Army officer I do not doubt. The member of the household, -when interrogated by my excellent colleague, [Mr. WILSON,] positively -denied the menace; but I am assured, on authority above question, that -he has since acknowledged it, while the President still retains him in -service, and sends him to this Chamber. - -During this last session, I have opposed the Presidential policy on an -important question,--but always without one word touching motives, or -one suggestion of corruption on his part, although I never doubted that -there were actors in the business who could claim no such immunity. It -now appears that Fabens, who came here as plenipotentiary to press the -scheme, has concessions to such amount that the diplomatist is lost -in the speculator. I always insisted that the President was no party -to any such transaction. I should do injustice to my own feelings, -if I did not here declare my regret that I could not agree with the -President. I tried to think as he did, but I could not. I listened to -the arguments on his side, but in vain. The adverse considerations -multiplied with time and reflection. To those who know the motives -of my life it is superfluous for me to add that I sought simply the -good of my country and Humanity, including especially the good of the -African race, to which our country owes so much. - -Already there was anger at the White House when the scheme to buy and -annex half an island in the Caribbean Sea was pressed upon the Senate -in legislative session under the guise of appointing a Commission, and -it became my duty to expose it. Here I was constrained to show how, at -very large expense, the usurper Baez was maintained in power by the -Navy of the United States to enable him to sell his country, while at -the same time the independence of the Black Republic was menaced,--all -of which was in violation of International Law, and of the Constitution -of the United States, which reserves to Congress the power “to declare -war.” What I said was in open debate, where the record will speak for -me. I hand it over to the most careful scrutiny, knowing that the -President can take no just exception to it, unless he insists upon -limiting proper debate, and boldly denies the right of a Senator to -express himself freely on great acts of wrong. Nor will any Republican -Senator admit that the President can impose his own sole will upon the -Republican party. Our party is in itself a Republic with universal -suffrage, and until a measure is adopted by the party no Republican -President can make it a party test. - - * * * * * - -Much as I am pained in making this statement with regard to the -President, infinitely more painful to me is what I must present with -regard to the Secretary of State. Here again I remark that I am driven -to this explanation. His strange and unnatural conduct toward me, and -his prompting of Senators, who, one after another, have set up my -alleged relations with him as ground of complaint, make it necessary -for me to proceed. - -We were sworn as Senators on the same day, as far back as 1851, and -from that distant time were friends until the San Domingo business -intervened. Nothing could exceed our kindly relations in the past. On -the evening of the inauguration of General Grant as President, he was -at my house with Mr. Motley in friendly communion, and all uniting in -aspirations for the new Administration. Little did Mr. Motley or myself -imagine in that social hour that one of our little circle was so soon -to turn upon us both. - -Shortly afterward Mr. Fish became Secretary of State, and began his -responsible duties by appealing to me for help. I need not say that I -had pleasure in responding to his call, and that I did what I could -most sincerely and conscientiously to aid him. Of much, from his -arrival down to his alienation on the San Domingo business, I possess -the written record. For some time he showed a sympathy with the scheme -almost as little as my own. But as the President grew in earnestness -the Secretary yielded, until tardily he became its attorney. Repeatedly -he came to my house, pleading for the scheme. Again and again he urged -it, sometimes at my house and sometimes at his own. I was astonished -that he could do so, and expressed my astonishment with the frankness -of old friendship. For apology he announced that he was the President’s -friend, and took office as such. “But,” said I, “you should resign -rather than do this thing.” This I could not refrain from remarking, on -discovery, from dispatches in the State Department, that the usurper -Baez was maintained in power by our Navy. This plain act of wrong -required instant redress; but the Secretary astonished me again by his -insensibility to my appeal for justice. He maintained the President, as -the President maintained Baez. I confess that I was troubled. - -At last, some time in June, 1870, a few weeks before the San Domingo -treaty was finally rejected by the Senate, the Secretary came to my -house about nine o’clock in the evening and remained till after the -clock struck midnight, the whole protracted visit being occupied in -earnest and reiterated appeal that I should cease my opposition to -the Presidential scheme; and here he urged that the election which -made General Grant President had been carried by him, and not by -the Republican party, so that his desires were entitled to especial -attention. In his pressure on me he complained that I had opposed -other projects of the President. In reply to my inquiry, he named the -repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Act, and the nomination of Mr. Jones as -Minister to Brussels, both of which the President had much at heart, -and he concluded with the San Domingo treaty. I assured the Secretary -firmly and simply, that, seeing the latter as I did with all its -surroundings, my duty was plain, and that I must continue to oppose it -so long as it appeared to me wrong. He was not satisfied, and renewed -his pressure in various forms, returning to the point again and again -with persevering assiduity that would not be arrested, when at last, -finding me inflexible, he changed his appeal, saying, “Why not go to -London? I offer you the English mission. It is yours.” Of his authority -from the President I know nothing. I speak only of what he said. My -astonishment was heightened by indignation at this too palpable attempt -to take me from my post of duty; but I suppressed the feeling which -rose to the lips, and, reflecting that he was an old friend and in my -own house, answered gently, “We have a Minister there who cannot be -bettered.” Thus already did the mission to London begin to pivot on San -Domingo. - -I make this revelation only because it is important to a correct -understanding of the case, and because the conversation from beginning -to end was official in character, relating exclusively to public -business, without suggestion or allusion of a personal nature, and -absolutely without the slightest word on my part leading in the most -remote degree to any such overture, which was unexpected as undesired. -The offer of the Secretary was in no respect a compliment or kindness, -but in the strict line of his endeavor to silence my opposition to the -San Domingo scheme, as is too apparent from the facts, while it was -plain, positive, and unequivocal, making its object and import beyond -question. Had it been merely an inquiry, it were bad enough, under the -circumstances; but it was direct and complete, as by a plenipotentiary. - -Shortly afterward, being the day immediately following the rejection of -the San Domingo treaty, Mr. Motley was summarily removed,--according -to present pretence, for an offending not only trivial and formal, but -condoned by time, being a year old: very much as Sir Walter Raleigh, -after being released from the Tower to conduct a distant expedition -as admiral of the fleet, was at his return beheaded on a judgment -of fifteen years’ standing. The Secretary, in conversation and in -correspondence with me, undertook to explain the removal, insisting -for a long time that he was “the friend of Mr. Motley”; but he always -made the matter worse, while the heats of San Domingo entered into the -discussion. - -At last, in January, 1871, a formal paper justifying the removal and -signed by the Secretary was laid before the Senate.[96] Glancing -at this document, I found, to my surprise, that its most salient -characteristic was constant vindictiveness toward Mr. Motley, with -effort to wound his feelings; and this was signed by one who had sat -with him at my house in friendly communion and common aspiration on the -evening of the inauguration of General Grant, and had so often insisted -that he was “the friend of Mr. Motley,”--while, as if it was not enough -to insult one Massachusetts citizen in the public service, the same -document, after a succession of flings and sneers, makes a kindred -assault on me; and this is signed by one who so constantly called me -“friend,” and asked me for help. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. SCHURZ] -has already directed attention to this assault, and has expressed his -judgment upon it,--confessing that he “should not have failed to feel -the insult,” and then exclaiming, with just indignation, “When such -things are launched against any member of this body, it becomes the -American Senate to stand by him, and not to attempt to disgrace and to -degrade him because he shows the sensitiveness of a gentleman.”[97] It -is easy to see how this Senator regarded the conduct of the Secretary. -Nor is its true character open to doubt, especially when we consider -the context, and how this full-blown personality naturally flowered out -of the whole document. - -Mr. Motley, in his valedictory to the State Department, had alluded to -the rumor that he was removed on account of my opposition to the San -Domingo treaty. The document signed by the Secretary, while mingling -most offensive terms with regard to his “friend” in London, thus turns -upon his “friend” in Washington:-- - - “It remains only to notice Mr. Motley’s adoption of a rumor - which had its origin in this city in a source bitterly, - personally, and vindictively hostile to the President. - - “Mr. Motley says it has been rumored that he was ‘removed from - the post of Minister to England’ on account of the opposition - made by an ‘eminent Senator, who honors me [him] with his - friendship,’ to the San Domingo treaty. - - “Men are apt to attribute the causes of their own failures - or their own misfortunes to others than themselves, and to - claim association or seek a partnership with real or imaginary - greatness with which to divide their sorrows or their mistakes. - There can be no question as to the identity of the eminent - Senator at whose door Mr. Motley is willing to deposit the - cause of his removal. But he is entirely mistaken in seeking - a vicarious cause of his loss in confidence and favor; and - it is unworthy of Mr. Motley’s real merit and ability, and - an injustice to the venerable Senator alluded to, (_to whose - influence and urgency he was originally indebted for his - nomination_,) to attribute to him any share in the cause of his - removal. - - “Mr. Motley must know, or, if he does not know it, he stands - alone in his ignorance of the fact, that many Senators opposed - the San Domingo treaty _openly, generously, and with as much - efficiency as did the distinguished Senator to whom he refers, - and have nevertheless continued to enjoy the undiminished - confidence and the friendship of the President_,--than whom no - man living is more tolerant of honest and manly differences of - opinion, is more single or sincere in his desire for the public - welfare, is more disinterested or regardless of what concerns - himself, is more frank and confiding in his own dealings, _is - more sensitive to a betrayal of confidence, or would look - with more scorn and contempt upon one who uses the words and - the assurances of friendship to cover a secret and determined - purpose of hostility_.”[98] - -The eulogy of the President here is at least singular, when it is -considered that every dispatch of the Secretary of State is by order of -the President; but it is evident that the writer of this dispatch had -made up his mind to set all rule at defiance. If, beyond paying court -to the President, even at the expense of making him praise himself, the -concluding sentence of this elaborate passage, so full of gall from -beginning to end, had any object, if it were anything but a mountain of -words, it was an open attempt to make an official document the vehicle -of personal insult to me; and this personal insult was signed “HAMILTON -FISH.” As I became aware of it, and found also that it was regarded by -others in the same light, I was distressed and perplexed. I could not -comprehend it. I knew not why the Secretary should step so far out of -his way, in a manner absolutely without precedent, to treat me with -ostentatious indignity,--especially when I thought that for years I had -been his friend, that I had never spoken of him except with kindness, -and that constantly since assuming his present duties he had turned -to me for help. This was more incomprehensible when I considered how -utterly groundless were all his imputations. I have lived in vain, if -such an attempt on me can fail to rebound on its author. - -Not lightly would I judge an ancient friend. For a time I said nothing -to anybody of the outrage, hoping that perhaps the Secretary would -open his eyes to the true character of the document he had signed -and volunteer some friendly explanation. Meanwhile a proposition to -resume negotiations was received from England, and the Secretary, it -seems, desired to confer with me on the subject; but there was evident -consciousness on his part that he had done wrong,--for, instead of -coming to me at once, he sent for Mr. Patterson, of the Senate, and, -telling him that he wished to confer with me, added, that he did not -know precisely what were his relations with me and how I should receive -him. Within a brief fortnight I had been in conference with him at the -State Department and had dined at his house, besides about the same -time making a call there. Yet he was in doubt about his relations with -me. Plainly because, since the conference, the dinner, and the call, -the document signed by him had been communicated to the Senate, and -the conscience-struck Secretary did not know how I should take it. Mr. -Patterson asked me what he should report. I replied, that, should the -Secretary come to my house, he would be received as an old friend, -and that at any time I should be at his service for consultation on -public business, but that I could not conceal my deep sense of personal -wrong received from him absolutely without reason or excuse. That -this message was communicated by Mr. Patterson I cannot doubt,--for -the Secretary came to my house, and there was a free conference. How -frankly I spoke on public questions, without one word on other things, -the Secretary knows. He will remember if any inquiry, remark, or -allusion escaped from me, except in reference to public business. The -interview was of business and nothing else. - -On careful reflection, it seemed to me plain, that, while meeting the -Secretary officially, it would not be consistent with self-respect -for me to continue personal relations with one who had put his name -to a document, which, after protracted fury toward another, contained -a studied insult to me, where the fury was intensified rather than -tempered by too obvious premeditation. Public business must not suffer, -but in such a case personal relations naturally cease; and this rule I -have followed since. Is there any Senator who would have done less? Are -there not many who would have done more? I am at a loss to understand -how the Secretary could expect anything beyond those official relations -which I declared my readiness at all times to maintain, and which, even -after his assault on me, he was willing to seek at my own house. To -expect more shows on his part grievous insensibility to the thing he -had done. Whatever one signs he makes his own; and the Secretary, when -he signed this document, adopted a libel upon his friend, and when he -communicated it to the Senate he published the libel. Nothing like it -can be shown in the history of our Government. It stands alone. The -Secretary is alone. Like Jean Paul in German literature, his just title -will be “The Only One.” For years I have known Secretaries of State -and often differed from them, but never before did I receive from one -anything but kindness. Never before did a Secretary of State sign a -document libelling an associate in the public service, and publish it -to the world. Never before did a Secretary of State so entirely set at -defiance every sentiment of friendship. It is impossible to explain -this strange aberration, except from the disturbing influence of San -Domingo. But whatever its origin, its true character is beyond question. - -As nothing like this state-paper can be shown in the history of our -Government, so also nothing like it can be shown in the history of -other Governments. Not an instance can be named in any country, where -a personage in corresponding official position has done such a thing. -The American Secretary is alone, not only in his own country, but in -all countries; “none but himself can be his parallel.” Seneca, in the -“Hercules Furens,” has pictured him:-- - - “Quæris Alcidæ parem? - Nemo est, nisi ipse.” - -He is originator and first inventor, with all prerogatives and -responsibilities thereto belonging. - -I have mentioned only one sally in this painful document; but the -whole, besides its prevailing offensiveness, shows inconsistency with -actual facts of my own knowledge, which is in entire harmony with the -recklessness toward me, and attests the same spirit throughout. Thus, -we have the positive allegation that the death of Lord Clarendon, June -27, 1870, “_determined the time_ for inviting Mr. Motley to make place -for a successor,”[99] when, in point of fact, some time before his -Lordship’s illness even, the Secretary had invited me to go to London -as Mr. Motley’s successor,--thus showing that the explanation of Lord -Clarendon’s death was an after-thought, when it became important to -divert attention from the obvious dependence of the removal upon the -defeat of the San Domingo treaty. - -A kindred inconsistency arrested the attention of the London “Times,” -in its article of January 24, 1871, on the document signed by the -Secretary. Here, according to this journal, the document supplied the -means of correction, since it set forth that on the 25th June, two -days before Lord Clarendon’s death, Mr. Motley’s coming removal was -announced in a London journal. After stating the alleged dependence -of the removal upon the death of Lord Clarendon, the journal, holding -the scales, remarks: “And yet there is at least one circumstance, -appearing, _strange to say_, in Mr. Fish’s own dispatch, which is _not -quite consistent_ with the explanation he sets up of Mr. Motley’s -recall.” Then, after quoting from the document, and mentioning that -its own correspondent at Philadelphia did on the 25th June “send us a -message that Mr. Motley was about to be withdrawn,” the journal mildly -concludes, that, “as this was two days before Lord Clarendon’s death, -which was unforeseen here and could not have been expected in the -States, _it is difficult to connect the resolution to supersede the -late American Minister with the change at our Foreign Office_.” The -difficulty of the “Times” is increased by the earlier incident with -regard to myself. - -Not content with making the removal depend upon the death of Lord -Clarendon, when it was heralded abroad not only before the death of -this minister had occurred, but while it was yet unforeseen, the -document seeks to antedate the defeat of the San Domingo treaty, so -as to interpose “weeks and months” between the latter event and the -removal. The language is explicit. “The treaty,” says the document, -“_was admitted_ to be practically dead, and was waiting only the formal -action of the Senate, _for weeks and months_ before the decease of the -illustrious statesman of Great Britain.”[100] Weeks and months! And yet -during the last month, when the treaty “was admitted to be practically -dead,” the Secretary who signed the document passed three hours at my -house, pleading with me to withdraw my opposition, and finally wound up -by tender to me of the English mission, with no other apparent object -than simply to get me out of the way. - -Then again we have the positive allegation that the President embraced -an opportunity “to prevent any further misapprehension of his views -through Mr. Motley by taking from him the right to discuss further -the ‘Alabama claims’”;[101] whereas the Secretary in a letter to me -at Boston, dated at Washington, October 9, 1869, informs me that the -discussion of the question was withdrawn from London “_because_” (the -Italics are the Secretary’s) “we think, that, when renewed, it can be -carried on here with a better prospect of settlement than where the -late attempt at a convention which resulted so disastrously and was -conducted so strangely was had”; and what the Secretary thus wrote he -repeated in conversation when we met, carefully making the transfer -to Washington depend upon our advantage here from the presence of the -Senate: thus showing that the pretext put forth to wound Mr. Motley was -an after-thought. - -Still further, the document signed by the Secretary alleges, by way of -excuse for removing Mr. Motley, the “important public consideration of -having a representative in sympathy with the President’s views”;[102] -whereas, when the Secretary tendered the mission to me, no allusion was -made to “sympathy with the President’s views,” while Mr. Motley, it -appears, was charged with agreeing too much with me: all of which shows -how little this matter had to do with the removal, and how much the San -Domingo business at the time was above any question of conformity on -other things. - -In the amiable passage already quoted[103] there is a parenthesis which -breathes the prevailing spirit. By way of aspersion on Mr. Motley and -myself, the country is informed that he was indebted for his nomination -to “influence and urgency” on my part. Of the influence I know nothing; -but I deny positively any “urgency.” I spoke with the President on -this subject once casually on the stairs of the Executive Mansion, and -then again in a formal interview. And here, since the effort of the -Secretary, I shall frankly state what I said and how it was introduced. -I began by remarking, that, with the permission of the President, I -should venture to suggest the expediency of continuing Mr. Marsh in -Italy, Mr. Morris at Constantinople, and Mr. Bancroft at Berlin, as -all these exerted a peculiar influence and did honor to our country. -To this list I proposed to add Dr. Howe in Greece, believing that he, -too, would do honor to our country, and also Mr. Motley in London, -who, I suggested, would have an influence there beyond his official -position. The President said that nobody should be sent to London who -was not “right” on the Claims question, and he kindly explained to me -what he meant by “right.” From this time I had no conversation with -him about Mr. Motley, until after the latter had left for his post, -when the President volunteered to express his great satisfaction in the -appointment. Such was the extent of my “urgency.” Nor was I much in -advance of the Secretary at that time; for he showed me what was called -the “brief” at the State Department for the English mission, with Mr. -Motley’s name at the head of the list. - -Other allusions to myself would be cheerfully forgotten, if they were -not made the pretext to assail Mr. Motley, who is held to severe -account for supposed dependence on me. If this were crime, not the -Minister, but the Secretary, should suffer; for it is the Secretary, -and not the Minister, who appealed to me constantly for help, often -desiring me to think for him, and more than once to hold the pen for -him. But, forgetting his own relations with me, the Secretary turns -upon Mr. Motley, who never asked me to think for him or to hold the pen -for him. Other things the Secretary also forgot. He forgot that the -blow he dealt, whether at Mr. Motley or myself, rudely tore the veil -from the past, so far as its testimony might be needed in elucidation -of the truth; that the document he signed was a challenge and -provocation to meet him on the facts without reserve or concealment; -that the wantonness of assault on Mr. Motley was so closely associated -with that on me, that any explanation I might make must be a defence -of him; that, even if duty to the Senate and myself did not require -this explanation, there are other duties not to be disregarded, -among which is duty to the absent, who cannot be permitted to suffer -unjustly,--duty to a much-injured citizen of Massachusetts, who may -properly look to a Senator of his State for protection against official -wrong,--duty also to a public servant insulted beyond precedent, who, -besides writing and speaking most effectively for the Republican party -and for this Administration, has added to the renown of our country by -unsurpassed success in literature, commending him to the gratitude and -good-will of all. These things the Secretary strangely forgot, when he -dealt the blow which tore the veil. - -The crime of the Minister was dependence on me: so says the -state-paper. A simple narrative will show who is the criminal. My -early relations with the Secretary have already appeared, and how he -began by asking me for help, practising constantly on this appeal. -A few details will be enough. At once on his arrival to assume his -new duties, he asked my counsel about appointing Mr. Bancroft Davis -Assistant Secretary of State, and I advised the appointment,--without -sufficient knowledge, I am inclined to believe now. Then followed -the questions with Spain growing out of Cuba, which were the subject -of constant conference, where he sought me repeatedly and kindly -listened to my opinions. Then came the instructions for the English -mission, known as the dispatch of May 15, 1869. At each stage of -these instructions I was in the counsels of the Secretary. Following -my suggestion, he authorized me to invite Mr. Motley in his name to -prepare the “memoir” or essay on our claims, which, notwithstanding its -entirely confidential character, he drags before the world, for purpose -of assault, in a manner clearly unjustifiable. Then, as the dispatch -was preparing, he asked my help especially in that part relating to -the concession of belligerent rights. I have here the first draught of -this important passage in pencil and in my own handwriting, varying -in no essential respect from that adopted. Here will be found the -distinction on which I have always insisted,--that, while other powers -conceded belligerent rights to our Rebels, it was in England only that -the concession was supplemented by acts causing direct damage to the -United States. Not long afterward, in August, 1869, when the British -storm had subsided, I advised that the discussion should be renewed -by an elaborate communication, setting forth our case in length and -breadth, but without any estimate of damages,--throwing upon England -the opportunity, if not the duty, of making some practical proposition. -Adopting this recommendation, the Secretary invited me to write the -dispatch. I thought it better that it should be done by another, and -I named for this purpose an accomplished gentleman whom I knew to be -familiar with the question, and he wrote the dispatch. This paper, -bearing date September 25, 1869, is unquestionably the ablest in the -history of the present Administration, unless we except the last -dispatch of Mr. Motley. - -In a letter dated at Washington, October 15, 1869, and addressed to me -at Boston, the Secretary describes this paper in the following terms:-- - - “The dispatch to Motley (which I learn by a telegram from him - has been received) is a calm, _full_ review of our entire - case, making no demand, no valuation of damages, but I believe - covering all the ground and all the points that have been made - on our side. I hope that it will meet your views. I _think_ it - will. It leaves the question with Great Britain to determine - when any negotiations are to be renewed.” - -The Secretary was right in his description. It was a “_full_ review of -our entire case,” “covering all the ground and all the points”; and it -did meet my views, as the Secretary thought it would, especially where -it arraigned so strongly that fatal concession of belligerent rights -on the ocean, which in any faithful presentment of the national cause -will always be the first stage of _evidence_,--since, without this -precipitate and voluntary act, the Common Law of England was a positive -protection against the equipment of a corsair ship, or even the supply -of a blockade-runner for unacknowledged rebels. The conformity of this -dispatch with my views was recognized by others besides the Secretary. -It is well known that Lord Clarendon did not hesitate in familiar -conversation to speak of it as “Mr. Sumner’s speech over again”; while -another English personage said that “it out-Sumnered Sumner.” And yet, -with his name signed to this dispatch, written at my suggestion, and in -entire conformity with my views, as admitted by him and recognized by -the English Government, the Secretary taunts Mr. Motley for supposed -harmony with me on this very question. This taunt is still more -unnatural when it is known that this dispatch is in similar conformity -with the “memoir” of Mr. Motley, and was evidently written with -knowledge of that admirable document, where the case of our country is -stated with perfect mastery. But the story does not end here. - -On the communication of this dispatch to the British Government, Mr. -Thornton was instructed to ascertain what would be accepted by our -Government, when the Secretary, under date of Washington, November -6, 1869, reported to me this application, and then, after expressing -unwillingness to act on it until he “could have an opportunity of -consulting” me, he wrote, “When will you be here? Will you either note -what you think will be sufficient to meet the views of the Senate and -of the country, or _will you formulate such proposition_?” After this -responsible commission, the letter winds up with the earnest request, -“Let me hear from you _as soon as you can_,” (the Italics are the -Secretary’s,) “and I should like to confer with you at the earliest -convenient time.” On my arrival at Washington, the Secretary came to my -house at once, and we conferred freely. San Domingo had not yet sent -its shadow into his soul. - -It is easily seen that here was constant and reiterated appeal to me, -especially on our negotiations with England; and yet, in the face of -this testimony, where he is the unimpeachable witness, the Secretary is -pleased to make Mr. Motley’s supposed relations with me the occasion of -insult to him, while, as if this were not enough, he crowns his work -with personal assault on me,--all of which, whether as regards Mr. -Motley or me, is beyond comprehension. - -How little Mr. Motley merited anything but respect and courtesy from -the Secretary is attested by all who know his eminent position in -London, and the service he rendered to his country. Already the London -press, usually slow to praise Americans when strenuous for their -country, has furnished its voluntary testimony. The “Daily News” of -August 16, 1870, spoke of the insulted Minister in these terms:-- - - “We are violating no confidence in saying that all the hopes - and promises of Mr. Motley’s official residence in England - have been amply fulfilled, and that the announcement of his - unexpected and unexplained recall was received with extreme - astonishment and unfeigned regret. The vacancy he leaves - cannot possibly be filled by a Minister more sensitive to the - honor of his Government, more attentive to the interests of - his country, and more capable of uniting the most rigorous - performance of his public duties with the high-bred courtesy - and the conciliatory tact and temper that make those duties - easy and successful. Mr. Motley’s successor will find his - mission wonderfully facilitated by the firmness and discretion - that have presided over the conduct of American affairs in this - country during too brief a term, too suddenly and unaccountably - concluded.” - -The London press had not the key to this extraordinary transaction. -It knew not the potency of the San Domingo spell, nor its strange -influence over the Secretary, even breeding insensibility to -instinctive amenities, and awakening peculiar unfriendliness to Mr. -Motley, so amply certified afterward in an official document under -his own hand,--all of which burst forth with more than the tropical -luxuriance of the much-coveted island. - - * * * * * - -I cannot disguise the sorrow with which I offer this explanation. -In self-defence and for the sake of truth do I now speak. I have -cultivated forbearance, and hoped from the bottom of my heart -that I might do so to the end. But beyond the call of the public -press has been the defiant challenge of Senators, and also the -consideration sometimes presented by friends, that my silence might -be misinterpreted. Tardily and most reluctantly I make this record, -believing it more a duty to the Senate than to myself, but a plain -duty, to be performed in all simplicity without reserve. Having nothing -to conceal, and willing always to be judged by the truth, I court the -fullest inquiry, and shrink from no conclusion founded on an accurate -knowledge of the case. - -If this narration enables any one to see in clearer light the injustice -done to Mr. Motley, then have I performed a further duty too long -postponed; nor will it be doubted by any honest nature, that, since the -assault of the Secretary, he was entitled to that vindication which -is found in a statement of facts within my own knowledge. Anything -short of this would be a license to the Secretary in his new style of -state-paper, which, for the sake of the public service and of good-will -among men, must be required to stand alone, in the isolation which -becomes its abnormal character. Plainly without precedent in the past, -it must be without chance of repetition in the future. - -Here I stop. My present duty is performed when I set forth the simple -facts, exhibiting those personal relations which have been drawn in -question, without touching the questions of principle behind. - - - - -THE KU-KLUX-KLAN. - -SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE -FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, APRIL 13, 1871. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--The questions presented in this debate have been -of fact and of Constitutional Law. It is insisted on one side that -a condition of things exists in certain States affecting life, -liberty, property, and the enjoyment of Equal Rights, which can be -corrected only by the national arm. On the other side this statement -is controverted, and it is argued also that such intervention is -inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. On both -questions, whether of fact or law, I cannot hesitate. To my mind, -outrages are proved, fearful in character; nor can I doubt the power -under the Constitution to apply the remedy. - -The evidence is cumulative. Ruffians in paint and in disguise seize -the innocent, insult them, rob them, murder them. Communities are -kept under this terrible shadow. And this terror falls especially -upon those who have stood by the Union in its bloody trial, and those -others of different color who have just been admitted to the blessings -of Freedom. To both of these classes is our nation bound by every -obligation of public faith. We cannot see them sacrificed without -apostasy. If the power to protect them fails, then is the National -Constitution a failure. - -I do not set forth the evidence, for this has been amply done by -others, and to repeat it would be only to occupy time and to darken -the hour. The Report of the Committee, at least as regards one -State,[104] the testimony of the public press, the stories of violence -with which the air is laden, and private letters with their painful -narrations,--all these unite, leaving no doubt as to the harrowing -condition of things in certain States lately in rebellion,--not the -same in all these States or in all parts of a State, but such as to -show in many States the social fabric menaced, disturbed, imperilled in -its very foundations, while life, liberty, property, and the enjoyment -of Equal Rights are without that security which is the first condition -of civilization. This is the case simply stated. If such things can be -without a remedy, applied, if need be, by the national arm, then are we -little more than a bundle of sticks, but not a nation. Believing that -we are a nation, I cannot doubt the power and the duty of the National -Government. Thus on general grounds do I approach the true conclusion. - -So long as Slavery endured a State was allowed to play the turtle, and, -sheltered within its shell, to escape the application of those master -principles which are truly national. The Declaration of Independence -with its immortal truths was in abeyance; the Constitution itself was -interpreted always in support of Slavery. I never doubted that this -interpretation was wrong,--not even in the days of Slavery; but it -is doubly, triply wrong now that the Declaration of Independence is -at last regarded, and that the Constitution not only makes Slavery -impossible, but assures the citizen in the enjoyment of Equal Rights. -I do not quote these texts, whether of the Declaration or the -Constitution. You know them by heart. But they are not vain words. -Vital in themselves, they are armed with all needful powers to carry -them into execution. As in other days Slavery gave its character to -the Constitution, filling it with its own denial of Equal Rights, and -compelling the National Government to be its instrument, so now do -I insist that Liberty must give its character to the Constitution, -filling it with life-giving presence, and compelling the National -Government to be its instrument. Once the Nation served Slavery, and in -this service ministered to State Rights; now it must serve Liberty with -kindred devotion, even to the denial of State Rights. All this I insist -is plain, according to rules of interpretation simple and commanding. - -In other days, while the sinister influence prevailed, the States were -surrounded by a Chinese wall so broad that horsemen and chariots could -travel upon it abreast; but that wall has now been beaten down, and -the citizen everywhere is under the protection of the same Equal Laws, -not only without distinction of color, but also without distinction of -State. - -What makes us a Nation? Not armies, not fleets, not fortifications, not -commerce reaching every shore abroad, not industry filling every vein -at home, not population thronging the highways; none of these make our -Nation. The national life of this Republic is found in the principle of -Unity, and in the Equal Rights of all our people,--all of which, being -national in character, are necessarily placed under the great safeguard -of the Nation. Let the National Unity be assailed, and the Nation will -spring to its defence. Let the humblest citizen in the remotest village -be assailed in the enjoyment of Equal Rights, and the Nation must do -for that humblest citizen what it would do for itself. And this is only -according to the original promises of the Declaration of Independence, -and the more recent promises of the Constitutional Amendments, the two -concurring in the same national principles. - -Do you question the binding character of the Great Declaration? Then -do I invoke the Constitutional Amendments. But you cannot turn from -either; and each establishes beyond question the boundaries of national -power, making it coextensive with the National Unity and the Equal -Rights of All, originally declared and subsequently assured. Whatever -is announced in the Declaration is essentially National, and so also -is all that is assured. The principles of the Declaration, reinforced -by the Constitutional Amendments, cannot be allowed to suffer. Being -common to all, they must be under the safeguard of all. Nor can any -State set up its local system against the universal law. Equality -implies universality; and what is universal must be national. If each -State is left to determine the protection of Equal Rights, then will -protection vary according to the State, and Equal Rights will prevail -only according to the accident of local law. There will be as many -equalities as States. Therefore, in obedience to reason, as well as -solemn mandate, is this power in the Nation. - -Nor am I deterred from this conclusion by any cry of Centralism, or it -may be of Imperialism. These are terms borrowed from France, where this -abuse has become a tyranny, subjecting the most distant communities, -even in the details of administration, to central control. Mark, if -you please, the distinction. But no such tyranny is proposed among -us,--nor any interference of any kind with matters local in character. -The Nation will not enter the State, except for the safeguard of rights -national in character, and then only as the sunshine, with beneficent -power, and, like the sunshine, for the equal good of all. As well -assail the sun because it is central, because it is imperial. Here -is a just centralism; here is a generous imperialism. Shunning with -patriotic care that injurious centralism and that fatal imperialism -which have been the Nemesis of France, I hail that other centralism -which supplies an equal protection to every citizen, and that other -imperialism which makes Equal Rights the supreme law, to be maintained -by the national arm in all parts of the land. Centralism! Imperialism! -Give me the centralism of Liberty! Give me the imperialism of Equal -Rights! And may this National Capitol, where we are now assembled, be -the emblem of our Nation! Planted on a hill-top, with portals opening -North and South, East and West, with spacious chambers, and with -arching dome crowned by the image of Liberty,--such is our imperial -Republic; but in nothing is it so truly imperial as in that beneficent -Sovereignty which rises like a dome crowned by the image of Liberty. - -Nor am I deterred by any party cry. The Republican party must do -its work, which is nothing less than the regeneration of the Nation -according to the promises of the Declaration of Independence. -To maintain the Republic in its unity, and the people in their -rights,--such is this transcendent duty. Nor do I fear any political -party which assails these sacred promises, even if it falsely assume -the name of Democrat. How powerless their efforts against these -immortal principles! For myself, I know no better service than that -which I now announce. Here have I labored steadfastly from early life, -bearing obloquy and enmity; and here again I pledge the energies which -remain to me, even if obloquy and enmity survive. - - - - -OUR DUTY AGAINST WRONG. - -LETTER TO THE REFORM LEAGUE, NEW YORK, MAY 8, 1871. - - - This was read by the President of the League at its first - anniversary in Steinway Hall, and reported in the papers. - - WASHINGTON, May 8, 1871. - - MY DEAR SIR,--It is not in my power to be at your meeting; but - when I think that it will be held on the anniversary of the good - old Antislavery Society, which was always so apostolic, I pay - homage to the day, and thanks to you for remembering me among its - friends. - - Happily, Slavery is abolished; but, alas! wrong is not banished - from the earth, nor has it ceased to be organized in human - institutions, or to be maintained by governments. - - In considering the question of San Domingo, I am sure you will - not forget our duty to the Haytian people, counting by the - hundred thousand, who now seek peace with the rest of the island, - and would gladly accept our good offices. “Blessed are the - peacemakers!” Here is our opportunity to obtain this blessing; - but we must begin by stopping our war-dance about the island, - kept up at immense cost for more than a year. - - Faithfully yours, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - A. W. POWELL, ESQ. - - - - -POWER OF THE SENATE TO IMPRISON RECUSANT WITNESSES. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, MAY 18 AND 27, 1871. - - - May 18, 1871, Z. L. White and H. J. Ramsdell, newspaper - correspondents, having been taken into custody by order of - the Senate, for refusing to disclose, on the requisition of - a committee appointed to investigate the matter, the source - whence a copy of the Treaty of Washington had been obtained - which they had communicated for publication while under - consideration in Executive Session, and Mr. White, whose case - was first presented, on arraignment at the bar of the Senate - persisting in his refusal, a resolution was thereupon offered - for his commitment to the common jail until he should answer. - Mr. Sumner immediately moved an amendment substituting for the - common jail the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, remarking;-- - -In support of that amendment I will say that the only precedent we have -in our history known to me for this case is that of Nugent,[105] and he -was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. It appears from -the newspapers of the time that there was a perpetual menace, as the -excitement increased, that the custody should be changed to the common -jail; but it does not appear that it was so changed. He continued -for some two months in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. We all -know, also, that after the Impeachment Trial a witness was taken into -custody; but it was simply the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the -House.[106] - -There is one other precedent to which I ought to allude, and it will be -for the Senate to say whether they will follow it. It is the resolution -of the Senate in the spring of 1860, on the motion of Mr. Mason, -chairman of the committee raised especially to persecute the supposed -associates of John Brown, and taking one of them into custody, bringing -him into this Chamber, propounding to him certain interrogatories which -he refused to answer. Mr. Mason finally brought forward a resolution -that he should be committed to the common jail.[107] That, Sir, is the -precedent which it is now proposed to follow. The Senate will consider -whether they will follow the lead of Mr. Mason, author of the Fugitive -Slave Bill, Chairman of the Harper’s Ferry Investigating Committee, -and afterward a Rebel, in committing a citizen to the common jail, or -whether they will follow the better precedent of the Senate at a better -day and under better auspices. - -On this motion I ask for the yeas and nays. - - The yeas and nays were ordered, with the result, for the - amendment, Yeas 31, Nays 27. - - A second resolution, containing a provision for the continuance - of the Committee, with a view to holding the witness in - custody after the close of the session until he should answer - as required, which Mr. Sumner denounced as contrary to all - parliamentary precedent, prevailed against a motion to strike - out this part by Yeas 20, Nays 30. - - Corresponding resolutions were subsequently adopted in the case - of Mr. Ramsdell, who had likewise persisted in refusing to - answer. - - * * * * * - - May 27th, on a resolution submitted by Mr. Wilson, of - Massachusetts, for the discharge of these persons from custody - “immediately upon the final adjournment of the session,” Mr. - Sumner spoke as follows:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT,--This question is important, primarily, as it concerns -the liberty of the citizen; but it is made important also by the -attempt, to which we have just listened, to establish for the Senate a -prerogative which on history and precedent does not belong to it. - -Some days ago I took the ground, which I shall take to-day, that on -the close of the session of the Senate any imprisonment founded on its -order must cease. Of that conclusion, whether on history or law, I have -not the least doubt. I have listened to the argument of the Senator -from New York, [Mr. CONKLING,] and to his comment upon the authorities -adduced. The answer, to my mind, is obvious. It will be found simply in -stating one of those authorities and calling attention to its precise -language. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] has already presented -to-day what I had the honor of quoting on the first day of this -discussion, the authoritative words of May in his work on Parliamentary -Law, and also the solemn judgment of Lord Denman, Chief-Justice of -England. May says, speaking of prisoners committed by order of the -House of Commons, that they - - “are immediately released from their confinement on a - prorogation, whether they have paid the fees or not. If they - were held longer in custody, they would be discharged by the - courts, upon a writ of _Habeas Corpus_.”[108] - -This statement, coming as it does from the well-known Clerk of the -House of Commons, as familiar with the usages of that body as any -living man, is of itself authority. But he adduces the weighty words -of Lord Denman in the most remarkable case of privilege that has ever -occurred in English history, being that of Stockdale and Hansard, -which, it is well known, was discussed day by day in Parliament, week -by week in Westminster Hall. I have before me the opinions of all the -judges on that case, but the words that are particularly pertinent now -are quoted by May as follows:-- - - “However flagrant the contempt, the House of Commons can only - commit till the close of the existing session,”-- - -Mark, Sir, if you please, how positive he is in his language,-- - - “can only commit till the close of the existing session. Their - privilege to commit is not better known than this limitation - of it. Though the party should deserve the severest penalties, - yet, his offence being committed the day before a prorogation, - if the House ordered his imprisonment but for a week, every - court in Westminster Hall and every judge of all the courts - would be bound to discharge him by _Habeas Corpus_.”[109] - -These were the words of the Lord Chief-Justice of England in a -most memorable case as late as 1839. This is no ancient authority, -but something modern and of our day. It is not expressed in vague -or uncertain terms, but in language clear and positive. It is as -applicable to the Senate of the United States as to the House of -Commons. It is applicable to every legislative body sitting under a -constitutional government. - -An attempt has been made to claim for the Senate prerogatives which -belong to the House of Lords. How so? Is the Senate a House of Lords? -Is it an hereditary body? Is it a perpetual body in the sense that -the House of Lords is a perpetual body? We know that the House of -Lords is in session the whole year round. We know, that, according to -a rule of the Civil Law, “_Tres faciunt collegium_,”[110] three make -a quorum in the House of Lords. So that the presence of three peers -at any time, duly summoned to the chamber, constitutes a sufficient -quorum for business. Therefore the House of Lords has in it an -essential element enabling it to come together easily and to continue -in perpetual session. It is in its character, in the elements of its -privileges, clearly distinguishable from the Senate, as it is clearly -distinguishable from the House of Commons. Such privileges as the -Senate has are derived from the House of Commons rather than from the -House of Lords, so far as they are derived from either of these bodies. - -Another attempt has been made, by criticizing the word “prorogation,” -to find a distinction between the two cases; but a note to May’s -work on Parliamentary Law, which I now have in my hand, meets that -criticism. After saying in the text that the prisoners committed by the -House of Commons “are immediately released from their confinement on a -prorogation,” the note says:-- - - “But this law never extended to an adjournment, even when it - was in the nature of a prorogation.”[111] - -Take, for instance, the adjournments which habitually occur in the -British Parliament at the Christmas holidays, at the Easter holidays, -at the Whitsuntide holidays. You saw in the papers, only the other -day, that Mr. Gladstone gave notice that the House of Commons would -adjourn over several days on account of the Whitsuntide holidays; -but nobody supposes that that is in the nature of a “prorogation,” -or that a committal by order of the House of Commons would expire on -such an adjournment, as it would not expire on our adjournment for our -Christmas holidays. - -Therefore do the very precedents of the British Parliament answer -completely the case put by the Senator from New York, who imagined a -difficulty from occasional adjournments at the Christmas holidays. -Sir, we are to look at this precisely as it is. The prorogation of the -House of Commons is an adjournment without day, corresponding precisely -to our adjournment without day. I believe in Massachusetts, down to -this moment, when the Legislature has agreed upon the time of its -adjournment, it gives notice to the Governor, who sends the Secretary -of the Commonwealth to prorogue it, and the Legislature is declared to -be prorogued,--thus following the language so familiar in England. - -Then it is argued that this power to commit may be prolonged by a -Committee to sit during the vacation. But how so? The Committee has no -power to commit. The power to commit comes from the Senate. How does -the sitting of the Committee in the vacation add to its powers? It has -no such power while the Senate is in session. How can it have any such -power when the Senate has closed its session? But the power to protract -the imprisonment of a citizen must be kindred with that to imprison. - -I dismiss the whole argument founded upon the prolongation of the -Committee as entirely irrelevant. Prolong the Committee, if you please, -till doomsday; you cannot by that in any way affect the liberty of the -citizen. The citizen is imprisoned only by the order of the Senate, -and the power to imprison or to detain expires with the session. Such, -Sir, is the rule that we have borrowed from England. Nor am I alone in -thus interpreting it. I cited, the other day, the authentic work of the -late Judge Cushing on the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies. I -will, with your permission, read again his statement, as follows:-- - - “According to the Parliamentary Law of England there is a - difference between the Lords and Commons in this respect: the - former being authorized, and the latter not, to imprison for a - period beyond the session.” - -That is the testimony of Judge Cushing, who had devoted his life to the -study of this subject. He then goes on:-- - - “In this country the power to imprison is either incidental to - or expressly conferred upon all our legislative assemblies; - and in some of the States it is also regulated by express - constitutional provision.” - -Then he gives his conclusion:-- - - “Where it is not so regulated, it is understood that the - imprisonment terminates with the session.”[112] - -Mark, if you please, “terminates with the session.” - -Here you have the authentic words of this special authority, -interpreting the English Parliamentary Law, and also declaring our -law. Who is there that can go behind these words? What Senator will set -up his research or his conclusion against that of this exemplar? Who -is there here that will venture to claim for the Senate a prerogative -which this American authority disclaims for legislative bodies in our -country, unless expressly sanctioned by Constitutional Law? - -I have shown that this power to commit beyond the session does not -exist in the House of Commons, from which we derive such prerogatives -or privileges as we have. But the stream cannot rise higher than the -fountain-head. How, then, if the power does not exist in the House of -Commons, can you find it here? You cannot trace the present assumption -to any authentic, legitimate fountain. If you attempt it, permit me to -say you will fail, and the assumption will appear without authority, -and therefore a usurpation. I so characterize it, feeling that I cannot -be called in question when I use this strong language. If you undertake -to detain these prisoners beyond the expiration of this session, you -become usurpers, the Senate of the United States usurps power that -does not belong to it; and, Sir, this is more flagrant, when it is -considered that it usurps this power in order to wield it against the -liberty of fellow-citizens. - -When I state this conclusion, I feel that I stand on supports that -cannot be shaken. I stand on English authorities sustained by American -authorities. You cannot find any exception. That in itself is an -authority. If you could mention an exception, I should put it aside as -an accident or an abuse, and not as an authority. The rule is fixed -and positive; and I now have no hesitation in declaring that it will -be the duty of the judge, on a writ of _Habeas Corpus_, as soon as -this Senate closes its session, to set these prisoners at liberty, -unless the Senate has the good sense in advance to authorize their -discharge. I do not doubt the power and the duty of the Court. I am -sure that no judge worthy of a place on the bench will hesitate in this -judgment. Should he, I would read to him the simple words of the Lord -Chief-Justice of England on the very point:-- - - “If the House ordered his imprisonment but for a week, every - court in Westminster Hall and every judge of all the courts - would be bound to discharge him by _Habeas Corpus_.”[113] - -There is no way of answering those words. They are as commanding on -this occasion as if they were in the very text of our Constitution. -When I say this, I do not speak vaguely; for I am sure that every -student of this subject will admit that a judgment like that which I -have adduced on a question of Parliamentary Law, and in favor of the -rights of the subject, is of an authority in our country equal to the -Constitution itself. - - * * * * * - -This brings me, Sir, to an important point which I had hoped not to be -called to discuss, but which the argument of the Senator from New York -seems to press upon the consideration of the Senate and of the country; -and therefore I shall open it to your attention, even if I do not -discuss it. It is this: that, whatever may be the power even in England -by Parliamentary Law, it by no means follows that the Senate of the -United States has that power. - -What is the Senate? A body created by a written Constitution, enjoying -certain powers described and defined in the Constitution itself. The -Constitution says nothing about contempt or punishment for contempt. In -order to obtain this power you must go into inference and deduction; -you must infer it or imply it. In the case of impeachments the Senate -becomes a judicial body, and it is reasonable to infer that it may have -the power to compel the attendance of witnesses,--in short, the powers -of a court. The Senate also, by express terms of the Constitution, has -the power to expel a member. There again is an inquiry in its nature -judicial; and should the Senate on such occasion examine witnesses and -proceed as a court, it may be inferred that it is so authorized by the -Constitution. There is also a third power which the Senate possesses, -judicial in character: it is to determine the election of its members. -Beyond these every power that the Senate undertakes to exercise on -this subject is derived by inference. It does not stand on any text of -the Constitution. It is a mere implication, and, being adverse to the -rights of the citizen, it must be construed strictly. - -Now I am not ready to say, I do not say, that the Senate has not -the power to institute a proceeding like that now in question. I am -very clear that it has not the power by compulsory process to compel -witnesses to testify in aid of legislation, as was once attempted in -what was known familiarly as the Harper’s Ferry Investigating Case. But -I do not undertake to say that it may not institute a proceeding like -that in which we are now engaged; yet I admit its legality with great -hesitation and with sincere doubt. I doubt whether such an assumption -can stand an argument in this Chamber; I doubt whether it can stand -a discussion before a court of justice. How do you arrive at such a -power? The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER] said, the other day, -the Senate, according to the arguments of certain Senators, has not the -power of a justice of the peace. The Senator never spoke truer words: -the Senate has not the power of a justice of the peace. A justice of -the peace is a court with the powers of a court. The Senate of the -United States is not a court, except in the cases to which I have -already referred. It is a serious question whether it is a court in the -proceeding which it has now seen fit to institute. Were it a court, -then the argument of the Senator from Wisconsin might be applicable, -and it might then claim the privileges of a court. It might proceed, if -you please, to fine as well as to commit. The Senate in its discretion -forbears to fine; it contents itself with imprisonment. But if it can -imprison, why not fine? Why is not the whole catalogue of punishment -open to its grasp? - -I have reminded you, Sir, that our powers, whatever they may be, are -under a written Constitution, and in this important respect clearly -distinguishable from the powers of the House of Commons, which are the -growth of tradition and immemorial usage. I am not the first person -to take this ground. I find it judicially asserted in most authentic -judgments, to which I beg to call the attention of the Senate. - -I have in my hands the fourth volume of Moore’s Privy Council Cases, -cases argued in the Privy Council of England, many of them being cases -that have come up from the Colonies,--and here is one, being an appeal -from the Supreme Court of the island of Newfoundland. I will read the -marginal note:-- - - “The House of Assembly of the island of Newfoundland does not - possess, as a legal incident, the power of arrest, with a view - of adjudication on a contempt committed out of the House,--but - only such powers as are reasonably necessary for the proper - exercise of its functions and duties as a local Legislature. - - “_Semble._--The House of Commons possess this power only - by virtue of ancient usage and prescription, the _Lex et - Consuetudo Parliamenti_. - - “_Semble._--The Crown, by its prerogative, can create a - Legislative Assembly in a settled colony, subordinate to - Parliament, but with supreme power within the limits of the - colony for the government of its inhabitants; but, - - “_Quære._--Whether it can bestow upon it an authority, namely, - that of committing for contempt, not incidental to it by - law?”[114] - -I will not take time in reading extracts from the opinion of the Court, -which goes on the ground that the Legislature of the Colony is acting -under a commission from the Crown in the nature of a Constitution, -being a written text, and that it could not therefore claim for itself -those vast, immense, unknown privileges and prerogatives which by long -usage are recognized as belonging to the House of Commons. - -But the question was presented at a later day in another case before -the Privy Council, which came from the Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s -Land. I cite now Moore’s Privy Council Cases, volume eleven. This case -was decided in 1858. It is therefore a recent authority. The marginal -note is as follows:-- - - “The _Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti_ applies exclusively to - the House of Lords and House of Commons in England, and is - not conferred upon a Supreme Legislative Assembly of a colony - or settlement by the introduction of the Common Law of England - into the colony. - - “No distinction in this respect exists between Colonial - Legislative Councils and Assemblies whose power is derived by - grant from the Crown or created under the authority of an Act - of the Imperial Parliament.”[115] - -You will see, Sir, that by this decision the powers of a Legislative -Assembly created by a Charter are limited to the grants of the Charter, -and that the mere creation of the legislative body does not carry with -it the Law and Custom of Parliament. In the course of his opinion -Lord Chief-Baron Pollock uses the following language. Alluding to the -decision of the Privy Council in the Newfoundland case, he says:-- - - “They held that the power of the House of Commons in England - was part of the _Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti_; and the - existence of that power in the Commons of Great Britain did - not warrant the ascribing it to every Supreme Legislative - Council or Assembly in the Colonies. We think we are bound - by the decision of the case of Kielley _v._ Carson.… If the - Legislative Council of Van Diemen’s Land cannot claim the power - they have exercised on the occasion before us as inherently - belonging to the supreme legislative authority which they - undoubtedly possess, they cannot claim it under the statute - as part of the Common Law of England (including the _Lex et - Consuetudo Parliamenti_) transferred to the Colony by the 9th - Geo. IV. c. 83, sect. 24. The _Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti_ - apply exclusively to the Lords and Commons of this country, - and do not apply to the Supreme Legislature of a Colony by the - introduction of the Common Law there.”[116] - -Now the question is directly presented by these decisions, whether -under the written text of the Constitution of the United States you -can ingraft upon our institutions the Law and Custom of Parliament. So -far as these cases are applicable, they decide in the negative; but I -will not press them to that extent. I adduce them for a more moderate -purpose,--simply to put the Senate on its guard against any assumption -of power in this matter. I do not undertake to say to what extent the -Senate may go; but with these authorities I warn it against proceeding -on any doubtful practices. If there be any doubt, then do these -authorities cry out to you to stop. - -I have said, Sir, that our powers here are limited by the Constitution: -I may add, also, and the Law in pursuance of the Constitution. And now -I ask you to show me any text of the Constitution, and to show me any -text of Law, which authorizes the detention of these witnesses by the -Senate. The Senate, be it understood, is not a court. Certainly, for -this purpose and on this occasion, it is not a court. Show me the law. -Does it exist? If it exists, some learned Senator can point it out. But -while Senators fail to point out any law sanctioning such a procedure, -I point out an immortal text in the Constitution of the United States, -borrowed from Magna Charta, which it is difficult to disobey:-- - - “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise - infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a - Grand Jury, … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, - without due process of law.” - -“Without due process of law.” What is the meaning of that language? -Judge Story[117] tells us, as follows:-- - - “Lord Coke[118] says that these latter words, _per legem - terræ_, (by the law of the land,) mean _by due process of - law_: that is, without due presentment or indictment, and - being brought in to answer thereto by due process of the - Common Law. So that this clause in effect affirms the right of - trial according to the process and proceedings of the Common - Law.”[119] - -There, Sir, is a living text of the Constitution of the United States, -binding upon this Senate. Where do you find any other text authorizing -you to institute this proceeding? or if you institute the proceeding, -must it not come within the limitations of this prohibition? - -But I may be reminded that there are precedents. How many precedents -are there for such a proceeding? We are familiar with all of them. -The latest, the most authentic, is that of Thaddeus Hyatt, proceeded -against because he refused to testify before the Harper’s Ferry -Investigating Committee. Is that a precedent which you are disposed to -follow? I am sure you would not, if you read the weighty argument in -that proceeding made by the late John A. Andrew, and Samuel E. Sewall, -of Massachusetts, the accomplished jurist, who still survives to us. -Go still further back and you have the case, entirely like that before -us, of Nugent,--who was not pursued, I was going to say, as ferociously -as the present witnesses have been pursued, for his custody was simply -that of the house of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and it was recognized at -that time that even that mild custody would expire with the session of -the Senate. You have also the earlier precedent of 1800 in the case -of Duane, which, I think, Senators would hesitate now to vindicate. -Let them look at it and see whether they would sanction a similar -proceeding at this day,--whether such a tyranny could go on without -shocking the public conscience, and being recognized universally as an -assault upon the liberty of the press.[120] - -Those are the cases furnished by the history of the Senate. Lord -Denman, in the case of _Stockdale_ v. _Hansard_, the famous case to -which I have referred, gives an answer to them as follows: I quote from -the ninth volume of Adolphus and Ellis’s Reports, page 155:-- - - “The practice of a ruling power in the State is but a feeble - proof of its legality. I know not how long the practice of - raising ship-money had prevailed before the right was denied - by Hampden; general warrants had been issued and enforced for - centuries before they were questioned in actions by Wilkes - and his associates, who, by bringing them to the test of law, - procured their condemnation and abandonment. I apprehend that - acquiescence on this subject proves, in the first place, too - much; for the admitted and grossest abuses of privilege have - never been questioned by suits in Westminster Hall.” - -This proceeding has analogy with one well known in English history, -that of the Star-Chamber Court, which you will find described by Mr. -Hallam in his “Constitutional History of England,” in chapter eight, -and I refer to it merely for the sake of one single sentence which I -cite from this great author:-- - - “But precedents of usurped power cannot establish a _legal - authority_ in defiance of the acknowledged law.”[121] - -But where is the _legal authority_ for the imprisonment of these -witnesses? Only in mere inference, mere deduction,--the merest -inference; but surely you will not take away the liberty of the citizen -on any such shadowy, evanescent apology, which is no apology, but a -sham, and nothing else. I have already called attention to the argument -of Governor Andrew and Hon. S. E. Sewall, which will be found in the -Congressional Globe under date of March 9, 1860. Did time permit, I -should quote from it at length; but I commend it to the Senate and all -inquirers. - -As an illustration of the doubts which environ this question, I -call attention to the case of _Sanborn_ v. _Carleton_,[122] where -Chief-Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, gave the opinion of the Court. -The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER] will not question his -character. After stating that “it is admitted in the arguments that -there is no express provision in the Constitution of the United States -giving this authority in terms,”--that is, the alleged authority of -the Senate,--he proceeds to say that there are questions on this -subject “manifestly requiring great deliberation and research.” And -yet Senators treat them as settled. The Chief-Justice then proceeds -to announce that a warrant issued by order of the Senate of the -United States for the arrest of a witness for contempt in refusing to -appear before a Committee of the Senate, and addressed only to the -Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, cannot be served in Massachusetts by a -deputy. But this very question arises in the present proceedings. The -managing editor of the “Tribune,” Mr. Whitelaw Reid, was summoned by -a deputy, and not by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Gracefully yielding to the -illegal summons, he appeared before the Committee; but the question of -power still remains; and this very question adds to the embarrassments -of the subject. - -The extent of the abuse now in question will be seen, if I call -the attention of the Senate to the last Report of the Committee of -Investigation. By that Report it appears that they undertook to examine -two agents of the Telegraph Company, who, finally, at the last moment, -when asked to make a definitive statement with regard to the copy of -the Treaty lodged with them for communication to New York, declined to -answer. And you have now in this usurpation of the Senate an attempt -to break into the telegraph-offices of the United States. You raise, -for the first time in this Chamber, one of the great questions of the -times. Can you do any such thing? - - MR. NYE [of Nevada]. I should like to ask the Senator - from Massachusetts if the courts have not broken into the - telegraph-offices? - -MR. SUMNER. I am not speaking about the courts. I am speaking about the -Senate of the United States. - - MR. NYE. I ask the Senator if the Senate of the United States, - in this investigation, as long as it exists, has not all the - authority of a court? - -MR. SUMNER. I have already stated that it has not,--that it has not the -authority of a justice of the peace. The Senate proposes to break into -the telegraph-offices of the United States. In the guise of privilege, -it enters those penetralia and insists that the secrets shall be -disclosed. What is the difference between a communication by telegraph -and a communication by letter? Is there not a growing substitution of -the telegram for the letter? Has not this taken place to an immense -extent in England? Is it not now taking place to an immense extent in -our own country? - -Now, Sir, mark the limitation of my language. I do not mean to say -that the telegram is entitled to all the sacredness of the letter; -but I do insist that the Senate, before it undertakes to break into -the telegraph-offices of the United States, shall calmly consider -the question, and see to what end the present disposition will carry -them. Senators who have not entirely forgotten the recent history of -England know that the powerful Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel for a time -trembled under the imputation that one of its ablest members, Sir -James Graham, who, Mr. Webster told me, in his judgment, was the best -speaker in Parliament, had authorized the opening of the letters of -Mazzini at the Post-Office. The subject was brought before Parliament -night after night. You shall see how it was treated. The Liberal member -from Finsbury, Mr. Duncombe, in presenting it first,--I read from -Hansard,--after inveighing against the opening of letters, said:-- - - “That was a system which the people of this country would - not bear, which they ought not to bear; and he hoped, after - the exposure which had taken place, that some means would - be adopted for counteracting this insidious conduct of her - Majesty’s ministers. It was disgraceful to a free country that - such a system should be tolerated. It might do in Russia, ay, - or even in France, or it might do in the Austrian dominions, it - might do in Sardinia; but it did not suit the free air of this - free country.”[123] - -Lord Denman, always on the side of Freedom, at the time Chief-Justice -of England, in the House of Lords said:-- - - “Could anything be more revolting to the feeling than that any - man might have all his letters opened in consequence of some - information respecting him having been given to the Secretary - of State, and that the contents of those letters, which he - might have never received, might be made use of for the purpose - of proceeding against him in a court of justice? The letters - of a man might be opened, and he might not have the slightest - intimation that he was betrayed. Now is such a state of things - to be tolerated in a civilized country? He would say, without - the slightest hesitation, that it ought not to be borne with - for a single hour.”[124] - -Lord Brougham observed that-- - - “He had not expressed any approval of the system; on the - contrary, he distinctly stated that _nothing but absolute - necessity for the safety of the State would justify it_.”[125] - -I might occupy your time till evening in adducing the strong language -of reprobation which was employed at that time. I will conclude with an -extract from a speech of that remarkable Irish orator, Mr. Sheil, as -follows:-- - - “That which is deemed utterly scandalous in private life - ought not to be tolerated in any department of the State; and - from the Statute-Book, which it dishonors, this ignominious - prerogative ought to be effaced forever.”[126] - -That brings me to the point, Sir, that there was an old statute of -Queen Anne which authorized the opening of letters at the Post-Office -under the order of a Secretary of State;[127] but, notwithstanding that -old statute, the system was reprobated. And now it is proposed, in the -maintenance of the privileges of the Senate, not in the administration -of justice before any court, but in the enforcement of the privileges -of the Senate, to penetrate the secrets of the Telegraph. I will not -undertake to say that you cannot do it. I content myself now with -calling attention to the magnitude of the question, and adducing it -as a new reason why you should hesitate in this whole business. You -see to what it conducts. You see in what direction you are travelling. -You see how, if you persevere, you will shock the conscience and the -sensibilities of the American people. - -I do not believe that the American people will willingly see the -Telegraph rifled, any more than they will see the Post-Office rifled, -in order to maintain medieval, antediluvian privileges of the -Senate,--especially when those privileges cannot be deduced from any -text of the Constitution, but are simply inferred from the ancient, -primeval Law and Usage of Parliament. Not only the orators, but the -wits of the time, denounced the attempt in England to open letters. -Punch caricatured the Secretary who attempted it as “Paul Pry at -the Post-Office.”[128] But is not the Senate in the Report of our -Committee “Paul Pry at the Telegraph-Office?” - -I make these remarks with a view of opening to the Senate the -importance of the question before them, that they may once more -hesitate and withdraw to the safe ground of the Constitution and the -Law; for there is nothing in the Constitution or in the Law that can -sanction the continued imprisonment of these witnesses. Even suppose -your proceedings have been from the beginning in all respects just and -proper, even suppose that you can vindicate them, in regard to which I -beg leave to express a sincere doubt, you cannot vindicate the attempt -to continue these witnesses in custody when you go away. Then they are -as free as you. If they are detained in prison, it is only because you -yourselves are imprisoned here in the discharge of your responsible -duties. When your imprisonment comes to an end, theirs comes to an end -also. You cannot go home and leave them captives. The Law will step in -and take them from your clutch. Better, then, in advance, by a proper -and generous resolution, to order their discharge, so that the Law will -not be compelled to do what you fail to do. - - The resolution was agreed to,--Yeas 23, Nays 13. - - - - -THE HAYTIAN MEDAL. - -RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF PRESENTATION, JULY 13, 1871. - - - The Medal was placed in Mr. Sumner’s hands July 13, 1871, - by General Preston, the Haytian Minister, together with - the following letter, signed by the President and several - distinguished citizens of the Republic:-- - - “LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY! REPUBLIC OF HAYTI. - - “_To the Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator of Massachusetts_:-- - - “HONORABLE SENATOR,--The independence of Hayti has been - our object. To affirm the aptitude of the black race for - civilization and self-government, by your eloquence and - your high morality you have made free four millions of - blacks in the United States. In defending our independence - on two solemn occasions, you have protected and defended - something more august even than the liberty of the blacks - in America. It is the dignity of a black people seeking to - place itself, by its own efforts, at the banquet of the - civilized world. Hayti thanks you. She will be able to - justify your esteem, and to maintain herself at the height - of her mission, marching in the path of progress. In the - name of the Haytian people, we pray you to accept, as a - feeble testimony of its gratitude, this medal, which will - perpetuate in ages to come the recollection of the services - which you have rendered to us as citizens of the world, and - to black Humanity.” - - Mr. Sumner at the time expressed his gratitude, and said that - he would communicate with the signers in writing. That same - evening he sent an informal note to the Minister, saying that - he feared he should feel constrained to decline the present, - and subsequently replied to the letter of presentation as - follows:-- - - WASHINGTON, July 13, 1871. - - GENTLEMEN,--I have received to-day, by the hands of your - Minister at Washington, the beautiful medal which you have done - me the honor of presenting to me in the name of the Haytian - people, together with the accompanying communication bearing - so many distinguished names, among which I recognize that of - the estimable President of the Republic. Allow me to say, most - sincerely, that I do not deserve this token, nor the flattering - terms of your communication. I am only one of many who have - labored for the enfranchisement of the African race, and who yet - stand ready to serve at all times the sacred cause; nor have I - done anything except in the simple discharge of duty. I could not - have done otherwise without the rebuke of my conscience. - - In this service I have acted always under promptings which with - me were irresistible. Like you, I hail the assured independence - of Hayti as important in illustrating the capacity of the - African race for self-government; and I rejoice to know that - distinguished Haytians recognize the necessity of clinging to - national life, not only for the sake of their own Republic, but - as an example for the benefit of that vast race over which the - white man has so long tyrannized. Your successful independence - will be the triumph of the black man everywhere, in all the - isles of the sea, and in all the unknown expanse of the African - continent, marking a great epoch of civilization. In cultivating - a sentiment of nationality, you will naturally insist upon that - equality among nations which is your right. Self-government - implies self-respect. In the presence of International Law all - nations are equal. As well deprive a citizen of equality before - the law as deprive a nation. You will also insist upon that - Christian rule, as applicable to nations as to individuals, of - doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Following - it always in your own conduct, and expecting others to follow it - towards you, will you ever forget that sentiment of Humanity by - which all men are one, with common title, with common right? - - I rejoice, again, in the assurance you give that Hayti is - prepared to advance in the path of Progress. Here I offer my best - wishes, with the ardent aspiration that the two good angels, - Education and Peace, may be her guides and support in this happy - path. With education for the people, and with peace, foreign and - domestic, especially everywhere on the island, the independence - of Hayti will be placed beyond the assaults of force or the - intrigues of designing men, besides being an encouragement to the - African race everywhere. - - I trust that you will receive with indulgence these frank words - in response to the communication with which you have honored me: - they will show at least my constant sympathy with your cause. - - And now, Gentlemen, I throw myself again on your indulgence, - while expressing the hope that you will not suspect me of - insensibility to your generous present, if I add, that, - considering the text of the Constitution of the United States - and the service you have intended to commemorate, I deem it my - duty to return the beautiful medal into your hands. To this - I am constrained by the spirit, if not by the letter of the - Constitution, which forbids any person in my situation from - accepting any present of any kind whatever from a foreign State. - Though this present is not strictly from the State of Hayti, yet, - when I observe, that, according to the flattering inscription, - it is from the Haytian people, and that the communication - accompanying it is signed by the President and eminent - magistrates of Hayti, and still further that it is in recognition - of services rendered by me as a Senator of the United States, - I feel that I cannot receive it without acting in some measure - contrary to the intention of the Constitution which I am bound to - support. In arriving at this conclusion I have been governed by - that same sense of duty which on the occasions to which you refer - made me your advocate, and which with me is a supreme power. - While thus resigning this most interesting token, I beg you to - believe me none the less grateful for the signal honor you have - done me. - - Accept for yourselves and for your country all good wishes, and - allow me to subscribe myself, Gentlemen, - - Your devoted friend, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - The medal was subsequently presented by the Haytian Government - to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and deposited in the - State Library. - - - - -EQUALITY OF RIGHTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. - -LETTER TO GEORGE W. WALKER, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS -OF JEFFERSON, TEXAS, JULY 28, 1871. - - - Mr. Walker having written to Mr. Sumner, asking his views in - regard to the management of public schools, &c., the latter - replied as follows:-- - - WASHINGTON, 28th July, 1871. - - DEAR SIR,--As in Europe there will be no durable tranquillity - until Republican Government prevails, so among us there will be - a similar failure until Equality before the Law is completely - established,--at the ballot-box,--in the court-house,--in - the public school,--in the public hotel,--and in the public - conveyance, whether on land or water. At least, so it seems to me. - - I doubt if I can add materially to the argument which you have - already received, but, with your permission, I ask attention to - the point that _equality_ is not found in _equivalents_. You - cannot give the colored child any equivalent for equality. - - Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir, - - Faithfully yours, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - - - -PEACE AND THE REPUBLIC FOR FRANCE. - -REMARKS IN MUSIC HALL, BOSTON, INTRODUCING M. ATHANASE COQUEREL, OF -PARIS, OCTOBER 9, 1871. - - - At the first of two lectures entitled “The Two Sieges of - Paris,” by M. Coquerel, Mr. Sumner, being called to preside, - said:-- - -I cannot forget, Ladies and Gentlemen, that in other years the -enjoyments of Paris were heightened for me, as I listened, more than -once, to an eloquent French preacher, on whose words multitudes hung -with rapture while he unfolded Christian truth. The scene, though -distant in time, rises before me, and I enjoy again that voice of -melody, and that rare union of elegance with earnestness, of amenity -with strength, which were so captivating; nor do I know that I have -since witnessed in any pulpit or assembly, or on any platform, more -magnetic power visibly appearing as the orator drew to himself the -listening throng, and all commingled into one. - -It is now my grateful duty to welcome the son of that orator, who, with -his father’s genius, visits us on an errand of charity. - -He will speak to you of Paris the Beautiful, and of the double tragedy -only recently enacted, where the bursting shells of a foreign foe were -followed by the more direful explosions of domestic feud. The story is -sad, among the saddest in history; but it is a wonderful chapter, with -most instructive lesson. - -Knowing our honored guest by his life, I am sure that to him war is -detestable, while Republican Government is his aspiration for France. -Were all Frenchmen of his mind, the deadly war-fever would disappear, -and the Republic would be established on a foundation not to be shaken; -and then would France rise to glories which she has never before -reached. Plainly, at this epoch of civilization, there are two Great -Commandments which this powerful nation cannot disobey with impunity. -The first is Peace; and the second, which is like unto the first, is -the Republic. But the Republic is Peace,--most unlike the Empire, which -was always war in disguise. - -It is sometimes said, somewhat lightly, that France is a Republic -without Republicans. A great mistake. Was not Lafayette a Republican? -And I now have the honor of presenting to you another. - - - - -THE GREAT FIRE AT CHICAGO, AND OUR DUTY. - -SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, AT A MEETING FOR THE RELIEF OF SUFFERERS AT -CHICAGO, OCTOBER 10, 1871. - - - The meeting was at noon, and the chair taken by the Mayor, Hon. - William Gaston. Hon. Alexander H. Rice introduced resolutions, - and spoke, when Mr. Sumner followed:-- - -MR. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:-- - -I come forward to second the resolutions moved by my friend Mr. Rice, -and to express my hope that they may be adopted unanimously, and then -acted upon vigorously. - -Fellow-Citizens, I had expected to be elsewhere to-day; but, thinking -of the distress of distant friends and countrymen, my heart was too -full for anything else, and, putting aside other things, I have come -to Faneuil Hall, as a simple volunteer, to help swell this movement of -sympathy and beneficence. - -This is a meeting for action; but are we not told that eloquence -is _action, action, action_? And most true is it now. Help for the -suffering is the highest eloquence. The best speech is a subscription. -And he is the orator whose charity is largest. - -“Thrice he gives who quickly gives.” This is a familiar saying from -the olden time. Never was it more applicable than now. Destruction -has been swift; let your gifts be swift also. If the Angel Charity -is not as quick of wing as the Fire-Fiend, yet it is more mighty and -far-reaching. Against the Fire-Fiend I put the Angel Charity. - -According to another saying handed down by ancient philosophy, that is -the best government where a wrong to a single individual is resented as -an injury to all. This sentiment is worthy of careful meditation. It -implies the solidarity of the community, and the duty of coöperation. -There is no wrong now, but an immense calamity, in which individuals -suffer. Be it our duty to treat this calamity of individuals as the -calamity of all. - -Who does not know Chicago? Most have visited it, and seen it with the -eye; but all know its pivotal position, making a great centre, and also -its immense growth and development. In a few years, beginning as late -as 1833, it has become a great city; and now it is called to endure -one of those visitations which in times past have descended upon great -cities. Much as it suffers, it is not alone. The catalogue discloses -companions in the past. - -The fire of London, in September, 1666, raged from Sunday to Thursday, -with the wind blowing a gale, reducing two-thirds of the city to -ashes. Thirteen thousand two hundred houses were consumed, and -eighty-nine churches, including St. Paul’s, covering three hundred -and seventy-three acres within and sixty-three without the walls. The -value of buildings and property burned was estimated at between ten and -twelve millions sterling, which, making allowance for difference of -values, now would be more than one hundred million dollars. I doubt if -the population of London then was larger than that of Chicago. And yet -an English historian, recounting this event, says, “Though severe at -the time, this visitation contributed materially to the improvement of -the city.”[129] - -Ancient Rome had her terrible conflagration, hardly less sweeping, when -populous quarters were devoured by the irresistible flame; and history -records that out of this destruction sprang a new life. - -Is there not in these examples a lesson of encouragement for Chicago -sitting now in ashes? A great fire in other days was worse than a -great fire now; for then it was borne in solitude by the place where -it occurred; now the whole country rushes forward to bear it, making -common cause with the sufferers. I cannot doubt that out of this great -calamity, which we justly deplore, will spring improvement. Everything -will be bettered. The city thus far has been a growth; it will become -at once a creation. But future magnificence, filling the imagination, -will not feed the hungry and clothe the naked, nor will it provide -homes for the destitute. The future cannot take care of the present. -This is our duty, and it is all expressed in Charity. - - Other speakers followed. The resolutions were adopted, and a - subscription was commenced at once. - - - - -RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF OUR COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS. - -LETTER TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF COLORED CITIZENS AT COLUMBIA, -SOUTH CAROLINA, OCTOBER 12, 1871. - - - This letter was read in the Convention October 24th, the sixth - day of its sitting, and received a vote of thanks. - - BOSTON, October 12, 1871. - - DEAR SIR,--I am glad that our colored fellow-citizens are to - have a Convention of their own. So long as they are excluded - from rights or suffer in any way on account of color, they will - naturally meet together in order to find a proper remedy; and - since you kindly invite me to communicate with the Convention, I - make bold to offer a few brief suggestions. - - In the first place, you must at all times insist upon your - rights; and here I mean not only those already accorded, but - others still denied, all of which are contained in Equality - before the Law. Wherever the law supplies a rule, there you must - insist on Equal Rights. How much remains to be obtained you know - too well in the experience of life. - - Can a respectable colored citizen travel on steamboats or - railways, or public conveyances generally, without insult on - account of color? Let Governor Dunn of Louisiana describe his - journey from New Orleans to Washington. Shut out from proper - accommodation in the cars, the doors of the Senate Chamber - opened to him, and there he found that equality which a railroad - conductor had denied. Let our excellent friend, Frederick - Douglass, relate his melancholy experience, when, on board the - mail-boat of the Potomac and within sight of the Executive - Mansion, he was thrust back from the supper-table, where his - brother Commissioners were already seated. You know the outrage. - - I might ask the same question with regard to hotels, and even - the common schools. A hotel is a legal institution, and so is a - common school, and as such each must be for the equal benefit - of all. Nor can there be any exclusion from either on account - of color. It is not enough to provide separate accommodations - for colored citizens, even if in all respects as good as those - of other persons. Equality is not found in any pretended - equivalent, but only in equality; in other words, there must be - no discrimination on account of color. - - The discrimination is an insult, a hindrance, a bar, which not - only destroys comfort and prevents equality, but weakens all - other rights. The right to vote will have no security until - your equal rights in the public conveyances, hotels, and common - schools are at last established; but here you must insist for - yourselves by speech, by petition, and by vote. Help yourselves, - and others will help also. - - The Civil Rights Law needs a supplement to cover these cases. - This defect has been apparent from the beginning, and for a - long time I have striven to remove it. A bill for this purpose, - introduced by me, is now pending in the Senate. Will not colored - fellow-citizens see that those in power no longer postpone - this essential safeguard? Surely here is an object worthy of - effort. Nor has the Republican party done its work until this is - accomplished. - - Is it not better to establish all our own people in the enjoyment - of equal rights before we seek to bring others within the sphere - of our institutions, to be treated as Frederick Douglass was on - his way to the President from San Domingo? It is easy to see that - a small part of the means, the energy, and the determined will - spent in the expedition to San Domingo, and in the prolonged - war-dance about that island, with menace to the Black Republic of - Hayti, would have secured all our colored fellow-citizens in the - enjoyment of equal rights. Of this there can be no doubt. - - Among cardinal objects is Education, which must be insisted on; - here again must be equality, side by side with the alphabet. It - is vain to teach equality, if you do not practise it. It is vain - to recite the great words of the Declaration of Independence, if - you do not make them a living reality. What is a lesson without - example? - - As all are equal at the ballot-box, so must all be equal at the - common school. Equality in the common school is the preparation - for equality at the ballot-box. Therefore do I put this among the - essentials of education. - - In asserting your rights, you will not fail to insist upon - justice to all, under which is necessarily included purity in - the Government. Thieves and money-changers, whether Democrats - or Republicans, must be driven out of our Temple. Let Tammany - Hall and Republican self-seekers be overthrown. There should - be no place for either. Thank God, good men are coming to the - rescue. Let them, while uniting against corruption, insist upon - Equal Rights for All,--also the suppression of lawless violence, - whether in the Ku-Klux-Klan outraging the South, or illicit - undertakings outraging the Black Republic of Hayti. - - To these inestimable objects add Specie Payments, and you will - have a platform which ought to be accepted by the American - people. Will not our colored fellow-citizens begin this good - work? Let them at the same time save themselves and save the - country. - - These are only hints, which I submit to the Convention, hoping - that its proceedings will tend especially to the good of the - colored race. - - Accept my thanks and best wishes, and believe me faithfully yours, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - HON. H. M. TURNER. - - - - -ONE TERM FOR PRESIDENT. - -RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 21, 1871. - - -MR. PRESIDENT,--In pursuance of notice already given, I ask leave to -introduce a Joint Resolution proposing an Amendment of the Constitution -confining the President to one term. In introducing this Amendment I -content myself with a brief remark. - -This is the era of Civil Service Reform, and the President of the -United States, in formal Message, has already called our attention -to the important subject, and made recommendations with regard to -it.[130] It may be remembered that I hailed that Message at once, as -it was read from the desk. I forbore then to observe that I missed one -recommendation, a very important recommendation, without which all the -other recommendations, I fear, may be futile. I missed a recommendation -in conformity with the best precedents of our history, and with the -opinions of illustrious men, that the Constitution be amended so as to -confine the President to one term. - -Sir, that is the initial point of Civil Service Reform; that is -the first stage in the great reform. The scheme of the President -is the play of “Hamlet” without Hamlet. I propose by the Amendment -that I offer to see that Hamlet is brought into the play. I send the -resolution to the Chair. - - MR. BAYARD. I should like to have that paper read for the - information of the Senate. - - THE PRESIDENT _pro tempore_. The Joint Resolution will be - read at length. - - The Chief Clerk read as follows:-- - -Joint Resolution proposing an Amendment of the Constitution, confining -the President to One Term. - -Whereas for many years there has been an increasing conviction among -the people, without distinction of party, that one wielding the vast -patronage of the President should not be a candidate for reëlection, -and this conviction has found expression in the solemn warnings of -illustrious citizens, and in repeated propositions for an Amendment of -the Constitution confining the President to one term: - -Whereas Andrew Jackson was so fully impressed by the peril to -Republican Institutions from the temptations acting on a President, -who, wielding the vast patronage of his office, is a candidate for -reëlection, that, in his first Annual Message, he called attention -to it;[131] that, in his second Annual Message, after setting forth -the design of the Constitution “to secure the independence of each -department of the Government, and promote the healthful and equitable -administration of all the trusts which it has created,” he did not -hesitate to say, “The agent most likely to contravene this design -of the Constitution is the Chief Magistrate,” and then proceeded to -declare, “In order particularly that his appointment may as far as -possible be placed beyond the reach of any improper influences; in -order that he may approach the solemn responsibilities of the highest -office in the gift of a free people uncommitted to any other course -than the strict line of constitutional duty; and that the securities -for this independence may be rendered as strong as the nature of power -and the weakness of its possessor will admit, I cannot too earnestly -invite your attention to the propriety of promoting such an Amendment -of the Constitution as will render him ineligible after one term of -service”;[132] and then, again, in his third Annual Message, the same -President renewed this patriotic appeal:[133] - -Whereas William Henry Harrison, following in the footsteps of Andrew -Jackson, felt it a primary duty, in accepting his nomination as -President, to assert the One-Term principle in these explicit words: -“Among the principles proper to be adopted by any Executive sincerely -desirous to restore the Administration to its original simplicity and -purity, I deem the following to be of prominent importance: first, -to confine his service to a single term”;[134] and then, in public -speech during the canvass which ended in his election, declared, “If -the privilege of being President of the United States had been limited -to one term, the incumbent would devote all his time to the public -interest, and there would be no cause to misrule the country”; and he -concluded by pledging himself “before Heaven and Earth, if elected -President of these United States, to lay down, at the end of the term, -faithfully, that high trust at the feet of the people”:[135] - -Whereas Henry Clay, though differing much from Andrew Jackson, united -with him on the One-Term principle, and publicly enforced it in a -speech, June 27, 1840, where, after asking for “a provision to render -a person ineligible to the office of President of the United States -after a service of one term,” he explained the necessity of the -Amendment by saying, “Much observation and deliberate reflection have -satisfied me that too much of the time, the thoughts, and the exertions -of the incumbent are occupied during his first term in securing his -reëlection: the public business consequently suffers”;[136] and then, -again, in a letter dated September 13, 1842, while setting forth what -he calls “principal objects engaging the common desire and the common -exertion of the Whig party,” the same statesman specifies “an Amendment -of the Constitution, limiting the incumbent of the Presidential office -to a single term”:[137] - -Whereas the Whig party, in its National Convention at Baltimore, May -1, 1844, nominated Henry Clay as President and Theodore Frelinghuysen -as Vice-President, with a platform where “a single term for the -Presidency” is declared to be among “the great principles of -the Whig party, principles inseparable from the public honor and -prosperity, to be maintained and advanced by the election of these -candidates”;[138] which declaration was echoed at the great National -Ratification Convention the next day, addressed by Daniel Webster, -where it was resolved that “the limitation of a President to a single -term” was among the objects “for which the Whig party will unceasingly -strive until their efforts are crowned with a signal and triumphant -success”:[139] - -Whereas, in the same spirit and in harmony with these authorities, -another statesman, Benjamin F. Wade, at the close of his long -service in the Senate, most earnestly urged an Amendment of the -Constitution confining the President to one term, and in his speech -on that occasion, February 20, 1866, said, “The offering of this -resolution is no new impulse of mine, for I have been an advocate of -the principle contained in it for many years, and I have derived the -strong impressions which I entertain on the subject from a very careful -observation of the workings of our Government during the period that -I have been an observer of them; I believe it has been very rare that -we have been able to elect a President of the United States who has -not been tempted to use the vast powers intrusted to him according to -his own opinions to advance his reëlection”; and then, after exposing -at length the necessity of this Amendment, the veteran Senator further -declared, “There are defects in the Constitution, and this is among the -most glaring; all men have seen it; and now let us have the nerve, let -us have the resolution to come up and apply the remedy”:[140] - -Whereas these testimonies, revealing intense and wide-spread -convictions of the American people, are reinforced by the friendly -observations of De Tocqueville, the remarkable Frenchman to whom our -country is under such great and lasting obligations, in his famous -work on “Democracy in America,” where he says, in words of singular -clearness and force, “Intrigue and corruption are vices natural to -elective Governments; but when the chief of the State can be reëlected, -these vices extend themselves indefinitely, and compromise the very -existence of the country: when a simple candidate seeks success by -intrigue, his manœuvres can operate only over a circumscribed space; -when, on the contrary, the chief of the State himself enters the -lists, he borrows for his own use the force of the Government: in the -first case, it is a man, with his feeble means; in the second, it -is the State itself, with its immense resources, that intrigues and -corrupts”:[141] and then, again, the same great writer, who had studied -our country so closely, testifies: “It is impossible to consider the -ordinary course of affairs in the United States without perceiving that -the desire to be reëlected dominates the thoughts of the President; -that the whole policy of his Administration tends toward this point; -that his least movements are made subservient to this object; that, -especially as the moment of crisis approaches, individual interest -substitutes itself in his mind for the general interest”:[142] - -Whereas all these concurring voices, where patriotism, experience, and -reason bear testimony, have additional value at a moment when the -country is looking anxiously to a reform of the civil service, for the -plain reason that the peril from the Chief Magistrate, so long as he is -exposed to temptation, surpasses that from any other quarter, and thus -the first stage in this much-desired reform is the One-Term principle, -to the end that the President, who exercises the appointing power, -reaching into all parts of the country and holding in subserviency -a multitudinous army of office-holders, shall be absolutely without -motive or inducement to employ it for any other purpose than the public -good: - -And whereas the character of Republican Institutions requires that the -Chief Magistrate shall be above all suspicion of using the machinery -of which he is the official head to promote his own personal aims: -Therefore, - -_Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, &c._, -That the following Article is hereby proposed as an Amendment to -the Constitution of the United States, and, when ratified by the -Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, shall be valid, to -all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution; to wit: - -ARTICLE ----. - -SEC. 1. No person who has once held the office of President of the -United States shall be thereafter eligible to that office. - -SEC. 2. This Amendment shall not take effect until after the 4th March, -1873. - - On motion of Mr. Sumner, the resolution was ordered to lie on - the table, and be printed. - - - - -THE BEST PORTRAITS IN ENGRAVING. - -ARTICLE IN “THE CITY,” AN ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE, NEW YORK, JANUARY 1, -1872. - - -Engraving is one of the Fine Arts, and in this beautiful family has -been the especial hand-maiden of Painting. Another sister is now -coming forward to join this service, lending to it the charm of color. -If, in our day, the “Chromo” can do more than Engraving, it cannot -impair the value of the early masters. With them there is no rivalry -or competition. Historically, as well as æsthetically, they will be -masters always. - -Everybody knows something of engraving, as of printing, with which -it was associated in origin. School-books, illustrated papers, and -shop-windows are the ordinary opportunities open to all. But, while -creating a transient interest, or perhaps quickening the taste, they -furnish little with regard to the art itself, especially in other days. -And yet, looking at an engraving, like looking at a book, may be the -beginning of a new pleasure and a new study. - -Each person has his own story. Mine is simple. Suffering from -continued prostration, disabling me from the ordinary activities of -life, I turned to engravings for employment and pastime. With the -invaluable assistance of that devoted connoisseur, the late Dr. Thies, -I went through the Gray Collection at Cambridge, enjoying it like a -picture-gallery. Other collections in our country were examined also. -Then, in Paris, while undergoing severe medical treatment, my daily -medicine for weeks was the vast cabinet of engravings, then called -Imperial, now National, counted by the million, where was everything to -please or instruct. Thinking of those kindly portfolios, I make this -record of gratitude, as to benefactors. Perhaps some other invalid, -seeking occupation without burden, may find in them the solace that I -did. Happily, it is not necessary to visit Paris for the purpose. Other -collections, on a smaller scale, will furnish the same remedy. - -In any considerable collection Portraits occupy an important place. -Their multitude may be inferred, when I mention that in one series of -portfolios in the Paris Cabinet I counted no less than forty-seven -portraits of Franklin and forty-three of Lafayette, with an equal -number of Washington, while all the early Presidents were numerously -represented. But in this large company there are very few possessing -artistic value. The great portraits of modern times constitute a very -short list, like the great poems or histories; and it is the same -with engravings as with pictures. Sir Joshua Reynolds, explaining -the difference between an historical painter and a portrait-painter, -remarks that the former “paints man in general; a portrait-painter a -particular man, and consequently a defective model.”[143] A portrait, -therefore, may be an accurate presentment of its subject without -æsthetic value. - -But here, as in other things, genius exercises its accustomed sway -without limitation. Even the difficulties of “a defective model” did -not prevent Raphael, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Velasquez, or Van Dyck -from producing portraits precious in the history of Art. It would be -easy to mention heads by Raphael yielding in value to only two or -three of his larger masterpieces, like the Dresden Madonna. Charles -the Fifth stooped to pick up the pencil of Titian, saying, “It becomes -Cæsar to serve Titian!” True enough; but this unprecedented compliment -from the imperial successor of Charlemagne attests the glory of the -portrait-painter. The female figures of Titian, so much admired under -the names of Flora, La Bella, his Daughter, his Mistress, and even -his Venus were portraits from life. Rembrandt turned from his great -triumphs in his own peculiar school to portraits of unwonted power; -so also did Rubens, showing that in this department his universality -of conquest was not arrested. To these must be added Velasquez -and Van Dyck, each of infinite genius, who won fame especially as -portrait-painters. And what other title has Sir Joshua himself? - -Historical pictures are often collections of portraits arranged so -as to illustrate an important event. Such is the famous _Peace of -Münster_, by Terburg, just presented by a liberal Englishman to the -National Gallery at London. Here are the plenipotentiaries of Spain -and the United Provinces joining in the ratification of the treaty -which, after eighty years of war, gave peace and independence to the -latter.[144] The engraving by Suyderhoef is rare and interesting. -Similar in character is _The Death of Chatham_, by Copley, where -the illustrious statesman is surrounded by the peers he had been -addressing,--every one a portrait. To this list must be added the -pictures by Trumbull in the Rotunda of the Capitol at Washington, -especially _The Declaration of Independence_, in which Thackeray took a -sincere interest. Standing before these, the author and artist said to -me, “These are the best pictures in the country,”--and he proceeded to -remark on their honesty and fidelity; but doubtless their real value is -in their portraits. - -Unquestionably the finest assemblage of portraits anywhere is that of -the artists occupying two halls in the Uffizi Gallery at Florence, -being autographs contributed by the masters themselves. Here is -Raphael, with chestnut-brown hair, and dark eyes full of sensibility, -painted when he was twenty-three, and known by the engraving of -Forster,--Giulio Romano, in black and red chalk on paper,--Masaccio, -one of the fathers of painting, much admired,--Leonardo da Vinci, -beautiful and grand,--Titian, rich and splendid,--Pietro Perugino, -remarkable for execution and expression,--Albert Dürer, rigid, -but masterly,--Gerard Dow, finished according to his own exacting -style,--and Reynolds, with fresh English face: but these are only -examples of this incomparable collection, which was begun as far back -as the Cardinal Leopoldo de’ Medici, and has been happily continued to -the present time. Here are the lions, painted by themselves,--except, -perhaps, the foremost of all, Michel Angelo, whose portrait seems the -work of another. The impression from this collection is confirmed by -that of any group of historic artists. Their portraits excel those -of statesmen, soldiers, or divines, as is easily seen by engravings -accessible to all. The engraved heads in Arnold Houbraken’s biographies -of the Dutch and Flemish painters, in three volumes, are a family of -rare beauty.[145] - -The relation of engraving to painting is often discussed; but nobody -has treated it with more knowledge or sentiment than the consummate -engraver Longhi, in his interesting work “La Calcografia.”[146] -Dwelling on the general aid it renders to the lovers of Art, he claims -for it greater merit in “publishing and immortalizing the portraits -and actions of eminent men as an example to the present and future -generations,” and, “better than any other art, serving as a vehicle for -the most extended and remote propagation of a deserved celebrity.”[147] -Even great monuments in porphyry and bronze are less durable than -these light and fragile prints, subject to all the chances of wind, -water, and fire, but prevailing by their numbers where hardness and -tenacity succumb. In other words, it is with engravings as with books; -nor is this the only resemblance between them. According to Longhi, an -engraving is not a copy or an imitation, as is sometimes insisted, -but a translation.[148] The engraver translates into another language, -where light and shade supply the place of colors. The duplication of -a book in the same language is a copy, and so is the duplication of a -picture in the same material. Evidently an engraving is not a copy; -it does not reproduce the original picture, except in drawing and -expression: nor is it a mere imitation; but, as Bryant’s Homer and -Longfellow’s Dante are presentations of the great originals in another -language, so is the engraving a presentation of painting in another -material, which is like another language. - -Thus does the engraver vindicate his art. But nobody can examine a -choice print without feeling that it has a merit of its own, different -from any picture, and inferior only to a good picture. A work of -Raphael, or any of the great masters, is better in an engraving of -Longhi or Morghen than in any ordinary copy, and would probably cost -more in the market. A good engraving is an undoubted work of Art; -but this cannot be said of many pictures, which, like Peter Pindar’s -razors, seem made only to sell. - -Much that belongs to the painter belongs also to the engraver, who must -have the same knowledge of contours, the same power of expression, the -same sense of beauty, and the same ability in drawing with sureness of -sight, as if, according to Michel Angelo, he had “a pair of compasses -in his eyes.” These qualities in a high degree make the artist, whether -painter or engraver, naturally excel in portraits. But choice portraits -are less numerous in engraving than in painting, for the reason that -painting does not always find a successful translator. - -The earliest engraved portraits which attract attention are by -Albert Dürer, who engraved his own work, translating himself. His -eminence as painter was continued as engraver. Here he surpassed his -predecessors,--Martin Schoen in Germany, and Mantegna in Italy,--so -that Longhi does not hesitate to say that “he was the first who carried -this art from infancy, in which he found it, to a condition not far -from flourishing adolescence.”[149] But while recognizing his great -place in the history of engraving, it is impossible not to see that -he is often hard and constrained, if not unfinished. His portrait of -Erasmus is justly famous, and is conspicuous among the prints exhibited -in the British Museum. It is dated 1526, two years before the death -of Dürer, and has helped to extend the fame of the universal scholar -and approved man of letters, who in his own age filled a sphere not -unlike that of Voltaire in a later century. There is another portrait -of Erasmus by Holbein, often repeated; so that two great artists have -contributed to his renown. That by Dürer is admired. The general -fineness of touch, with the accessories of books and flowers, shows the -care in its execution; but it wants expression, and the hands are far -from graceful. - -Another most interesting portrait by Dürer, executed in the same -year with the Erasmus, is Philip Melanchthon, the Saint John of the -Reformation, sometimes called “The Teacher of Germany,”--_Preceptor -Germaniæ_. Luther, while speaking of himself as rough, boisterous, -stormy, and altogether warlike, says, “But Master Philippus moves -gently and quietly along, ploughs and plants, sows and waters with -pleasure, according as God hath given him His gifts richly.”[150] -At the date of the print he was twenty-nine years of age, and the -countenance shows the mild reformer. - -Agostino Caracci, of the Bolognese family, memorable in Art, added -to considerable success as painter undoubted triumphs as engraver. -His prints are numerous, and many are regarded with favor; but in the -long list not one is so sure of that longevity allotted to Art as his -portrait of Titian, which bears date 1587, eleven years after the -death of the latter. Over it is the inscription, “_Titiani Vecellii -Pictoris celeberrimi ac famosissimi vera effigies_,”--to which is added -beneath, “_Cujus nomen orbis continere non valet_.” Although founded on -originals by Titian himself, it was probably designed by the remarkable -engraver. It is very like, and yet unlike, the familiar portrait of -which we have a recent engraving by Mandel, from a repetition in -the Gallery of Berlin. Looking at it, we are reminded of the terms -by which Vasari described the great painter: “_Giudizioso, bello e -stupendo_.”[151] Such a head, with such visible power, justifies these -words, or at least makes us believe them entirely applicable. It is -broad, bold, strong, and instinct with life. - -This print, like the Erasmus of Dürer, is among those selected for -exhibition at the British Museum; and it deserves the honor. Though -only paper with black lines, it is, by the genius of the artist, as -good as a picture. In all engraving nothing is better. - -Contemporary with Caracci was Heinrich Goltzius, at Haarlem, excellent -as painter, but, like the Italian, preëminent as engraver. His prints -show mastery of the art, making something like an epoch in its history. -His unwearied skill in the use of the burin appears in a tradition -gathered by Longhi from Wille,--that, having commenced a line, he -carried it to the end without once stopping, while the long and bright -threads of copper turned up were brushed aside by his flowing beard, -which at the end of a day’s labor so shone in the light of the candles, -that his companions nicknamed him _The Man with the Golden Beard_.[152] -There are prints by him which shine more than his beard. Among his -masterpieces is the portrait of his instructor, Dirk Coornhert, -engraver, poet, musician, and vindicator of his country, and author -of the National air, “William of Nassau,” whose passion for Liberty -did not prevent him from giving to the world translations of Cicero’s -“Offices” and Seneca’s treatise on Beneficence. But the portrait of the -engraver himself, as large as life, is one of the most important in the -art. Among the numerous prints by Goltzius, these two will always be -conspicuous. - -In Holland Goltzius had eminent successors. Among these were Paulus -Pontius, designer and engraver, whose portrait of Rubens is of great -life and beauty, and Rembrandt, who was not less masterly in engraving -than in painting, as appears sufficiently in his portraits of the -Burgomaster Six, the two Coppenols, the Advocate Tolling, and the -goldsmith Lutma, all showing singular facility and originality. -Contemporary with Rembrandt was Cornelis de Visscher, also designer -and engraver, whose portraits were unsurpassed in boldness and -picturesque effect. At least one authority has accorded to this artist -the palm of engraving, hailing him as “Coryphæus of the Art.”[153] -Among his successful portraits is that of a Cat; but all yield to what -are known as _The Great Beards_, being the portraits of Willem de -Ryck, an ophthalmist at Amsterdam, and Gellius de Bouma, the Zutphen -ecclesiastic. The latter is especially famous. In harmony with the -beard is the heavy face, seventy-seven years old, showing the fulness -of long-continued potations, and hands like the face, original and -powerful, if not beautiful. - -In contrast with Visscher was his countryman Van Dyck, who painted -portraits with constant beauty, and carried into etching the same -Virgilian taste and skill. His aquafortis was not less gentle than his -pencil. Among his etched portraits I would select that of Snyders, -the animal-painter, as supremely beautiful. M. Renouvier, in his -learned and elaborate work, “Des Types et des Manières des Maîtres -Graveurs,” though usually moderate in praise, speaks of these sketches -as possessing “a boldness and a delicacy which charm, being taken at -the height of the genius of the painter who best knew how to idealize -portrait painting.”[154] - - * * * * * - -Such are illustrative instances from Germany, Italy, and Holland. As -yet, power rather than beauty presided, unless in the etchings of Van -Dyck. But the reign of Louis the Fourteenth was beginning to assert a -supremacy in engraving as in literature. The great school of French -engravers which appeared at this time brought the art to a splendid -perfection, which many think has not been equalled since; so that -Masson, Nanteuil, Edelinck, and Drevet may claim fellowship in genius -with their immortal contemporaries, Corneille, Racine, La Fontaine, and -Molière. - -The school was opened by Claude Mellan, more known as engraver than -painter, and also author of most of the designs he engraved. His -life, beginning with the sixteenth century, was protracted to nearly -ninety years, not without signal honor; for his name appears among the -“Illustrious Men” of France, in the beautiful volumes of Perrault, -which is also a homage to the art he practised. One of his works, for a -long time much admired, was described by this author:-- - - “It is a head of Christ, designed and shaded with his crown of - thorns, and the blood that trickles on all sides, by one single - stroke, which, beginning at the tip of the nose, and continuing - always in a curve, forms very exactly all that is represented - in the plate, merely by the different thickness of this stroke, - which, according as it is more or less broad, makes the eyes, - nose, mouth, cheeks, hair, blood, and thorns; the whole so well - represented, and with such expression of pain and affliction, - that nothing is more sad or more touching.”[155] - -This print is known as _The Sudarium of Saint Veronica_. Longhi records -that it was thought at the time “inimitable,” and was “praised to the -skies,”--adding, “But people think differently now.”[156] At best it is -a curiosity among portraits. A traveller reported some time ago that it -was the sole print on the walls of the room occupied by the Director of -the Imperial Cabinet of Engravings at St. Petersburg. - -Morin was a contemporary of Mellan, and less famous at the time. -His style of engraving was peculiar, being a mixture of strokes and -dots, but so harmonized as to produce a pleasing effect. One of the -best engraved portraits in the history of the art is his Cardinal -Bentivoglio; but here he translated Van Dyck, whose picture is among -his best. A fine impression of this print is a choice possession. - -Among French masters Antoine Masson is conspicuous for brilliant -hardihood of style, which, though failing in taste, is powerful in -effect. Metal, armor, velvet, feather, seem as if painted. He is also -most successful in the treatment of hair. His immense skill made him -welcome difficulties, as if to show his ability in overcoming them. -His print of Henri de Lorraine, Comte d’Harcourt, known as _Cadet à -la Perle_, from the pearl in the ear, with the date 1667, is often -placed at the head of engraved portraits, although not particularly -pleasing or interesting. The vigorous countenance is aided by the gleam -and sheen of the various substances entering into the costume. Less -powerful, but having a charm of its own, is that of Brisacier, known as -_The Gray-Haired Man_, engraved in 1664. The remarkable representation -of hair in this print has been a model for artists, especially for -Longhi, who recounts that he copied it in his head of Washington.[157] -Somewhat similar is the head of Charrier, the Criminal Judge at Lyons. -Though inferior in hair, it surpasses the other in expression. - -Nanteuil was an artist of different character, being to Masson as -Van Dyck to Visscher, with less of vigor than beauty. His original -genius was refined by classical studies and quickened by diligence. -Though dying at the age of forty-eight, he had executed as many as two -hundred and eighty plates, nearly all portraits. The favor he enjoyed -during life has not diminished with time. His works illustrate the -reign of Louis the Fourteenth, and are still admired. Among these are -portraits of the King, Anne of Austria, Johan Baptist van Steenberghen, -called _The Advocate of Holland_, a Heavy Dutchman, François de la -Mothe-Le-Vayer, a fine and delicate work, Turenne, Colbert, Lamoignon, -the poet Loret, Maridat de Serrière, Louise-Marie de Gonzague, Louis -Hesselin, Christina of Sweden,--all masterpieces; but above these -is the Pomponne de Bellièvre, foremost among his masterpieces, and -a chief masterpiece of Art, being, in the judgment of more than one -connoisseur, the most beautiful engraved portrait that exists. That -excellent authority Dr. Thies, who knew engraving more thoroughly and -sympathetically than any person I remember in our country, said, in a -letter to myself, as long ago as March, 1858,-- - - “When I call Nanteuil’s Pomponne the handsomest engraved - portrait, I express a conviction to which I came when I studied - all the remarkable engraved portraits at the royal cabinet - of engravings in Dresden, and at the large and exquisite - collection there of the late King of Saxony, and in which I was - confirmed, or perhaps to which I was led, by the director of - the two establishments, the late Professor Frenzel.” - -And after describing this head, the learned connoisseur proceeds:-- - - “There is an air of refinement (_Vornehmheit_) round the mouth - and nose as in no other engraving. Color and life shine through - the skin, and the lips appear red.” - -It is bold, perhaps, thus to exalt a single portrait, giving to it the -palm of Venus; nor do I know that it is entirely proper to classify -portraits according to beauty. In disputing about beauty, we are too -often lost in the variety of individual tastes; and yet each person -knows when he is touched. In proportion as multitudes are touched, -there must be merit. As in music a simple heart-melody is often more -effective than any triumph over difficulties or bravura of manner, so -in engraving, the sense of the beautiful may prevail over all else; and -this is the case with the Pomponne, although there are portraits by -others showing higher art. - -No doubt there have been as handsome men, whose portraits were -engraved, but not so well. I know not if Pomponne was what would be -called a handsome man, although his air is noble and his countenance -bright; but among portraits more boldly, delicately, or elaborately -engraved, there are very few to contest the palm of beauty.[158] - -And who is this handsome man to whom the engraver has given a lease -of fame? Son, nephew, and grandson of high dignitaries in Church -and State,--with two grandfathers Chancellors of France, two uncles -Archbishops, his father President of the Parliament of Paris and -Councillor of State,--himself at the head of the magistracy of France, -First President of Parliament, according to an inscription on the -engraving, _Senatus Galliarum Princeps_, Ambassador to Italy, Holland, -and England, charged in the last-named country by Cardinal Mazarin with -the impossible duty of making peace between the Long Parliament and -Charles the First, and at his death great benefactor of the General -Hospital of Paris, bestowing upon it riches and the very bed on which -he died. Such is the simple catalogue; and yet it is all forgotten. - -A Funeral Panegyric pronounced at his death, now before me in the -original pamphlet of the time,[159] testifies to more than family or -office. In himself he was much, and not of those who, according to the -saying of Saint Bernard, “give out smoke rather than light.”[160] “Pure -glory and innocent riches”[161] were his; and he was the more precious -in the sight of all good men, that he showed himself incorruptible, -and not to be bought at any price. It were easy for him to have turned -a deluge of wealth into his house; but he knew that gifts insensibly -entangle,--that the specious pretext of gratitude is the snare in -which the greatest souls allow themselves to be caught,--that a man -covered with favors has difficulty in setting himself against injustice -in all its forms,--and that a magistrate divided between a sense of -obligations received and the care of the public interest, which he -ought always to promote, is a paralytic magistrate, a magistrate -deprived of a moiety of himself. So spoke the preacher, while he -portrayed a charity tender and effective for the wretched, a vehemence -just and inflexible toward the dishonest and wicked, and a sweetness -noble and beneficent for all; dwelling also on his countenance, which -had nothing of that severe and sour austerity that renders justice -to the good only as if with regret, and to the guilty only in anger; -then on his pleasant and gracious address, his intellectual and -charming conversation, his ready and judicious replies, his agreeable -and intelligible silence,--even his refusals being well received and -obliging,--while, amidst all the pomp and splendor accompanying him, -there shone in his eyes a certain air of sweetness and majesty, which -secured for him, and for justice itself, love as well as respect. His -benefactions were constant. Not content with merely giving, he gave -with a beautiful manner, still more rare. He could not abide beauty -of intelligence without goodness of soul; and he preferred always the -poor, having for them not only compassion, but a sort of reverence. He -knew that the way to take the poison from riches was to let the poor -taste of them. The sentiment of Christian charity for the poor, who -were to him in the place of children, was his last thought,--as witness -especially the General Hospital endowed by him, and represented by the -preacher as the greatest and most illustrious work ever undertaken by -charity the most heroic. - -Thus lived and died the splendid Pomponne de Bellièvre, with no other -children than his works. Celebrated at the time by a Funeral Panegyric -now forgotten, and placed among the Illustrious Men of France in a -work remembered only for its engraved portraits,[162] his famous life -shrinks in the voluminous “Biographic Universelle” of Michaud to the -sixth part of a single page, and in the later “Biographic Générale” -of Didot disappears entirely. History forgets to mention him. But -the lofty magistrate, ambassador, and benefactor, founder of a great -hospital, cannot be entirely lost from sight so long as his portrait by -Nanteuil holds a place in Art. - -Younger than Nanteuil by ten years, Gerard Edelinck excelled him -in genuine mastery. Born at Antwerp, he became French by adoption, -occupying apartments in the Gobelins, and enjoying a pension from Louis -the Fourteenth. Longhi says that he is “the engraver whose works, not -only in my opinion, but in that of the best judges, deserve the first -place among exemplars of the art”; and he attributes to him, “in a high -degree, design, chiaroscuro, aërial perspective, local tints, softness, -lightness, variety, in short everything which can form the most exact -representation of the true and beautiful without the aid of color.” -Others may have surpassed him in particular things, but, according to -the Italian teacher, “he still remains by common consent the prince of -engraving.”[163] Another critic calls him “king.” - -It requires no remarkable knowledge to recognize his great merits. -Evidently he is a master, exercising sway with absolute art, and -without attempt to bribe the eye by special effects of light, as on -metal or satin. Among his conspicuous productions is _The Tent of -Darius_, a large engraving on two sheets, after Le Brun, where the -family of the Persian monarch prostrate themselves before Alexander, -who approaches with Hephæstion. There is also a _Holy Family_, after -Raphael, and _The Battle of the Standard_, after Leonardo da Vinci. But -these are less interesting than his numerous portraits, among which -that of Philippe de Champagne is the chief masterpiece; and there -are others of signal merit, including especially Madame Helyot, or -_La belle Religieuse_, a beautiful French coquette praying before a -crucifix; Martin van den Bogaert (Des Jardins,) the sculptor; Frédéric -Léonard, Printer to the King; Mouton, the Lute-Player; Nathanael -Dilgerus, with a venerable beard white with age; Jules Hardouin -Mansart, the architect; also a portrait of Pomponne de Bellièvre, which -will be found among the prints of Perrault’s “Illustrious Men.” - -The Philippe de Champagne is the head of that eminent French artist -after a painting by himself, and it contests the palm with the -Pomponne. Mr. Marsh, who is an authority, prefers it. Dr. Thies, who -places the latter first in beauty, is constrained to allow that the -other is “superior as a work of the graver,” being executed with all -the resources of the art in its chastest form. The enthusiasm of Longhi -finds expression in unusual praise:-- - - “The work which goes most to my blood, and of which Edelinck - himself was justly proud, is the portrait of Champagne. I - shall die before I cease often to contemplate it with ever new - wonder. Here is seen how he was equally great as designer and - engraver.”[164] - -And he then dwells on various details,--the bones, the skin, the flesh, -the eyes living and seeing, the moistened lips, the chin covered with a -beard unshaven for many days, and the hair in all its forms. - -Between the rival portraits by Nanteuil and Edelinck it is unnecessary -to decide. Each is beautiful. In looking at them we recognize anew -the transient honors of public service. The present fame of Champagne -surpasses that of Pomponne. The artist outlives the magistrate. But -does not the poet tell us that “the artist never dies”? - -As Edelinck passed from the scene the family of Drevet appeared, -especially the son, Pierre Imbert Drevet, born in 1697, who developed a -rare excellence, improving even upon the technics of his predecessor, -and gilding his refined gold. The son was born engraver, for at the age -of thirteen he produced an engraving of exceeding merit. Like Masson -he manifested a singular skill in rendering different substances by -the effect of light, and at the same time gave to flesh a softness and -transparency which remain unsurpassed. To these he added great richness -in picturing costumes and drapery, especially in lace. - -He was eminently a portrait engraver, which I must insist is the -highest form of the art, as the human face is the most important object -for its exercise. Less clear and simple than Nanteuil, and less severe -than Edelinck, he gave to the face individuality of character, and made -his works conspicuous in Art. If there was excess in the accessories, -it was before the age of _Sartor Resartus_, and he only followed the -prevailing style in the popular paintings of Hyacinthe Rigaud. Art in -all its forms had become florid, if not meretricious; and Drevet was a -representative of his age. - -Among his works are important masterpieces. I name only Bossuet, -the famed _Eagle of Meaux_; Samuel Bernard, the rich Councillor of -State; Fénelon, the persuasive teacher and writer; Cardinal Dubois, -the unprincipled minister and favorite of the Regent of France; and -Adrienne Le Couvreur, the beautiful and unfortunate actress, linked -in love with Marshal Saxe. The portrait of Bossuet has everything to -attract and charm. There stands the powerful defender of the Catholic -Church, master of French style, and most renowned pulpit orator of -France, in episcopal robes, with abundant lace, which is the perpetual -envy of the fair who look at this transcendent effort. The ermine of -Dubois is exquisite; but the general effect of this portrait does not -compare with the Bossuet, next to which, in fascination, I put the -Adrienne. At her death the actress could not be buried in consecrated -ground; but through Art she has the perpetual companionship of the -greatest bishop of France. - - * * * * * - -With the younger Drevet closed the classical period of portraits -in engraving, as just before had closed the Augustan age of French -literature. Louis the Fourteenth decreed engraving a Fine Art, and -established an Academy for its cultivation. Pride and ostentation in -the king and the great aristocracy created a demand, which the genius -of the age supplied. The heights that had been reached could not be -maintained. There were eminent engravers still, but the zenith had been -passed. Balechou, who belonged to the reign of Louis the Fifteenth, -and Beauvarlet, whose life was protracted beyond the Reign of Terror, -both produced portraits of merit. The former is noted for a certain -clearness and brilliancy, but with a hardness as of brass or marble, -and without entire accuracy of design; the latter has much softness of -manner. They were the best artists of France at the time, but none of -their portraits are famous. To these may be added another contemporary -artist, without predecessor or successor, Étienne Ficquet, unduly -disparaged in one of the dictionaries as “a reputable French engraver,” -but undoubtedly remarkable for small portraits, not unlike miniatures, -of exquisite finish. Among these the rarest and most admired are La -Fontaine, Madame de Maintenon, Rubens, and Van Dyck. - -Two other engravers belong to this intermediate period, although not -French in origin,--Georg Friedrich Schmidt, born at Berlin, 1712, and -Johann Georg Wille, born near the small town of Königsberg, in the -Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, 1717, but, attracted to Paris, they -became the greatest engravers of the time. Their work is French, and -they are the natural development of that classical school. - -Schmidt was the son of a poor weaver, and lost six precious years as a -soldier in the artillery at Berlin. Owing to the smallness of his size -he was at length dismissed, when he surrendered to a natural talent for -engraving. Arriving at Strasburg, on his way to Paris, he fell in with -Wille, who joined him in his journey, and eventually in his studies. -The productions of Schmidt show ability, originality, and variety, -rather than taste. His numerous portraits are excellent, being free -and life-like, while the accessories of embroidery and drapery are -rendered with effect. As an etcher he ranks next after Rembrandt. Of -his portraits executed with the graver, that of the Empress Elizabeth -of Russia is usually called the most important, perhaps on account -of the imperial theme,--and next, those of Count Rasoumowsky, Count -Esterhazy, and Mounsey, Court Physician, which he engraved while in -St. Petersburg, whither he was called by the Empress, founding there -the Academy of Engraving. But his real masterpieces are unquestionably -Pierre Mignard and La Tour, French painters, the latter represented -laughing. - -Wille lived to old age, not dying till 1808. During this long life he -was active in the art to which he inclined naturally. His mastery of -the graver was perfect, lending itself especially to the representation -of satin and metal, although less happy with flesh. His _Satin Gown_, -or _L’Instruction Paternelle_, after Terburg, and _Les Musiciens -Ambulants_, after Dietrich, are always admired. Nothing of the kind -in engraving is finer. His style was adapted to pictures of the Dutch -school, and to portraits with rich surroundings. Of the latter the -principal are Comte de Saint-Florentin, Marquis Poisson de Marigny, -Jean de Boullongne, and Cardinal de Tencin. - - * * * * * - -Especially eminent was Wille as a teacher. Under his influence the art -assumed new life, so that he became father of the modern school. His -scholars spread everywhere, and among them are acknowledged masters. -He was teacher of Bervic, whose portrait of Louis the Sixteenth in his -coronation robes is of a high order, himself teacher of the Italian -Toschi, who, after an eminent career, died as late as 1858; also -teacher of P. A. Tardieu, himself teacher of the brilliant Desnoyers, -whose portrait of the Emperor Napoleon in his coronation robes is the -fit complement to that of Louis the Sixteenth; also teacher of the -German, J. G. von Müller, himself father and teacher of J. F. W. von -Müller, engraver of the Sistine Madonna, in a plate whose great fame is -not above its merit; also teacher of the Italian Vangelisti, himself -teacher of the unsurpassed Longhi, in whose school were Anderloni and -Jesi. Thus not only by his works, but by his famous scholars, did the -humble gunsmith gain sway in Art. - -Among portraits of this school deserving especial mention is that of -King Jerome of Westphalia, brother of Napoleon, by the two Müllers -above named, where the genius of the artists is most conspicuous, -although the subject contributes little. As in the case of the Palace -of the Sun, described by Ovid, “_materiam superabat opus_.”[165] This -work is a beautiful example of skill in representation of fur and lace, -not yielding even to Drevet. - -Longhi was a universal master, and his portraits are only part of -his work. That of Washington, which is rare, is evidently founded on -Stuart’s painting, but after a design of his own, which is now in the -possession of the Swiss Consul at Venice. The artist particularizes -the hair, as being modelled after the French master Masson.[166] The -portraits of Michel Angelo and Dandolo, the venerable Doge of Venice, -are admired; so also is the _Napoleon_ as King of Italy, with the -iron crown and finest lace. But his chief portrait is that of Eugène -Beauharnais, Viceroy of Italy, full length, remarkable for the plume in -the cap, which is finished with surpassing skill. - - * * * * * - -Contemporary with Longhi was another Italian engraver of -widely extended fame, who was not the product of the French -school,--Raffaello Morghen, born at Portici in 1761. His works have -enjoyed a popularity beyond those of other masters, partly from the -interest of their subjects, and partly from their soft and captivating -style, although they do not possess the graceful power of Nanteuil and -Edelinck, and are without variety. He was scholar and son-in-law of -Volpato, of Rome, himself scholar of Wagner, of Venice, whose homely -round faces were not high models in Art. The _Aurora_ of Guido and the -_Last Supper_ of Leonardo da Vinci stand high in engraving, especially -the latter, which occupied Morghen three years. Of his two hundred -and fifty-four works no less than eighty-five are portraits, among -which are the Italian poets,--Dante, Petrarc, Ariosto, Tasso, also -Boccaccio,--and a head called Raphael, but supposed to be that of Bindo -Altoviti, the great painter’s friend,[167] and especially the Duke of -Moncada on horseback, after Van Dyck, which has received warm praise. -But none of his portraits is calculated to give greater pleasure than -that of Leonardo da Vinci, which may vie in beauty even with the famous -Pomponne. Here is the beauty of years and of serene intelligence. -Looking at that tranquil countenance, it is easy to imagine the large -and various capacities which made him not only painter, but sculptor, -architect, musician, poet, discoverer, philosopher, even predecessor of -Galileo and Bacon. Such a character deserves the immortality of Art. -Happily, an old Venetian engraving, reproduced in our day,[168] enables -us to see this same countenance at an earlier period of life with -sparkle in the eye. - -Raffaello Morghen left no scholars who have followed him in portraits; -but his own works are still regarded, and a monument in Santa Croce, -the Westminster Abbey of Florence, places him among the mighty dead of -Italy. - - * * * * * - -Thus far nothing has been said of English engravers. Here, as in Art -generally, England seems removed from the rest of the world,--“_Et -penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos_.”[169] But though beyond -the sphere of Continental Art, the island of Shakespeare was not -inhospitable to some of its representatives. Van Dyck, Rubens, Sir -Peter Lely, and Sir Godfrey Kneller, all Dutch artists, painted the -portraits of Englishmen, and engraving was first illustrated by -foreigners. Jacob Houbraken, another Dutch artist, born in 1698, was -employed to execute portraits for Birch’s “Heads of Illustrious Persons -of Great Britain,” published at London in 1743; and in these works may -be seen the æsthetic taste inherited from his father, (the biographer -of the Dutch artists,[170]) and improved by study of the French -masters. Although without great force or originality of manner, many -of these have positive beauty. I would name especially the _Sir Walter -Raleigh_ and _John Dryden_. - -Different in style was Bartolozzi, the Italian, who made his home in -England for forty years, ending in 1805, when he removed to Lisbon. -The considerable genius which he possessed was spoiled by haste in -execution, superseding that care which is an essential condition of -Art. Hence sameness in his work, and indifference to the picture he -copied. Longhi speaks of him as “most unfaithful to his archetypes,” -and, “whatever the originals, being always Bartolozzi.”[171] Among -his portraits of especial interest are several old wigs, as Mansfield -and Thurlow; also the _Death of Chatham_, after the picture of Copley -in the Vernon Gallery. But his prettiest piece undoubtedly is _Mary, -Queen of Scots, with her little Son, James the First_, after what Mrs. -Jameson calls “the lovely picture by Zuccaro at Chiswick.”[172] In the -same style are his vignettes, which are of acknowledged beauty. - -Meanwhile a Scotchman, honorable in Art, comes upon the scene,--Sir -Robert Strange, born in the distant Orkneys in 1721, who abandoned -the law for engraving. As a youthful Jacobite he joined the Pretender -in 1745, sharing the disaster of Culloden, and owing his safety from -pursuers to a young lady dressed in the ample costume of the period, -whom he afterwards married in gratitude, and they were both happy. He -has a style of his own, rich, soft, and especially charming in the -tints of flesh, making him a natural translator of Titian. His most -celebrated engravings are doubtless the _Venus_ and the _Danaë_ after -the great Venetian colorist; but the _Cleopatra_, though less famous, -is not inferior in merit. His acknowledged masterpiece is the Madonna -of St. Jerome, called “_The Day_,” after the picture by Correggio in -the Gallery of Parma; but his portraits after Van Dyck are not less -fine, while they are more interesting,--as Charles the First, with a -large hat, by the side of his horse, which the Marquis of Hamilton is -holding; and that of the same monarch standing in his ermine robes; -also the three royal children, with two King Charles spaniels at their -feet; also Henrietta Maria, the Queen of Charles. That with the ermine -robes is supposed to have been studied by Raffaello Morghen, called -sometimes an imitator of Strange.[173] To these I would add the rare -autograph portrait of the engraver, being a small head after Greuzé, -which is simple and beautiful. - -One other name will close this catalogue. It is that of William Sharp, -who was born at London in 1746, and died there in 1824. Though last in -order, this engraver may claim kindred with the best. His first essays -were the embellishment of pewter pots, from which he ascended to the -heights of Art, showing a power rarely equalled. Without any instance -of peculiar beauty, his works are constant in character and expression, -with every possible excellence of execution: face, form, drapery,--all -are as in Nature. His splendid qualities appear in the _Doctors of the -Church_, which has taken its place as the first of English engravings. -It is after the picture of Guido, once belonging to the Houghton -Gallery, which in an evil hour for English taste was allowed to enrich -the collection of the Hermitage at St. Petersburg; and I remember -well that this engraving by Sharp was one of the few ornaments in -the drawing-room of Macaulay when I last saw him, shortly before his -lamented death. Next to the _Doctors of the Church_ is his _Lear in -the Storm_, after the picture by West, now in the Boston Athenæum, and -his _Sortie from Gibraltar_, after the picture by Trumbull, also in -the Boston Athenæum. Thus, through at least two of his masterpieces -whose originals are among us, is our country associated with this great -artist. - -It is of portraits especially that I write, and here Sharp is truly -eminent. All he did was well done; but two are models,--that of -Mr. Boulton, a strong, well-developed country gentleman, admirably -executed, and of John Hunter, the eminent surgeon, after the -painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds, in the London College of Surgeons, -unquestionably the foremost portrait in English Art, and the coëqual -companion of the great portraits in the past; but here the engraver -united his rare gifts with those of the painter. - - * * * * * - -In closing these sketches I would have it observed that this is no -attempt to treat of engraving generally, or of prints in their mass or -types. The present subject is simply Portraits, and I stop now just as -we arrive at contemporary examples, abroad and at home, with the gentle -genius of Mandel beginning to ascend the sky, and our own engravers -appearing on the horizon. There is also a new and kindred art, infinite -in value, where the Sun himself becomes artist, with works which mark -an epoch. - - WASHINGTON, 11th Dec., 1871. - - * * * * * - - NOTE.--When Mr. Sumner began the publication of his Works in - 1870, he engaged Mr. George Nichols, of Cambridge, to read the - proofs editorially. This Mr. Nichols did, with great care and - ability, until about ten days before his death, which occurred - on the 6th of July, 1882. His work of supervision ended on p. - 334 of this volume. - - - - -EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW PROTECTED BY NATIONAL STATUTE. - -SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON HIS SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, AS AN -AMENDMENT TO THE AMNESTY BILL, JANUARY 15, 17, 31, FEBRUARY 5, AND MAY -21, 1872. - - - Brave Theseus, they were MEN like all before, - And human souls in human frames they bore, - With you to take their parts in earthly feasts, - With you to climb one heaven and sit immortal guests. - - STATIUS, _Thebaïd_, tr. Kennett, Lib. XI. - - * * * * * - - I was fully convinced, that, whatever difference there - is between the Negro and European in the conformation of - the nose and the color of the skin, there is none in the - genuine sympathies and characteristic feelings of our common - nature.--MUNGO PARK, _Travels in the Interior Districts of - Africa_, (London, 1816,) Vol. I. p. 80, Ch. 6. - - * * * * * - - The word MAN is thought to carry somewhat of dignity in its - sound; and we commonly make use of this, as the last and the - most prevailing argument against a rude insulter, “I am not - a beast, a dog, but I am a Man as well as yourself.” Since, - then, human nature agrees equally to all persons, and since - no one can live a sociable life with another who does not own - and respect him as a Man, it follows, as a command of the - Law of Nature, that _every man esteem and treat another as - one who is naturally his equal, or who is a Man as well as - he_.--PUFENDORF, _Law of Nature and Nations_, tr. Kennett, Book - III., Ch. 2, § 1. - - * * * * * - - Carrying his solicitude still farther, Charlemagne recommended - to the bishops and abbots, that, in their schools, “they should - take care to make no difference between the sons of serfs - and of freemen, _so that they might come and sit on the same - benches to study grammar, music, and arithmetic_.”--GUIZOT, - _History of France_, tr. Black, (London, 1872,) Vol. I. p. 239. - - -INTRODUCTION. - - May 13, 1870, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent - obtained, leave to bring in a bill “Supplementary to an - Act entitled ‘An Act to protect all persons in the United - States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their - vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866,” which was read the - first and second times by unanimous consent, referred to the - Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed. - - July 7th, only a few days before the close of the session, Mr. - Trumbull, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, reported - a bundle of bills, including that above mentioned, adversely, - and all, on his motion, were postponed indefinitely. - - January 20, 1871, Mr. Sumner again introduced the same bill, - which was once more referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. - - February 15th, Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee, again reported - the bill adversely; but, at the suggestion of Mr. Sumner, it - was allowed to go on the Calendar. Owing to the pressure of - business in the latter days of the session, he was not able to - have it considered, and the bill dropped with the session. - - * * * * * - - At the opening of the next Congress, March 9, 1871, Mr. Sumner - again brought forward the same bill, which was read the first - and second times, by unanimous consent, and on his motion - ordered to lie on the table and be printed. In making this - motion he said that the bill had been reported adversely twice - by the Committee on the Judiciary; that, therefore, he did not - think it advisable to ask its reference again; that nothing - more important could be submitted to the Senate, and that it - should be acted on before any adjournment of Congress. In reply - to an inquiry from Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, Mr. Sumner proceeded - to explain the bill, which he insisted was in conformity - with the Declaration of Independence, and with the National - Constitution, neither of which knows anything of the word - “white.” Then, announcing that he should do what he could to - press the bill to a vote, he said: “Senators may vote it down. - They may take that responsibility; but I shall take mine, God - willing.” - - At this session a resolution was adopted limiting legislation - to certain enumerated subjects, among which the Supplementary - Civil Rights bill was not named. March 17th, while the - resolution was under discussion, Mr. Sumner warmly protested - against it, and insisted that nothing should be done to prevent - the consideration of his bill, which he explained at length. - In reply to the objection that the session was to be short, - and that there was no time, he said: “Make the time, then; - extend the session; do not limit it so as to prevent action - on a measure of such vast importance.” An amendment moved by - Mr. Sumner to add this bill to the enumerated subjects was - rejected. The session closed without action upon it. - - * * * * * - - At the opening of the next session, Mr. Sumner renewed his - efforts. - - December 7, 1871, in presenting a petition from colored - citizens of Albany, he remarked: “It seems to me the Senate - cannot do better than proceed at once to the consideration of - the supplementary bill now on our Calendar, to carry out the - prayer of these petitioners”; and he wished Congress might - be inspired to “make a Christmas present to their colored - fellow-citizens of the rights secured by that bill.” - - December 20th, the Senate having under consideration a bill, - which had already passed the House, “for the removal of the - legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section - of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of - the United States,” Mr. Sumner, insisting upon justice before - generosity, moved his Supplementary Civil Rights Bill as an - amendment. A colloquy took place between himself and Mr. Hill, - of Georgia, in which the latter opposed the amendment. - - MR. SUMNER. I should like to bring home to the Senator that - nearly one half of the people of Georgia are now excluded - from the equal rights which my amendment proposes to - secure; and yet I understand that the Senator disregards - their condition, sets aside their desires, and proposes - to vote down my proposition. The Senator assumes that the - former Rebels are the only people of Georgia. Sir, I see - the colored race in Georgia. I see that race once enslaved, - for a long time deprived of all rights, and now under - existing usage and practice despoiled of rights which the - Senator himself is in the full enjoyment of. - - MR. HILL. … I never can agree in the proposition that, - if there be a hotel for the entertainment of travellers, - and two classes stop at it, and there is one dining-room - for one class and one for another, served alike in all - respects, with the same accommodations, the same attention - to the guests, there is anything offensive, or anything - that denies the civil rights of one more than the other. - Nor do I hold, that, if you have public schools, and you - give all the advantages of education to one class as you do - to another, but keep them separate and apart, there is any - denial of a civil right in that. I also contend, that, even - upon the railways of the country, if cars of equal comfort, - convenience, and security be provided for different classes - of persons, no one has a right to complain, if it be a - regulation of the companies to separate them.… - - MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, we have a vindication on this - floor of inequality as a principle and as a political rule. - - MR. HILL. On which race, I would inquire, does the - inequality to which the Senator refers operate? - - MR. SUMNER. On both. Why, the Senator would not allow a - white man in the same car with a colored man. - - MR. HILL. Not unless he was invited, perhaps. [_Laughter._] - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator mistakes a substitute for equality. - Equality is where all are alike. A substitute can never - take the place of equality. It is impossible; it is absurd. - I must remind the Senator that it is very unjust,--it is - terribly unjust. We have received in this Chamber a colored - Senator from Mississippi; but according to the rule of - the Senator from Georgia we should have put him apart by - himself; he should not have sat with his brother Senators. - Do I understand the Senator as favoring such a rule? - - MR. HILL. No, Sir. - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not. - - MR. HILL. I do not, Sir, for this reason: it is under the - institutions of the country that he becomes entitled by law - to his seat here; we have no right to deny it to him. - - MR. SUMNER. Very well; and I intend, to the best of - my ability, to see that under the institutions of the - country he is equal everywhere. The Senator says he is - equal in this Chamber. I say he should be equal in rights - everywhere; and why not, I ask the Senator from Georgia? - - MR. HILL. … I am one of those who have believed, that, - when it pleased the Creator of heaven and earth to make - different races of men, it was His purpose to keep them - distinct and separate. I think so now.… - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator admits that in the highest - council-chamber there is, and should be, perfect equality - before the law; but descend into the hotel, on the - railroad, within the common school, and there can be no - equality before the law. The Senator does not complain - because all are equal in this Chamber. I should like to ask - him, if he will allow me, whether, in his judgment, the - colored Representatives from Georgia and South Carolina in - the other Chamber ought not on railroads and at hotels to - have like rights with himself? I ask that precise question. - - MR. HILL. I will answer that question in this manner: I - myself am subject in hotels and upon railroads to the - regulations provided by the hotel proprietors for their - guests, and by the railroad companies for their passengers. - I am entitled, and so is the colored man, to all the - security and comfort that either presents to the most - favored guest or passenger; but I maintain that proximity - to a colored man does not increase my comfort or security, - nor does proximity to me on his part increase his, and - therefore it is not a denial of any right in either case. - - MR. SUMNER. May I ask the Senator if he is excluded from - any right on account of his color? The Senator says he - is sometimes excluded from something at hotels or on - railroads. I ask whether any exclusion on account of color - bears on him? - - MR. HILL. I answer the Senator. I have been excluded from - ladies’ cars on railroads. I do not know on what account - precisely; I do not know whether it was on account of my - color; but I think it more likely that it was on account of - my sex. [_Laughter._] - - MR. SUMNER. But the Senator, as I understand, insists that - it is proper on account of color. That is his conclusion. - - MR. HILL. No; I insist that it is no denial of a right, - provided all the comfort and security be furnished to - passengers alike. - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not seem to see that any rule - excluding a man on account of color is an indignity, an - insult, and a wrong; and he makes himself on this floor the - representative of indignity, of insult, and of wrong to - the colored race. Why, Sir, his State has a large colored - population, and he denies their rights. - - MR. HILL. If the Senator will allow me, I will say to him - that it will take him and others, if there should be any - others who so believe, a good while to convince the colored - people of the State of Georgia, who know me, that I would - deprive them of any right to which they are entitled, - though it were only technical; but in matters of pure - taste I cannot get away from the idea that I do them no - injustice, if I separate them on some occasions from the - other race.… - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator makes a mistake which has been - made for a generation in this Chamber, confounding what - belongs to society with what belongs to rights. There is no - question of society. The Senator may choose his associates - as he pleases. They may be white or black, or between the - two. That is simply a social question, and nobody would - interfere with it. The taste which the Senator announces - he will have free liberty to exercise, selecting always - his companions; but when it comes to rights, there the - Senator must obey the law, and I insist that by the law of - the land all persons without distinction of color shall be - equal in rights. Show me, therefore, a legal institution, - anything created or regulated by law, and I show you what - must be opened equally to all without distinction of color. - Notoriously, the hotel is a legal institution, originally - established by the Common Law, subject to minute provisions - and regulations; notoriously, public conveyances are common - carriers subject to a law of their own; notoriously, - schools are public institutions created and maintained by - law; and now I simply insist that in the enjoyment of these - institutions there shall be no exclusion on account of - color. - - … - - MR. HILL. I must confess, Sir, that I cannot see the - magnitude of this subject. I object to this great - Government descending to the business of regulating the - hotels and the common taverns of this country, and the - street railroads, stage-coaches, and everything of that - sort. It looks to me to be a petty business.… - - MR. SUMNER. I would not have my country descend, but - ascend. It must rise to the heights of the Declaration of - Independence. Then and there did we pledge ourselves to - the great truth that all men are equal in rights. And now - a Senator from Georgia rises on this floor and denies it. - He denies it by a subtilty. While pretending to admit it, - he would overthrow it. He would adopt a substitute for - equality. - - … - - MR. HILL. With the permission of the Senator, I will ask - him if this proposition does not involve on the part of - this Government an inhibition upon railroad companies of - first, second, and third class cars? - - MR. SUMNER. Not at all. That is simply a matter of price. - My bill is an inhibition upon inequality founded upon - color. I had thought that all those inequalities were - buried under the tree at Appomattox, but the Senator digs - them up and brings them into this Chamber. There never can - be an end to this discussion until all men are assured in - equal rights.… - - MR. HILL. … I do not know, that, among the guests that the - Senator entertains of the colored race, he is visited so - often by the humble as I myself am. I think those who call - upon him are gentlemen of title and of some distinction; - they may be Lieutenant-Governors, members of the two Houses - here, members of State Legislatures, &c. My associations - have been more with the lower strata of the colored people - than with the upper. - - MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, there is no personal question - between the Senator and myself-- - - MR. HILL. None whatever. - - MR. SUMNER. He proclaims his relations with the colored - race. I say nothing of mine; I leave that to others. But - the Senator still insists upon his dogma of inequality. - Senators have heard him again and again, how he comes round - by a vicious circle to the same point, that an equivalent - is equality; and when I mention the case of Governor - Dunn travelling from New Orleans to Washington on public - business, I understand the Senator to say that on the cars - he should enjoy a different treatment from the Governor. - - MR. HILL. No, Sir; I have distinctly disclaimed that. When - he pays his money, he is entitled to as much comfort and as - much convenience as I am. - - MR. SUMNER. Let me ask the Senator whether in this world - personal respect is not an element of comfort. If a person - is treated with indignity, can he be comfortable? - - MR. HILL. I will answer the Senator, that no one can - condemn more strongly than I do any indignity visited upon - a person merely because of color. - - MR. SUMNER. But when you exclude persons from the comforts - of travel simply on account of color, do you not offer them - an indignity? - - MR. HILL. I say it is the fault of the railroad companies, - if they do not provide comforts for all their passengers, - and make them equal where they pay equal fare. - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator says it is the fault of the - railroad company. I propose to make it impossible for the - railroad company to offer an indignity to a colored man - more than to the Senator from Georgia. - - MR. HILL. Right there the Senator and I divide upon this - question.… I confess to having a little _penchant_ for the - white race; and if I were going on a long journey, and - desired a companion, I should prefer to select him from my - own race. - - MR. SUMNER. The Senator comes round again to his taste. It - is not according to his taste; and therefore he offers an - indignity to the colored man. - - MR. HILL. No, Sir. - - MR. SUMNER. It is not according to his taste; that is - all. How often shall I say that this is no question of - taste,--it is no question of society,--it is a stern, - austere, hard question of rights? And that is the way that - I present it to the Senate. - - … - - In old days, when Slavery was arraigned, the constant - inquiry of those who represented this wrong was, “Are you - willing to associate with colored persons? Will you take - these slaves, as equals, into your families?” Sir, was - there ever a more illogical inquiry? What has that to do - with the question? A claim of rights cannot be encountered - by any social point. I may have whom I please as friend, - acquaintance, associate, and so may the Senator; but I - cannot deny any human being, the humblest, any right of - equality. He must be equal with me before the law, or the - promises of the Declaration of Independence are not yet - fulfilled. - - And now, Sir, I pledge myself, so long as strength remains - in me, to press this question to a successful end. I - will not see the colored race of this Republic treated - with indignity on the grounds assigned by the Senator. - I am their defender. The Senator may deride me, and may - represent me as giving too much time to what he calls a - very small question. Sir, no question of human rights is - small. Every question by which the equal rights of all are - affected is transcendent. It cannot be magnified. But here - are the rights of a whole people, not merely the rights of - an individual, of two or three or four, but the rights of a - race, recognized as citizens, voting, helping to place the - Senator here in this Chamber, and he turns upon them and - denies them. - - MR. HILL. The Senator is not aware of one fact, … that - every colored member of the Legislature of my State, even - though some of them had made voluntary pledges to me, - voted against my election to this body. I was not sent - here receiving a single vote from that class of men in the - Legislature. - - MR. SUMNER. I am afraid that they understood the Senator. - [_Laughter._] - - MR. HILL. That may be, Sir. I would not be surprised, if - they had some distrust. [_Laughter._] - - MR. SUMNER. And now, Mr. President, that we may understand - precisely where we are, that the Senate need not be - confused by the question of taste or the question of - society presented by the Senator from Georgia, I desire to - have my amendment read. - - The Supplementary Civil Rights Bill was then read at length, as - follows:-- - - SEC.--That all citizens of the United States, without - distinction of race, color, or previous condition of - servitude, are entitled to the equal and impartial - enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, facility, or - privilege furnished by common carriers, whether on land - or water; by innkeepers; by licensed owners, managers, or - lessees of theatres or other places of public amusement; - by trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers, - or other officers of common schools and other public - institutions of learning, the same being supported or - authorized by law; by trustees or officers of church - organizations, cemetery associations, and benevolent - institutions incorporated by National or State authority: - and this right shall not be denied or abridged on any - pretence of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. - - SEC.--That any person violating the foregoing provision, - or aiding in its violation, or inciting thereto, shall - for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of $500 - to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an - action on the case, with full costs and such allowance for - counsel fees as the court shall deem just, and shall also - for every such offence be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, - and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than - $500 nor more than $1,000, and shall be imprisoned not - less than thirty days nor more than one year; and any - corporation, association, or individual holding a charter - or license under National or State authority, violating - the aforesaid provision, shall, upon conviction thereof, - forfeit such charter or license; and any person assuming - to use or continuing to act under such charter or license - thus forfeited, or aiding in the same, or inciting thereto, - shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a - misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor - more than $5,000, and shall be imprisoned not less than - three nor more than seven years; and both the corporate and - joint property of such corporation or association, and the - private property of the several individuals composing the - same, shall be held liable for the forfeitures, fines, and - penalties incurred by any violation of the ---- section of - this Act. - - SEC.--That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby - conferred and the same duties enjoined upon the courts and - officers of the United States, in the execution of this - Act, as are conferred and enjoined upon such courts and - officers in sections three, four, five, seven, and ten - of an Act entitled “An Act to protect all persons in the - United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means - of their vindication,” passed April 9, 1866, and these - sections are hereby made a part of this Act; and any of the - aforesaid officers failing to institute and prosecute such - proceedings herein required shall for every such offence - forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved - thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case, with - full costs and such allowance for counsel fees as the court - shall deem just, and shall on conviction thereof be deemed - guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000 - nor more than $5,000. - - SEC.--That no person shall be disqualified for service as - juror in any court, National or State, by reason of race, - color, or previous condition of servitude: _Provided_, That - such person possesses all other qualifications which are by - law prescribed; and any officer or other persons charged - with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, who - shall exclude or fail to summon any person for the reason - above named, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty - of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000 nor - more than $5,000. - - SEC.--That every law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or - custom, whether National or State, inconsistent with this - Act, or making any discriminations against any person on - account of color, by the use of the word “white,” is hereby - repealed and annulled. - - SEC.--That it shall be the duty of the judges of the - several courts upon which jurisdiction is hereby conferred - to give this Act in charge to the grand jury of their - respective courts at the commencement of each term thereof. - - Objection was at once raised to the admission of any amendment - whatever, as imperilling the pending bill,--Mr. Alcorn, of - Mississippi, while pressing this, objected further, urging the - hazard to the measure embraced in the proposed amendment from - attachment to a bill requiring for its passage a two-thirds’ - vote instead of the usual simple majority. - - * * * * * - - December 21st, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, objected to the amendment - of Mr. Sumner, on the ground suggested by Mr. Alcorn,--raising - the point of order, that, “being a measure which, if it stood - by itself, could be passed by a majority vote of the Senate, - it cannot be offered as an amendment to a bill that requires - two-thirds of the Senate.” The objection being overruled, and - Mr. Thurman appealing from the decision of the Chair, a debate - ensued on the question of order,--Mr. Thurman, Mr. Bayard of - Delaware, Mr. Trumbull of Illinois, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, and - Mr. Sawyer of South Carolina sustaining the objection, and Mr. - Conkling of New York, Mr. Carpenter of Wisconsin, Mr. Edmunds - of Vermont, and Mr. Sumner opposing it. In the course of his - speech Mr. Sumner remarked:-- - -Does not the Act before us in its body propose a measure of -reconciliation? Clemency and amnesty it proposes; and these, in my -judgment, constitute a measure of reconciliation. And now I add justice -to the colored race. Is not that germane? Do not the two go together? -Are they not naturally associated? Sir, can they be separated? - -Instead of raising a question of order, I think the friends of amnesty -would be much better employed if they devoted their strength to secure -the passage of my amendment. Who that is truly in favor of amnesty will -vote against this measure of reconciliation? - -Sir, most anxiously do I seek reconciliation; but I know too much -of history, too much of my own country, and I remember too well the -fires over which we have walked in these latter days, not to know that -reconciliation is impossible except on the recognition of Equal Rights. -Vain is the effort of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. ALCORN]; he -cannot succeed; he must fail, and he ought to fail. It is not enough -to be generous; he must learn to be just. It is not enough to stand by -those who have fought against us; he must also stand by those who for -generations have borne the ban of wrong. I listened with sadness to -the Senator; he spoke earnestly and sincerely,--but, to my mind, it is -much to be regretted, that, coming into this Chamber the representative -of colored men, he should turn against them. I know that he will say, -“Pass the Amnesty Bill first, and then take care of the other.” I say, -Better pass the two together; or if either is lost, let it be the -first. Justice in this world is foremost. - -The Senator thinks that the cause of the colored race is hazarded -because my amendment is moved on the Act for Amnesty. In my judgment, -it is advanced. He says that the Act of Amnesty can pass only by a -two-thirds vote. Well, Sir, I insist that every one of that two-thirds -should record his name for my measure of reconciliation. If he does -not, he is inconsistent with himself. How, Sir, will an Act of Amnesty -be received when accompanied with denial of justice to the colored -race? With what countenance can it be presented to this country? How -will it look to the civilized world? Sad page! The Recording Angel will -have tears, but not enough to blot it out. - - The decision of the Chair was sustained by the vote of the - Senate,--Yeas 28, Nays 26,--and the amendment was declared in - order. On the question of its adoption it was lost,--Yeas 29, - Nays 30. - - Later in the day, the Amnesty Bill having been reported to - the Senate, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment. In the debate - that ensued he declared his desire to vote for amnesty; but he - insisted that this measure did not deserve success, unless with - it was justice to the colored race. In reply to Mr. Thurman, - he urged that all regulations of public institutions should - be in conformity with the Declaration of Independence. “The - Senator may smile, but I commend that to his thoughts during - our vacation. Let him consider the binding character of the - Declaration in its fundamental principles. The Senator does not - believe it. There are others who do, and my bill is simply a - practical application of it.” - - Without taking any vote the Senate adjourned for the holiday - recess, leaving the Amnesty Bill and the pending amendment as - unfinished business. - - * * * * * - - January 15, 1872, the subject was resumed, when Mr. Sumner made - the following speech. - - -SPEECH. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--In opening this question, one of the greatest ever -presented to the Senate, I have had but one hesitation, and that was -merely with regard to the order of treatment. There is a mass of -important testimony from all parts of the country, from Massachusetts -as well as Georgia, showing the absolute necessity of Congressional -legislation for the protection of Equal Rights, which I think ought -to be laid before the Senate. It was my purpose to begin with this -testimony; but I have changed my mind, and shall devote the day to a -statement of the question, relying upon the indulgence of the Senate -for another opportunity to introduce the evidence. I ask that the -pending amendment be read. - - The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was to append to the - Amnesty Bill, as additional sections, the Supplementary Civil - Rights Bill. - - Mr. Sumner resumed:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT, Slavery, in its foremost pretensions, reappears in -the present debate. Again the barbarous tyranny stalks into this -Chamber, denying to a whole race the Equal Rights promised by a just -citizenship. Some have thought Slavery dead. This is a mistake. If not -in body, at least in spirit, or as a ghost making the country hideous, -the ancient criminal yet lingers among us, insisting upon the continued -degradation of a race. - -Property in man has ceased to exist. The human auction-block has -departed. No human being can call himself master, with impious power to -separate husband and wife, to sell child from parent, to shut out the -opportunities of religion, to close the gates of knowledge, and to rob -another of his labor and all its fruits. These guilty prerogatives are -ended. To this extent the slave is free. No longer a chattel, he is a -man,--justly entitled to all that is accorded by law to any other man. - -Such is the irresistible logic of his emancipation. Ceasing to be a -slave, he became a man, whose foremost right is Equality of Rights. -And yet Slavery has been strong enough to postpone his entry into the -great possession. Cruelly, he was not permitted to testify in court; -most unjustly, he was not allowed to vote. More than four millions of -people, whose only offence was a skin once the badge of Slavery, were -shut out from the court-room, and also from the ballot-box, in open -defiance of the great Declaration of our fathers, that all men are -equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent -of the governed. Such was the impudent behest of Slavery, prolonged -after it was reported dead. At last these crying wrongs are overturned. -The slave testifies; the slave votes. To this extent his equality is -recognized. - - -EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. - -But this is not enough. Much as it may seem, compared with the past, -when all was denied, it is too little, because all is not yet -recognized. The denial of any right is a wrong darkening the enjoyment -of all the rest. Besides the right to testify and the right to vote, -there are other rights without which Equality does not exist. The -precise rule is Equality before the Law, nor more nor less; that is, -that condition before the law in which all are alike,--being entitled, -without discrimination, to the equal enjoyment of all institutions, -privileges, advantages, and conveniences created or regulated by law, -among which are the right to testify and the right to vote. But this -plain requirement is not satisfied, logically or reasonably, by these -two concessions, so that when they are recognized all others are -trifles. The court-house and the ballot-box are not the only places for -the rule. These two are not the only institutions for its operation. -The rule is general; how, then, restrict it to two cases? It is, _All -are equal before the law_,--not merely before the law in two cases, but -before the law in all cases, without limitation or exception. Important -as it is to testify and to vote, life is not all contained even in -these possessions. - -The new-made citizen is called to travel for business, for health, or -for pleasure; but here his trials begin. His money, whether gold or -paper, is the same as the white man’s; but the doors of the public -hotel, which from the earliest days of jurisprudence have always -opened hospitably to the stranger, close against him, and the public -conveyances, which the Common Law declares equally free to all -alike, have no such freedom for him. He longs, perhaps, for respite -and relaxation at some place of public amusement, duly licensed by -law; and here also the same adverse discrimination is made. With the -anxieties of a parent, seeking the welfare of his child, he strives to -bestow upon him the inestimable blessings of education, and takes him -affectionately to the common school, created by law, and supported by -the taxation to which he has contributed; but these doors slam rudely -in the face of the child where is garnered up the parent’s heart. -“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me”: such -were the words of the Divine Master. But among us little children are -turned away and forbidden at the door of the common school, because -of the skin. And the same insulting ostracism shows itself in other -institutions of science and learning, also in the church, and in the -last resting-place on earth. - -Two instances occur, which have been mentioned already on this floor; -but their eminence in illustration of an unquestionable grievance -justifies the repetition. - - -CASE OF FREDERICK DOUGLASS. - -One is the well-known case of Frederick Douglass, who, returning home -after earnest service of weeks as Secretary of the Commission to report -on the people of San Domingo and the expediency of incorporating them -with the United States, was rudely excluded from the table, where his -brother commissioners were already seated, on board the mail-steamer -of the Potomac, just before reaching the President, whose commission -he bore. This case, if not aggravated, is made conspicuous by peculiar -circumstances. Mr. Douglass is a gentleman of unquestioned ability -and character, remarkable as an orator, refined in manners, and -personally agreeable. He was returning, charged with the mission of -bringing under our institutions a considerable population of colored -foreigners, whose prospective treatment among us was foreshadowed on -board that mail-steamer. The Dominican Baez could not expect more than -our fellow-citizen. And yet, with this mission, and with the personal -recommendation he so justly enjoys, this returning Secretary could not -be saved from outrage even in sight of the Executive Mansion. - - -CASE OF LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR DUNN. - -There also was Oscar James Dunn, late Lieutenant-Governor of -Louisiana. It was my privilege to open the door of the Senate Chamber -and introduce him upon this floor. Then, in reply to my inquiry, he -recounted the hardships to which he had been exposed in the long -journey from Louisiana,--especially how he was denied the ordinary -accommodations for comfort and repose supplied to those of another -skin. This denial is memorable, not only from the rank, but the -character of the victim. Of blameless life, he was an example of -integrity. He was poor, but could not be bought or bribed. Duty with -him was more than riches. A fortune was offered for his signature; but -he spurned the temptation. - -And yet this model character, high in the confidence of his -fellow-citizens, and in the full enjoyment of political power, was -doomed to suffer the blasting influence which still finds support -in this Chamber. He is dead at last, and buried with official pomp. -The people, counted by tens of thousands, thronged the streets while -his obsequies proceeded. An odious discrimination was for the time -suspended. In life rejected by the conductor of a railway because of -his skin, he was borne to his last resting-place with all the honors -an afflicted community could bestow. Only in his coffin was the ban of -color lifted, and the dead statesman admitted to that equality which is -the right of all. - - -REQUIREMENT OF REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS. - -These are marked instances; but they are types. If Frederick Douglass -and Oscar James Dunn could be made to suffer, how much must others be -called to endure! All alike, the feeble, the invalid, the educated, -the refined, women as well as men, are shut out from the ordinary -privileges of the steamboat or rail-car, and driven into a vulgar -sty with smokers and rude persons, where the conversation is as -offensive as the scene, and then again at the roadside inn are denied -that shelter and nourishment without which travel is impossible. Do -you doubt this constant, wide-spread outrage, extending in uncounted -ramifications throughout the whole land? With sorrow be it said, it -reaches everywhere, even into Massachusetts. Not a State which does -not need the benign correction. The evidence is on your table in -numerous petitions. And there is other evidence, already presented by -me, showing how individuals have suffered from this plain denial of -equal rights. Who that has a heart can listen to the story without -indignation and shame? Who with a spark of justice to illumine his soul -can hesitate to denounce the wrong? Who that rejoices in republican -institutions will not help to overthrow the tyranny by which they are -degraded? - -I do not use too strong language, when I expose this tyranny as a -degradation to republican institutions,--ay, Sir, in their fundamental -principle. Why is the Declaration of Independence our Magna Charta? Not -because it declares separation from a distant kingly power; but because -it announces the lofty truth that all are equal in rights, and, as a -natural consequence, that just government stands only on the consent -of the governed,--all of which is held to be self-evident. Such is -the soul of republican institutions, without which the Republic is a -failure, a name and nothing more. Call it a Republic, if you will, but -it is in reality a soulless mockery. - -Equality in rights is not only the first of rights, it is an axiom of -political truth. But an axiom, whether of science or philosophy, is -universal, and without exception or limitation; and this is according -to the very law of its nature. Therefore it is not stating an axiom to -announce grandly that only white men are equal in rights; nor is it -stating an axiom to announce with the same grandeur that all persons -are equal in rights, but that colored persons have no rights except to -testify and vote. Nor is it a self-evident truth, as declared; for no -truth is self-evident which is not universal. The asserted limitation -destroys the original Declaration, making it a ridiculous sham, instead -of that sublime Magna Charta before which kings, nobles, and all -inequalities of birth must disappear as ghosts of night at the dawn. - - -REAL ISSUE OF THE WAR. - -All this has additional force, when it is known that this very axiom or -self-evident truth declared by our fathers was the real issue of the -war, and was so publicly announced by the leaders on both sides. Behind -the embattled armies were ideas, and the idea on our side was Equality -in Rights, which on the other side was denied. The Nation insisted that -all men are created equal; the Rebellion insisted that all men are -created unequal. Here the evidence is explicit. - -The inequality of men was an original postulate of Mr. Calhoun,[174] -which found final expression in the open denunciation of the -self-evident truth as “a self-evident lie.”[175] Echoing this -denunciation, Jefferson Davis, on leaving the Senate, January 21, 1861, -in that farewell speech which some among you heard, but which all may -read in the “Globe,” made the issue in these words:-- - - “It has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union - of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has - brought Mississippi into her present decision. _She has heard - proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and - equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social - institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has - been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the - races._”[176] - -The issue thus made by the chief Rebel was promptly joined. Abraham -Lincoln, the elected President, stopping at Independence Hall, February -22d, on his way to assume his duties at the National capital, in -unpremeditated words thus interpreted the Declaration:-- - - “It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight - should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, _and that all - should have an equal chance_.” - -Mark, if you please, the simplicity of this utterance. All are to have -“an equal chance”; and this, he said, “is the sentiment embodied in the -Declaration of Independence.” Then, in reply to Jefferson Davis, he -proceeded:-- - - “Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? - If it can, I shall consider myself one of the happiest men in - the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved - upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this - country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was - about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than - surrender it.” - -Giving these words still further solemnity, he added: - - “I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, if - it be the pleasure of Almighty God, to die by.” - -And then, before raising the national banner over the historic Hall, he -said:-- - - “It is on such an occasion as this that we can reason together, - and reaffirm our devotion to the country and the principles of - the Declaration of Independence.”[177] - -Thus the gauntlet flung down by Jefferson Davis was taken up by Abraham -Lincoln, who never forgot the issue. - -The rejoinder was made by Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the -Rebellion, in a not-to-be forgotten speech at Savannah, March 21, 1861, -when he did not hesitate to declare of the pretended Government, that-- - - “Its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon _the - great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man_.” - -Then, glorying in this terrible shame, he added:-- - - “This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the - world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral - truth.” - - “This stone, which was rejected by the first builders, is - become the chief stone of the corner.”[178] - -To this unblushing avowal Abraham Lincoln replied in that marvellous, -undying utterance at Gettysburg,--fit voice for the Republic, greater -far than any victory: - - “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth - on this continent a new Nation, _conceived in Liberty, and - dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal_.” - -Thus, in precise conformity with the Declaration, was it announced -that our Republic is dedicated to the Equal Rights of All; and then -the prophet-President, soon to be a martyr, asked his countrymen to -dedicate themselves to the great task remaining, highly resolving - - “that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of - Freedom; and that Government of the people, by the people, and - for the people shall not perish from the earth.”[179] - -The victory of the war is vain without the grander victory through -which the Republic is dedicated to the axiomatic, self-evident truth -declared by our fathers, and reasserted by Abraham Lincoln. With this -mighty truth as a guiding principle, the National Constitution is -elevated, and made more than ever a protection to the citizen. - -All this is so plain that it is difficult to argue it. What is the -Republic, if it fails in this loyalty? What is the National Government, -coextensive with the Republic, if fellow-citizens, counted by the -million, can be shut out from equal rights in travel, in recreation, in -education, and in other things, all contributing to human necessities? -Where is that great promise by which “the pursuit of happiness” is -placed, with life and liberty, under the safeguard of axiomatic, -self-evident truth? Where is justice, if this ban of color is not -promptly removed? Where is humanity? Where is reason? - - -TWO EXCUSES. - -The two excuses show how irrational and utterly groundless is this -pretension. They are on a par with the pretension itself. One is, -that the question is of society, and not of rights, which is clearly -a misrepresentation; and the other is, that the separate arrangements -provided for colored persons constitute a substitute for equality in -the nature of an equivalent,--all of which is clearly a contrivance, if -not a trick: as if there could be any equivalent for equality. - - -NO QUESTION OF SOCIETY. - -Of the first excuse it is difficult to speak with patience. It is -a simple misrepresentation, and wherever it shows itself must be -treated as such. There is no colored person who does not resent the -imputation that he is seeking to intrude himself socially anywhere. -This is no question of society, no question of social life, no question -of social equality, if anybody knows what this means. The object is -simply Equality before the Law, a term which explains itself. Now, -as the law does not presume to create or regulate social relations, -these are in no respect affected by the pending measure. Each person, -whether Senator or citizen, is always free to choose who shall be his -friend, his associate, his guest. And does not the ancient proverb -declare that “a man is known by the company he keeps”? But this assumes -that he may choose for himself. His house is his “castle”; and this -very designation, borrowed from the Common Law, shows his absolute -independence within its walls; nor is there any difference, whether it -be palace or hovel. But when he leaves his “castle” and goes abroad, -this independence is at an end. He walks the streets, but always -subject to the prevailing law of Equality; nor can he appropriate the -sidewalk to his own exclusive use, driving into the gutter all whose -skin is less white than his own. But nobody pretends that Equality in -the highway, whether on pavement or sidewalk, is a question of society. -And permit me to say that Equality in all institutions created or -regulated by law is as little a question of society. - -In the days of Slavery it was an oft-repeated charge, that Emancipation -was a measure of social equality; and the same charge became a cry at -the successive efforts for the right to testify and the right to vote. -At each stage the cry was raised, and now it makes itself heard again, -as you are called to assure this crowning safeguard. - - -EQUALITY NOT FOUND IN EQUIVALENTS. - -Then comes the other excuse, which finds Equality in separation. -Separate hotels, separate conveyances, separate theatres, separate -schools and institutions of learning and science, separate churches, -and separate cemeteries,--these are the artificial substitutes. And -this is the contrivance by which a transcendent right, involving a -transcendent duty, is evaded: for Equality is not only a right, but a -duty. - -How vain to argue that there is no denial of Equal Rights when this -separation is enforced! The substitute is invariably an inferior -article. Does any Senator deny it? Therefore, it is not Equality; -at best it is an equivalent only. But no equivalent is Equality. -Separation implies one thing for a white person and another thing -for a colored person; but Equality is where all have the same alike. -There can be no substitute for Equality,--nothing but itself. Even if -accommodations are the same, as notoriously they are not, there is no -Equality. In the process of substitution the vital elixir exhales and -escapes: it is lost, and cannot be recovered; for Equality is found -only in Equality. “Nought but itself can be its parallel”; but Senators -undertake to find parallels in other things. - -As well make weight in silver the equivalent for weight in diamonds, -according to the illustration of Selden in his famous “Table-Talk.” -“If,” remarked the learned interlocutor, “I said I owed you twenty -pounds in silver, and you said I owed you twenty pounds of diamonds, -which is a sum innumerable, ’tis impossible we should ever agree.”[180] -But Equality is weight in diamonds, and a sum innumerable,--which is -very different from weight in silver. - -Assuming--what is most absurd to assume, and what is contradicted by -all experience--that a substitute can be an equivalent, it is so in -form only, and not in reality. Every such assumption is an indignity to -the colored race, instinct with the spirit of Slavery; and this decides -its character. It is Slavery in its last appearance. Are you ready -to prolong the hateful tyranny? Religion and reason condemn Caste as -impious and unchristian, making republican institutions and equal laws -impossible; but here is Caste not unlike that which separates the Sudra -from the Brahmin. Pray, Sir, who constitutes the white man a Brahmin? -Whence his lordly title? Down to a recent period in Europe the Jews -were driven to herd by themselves, separate from the Christians; but -this discarded barbarism is revived among us in the ban of color. There -are millions of fellow-citizens guilty of no offence except the dusky -livery of the sun appointed by the Heavenly Father, whom you treat as -others have treated the Jews, as the Brahmin treats the Sudra. But, -pray, Sir, do not pretend that this is the great equality promised by -our fathers. - -In arraigning this attempt at separation as a Caste, I say nothing -new. For years I have denounced it as such; and here I followed good -authorities, as well as reason. Alexander von Humboldt, speaking -of the negroes of New Mexico when Slavery prevailed, called them a -Caste.[181] A recent political and juridical writer of France uses -the same term to denote not only the discrimination in India, but -that in our own country,--especially referring to the exclusion of -colored children from the common schools as among “the humiliating and -brutal distinctions” by which their Caste is characterized.[182] The -principle of separation on the ground of hereditary inferiority is the -distinctive essence of Caste; but this is the outrage which flaunts in -our country, crying out, “I am better than thou, because I am white. -Get away!” - - -THE REMEDY. - -Thus do I reject the two excuses. But I do not leave the cause here. -I go further, and show how consistent is the pending measure with -acknowledged principles, illustrated by undoubted law. - -The bill for Equal Rights is simply supplementary to the existing Civil -Rights Law, which is one of our great statutes of peace, and it stands -on the same requirements of the National Constitution. If the Civil -Rights Law is above question, as cannot be doubted, then also is this -supplementary amendment; for it is only the complement of the other, -and necessary to its completion. Without this amendment the original -law is imperfect. It cannot be said, according to its title, that all -persons are protected in their civil rights, so long as the outrages I -expose continue to exist; nor is Slavery entirely dead. - -Following reason and authority, the conclusion is easy. A Law -Dictionary, of constant use as a repertory of established rules and -principles, defines a “freeman” as “one in the possession of _the civil -rights_ enjoyed by the people generally.”[183] Happily, all are freemen -now; but the colored people are still excluded from civil rights -enjoyed by the people generally,--and this, too, in the face of our new -Bill of Rights intended for their especial protection. - -By the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery Congress is -empowered “to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”; and in -pursuance thereof the Civil Rights Law was enacted. That measure was -justly accepted as “appropriate legislation.” Without it Slavery would -still exist in at least one of its most odious pretensions. By the -Civil Rights Law colored persons were assured in the right to testify, -which in most of the States was denied or abridged. So closely was -this outrage connected with Slavery, that it was, indeed, part of this -great wrong. Therefore its prohibition was “appropriate legislation” -in the enforcement of the Constitutional Amendment. But the denial or -abridgment of Equality on account of color is also part of Slavery. So -long as it exists, Slavery is still present among us. Its prohibition -is not only “appropriate,” but necessary, to enforce the Constitutional -Amendment. Therefore is it strictly Constitutional, as if in the very -text of the National Constitution. - -The next Constitutional Amendment, known as the Fourteenth, contains -two different provisions, which augment the power of Congress. The -first furnishes the definition of “citizen,” which down to this time -had been left to construction only:-- - - “_All persons_ born or naturalized in the United States, and - subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are _citizens_ of the - United States, and of the States wherever they reside.” - -Here, you will remark, are no words of race or color. “_All_ persons,” -and not “_all white_ persons,” born or naturalized in the United -States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are “citizens.” Such -is the definition supplied by this Amendment. This is followed by -another provision in aid of the definition:-- - - “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge - the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; - nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or - property without due process of law, _nor deny to any person - within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_.” - -And Congress is empowered to enforce this definition of Citizenship and -this guaranty, by “appropriate legislation.” - -Here, then, are two Constitutional Amendments, each a fountain of -power: the first, to enforce the Abolition of Slavery; and the second, -to assure the privileges and immunities of citizens, and also the equal -protection of the laws. If the Supplementary Civil Rights Bill, moved -by me, is not within these accumulated powers, I am at a loss to know -what is within those powers. - -In considering these Constitutional provisions, I insist upon that -interpretation which shall give them the most generous expansion, so -that they shall be truly efficacious for human rights. Once Slavery -was the animating principle in determining the meaning of the National -Constitution: happily, it is so no longer. Another principle is now -supreme, breathing into the whole the breath of a new life, and filling -it in every part with one pervading, controlling sentiment,--being -that great principle of Equality which triumphed at last on the -battle-field, and, bearing the watchword of the Republic, now supplies -the rule by which every word of the Constitution and all its parts -must be interpreted, as much as if written in its text. - -There is also an original provision of the National Constitution, not -to be forgotten:-- - - “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges - and immunities of citizens in the several States.” - -Once a sterile letter, this is now a fruitful safeguard, to be -interpreted, like all else, so that human rights shall most -prevail. The term “privileges and immunities” was at an early day -authoritatively defined by Judge Washington, who announced that they -embraced “protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and -liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every -kind, and _to pursue and obtain happiness and safety_, … the right -of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other -State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or -otherwise.”[184] But these “privileges and immunities” are protected by -the present measure. - -No doubt the Supplementary Law must operate, not only in National -jurisdiction, but also in the States, precisely as the Civil Rights -Law; otherwise it will be of little value. Its sphere must be -coextensive with the Republic, making the rights of the citizen uniform -everywhere. But this can be only by one uniform safeguard sustained -by the Nation. Citizenship is universal, and the same everywhere. It -cannot be more or less in one State than in another. - -But legislation is not enough. An enlightened public opinion must be -invoked. Nor will this be wanting. The country will rally in aid of the -law, more especially since it is a measure of justice and humanity. -The law is needed now as a help to public opinion. It is needed by the -very people whose present conduct makes occasion for it. Prompted by -the law, leaning on the law, they will recognize the equal rights of -all; nor do I despair of a public opinion which shall stamp the denial -of these rights as an outrage not unlike Slavery itself. Custom and -patronage will then be sought in obeying the law. People generally are -little better than actors, for whom it was once said:-- - - “Ah, let not Censure term our fate our choice: - The stage but echoes back the public voice; - The drama’s laws the drama’s patrons give; - For we that live to please must please to live.”[185] - -In the absence of the law people please too often by inhumanity, but -with the law teaching the lesson of duty they will please by humanity. -Thus will the law be an instrument of improvement, necessary in precise -proportion to existing prejudice. Because people still please by -inhumanity, therefore must there be a counteracting force. This precise -exigency was foreseen by Rousseau, remarkable as writer and thinker, in -a work which startled the world, when he said:-- - - “It is precisely because the force of things tends always to - destroy equality that the force of legislation should always - tend to maintain it.”[186] - -Never was a truer proposition; and now let us look at the cases for its -application. - - -PUBLIC HOTELS. - -I begin with Public Hotels or Inns, because the rule with regard to -them may be traced to the earliest periods of the Common Law. In the -Chronicles of Holinshed, written in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, is a -chapter “Of our Inns and Thoroughfares,” where the inn, which is the -original term for hotel, is described as “builded for the receiving -of such travellers and strangers as pass to and fro”; and then the -chronicler, boasting of his own country as compared with others, says, -“_Every man_ may use his inn as his own house in England.”[187] In -conformity with this boast was the law of England. The inn was opened -to “every man.” And this rule has continued from that early epoch, -anterior to the first English settlement of North America, down to -this day. The inn is a public institution, with well-known rights and -duties. Among the latter is the duty to receive all paying travellers -decent in appearance and conduct,--wherein it is distinguished from a -lodging-house or boarding-house, which is a private concern, and not -subject to the obligations of the inn. - -For this statement I might cite authorities beginning with the infancy -of the law, and not ending even with a late decision of the Superior -Court of New York, where an inn is defined to be “a public house of -entertainment _for all who choose to visit it_,”[188]--which differs -very little from the descriptive words of Holinshed. - -The summary of our great jurist, Judge Story, shows the law:-- - - “An innkeeper is bound to take in _all travellers and wayfaring - persons_, and to entertain them, if he can accommodate them, - for a reasonable compensation.… If an innkeeper improperly - refuses to receive or provide for a guest, he is liable to be - indicted therefor.”[189] - -Chancellor Kent states the rule briefly, but with fulness and -precision:-- - - “An innkeeper cannot lawfully refuse to receive guests to the - extent of his reasonable accommodations; nor can he impose - unreasonable terms upon them.”[190] - -This great authority says again, quoting a decided case:-- - - “Innkeepers are liable to an action if they refuse to receive a - guest without just cause. The innkeeper is even indictable for - the refusal, if he has room in his house and the guest behaves - properly.”[191] - -And Professor Parsons, in his work on Contracts, so familiar to lawyers -and students, says:-- - - “He cannot so refuse, unless his house is full and he is - actually unable to receive him. And if on false pretences he - refuses, he is liable to an action.”[192] - -The importance of this rule in determining present duty will justify -another statement in the language of a popular Encyclopædia:-- - - “One of the incidents of an innkeeper is, that _he is bound - to open his house to all travellers, without distinction, - and has no option to refuse such refreshment, shelter, and - accommodation as he possesses_, provided the person who applies - is of the description of a traveller, and able and ready to pay - the customary hire, and is not drunk or disorderly or tainted - with infectious disease.” - -And the Encyclopædia adds:-- - - “As some compensation for this _compulsory hospitality_, the - innkeeper is allowed certain privileges.”[193] - -Thus is the innkeeper under constraint of law, which he must obey; -“bound to take in all travellers and wayfaring persons”; “nor can he -impose unreasonable terms upon them”; and liable to an action, and even -to an indictment, for refusal. Such is the law. - -With this peremptory rule opening the doors of inns to all travellers, -without distinction, to the extent of authorizing not only an action, -but an indictment, for the refusal to receive a traveller, it is plain -that the pending bill is only declaratory of existing law, giving to it -the sanction of Congress. - - -PUBLIC CONVEYANCES. - -Public Conveyances, whether on land or water, are known to the law as -common carriers, and they, too, have obligations, not unlike those of -inns. Common carriers are grouped with innkeepers, especially in duty -to passengers. Here again the learned Judge is our authority:-- - - “The first and most general obligation on their part is to - carry passengers, whenever they offer themselves and are ready - to pay for their transportation. _This results from their - setting themselves up, like innkeepers and common carriers of - goods, for a common public employment, on hire._ They are no - more at liberty to refuse a passenger, if they have sufficient - room and accommodation, than an innkeeper is to refuse suitable - room and accommodations to a guest.”[194] - -Professor Parsons states the rule strongly:-- - - “It is his duty to receive _all passengers_ who offer; to - carry them the whole route; to demand no more than the usual - and established compensation; _to treat all his passengers - alike_; to behave to all with civility and propriety; to - provide suitable carriages and means of transport; … and - for the default of his servants or agents in any of the - above particulars, or generally in any other points of duty, - the carrier is directly responsible, _as well as for any - circumstance of aggravation which attended the wrong_.”[195] - -The same rule, in its application to railroads, has been presented by a -learned writer with singular force:-- - - “The company is under a public duty, as a common carrier of - passengers, to receive all who offer themselves as such and - are ready to pay the usual fare, and is liable in damages to - a party whom it refuses to carry without a reasonable excuse. - It may decline to carry persons after its means of conveyance - have been exhausted, and refuse such as persist in not - complying with its reasonable regulations, or whose improper - behaviour--as by their drunkenness, obscene language, or vulgar - conduct--renders them an annoyance to other passengers. _But - it cannot make unreasonable discriminations between persons - soliciting its means of conveyance, as by refusing them on - account of personal dislike, their occupation, condition in - life_, COMPLEXION, RACE, _nativity, political or ecclesiastical - relations_.”[196] - -It has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, where, -on account of color, a person had been excluded from a street car in -Philadelphia.[197] - -The pending bill simply reinforces this rule, which, without Congress, -ought to be sufficient. But since it is set at nought by an odious -discrimination, Congress must interfere. - - -PLACES OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT. - -Theatres and other places of Public Amusement, licensed by law, -are kindred to inns or public conveyances, though less noticed by -jurisprudence. But, like their prototypes, they undertake to provide -for the public under sanction of law. They are public institutions, -regulated, if not created, by law, enjoying privileges, and in -consideration thereof assuming duties, kindred to those of the inn -and the public conveyance. From essential reason, the rule should be -the same with all. As the inn cannot close its doors, or the public -conveyance refuse a seat, to any paying traveller, decent in condition, -so must it be with the theatre and other places of public amusement. -Here are institutions whose peculiar object is “the pursuit of -happiness,” which has been placed among the Equal Rights of All. How -utterly irrational the pretension to outrage a large portion of the -community! The law can lend itself to no such intolerable absurdity; -and this, I insist, shall be declared by Congress. - - -COMMON SCHOOLS. - -The Common School falls naturally into the same category. Like the -others, it must open to all, or its designation is a misnomer and a -mockery. It is not a school for whites, or a school for blacks, but -a school for all,--in other words, a common school. Much is implied -in this term, according to which the school harmonizes with the other -institutions already mentioned. It is an inn where children rest -on the road to knowledge. It is a public conveyance where children -are passengers. It is a theatre where children resort for enduring -recreation. Like the others, it assumes to provide for the public; -therefore it must be open to all: nor can there be any exclusion, -except on grounds equally applicable to the inn, the public conveyance, -and the theatre. - -But the common school has a higher character. Its object is the -education of the young; and it is sustained by taxation, to which all -contribute. Not only does it hold itself out to the public by its name -and its harmony with the other institutions, but it assumes the place -of parent to all children within its locality, bound always to exercise -a parent’s watchful care and tenderness, which can know no distinction -of child. - -It is easy to see that the separate school, founded on an odious -discrimination, and sometimes offered as an equivalent for the common -school, is an ill-disguised violation of the principle of Equality, -while as a pretended equivalent it is an utter failure, and instead of -a parent is only a churlish step-mother. - -A slight illustration will show how it fails; and here I mention -an incident occurring in Washington, but which must repeat itself -often on a larger scale, wherever separation is attempted. Colored -children, living near what is called the common school, are driven -from its doors, and compelled to walk a considerable distance--often -troublesome, and in certain conditions of the weather difficult--to -attend the separate school. One of these children has suffered from -this exposure, and I have myself witnessed the emotion of the parent. -This could not have occurred, had the child been received at the common -school in the neighborhood. Now it is idle to assert that children -compelled to this exceptional journey to and fro are in the enjoyment -of Equal Rights. The superadded pedestrianism and its attendant -discomfort furnish the measure of Inequality in one of its forms, -increased by the weakness or ill-health of the child. What must be the -feelings of a colored father or mother daily witnessing this sacrifice -to the demon of Caste? - -This is an illustration merely, but it shows precisely how impossible -it is for a separate school to be the equivalent of the common school. -And yet it only touches the evil, without exhibiting its proportions. -The indignity offered to the colored child is worse than any compulsory -exposure; and here not only the child suffers, but the race to which he -belongs is degraded, and the whole community is hardened in wrong. - -The separate school wants the first requisite of the common school, -inasmuch as it is not equally open to all; and since this is -inconsistent with the declared rule of republican institutions, -such a school is not republican in character. Therefore it is not a -preparation for the duties of life. The child is not trained in the -way he should go; for he is trained under the ban of Inequality. How -can he grow up to the stature of equal citizenship? He is pinched -and dwarfed while the stigma of color is stamped upon him. This is -plain oppression, which you, Sir, would feel keenly, were it directed -against you or your child. Surely the race enslaved for generations has -suffered enough without being doomed to this prolonged proscription. -Will not the Republic, redeemed by most costly sacrifice, insist upon -justice to the children of the land, making the common school the -benign example of republican institutions, where merit is the only -ground of favor? - -Nor is separation without evil to the whites. The prejudice of color -is nursed, when it should be stifled. The Pharisaism of race becomes -an element of character, when, like all other Pharisaisms, it should -be cast out. Better even than knowledge is a kindly nature and the -sentiment of equality. Such should be the constant lesson, repeated -by the lips and inscribed on the heart; but the school itself must -practise the lesson. Children learn by example more than by precept. -How precious the example which teaches that all are equal in rights! -But this can be only where all commingle in the common school as in -common citizenship. There is no separate ballot-box: there should be -no separate school. It is not enough that all should be taught alike; -they must all be taught together. They are not only to receive equal -quantities of knowledge; all are to receive it in the same way. But -they cannot be taught alike, unless all are taught together; nor can -they receive equal quantities of knowledge in the same way, except at -the common school. - -The common school is important to all; but to the colored child it is -a necessity. Excluded from the common school, he finds himself too -frequently without any substitute. But even where a separate school -is planted, it is inferior in character, buildings, furniture, -books, teachers: all are second-rate. No matter what the temporary -disposition, the separate school will not flourish as the common -school. It is but an offshoot or sucker, without the strength of the -parent stem. That the two must differ is seen at once; and that this -difference is adverse to the colored child is equally apparent. For him -there is no assurance of education except in the common school, where -he will be under the safeguard of all. White parents will take care not -only that the common school is not neglected, but that its teachers -and means of instruction are the best possible; and the colored child -will have the benefit of this watchfulness. This decisive consideration -completes the irresistible argument for the common school as the equal -parent of all without distinction of color. - -If to him that hath is given, according to the way of the world, it -is not doubted that to him that hath not there is a positive duty in -proportion to the necessity. Unhappily, our colored fellow-citizens are -in this condition. But just in proportion as they are weak, and not -yet recovered from the degradation in which they have been plunged, -does the Republic owe its completest support and protection. Already a -component part of our political corporation, they must become part of -the educational corporation also, with Equality as the supreme law. - - -OTHER PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. - -It is with humiliation that I am forced to insist upon the same -equality in other public institutions of learning and science,--also in -churches, and in the last resting-places of the dead. So far as any of -these are public in character and organized by law, they must follow -the general requirement. How strange that any institution of learning -or science, any church, or any cemetery should set up a discrimination -so utterly inconsistent with correct principle! But I do not forget -that only recently a colored officer of the National Army was treated -with indignity at the communion-table. To insult the dead is easier, -although condemned by Christian precept and heathen example. As in -birth, so in death are all alike,--beginning with the same nakedness, -and ending in the same decay; nor do worms spare the white body -more than the black. This equal lot has been the frequent occasion -of sentiment and of poetry. Horace has pictured pallid Death with -impartial foot knocking at the cottages of the poor and the towers of -kings.[198] In the same spirit the early English poet, author of “Piers -Ploughman,” shows the lowly and the great in their common house:-- - - “For in charnel at chirche - Cherles ben yvel to knowe, - Or a knyght from a knave there.”[199] - -And Chaucer even denies the distinction in life:-- - - “But understond in thine entent - That this is not mine entendement, - To clepe no wight in no ages - Onely gentle for his linages: - Though he be not gentle borne, - Than maiest well seine this in sooth, - That he is gentle because he doth - As longeth to a gentleman.”[200] - -This beautiful testimony, to which the honest heart responds, is from -an age when humanity was less regarded than now. Plainly it shows -how conduct and character are realities, while other things are but -accidents. - -Among the Romans degradation ended with life. Slaves were admitted to -honorable sepulture, and sometimes slept the last sleep with their -masters. The slaves of Augustus and Livia were buried on the famous -Appian Way, where their tombs with historic inscriptions have survived -the centuries.[201] “Bury him with his niggers,” was the rude order of -the Rebel officer, as he flung the precious remains of our admirable -Colonel Shaw into the common trench at Fort Wagner, where he fell, -mounting the parapets at the head of colored troops. And so was he -buried, lovely in death as in life. The intended insult became an -honor. In that common trench the young hero rests, symbolizing the -great Equality for which he died. No Roman monument, with its _Siste, -viator_, to the passing traveller, no “labor of an age in pilèd -stones,” can match in grandeur that simple burial. - - -PREJUDICE OF COLOR. - -MR. PRESIDENT, against these conclusions there is but one argument, -which, when considered, is nothing but a prejudice, as little rational -as what Shylock first calls his “humor” and then “a lodged hate and -a certain loathing,” making him seek the pound of flesh nearest the -merchant’s heart. The prejudice of color pursues its victim in the long -pilgrimage from the cradle to the grave, barring the hotel, excluding -from the public conveyance, insulting at the theatre, closing the -school, shutting the gates of science, and playing its fantastic tricks -even in the church where he kneels and the grave where his dust mingles -with the surrounding earth. The God-given color of the African is a -constant offence to the disdainful white, who, like the pretentious -lord, asking Hotspur for prisoners, can bear nothing so unhandsome -“betwixt the wind and his nobility.” This is the whole case. And shall -those Equal Rights promised by the great Declaration be sacrificed to -a prejudice? Shall that Equality before the Law, which is the best -part of citizenship, be denied to those who do not happen to be white? -Is this a white man’s government or is it a government of “all men,” -as declared by our fathers? Is it a Republic of Equal Laws, or an -Oligarchy of the Skin? This is the question now presented. - -Once Slavery was justified by color, as now the denial of Equal Rights -is justified; and the reason is as little respectable in one case as in -the other. The old pretension is curiously illustrated by an incident -in the inimitable Autobiography of Franklin. An Ante-revolutionary -Governor of Pennsylvania remarked gayly, “that he much admired the idea -of Sancho Panza, who, when it was proposed to give him a government, -requested it might be a government of _blacks_, as then, if he could -not agree with his people, he might sell them”; on which a friend said, -“Franklin, why do you continue to side with those damned Quakers? Had -you not better sell them?” Franklin answered, “The Governor has not yet -_blacked_ them enough.” The Autobiography proceeds to record, that the -Governor “labored hard to _blacken_ the Assembly in all his Messages, -but they wiped off his coloring as fast as he laid it on, and placed it -in return thick upon his own face, so that, finding he was likely to -be _negrofied_ himself, he grew tired of the contest and quitted the -Government.”[202] To negrofy a man was to degrade him. - -Thus in the ambition of Sancho Panza, and in the story of the British -governor, was color the badge of Slavery. “Then I can sell them,” said -Sancho Panza; and the British governor repeated the saying. This is -changed now; but not entirely. At present nobody dares say, “I can sell -them”; but the inn, the common conveyance, the theatre, the school, the -scientific institute, the church, and the cemetery deny them the equal -rights of Freedom. - -Color has its curiosities in history. For generations the Roman circus -was convulsed by factions known from their liveries as _white_ and -_red_; new factions adopted _green_ and _blue_; and these latter colors -raged with redoubled fury in the hippodrome of Constantinople.[203] -Then came _blacks_ and _whites_, Neri and Bianchi, in the political -contentions of Italy,[204] where the designation was from the accident -of a name. In England the most beautiful of flowers, in two of its -colors, became the badge of hostile armies, and the white rose fought -against the red. But it has been reserved for our Republic, dedicated -to the rights of human nature, to adopt the color of the skin as the -sign of separation, and to organize it in law. - -Color in the animal kingdom is according to the Law of Nature. The ox -of the Roman Campagna is gray. The herds on the banks of the Xanthus -were yellow; on the banks of the Clitumnus they were white. In Corsica -animals are spotted. The various colors of the human family belong -to the same mystery. There are white, yellow, red, and black, with -intermediate shades; but no matter what their hue, they are always -MEN, gifted with a common manhood and entitled to common rights. Dr. -Johnson made short work with the famous paradox of Berkeley, denying -the existence of matter. Striking his foot with mighty force against -a large stone, till he rebounded from it, “I refute it _thus_,” he -exclaimed.[205] And so, in reply to every pretension against the equal -rights of all, to every assertion of right founded on the skin, to -every denial of right because a man is something else than white, I -point to that common manhood which knows no distinction of color, and -thus do I refute the whole inhuman, unchristian paradox. - - -THE WORD “WHITE.” - -Observe, if you please, how little the word “white” is authorized to -play the great part it performs, and how much of an intruder it is -in all its appearances. In those two title-deeds, the Declaration -of Independence and the Constitution, there are no words of color, -whether white, yellow, red, or black; but here is the fountain out of -which all is derived. The Declaration speaks of “all men,” and not of -“all _white_ men”; and the Constitution says, “We the people,” and -not “We the _white_ people.” Where, then, is authority for any such -discrimination, whether by the nation or any component part? There -is no fountain or word for it. The fountain failing, and the word -non-existent, the whole pretension is a disgusting usurpation, which is -more utterly irrational when it is considered that authority for such -an outrage can be found only in positive words, plain and unambiguous -in meaning. This was the rule with regard to Slavery, solemnly declared -by Lord Mansfield in the famous Somerset case; and it must be the same -with regard to this pretension. It cannot be invented, imagined, or -implied; it must be found in the very text: and this I assert according -to fixed principles of jurisprudence. In its absence, Equality is “the -supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound -thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the -contrary notwithstanding.”[206] - -This conclusion is reinforced by the several Constitutional Amendments; -but I prefer to dwell on the original text of the Constitution, in -presence of which you might as well undertake to make a king as to -degrade a fellow-citizen on account of his skin. - -There is also, antedating and interpreting the Constitution, the -original Common Law, which knew no distinction of color. One of the -greatest judges that ever sat in Westminster Hall, Lord Chief-Justice -Holt, declared, in sententious judgment, worthy of perpetual memory, -“The Common Law takes no notice of Negroes being different from other -men.”[207] This was in 1706, seventy years before the Declaration of -Independence; so that it was well known to our fathers as part of that -Common Law, to which, according to the Continental Congress, the -several States were entitled.[208] Had these remarkable words been -uttered by any other judge in Westminster Hall, they would have been -important; but they are enhanced by the character of their illustrious -author, to whom belongs the kindred honor of first declaring from the -bench that a slave cannot breathe in England.[209] - -Among the ornaments of English law none has a purer fame than Holt, -who was emphatically a great judge,--being an example of learning -and firmness, of impartiality and mildness, with a constant instinct -for justice, and a rare capacity in upholding it. His eminent merits -compelled the admiration of his biographer, Lord Campbell, who does -not hesitate to say, that, “of all the judges in our annals, Holt has -gained the highest reputation, merely by the exercise of judicial -functions,”--and then again, in striking words, that “he may be -considered as having a genius for magistracy, as much as our Milton -had for poetry or our Wilkie for painting.”[210] And this rarest -magistrate tells us judicially, that “the Common Law takes no notice -of Negroes being different from other men,”--in other words, it makes -no discrimination on account of color. This judgment is a torch to -illumine the Constitution, while it shows how naturally our fathers -in the great Declaration said, “All men,” and not “All _white_ men,” -and in the Constitution said, “We the people,” and not “We the _white_ -people.” - -In melancholy contrast with the monumental judgment of the English -Chief-Justice are judicial decisions in our own country, especially -that masterpiece of elaborate inhumanity, the judgment of our late -Chief-Justice in the Dred Scott case. But it is in the States that the -word “white” has been made prominent. Such learned debate on the rights -of man dependent on complexion would excite a smile, if it did not -awaken indignation. There is Ohio, a much-honored State, rejoicing in -prosperity, intelligence, and constant liberty; but even this eminent -civilization has not saved its Supreme Court from the subtilties of -refinement on different shades of human color. In the case of _Lake_ -v. _Baker et al._,[211] this learned tribunal decided that a child of -Negro, Indian, and white blood, but of more than one-half white, was -entitled to the benefits of the common-school fund; yet in a later case -the same court decided that “children of three-eighths African and -five-eighths white blood, but who are distinctly colored, and generally -treated and regarded as colored children by the community where they -reside, are not, _as of right_, entitled to admission into the common -schools set apart for the instruction of white youths.”[212] Unhappy -children! Even five-eighths white blood could not save them, if in -their neighborhood they were known as “colored.” But this magic of -color showed itself yet more in the precedent of _Polly Gray_ v. _The -State of Ohio_,--a case of robbery, in the Court of Common Pleas, where -the prisoner appearing on inspection “to be of a shade of color between -the mulatto and white,” a Negro was admitted to testify against her, -and she was convicted; but on grave consideration by the Supreme Court, -on appeal, it was decided that the witness was wrongly admitted, and -the judgment was reversed; and the decision stands on these words: “A -Negro is not an admissible witness against a quadroon on trial charged -with a crime”![213] Into this absurdity of injustice was an eminent -tribunal conducted by the _ignis-fatuus_ of color. - -These are specimens only. To what meanness of inquiry has not the -judicial mind descended in the enforcement of an odious prejudice? Such -decisions are a discredit to Republican Government; and so also is the -existing practice of public institutions harmonizing with them. The -words of the Gospel are fulfilled, and the Great Republic, “conceived -in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created -equal,”[214] becomes “like unto _whited_ sepulchres, which indeed -appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones -and of all uncleanness.”[215] Are not such decisions worse than dead -men’s bones or any uncleanness? All this seems the more irrational, -when we recall the Divine example, and the admonition addressed to the -Prophet: “But the Lord said unto Samuel, _Look not on his countenance_, -… for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward -appearance, _but the Lord looketh on the heart_.”[216] To the -pretension of looking at the skin and measuring its various pigments -in the determination of rights, I reply, that the heart, and not the -countenance, must be our guide. Not on the skin can we look, though -“white” as the coward heart of Macbeth, according to the reproach of -his wife,--but on that within, constituting character, which showed -itself supremely in Toussaint L’Ouverture, making him, though black -as night, a luminous example, and is now manifest in a virtuous and -patriotic people asking for their rights. Where justice prevails, all -depends on character. Nor can any shade of color be an apology for -interference with that consideration to which character is justly -entitled. - -Thus it stands. The word “white” found no place in the original Common -Law; nor did it find any place afterward in our two title-deeds of -Constitutional Liberty, each interpreting the other, and being the -fountain out of which are derived the rights and duties of the American -citizen. Nor, again, did it find place in the Constitutional Amendment -expressly defining a “citizen.” How, then, can it become a limitation -upon the citizen? By what title can any one say, “I am a white lord”? -Every statute and all legislation, whether National or State, must be -in complete conformity with the two title-deeds. To these must they -be brought as to an unerring touchstone; and it is the same with the -State as with the Nation. Strange indeed, if an odious discrimination, -without support in the original Common Law or the Constitution, and -openly condemned by the Declaration of Independence, can escape -judgment by skulking within State lines! Wherever it shows itself, -whatever form it takes, it is the same barefaced and insufferable -imposture, a mere relic of Slavery, to be treated always with indignant -contempt, and trampled out as an unmitigated “humbug.” The word may -not be juridical; I should not use it if it were unparliamentary; but -I know no term which expresses so well the little foundation for this -pretension. - - -CITIZENSHIP. - -That this should continue to flaunt, now that Slavery is condemned, -increases the inconsistency. By the decree against that wrong all -semblance of apology was removed. Ceasing to be a slave, the former -victim has become not only a man, but a Citizen, admitted alike within -the pale of humanity and within the pale of citizenship. As man he is -entitled to all the rights of man, and as citizen he becomes a member -of our common household, with Equality as the prevailing law. No longer -an African, he is an American; no longer a slave, he is a common part -of the Republic, owing to it patriotic allegiance in return for the -protection of equal laws. By incorporation with the body-politic he -becomes a partner in that transcendent unity, so that there can be no -injury to him without injury to all. Insult to him is insult to an -American citizen. Dishonor to him is dishonor to the Republic itself. -Whatever he may have been, he is now the same as ourselves. Our rights -are his rights; our equality is his equality; our privileges and -immunities are his great freehold. To enjoy his citizenship, people -from afar, various in race and complexion, seek our shores, losing here -all distinctions of birth,--as into the ocean all rivers flow, losing -all trace of origin or color, and there is but one uniform expanse -of water, where each particle is like every other particle, and all -are subject to the same law. In this citizenship the African is now -absorbed. - -Not only is he Citizen. There is no office in the Republic, from lowest -to highest, executive, judicial, or representative, which is closed -against him. The doors of this Chamber swing open, and he sits here -the coëqual of any Senator. The doors of the other Chamber also swing -open. Nay, Sir, he may be Vice-President, he may be President; but he -cannot enter a hotel or public conveyance, or offer his child at the -common school, without insult on account of color. Nothing can make -this terrible inconsistency more conspicuous. An American citizen, -with every office wide open to his honorable ambition, in whom are all -the great possibilities of our Republic, who may be anything according -to merit, is exposed to a scourge which descends upon the soul as the -scourge of Slavery descended upon the flesh. - -In ancient times the cry, “I am a Roman citizen,” stayed the scourge of -the Lictor; and this cry, with its lesson of immunity, has resounded -through the ages, testifying to Roman greatness. Once it was on the -lips of Paul, as appears in the familiar narrative:-- - - “And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the - centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man - that is a Roman, and uncondemned? - - “When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief - captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest; for this man is a - Roman. - - … - - “And the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he - was a Roman, and because he had bound him.”[217] - -Will not our “Chief Captain,” will not Senators, take heed what they -do, that the scourge may not continue to fall upon a whole race, each -one of whom is an American and uncondemned? Is our citizenship a -feebler safeguard than that of Rome? Shall the cry, “I am an American -citizen,” be raised in vain against perpetual outrage? - -In speaking of the citizen as of our household, I adopt a distinction -employed by a great teacher in Antiquity. Aristotle, in counsels to -his former pupil, Alexander, before his career of Asiatic conquest, -enjoined a broad distinction between Greeks and Barbarians. The former -he was to treat as friends, and of the household; the latter he was to -treat as brutes and plants.[218] This is the very distinction between -Citizenship and Slavery. The Citizen is of the national household; the -Slave is no better than brute or plant. But our brutes and plants are -all changed into men; our Barbarians are transformed into Greeks. There -is no person among us now, whatever his birth or complexion, who may -not claim the great name of Citizen, to be protected not less at home -than abroad,--but always, whether at home or abroad, by the National -Government, which is the natural guardian of the citizen. - - -EQUAL RIGHTS AND AMNESTY. - -MR. PRESIDENT, asking you to unite now in an act of justice to -a much-oppressed race, which is no payment of that heavy debt -accumulated by generations of wrong, I am encouraged by the pending -measure of Amnesty, which has the advantage of being recommended in -the President’s Annual Message. I regretted, at the time, that the -President signalized by his favor the removal of disabilities imposed -upon a few thousand Rebels who had struck at the life of the Republic, -while he said nothing of cruel disabilities inflicted upon millions -of colored fellow-citizens, who had been a main-stay to the national -cause. But I took courage when I thought that the generosity proposed -could not fail to quicken that sentiment of justice which I now invoke. - -Toward those who assailed the Republic in war I have never entertained -any sentiment of personal hostility. Never have I sought the punishment -of any one; and I rejoice to know that our bloody Rebellion closed -without the sacrifice of a single human life by the civil power. But -this has not surprised me. Early in the war I predicted it in this -Chamber.[219] And yet, while willing to be gentle with former enemies, -while anxious not to fail in any lenity or generosity, and while always -watching for the moment when all could be restored to our common -household with Equality as the prevailing law, there was with me a -constant duty, which I could never forget, to fellow-citizens, white -and black, who had stood by the Republic; and especially to those large -numbers, counted by the million, still suffering under disabilities -having their origin in no crime, and more keenly felt than any imposed -upon Rebels. Believing that duty to these millions is foremost, and -that until they are secured in equal rights we cannot expect the -tranquillity which all desire,--nay, Sir, we cannot expect the blessing -of Almighty God upon our labors,--I bring forward this measure of -justice to the colored race. Such a measure can never be out of order -or out of season, being of urgent necessity and unquestionable charity. - -There are strong reasons why it should be united with amnesty, -especially since the latter is pressed. Each is the removal of -disabilities, and each is to operate largely in the same region of -country. Nobody sincerely favoring generosity to Rebels should hesitate -in justice to the colored race. According to the maxim in Chancery, -“Whoso would have equity must do equity.” Therefore Rebels seeking -amnesty must be just to colored fellow-citizens seeking equal rights. -Doing this equity, they may expect equity. - -Another reason is controlling. Each is a measure of reconciliation, -intended to close the issues of the war; but these issues are not -closed, unless each is adopted. Their adoption together is better -for each, and therefore better for the country, than any separate -adoption. Kindred in object, they should be joined together and never -put asunder. It is wrong to separate them. Hereafter the Rebels should -remember that their restoration was associated with the equal rights of -all, contained in the same great statute. - -Clearly, between the two the preëminence must be accorded to that -for the equal rights of all, as among the virtues justice is above -generosity. And this is the more evident, when it is considered, that, -according to Abraham Lincoln, the great issue of the war was Human -Equality. - - * * * * * - -In making the motion by which these two measures are associated, I -seize the first opportunity since the introduction of my bill, nearly -two years ago, of obtaining for it the attention of the Senate. Beyond -this is with me a sentiment of duty. In the uncertainties of life, I -would not defer for a day the discharge of this immeasurable obligation -to fellow-citizens insulted and oppressed; nor would I postpone that -much-desired harmony which can be assured only through this act of -justice. The opportunity is of infinite value, and I dare not neglect -it. My chief regret is that I cannot do more to impress it upon the -Senate. I wish I were stronger. I wish I were more able to exhibit the -commanding duty. But I can try; and should the attempt fail, I am not -without hope that it may be made in some other form, with increased -advantage from this discussion. I trust it will not fail. Earnestly, -confidently, I appeal to the Senate for its votes. Let the record -be made at last, which shall be the cap-stone of the reconstructed -Republic. - -I make this appeal for the sake of the Senate, which will rejoice to -be relieved from a painful discussion; for the sake of fellow-citizens -whom I cannot forget; and for the sake of the Republic, now dishonored -through a denial of justice. I make it in the name of the Great -Declaration, and also of that Equality before the Law which is the -supreme rule of conduct, to the end especially that fellow-citizens -may be vindicated in “the pursuit of happiness,” according to the -immortal promise, and that the angel Education may not be driven -from their doors. I make it also for the sake of peace, so that at -last there shall be an end of Slavery, and the rights of the citizen -shall be everywhere under the equal safeguard of national law. There -is beauty in art, in literature, in science, and in every triumph -of intelligence, all of which I covet for my country; but there -is a higher beauty still in relieving the poor, in elevating the -down-trodden, and being a succor to the oppressed. There is true -grandeur in an example of justice, making the rights of all the same -as our own, and beating down prejudice, like Satan, under our feet. -Humbly do I pray that the Republic may not lose this great prize, or -postpone its enjoyment. - - Mr. Vickers, of Maryland, on the same day, made an elaborate - effort on the position of the South and Amnesty, which he - opened by saying:-- - - “It is not my purpose to follow the Senator from - Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] in the remarks which he has - made, because his amendment is not only not germane to - the subject-matter properly before the Senate, but is so - palpably unconstitutional that I consider it unnecessary to - make any comment upon it.” - - January 17th, Mr. Sumner spoke again at length, introducing - testimony, being letters, resolutions, and addresses from - various parts of the country, and especially from the South, - showing the necessity of Congressional action for the - protection of Equal Rights, and that such protection was - earnestly desired by colored fellow-citizens. - - At the close he remarked on the importance of equality in the - school-room. - -One of the most important aspects of the pending measure is its -operation on the common school, making it what is implied in its name, -a school open to all. The term “common” explains itself. Originally, -in England, under the law, it designated outlying land near a village -open to all the inhabitants; and the common school is an institution of -education open to all. If you make it for a class, it is not a common -school, but a separate school,--and, as I have said frequently to-day, -and also before in addressing the Senate, a separate school never can -be a _substitute_ for the common school. The common school has for its -badge _Equality_. The separate school has for its badge _Inequality_. -The one has open doors for all; the other has open doors only for those -of a certain color. That is contrary to the spirit of our institutions, -to the promises of the Declaration of Independence, and to all that -is secured in the recent Constitutional Amendments. So long as it -continues, the great question of the war remains still undecided; -for, as I explained the other day, that transcendent issue, as stated -by Jefferson Davis, and then again accepted by Abraham Lincoln, was -Equality. Only by maintaining Equality will you maintain the great -victory of the war. - -Here in Washington this very question of separate schools has for some -time agitated the community. The colored people have themselves acted. -They speak for Equal Rights. I have in my hand a communication to -the Senate from the Secretary of the Interior, under date of January -18, 1871, covering a report from the trustees of the colored schools -of Washington and Georgetown, in which they make most important and -excellent recommendations. How well at last the colored people speak! -Who among us can speak better than they in the passages I am about to -read? - - After reading these passages,[220] which he pronounced - “unanswered and unanswerable,” Mr. Sumner proceeded:-- - -Sir, I bring this testimony to a close. I have adduced letters, -resolutions, addresses from various States, showing the sentiments of -the colored people. I have adduced them in answer to allegations on -this floor that the pending measure of Equal Rights is not needed, -that the pending measure is for social equality. Listening to these -witnesses, you see how they all insist that it is needed, and that it -is in no respect for social equality. It is a measure of strict legal -right. - -I adduce this testimony also in answer to the allegation, so loftily -made in debate the other day, that the colored people are willing to -see the former Rebels amnestied, trusting in some indefinite future to -obtain their own rights. I said at the time that such an allegation was -irrational. I now show you that it is repudiated by the colored people. -They do not recognize the Senators who have undertaken to speak for -them as their representatives. They insist upon their rights before you -play the generous to Rebels. They insist that they shall be saved from -indignity when they travel, and when they offer a child at the common -school,--that they shall be secured against any such outrage before you -remove the disabilities of men who struck at the life of this Republic. - -Now, Sir, will you not be just before you are generous? Or if you do -not place the rights of the colored people foremost, will you not at -least place them side by side with those of former Rebels? Put them -both where I seek now to put them, in the same statute,--so that -hereafter the Rebels shall know that generosity to them was associated -with justice to their colored fellow-citizens,--that they all have a -common interest,--that they are linked together in the community of a -common citizenship, and in the enjoyment of those liberties promised by -the Declaration of Independence and guarantied by the Constitution of -the United States. - - Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, followed with remarks - chiefly in criticism of the form of the bill, and made several - suggestions of amendment. Mr. Sumner stated that his object was - “to get this measure in the best shape possible,” and that he - should welcome any amendment from any quarter; that he did not - feel as strongly as the Senator “the difference between his - language and the text,” but that he was anxious to harmonize - with him. Mr. Sumner afterwards modified his bill in pursuance - of Mr. Frelinghuysen’s suggestions. - - The debate was continued on different days,--Mr. Sawyer, of - South Carolina, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, - Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, speaking - strongly against the bill of Mr. Sumner. Mr. Sawyer objected - to it as an amendment to the Amnesty Bill. Mr. Nye of Nevada, - and Mr. Flanagan of Texas spoke for the bill. The latter, after - saying that he had read the Constitution for himself, and was - “satisfied that the proposed amendment was constitutional,” - added other reasons:-- - - “One is, that I discover, that, if we should remain here, - as we certainly shall do, for a very considerable period, - petitions will come in to such a degree, requiring so much - paper, that really the price will be vastly enhanced, and - it will thereby become a considerable tax to the Government - of the United States; for the Senator is receiving, I might - almost say, volumes--I know not what the quantity is; it is - immense, however--from all parts of the nation.” - - And then again:-- - - “Again I am reminded that it is best to try to get rid of - the imposing Senator [Mr. SUMNER] on that subject, just - as the lady answered her admirer. The suitor had been - importuning her time and again, and she had invariably - declined to accept the proposition. At length, however, - being very much annoyed, she concluded to say ‘yes,’ - just to get rid of his importunity. I want to go with - the Senator to get rid of this matter, [_laughter_,] - because, really, Mr. President, we find his bill here as - a breakwater. A concurrent resolution was introduced here - for the adjournment of Congress at a particular day. Well, - you saw that bill thrust right on it. ‘Stop!’ says he, ‘you - must not adjourn until my bill is passed.’ There it was - again; here it is now; and we shall continue to have it; - and I am for making peace with it by a general surrender at - once. [_Laughter._] I stop not there, Mr. President; I go - further, and I indorse the Senator to the utmost degree in - his proposition.”[221] - - Mr. Morrill, in an elaborate argument, denied point-blank the - constitutionality of the bill,--insisting, and repeating with - different forms of expression, that “the exercise of this power - on the part of Congress would be a palpable invasion of the - rights of the people of the States in their purely domestic - relations.… This Constitution has given us no such authority - and no such power.”[222] - - January 31st, Mr. Sumner replied to Mr. Morrill. - - -REPLY TO MR. MORRILL. - -MR. PRESIDENT, before this debate closes, it seems to me I shall be -justified in a brief reply to the most extraordinary, almost eccentric, -argument by my excellent friend, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL]. -He argued against the constitutionality of the pending amendment,--you -all remember with how much ingenuity and earnestness. I shall not -follow him in the details of that speech. I shall deal with it somewhat -in the general, and part of the time I shall allow others to speak for -me. - -But before I come upon that branch of the case, I feel that in justice -to colored fellow-citizens I ought to see that they have a hearing. -Senators whom they helped elect show no zeal for their rights. Sir, -they have a title to be heard. They are able; they can speak for -themselves; but they are not here to speak. Therefore they can be heard -only through their communications. Here is one from a member of the -Virginia House of Delegates. It came to my hands yesterday, and is -dated “Richmond, January 29, 1872.” I wish the Senate would hear what -this member of the Virginia House says on the pending amendment. - - The letter, as read by Mr. Sumner, concluded as follows:-- - - “We all, Sir, the whole colored population of Virginia, - make this appeal through you to a generous Senate, and - pray, for the sake of humanity, justice, and all that is - good and great, that equal common rights may be bestowed - on a grateful and loyal people before disabilities shall - have been stricken from those who struck at the very - heart-strings of the Government.” - -Can any Senator listen to that appeal and not feel that this Virginian -begins to answer the Senator from Maine? He shows an abuse; he -testifies to a grievance. Sir, it is the beginning of the argument. My -friend seemed almost to ignore it. He did not see the abuse; he did not -recognize the grievance. - - MR. MORRILL. I certainly did see it, and I certainly recognize - it. The only difference between the Senator and myself, so far - as the argument is concerned, is one simply of power. - -MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that. But first is the point, whether the -Senator recognizes the grievance; and here let me tell my excellent -friend, that, did he see the grievance as this colored citizen sees it, -did he feel it as this colored citizen feels it,--Sir, did he simply -see it as I see it,--he would find power enough in the Constitution to -apply the remedy. I know the generous heart of the Senator; and I know -that he could not hesitate, did he really see this great grievance. -He does not see it in its proportions. He does not see how in real -character it is such that it can be dealt with only by the National -power. I drive that home to the Senator. It is the beginning of the -argument in reply to him, that the grievance is such that it can be -dealt with adequately only by Congress. Any other mode is inefficient, -inadequate, absurd. I begin, therefore, by placing the Senator in that -position. Unhappily he does not see the grievance. He has no conception -of its vastness, extending everywhere, with ramifications in every -State, _and requiring one uniform remedy, which, from the nature of the -case, can be supplied only by the Nation_. - -And now I come to the question of power; and here I allow a colored -fellow-citizen to be heard in reply to the Senator. I read from a -letter of E. A. Fulton, of Arkansas:-- - - “I have seen and experienced much of the disabilities which - rest upon my race and people from the mere accident of color. - Grateful to God and the Republicans of this country for our - emancipation and the recognition of our citizenship, I am - nevertheless deeply impressed with the necessity of further - legislation for the perfection of our rights as American - citizens.” - -This colored citizen is impressed, as the Senator is not, with the -necessity of further legislation for the perfection of his rights as an -American citizen. He goes on:-- - - “I am also thoroughly persuaded that this needed legislation - should come from the National Congress.” - -So he replies to my friend. - - “Local or State legislation will necessarily be partial and - vacillating. Besides, our experience is to the effect that the - local State governments are unreliable for the enforcement or - execution of laws for this purpose. - - “In Arkansas, for example, a statute was enacted by the General - Assembly of 1868 for the purpose of securing the equal rights - of colored persons upon steamboats, railroads, and public - thoroughfares generally. The provisions of the statute were - deemed good, if not entirely sufficient; yet to the present - time gross indignities continue to be perpetrated upon colored - travellers, men and women, while those charged under oath to - see the laws faithfully executed look on with seeming heartless - indifference while the law remains a dead letter on the - statute-book. - - “With a care and anxiety which one vitally interested alone can - feel I have examined and weighed this subject.” - -Here, Sir, he replies again to my friend. I should like the Senator to -notice the sentence:-- - - “With a care and anxiety which one vitally interested alone can - feel”-- - -as, of course, my friend cannot feel, since he has not that vital -interest-- - - “I have examined and weighed this subject.” - -What does he conclude? - - “I am fully persuaded that nothing short of national - legislation, and national authority for its enforcement, will - be found sufficient for the maintenance of our God-given rights - as men and women, citizens of this great and free country.” - - * * * * * - - MR. MORRILL. As my honorable friend emphasizes that particular - point, will he be kind enough to say whether he reads that - letter as an authority showing that Congress has the power to - do what he asks, or whether it is simply an individual opinion - that some such legislation is necessary? - -MR. SUMNER. I think my friend must know that I do not read the letter -as an authority, according to his use of the term. By-and-by I shall -come to the authority. I read it as the opinion of a colored citizen-- - - MR. MORRILL. As to the necessity of legislation? - -MR. SUMNER. Who has felt the grievance, and testifies that the remedy -can only be through the Nation. There is where he differs from my -friend. - - MR. MORRILL. It is not necessary to read evidence to me that - the colored people think there ought to be legislation by - Congress. The question between the Senator and myself is - precisely this: What is your authority? - -MR. SUMNER. I am coming to that. This is only the beginning. - - MR. MORRILL. When you come to that, and make an issue with me, - I shall be ready to answer. - -MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that in due season, and give the Senator -the opportunity he desires. I shall speak to the question of power. -Meanwhile I proceed with the letter:-- - - “I have read with joy your recently presented Supplementary - Civil Rights Bill. It meets my hearty approval. In the name of - God and down-trodden humanity, I pray you press its enactment - to a successful consummation. - - “Such a law, firmly enforced, coupled with complete amnesty”-- - -You see the point, Mr. President,--“coupled with complete amnesty”-- - - “for political offences to those who once held us in - bondage, will furnish, as I believe, the only sound basis of - reconstruction and reconciliation for the South.” - -Now my friend will not understand that I exaggerate this letter. I do -not adduce it as authority, but simply as testimony, showing what an -intelligent colored fellow-citizen thinks with regard to his rights on -two important points much debated: first, as to the necessity of remedy -through the National Government; and, secondly, as to the importance of -uniting this assurance of Equal Rights with Amnesty, so that the two -shall go together. - -Before coming directly to the authority on which my friend is so -anxious, I call attention to another communication, from the President -of the Georgia Civil Rights Association, which I think should be read -to the Senate. It is addressed to me officially; and if I do not read -it, the Senate will not have the benefit of it. There is no Senator -from Georgia to speak for the Civil Rights Association. I shall let -them speak by their President, Captain Edwin Belcher:-- - - “I realize more and more, every day, the necessity of such a - measure of justice as your ‘Supplementary Bill.’ When that - becomes a law, the freedom of my race will then be complete.” - -I call attention to that point. This writer regards the pending measure -essential to complete the Abolition of Slavery; and I hope you will not -forget this judgment, because it will be important at a later moment in -vindicating the constitutional power of Congress. “When that becomes a -law, the freedom of my race will then be complete,”--not before, not -till then, not till the passage of the Supplementary Civil Rights Bill. -Down to that time Slavery still exists. Such, Sir, is the statement -of a man once a slave, and who knows whereof he speaks; nor can it be -doubted that he is right. - - After reading the letter at length, Mr. Sumner proceeded:-- - -This instructive letter is full of wise warnings, to which we cannot be -indifferent. It is testimony, but it is also argument. - -The necessity of this measure appears not only from Georgia, but -even from Pennsylvania. I have in my hands an article by Richard T. -Greener, the principal of the Colored Institute at Philadelphia, where -he vindicates the pending bill. I read a brief passage, and simply -in reply to the Senator from Maine, on the necessity of Congressional -action. Mr. Greener is no unworthy representative of his race. He knows -well how to vindicate their rights. Here is what he says:-- - - “Not three weeks ago, the Committee which waited on the - President from this city, in behalf of Mr. Sumner’s bill, were - refused accommodations at the dépôt restaurant in Washington, - and only succeeded in being entertained by insisting upon - just treatment. It has scarcely been three months since the - secretary of the American legation at Port-au-Prince, Rev. J. - Theodore Holly, with his wife and three children, was refused - a state-room on the steamer running between New Haven and New - York city.” - -Then he shows the necessity:-- - - “Should Minister Bassett himself, indorsed by the Union League, - return home and arrive late at night, there are probably not - two hotels, such as a gentleman of his station would wish to - stop at, where he could be accommodated,--not a theatre or - place of amusement which he could visit without insult or - degrading restrictions,--not a church, except it be a Quaker - or Catholic one, where he would not be shown into the gallery, - or else be made to feel uncomfortable: so outrageous are the - current American ideas of common hospitality and refinement; - so vindictive is this persecution of a humble class of your - fellow-citizens.” - -Lastly he vindicates the pending measure, and asks for a two-thirds -vote:-- - - “The Supplementary Bill ought to pass by a two-thirds vote. - If it passes by a simple majority, we shall, of course, be - satisfied, and understand the reason why. If Republican - Senators, elected by colored votes, give their influence and - votes against this measure, it might be well for them to - remember that Negroes, along with instinct, have ‘terrible - memories.’” - -And now, Sir, after these brief illustrations, where our colored -fellow-citizens have spoken for themselves, showing the necessity of -legislation by the Nation, because only through the Nation can the -remedy be applied, I come to the precise argument of the Senator. He -asks for the power. Why, Sir, the National Constitution is bountiful -of power; it is overrunning with power. Not in one place or two places -or three places, but almost everywhere, from the Preamble to the last -line of the latest Amendment; in the original text and in all our -recent additions, again and again. Still further, in that great rule of -interpretation conquered at Appomattox, which, far beyond the surrender -of Lee, was of infinite value to this Republic. I say a new rule of -interpretation for the National Constitution, according to which, in -every clause and every line and every word, it is to be interpreted -uniformly and thoroughly for human rights. Before the Rebellion the -rule was precisely opposite. The Constitution was interpreted always, -in every clause and line and word, for Human Slavery. Thank God, it is -all changed now! There is another rule, and the National Constitution, -from beginning to end, speaks always for the Rights of Man. That, Sir, -is the new rule. That, Sir, is the great victory of the war; for in -that are consummated all the victories of many bloody fields,--not -one victory, or two, but the whole,--gleaming in those principles of -Liberty and Equality which are now the pivot jewels of the Constitution. - -My excellent friend from Maine takes no notice of all this. He goes -back for his rule to those unhappy days before the war. He makes the -system of interpretation, born of Slavery, his melancholy guide. With -such Mentor, how can he arrive at any conclusion other than alien to -Human Rights? He questions everything, denies everything. He finds no -power for anything, unless distinctly written in positive and precise -words. He cannot read between the lines; he cannot apply a generous -principle which will coördinate everything there in harmony with the -Declaration of Independence. - -When I refer to the Declaration, I know well how such an allusion is -too often received on this floor. I have lived through a period of -history, and do not forget that I here heard our great title-deed -arraigned as “a self-evident lie.” There are Senators now, who, while -hesitating to adopt that vulgar extravagance of dissent, are willing -to trifle with it as a rule of interpretation. I am not frightened. -Sir, I insist that the National Constitution must be interpreted by the -National Declaration. I insist that the Declaration is of equal and -coördinate authority with the Constitution itself. I know, Sir, the -ground on which I stand. I need no volume of law, no dog-eared page, -no cases to sustain me. Every lawyer is familiar with the fundamental -beginning of the British Constitution in Magna Charta. But what is -Magna Charta? Simple concessions wrung by barons of England from an -unwilling monarch; not an Act of Parliament, nothing constitutional -in our sense of the term; simply a declaration of rights: and such -was the Declaration of Independence. And now, Sir, I am prepared to -insist, that, whenever you are considering the Constitution, so far -as it concerns human rights, you must bring it always to that great -standard; the two must go together; and the Constitution can never -be interpreted in any way inconsistent with the Declaration. Show me -any words in the Constitution applicable to human rights, and I invoke -at once the great truths of the Declaration as the absolute guide to -their meaning. Is it a question of power? Then must every word in the -Constitution be interpreted so that Liberty and Equality shall not fail. - -My excellent friend from Maine takes no notice of this. He goes back to -days when the Declaration was denounced as “a self-evident lie,” and -the Constitution was interpreted always in the interest of Slavery. -Sir, I object to this rule. I protest against it with all my mind -and heart and soul. I insist that just the opposite must prevail, -and I start with this assumption. I shall not make a long argument, -for the case does not require it. I desire to be brief. You know the -Amendment:-- - - “SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except - as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been - duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any - place subject to their jurisdiction. - - “SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article - by appropriate legislation.” - -Here is an Amendment abolishing Slavery. Does it abolish Slavery half, -three-quarters, or wholly? Here I know no half, no three-quarters; I -know nothing but the whole. And I say the article abolishes Slavery -entirely, everywhere throughout this land,--root and branch,--in -the general and the particular,--in length and breadth, and then in -every detail. Am I wrong? Any other interpretation dwarfs the great -Amendment, and permits Slavery still to linger among us in some of -its insufferable pretensions. Sir, I insist upon thorough work. When -I voted for that article, I meant what it said,--that Slavery should -cease absolutely, entirely, and completely. But, Sir, Congress has -already given its testimony to the true meaning of the article. Shortly -after its adoption, it passed what is known as the Civil Rights Law, by -which the courts of justice throughout the country, State as well as -National, are opened to colored persons, who are authorized not only to -sue and be sued, but also to testify,--an important right most cruelly -denied, even in many of the Northern States, making the intervention of -the Nation necessary, precisely as it is necessary now. That law was -passed by both Houses of Congress, vetoed by the President, and passed -then by a two-thirds vote over the veto of the President, and all in -pursuance of these words:-- - - “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by - appropriate legislation.” - -Remark, if you please, the energy of that expression; I have often -had occasion to call attention to it. It is a departure from the old -language of the Constitution:-- - - “The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be - necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing - powers.” - -It is stronger,--more energetic:-- - - “Congress shall have power to _enforce_”-- - -Mark, Sir, the vitality of the word-- - - “to _enforce_ this article by appropriate legislation.” - -The whole field of apt legislation is open to be employed by Congress -in enforcing Abolition. Congress entered upon that field and -passed the original Civil Rights Act. And who among us now, unless -one of my friends on the other side of the Chamber, questions the -constitutionality of that Act? Does any one? Does any one doubt it? -Does any one throw any suspicion upon it? Would any one have it dropped -from the statute-book on any ground of doubt or hesitation? If there -is any Senator in this category, I know him not. I really should like -to have him declare himself. I will cheerfully yield the floor to any -one willing to declare his doubts of the constitutionality of the Civil -Rights Act. [_After waiting a sufficient time._] Sir, there is no -Senator who doubts it. - -Now, how can any Senator, recognizing the constitutionality of the -original Civil Rights Act, doubt the present supplementary measure? -Each stands on the same bottom. If you doubt one, you must doubt the -other. If you rally against that Amendment, your next move should -be to repeal the existing Civil Rights Act as inconsistent with the -Constitution. Why does not my excellent friend from Maine bring -forward his bill? Why does he not invite the Senate to commence the -work of destruction, to tear down that great remedial statute? Why is -he silent? Why does he hang back, and direct all his energies against -the supplementary measure, which depends absolutely upon the same -constitutional power? If he is in earnest against the pending motion, -he must show the same earnestness against the preliminary Act. - -When I assert that Congress has ample power over this question, I rely -upon a well-known text often cited in this Chamber, often cited in our -courts,--the judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced by Chief-Justice -Marshall, in the case of _McCulloch_ v. _State of Maryland_, from which -I will read a brief extract:-- - - “But the argument on which most reliance is placed is drawn - from the peculiar language of this clause. Congress is not - empowered by it to make all laws which may have relation to - the powers conferred on the Government, but such only as may - be ‘_necessary and proper_’ for carrying them into execution. - The word ‘_necessary_’ is considered as controlling the whole - sentence, and as limiting the right to pass laws for the - execution of the granted powers to such as are indispensable, - and without which the power would be nugatory,--that it - excludes the choice of means, and leaves to Congress in each - case that only which is most direct and simple.” - -These words show how the case was presented to the Court. Here is the -statement of John Marshall:-- - - “We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government - are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. - But we think the sound construction of the Constitution - must allow to the National Legislature that discretion with - respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be - carried into execution which will enable that body to perform - the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial - to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within - the scope of the Constitution, and _all means which are - appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are - not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the - Constitution, are constitutional_.”[223] - -In other words, the Supreme Court will not undertake to sit in judgment -on the means employed by Congress for carrying out a power which exists -in the Constitution. Now the power plainly exists in the Constitution; -it is to abolish Slavery, and it is for Congress in its discretion to -select the means. Already it has selected the Civil Rights Law as the -first means for enforcing the abolition of Slavery. I ask it to select -the supplementary bill now pending as other means to enforce that -abolition. One of the letters that I have read to-day from a leading -colored citizen of Georgia said: “When that becomes a law, the freedom -of my race will then be complete.” It is not complete until then; and -therefore, in securing that freedom, in other words in enforcing the -Constitutional Amendment, Congress is authorized to pass the bill which -I have felt it my duty to introduce, and which is now moved on the -Amnesty Bill. - -I might proceed with this argument. But details would take time, and -I think they are entirely needless. The case is too strong. It needs -no further argument. You have the positive grant of power. You have -already one instance of its execution, and you have the solemn decision -of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring that it is in the -discretion of Congress to select the means by which to enforce the -powers granted. How, Sir, can you answer this conclusion? How can my -excellent friend answer it? - -Were I not profoundly convinced that the conclusion founded on the -Thirteenth Amendment was unanswerable, so as to make further discussion -surplusage, I should take up the Fourteenth Amendment, and show how, -in the first place, we have there the definition of a Citizen of the -United States, and then, in the second place, an inhibition upon the -States, so that they cannot make or enforce any law which shall abridge -the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor -deny to any person within the jurisdiction of the United States the -equal protection of the laws. And here again Congress is empowered -to enforce these provisions by appropriate legislation. Surely, if -there were any doubt in the Thirteenth Amendment, as there is not, -it would all be removed by this supplementary Amendment. Here is the -definition of Citizenship, and the right to the equal protection of -the laws,--in other words, Citizenship and Equality, both placed under -the safeguard of the Nation. Whatever will fortify these is within the -power of Congress by express grant. But if these are interpreted by the -Declaration of Independence, as I insist, the conclusion is still more -irresistible. - -Add the original text of the Constitution, declaring that “the citizens -of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of -citizens in the several States.” These words, already expounded by -judicial interpretation,[224] are now elevated and inspired by the new -spirit breathing into them the breath of a new life, and making them -yet another source of Congressional power for the safeguard of equal -rights. - -But I have not done with my friend. I am going to hand him over to be -answered by one of his colored fellow-citizens who has no privilege -on this floor. I put George T. Downing face to face with my excellent -friend, the Senator from Maine. The Senator will find his argument -in one of the papers of the day. I shall read enough to show that he -understands the question, even constitutionally:-- - - “But I come directly,” says he, “to ‘misconception,’--to - thwarting justice. The Senator”-- - -Referring to the Senator from Maine-- - - “opposes Senator Sumner’s amendment; he says it invokes an - implication of some principle or provision of the Constitution - somewhere, or an implication arising from the general fitness - of things possibly, to enable it to invade the domiciliary - rights of the citizens of a State.” - -These were the precise words of the Senator; I remember them well; -I was astonished at them. I could not understand by what delusion, -hallucination, or special _ignis-fatuus_ the Senator was led into -the idea that in this bill there is any suggestion of invading the -domiciliary rights of the citizens of the States. Why, Sir, the Senator -has misread the bill. I will not say he has not read it. He certainly -has misread it. And now let our colored fellow-citizen answer him:-- - - “I do not speak unadvisedly, when I declare that no such end - is desired by a single intelligent colored man; no such design - can be gleaned from any word ever spoken by Charles Sumner; his - amendment cannot by any reasonable stretch of the imagination - be open to the implication.” - -Not a Senator, not a lawyer says that; it is only one of our colored -fellow-citizens whom the Senator would see shut out of the cars, shut -out of the hotels, his children shut out from schools, and himself -shut out from churches; and seeing these things, the Senator would do -nothing, because Congress is powerless! Our colored fellow-citizen -proceeds:-- - - “The amendment says that all citizens, white and black, - are entitled to the equal and impartial enjoyment of any - accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege furnished - by common carriers, by innkeepers, by licensed theatres, by - managers of common schools supported by general taxation or - authorized by law. Does any of the same invade the domiciliary - rights of a citizen in any State?” - -That is not my language, Sir; it is Mr. Downing’s. - - “Could any man, white or black, claim a right of entrance into - the domicile of the poorest, the humblest, the weakest citizen - of the State of Maine by virtue of Mr. Sumner’s amendment, when - it shall become a law? Certainly not; a man’s private domicile - is his own castle: no one, with even kingly pretensions, dare - force himself over its threshold. But the public inn, the - public or common school, the public place of amusement, as - well as common carriers, asking the special protection of law, - created through its action on the plea and for the benefit of - the public good, have no such exclusive right as the citizen - may rightfully claim within his home; and it seems to me to be - invoking the aid of an unholy prejudice in attempting to force - the idea that Mr. Sumner desires, or that the colored people - in petitioning for civil rights are designing, to break into - social circles against the wish of those who compose them.” - -It is difficult to answer that. The writer proceeds:-- - - “I have the testimony of Senator Morrill, this same Senator, - to the fact ‘that equality before the law, without distinction - of race or color,’ is a constitutional right,--for we have his - declaration to that effect recorded, and further setting forth - that it is ‘the duty of the Circuit Court of the United States - to afford a speedy and convenient means for the arrest and - examination of persons charged with a disregard of the same.’ - (See proceedings of Senate, April, 1866.)” - -I have not verified this reference; I read it as I find it. The Senator -will know whether he has heretofore employed such generous language, -in just conformity with the Constitution. Assuming now that he has -used this language, I think, as a lawyer, he will feel that George T. -Downing has the better of him. I ask my friend to listen, and perhaps -he will confess:-- - - “If equality before the law be a constitutional right, as - testified to by Mr. Morrill, and if it be the duty of the - Federal courts to protect the same, as he further affirms, is - not all conceded as to the right of Congress to act in the case - in question, when it is shown that the public inn, the public - school, the common carrier, are necessary institutions under - the control of law, where equality without regard to race or - color may be enforced? Can there be any question as to the same? - - “I further invoke the letter of the Constitution _in behalf - of Congressional action_ to protect me in the rights of an - American citizen; for instance,”-- - -Again I say, this is not the argument of a Senator, nor of a lawyer, -but only of one of those colored fellow-citizens for whom my friend can -find no protection,-- - - “for instance, that article which says, ‘The judicial power - shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this - Constitution.’ If equality before the law be, as Mr. Morrill - has declared, a constitutional right, the judicial power of - the United States reaches the same. Another section says, ‘The - citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and - immunities of citizens in the several States.’” - -The writer is not content with one clause of the Constitution:-- - - “Another section says, ‘No State shall make or enforce - any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of - citizens of the United States.’ Another section says, ‘The - United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union - a republican form of government.’ The section last cited - contemplates a case where a controlling power shall strive - to have it otherwise, and the subordinated individuals need - protection. Congress is left the judge of what constitutes a - republican form of government, and consequently of the rights - incidental thereto.” - -Then again:-- - - “Another section says, ‘This Constitution, and the laws of - the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, - shall be the supreme law of the land.’ Another section says, - ‘The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be - necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers - vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United - States.’ Will it be said that the power is not vested in the - Government of the United States to protect the rights of its - citizens, and that it is not necessary and proper to do so? - - “The Senator admits that there is a constitutional inhibition - against proscribing men because of their race or color in - the enjoyment of rights and privileges, but he denies the - existence of a constitutional right on the part of Congress to - act in defence of the supreme law, when a State may disregard - the Constitution in this respect. I read the Constitution - otherwise. I conclude, that, when the supreme law says of right - a thing shall not be, Congress, which has that supreme law as - its guide and authority, has the power to enforce the same.” - -That, Sir, is the reply of a colored fellow-citizen to the speech of my -excellent friend. I ask Senators to sit in judgment between the speech -and the reply. I ask if my excellent friend is not completely answered -by George T. Downing? If the latter has been able to do this, it is -because of the innate strength of his own cause and the weakness of -that espoused by the Senator. Our colored commentator places himself on -the texts of the Constitution, and interprets them liberally, justly, -for the equal rights of his race. The Senator places himself on -those same texts, but in an evil moment surrenders to that malignant -interpretation which prevailed before the war and helped to precipitate -the Rebellion. - -Sir, I ask, Is not the constitutionality of this measure vindicated? -Does any one really doubt its constitutionality? Can any one show a -reason against it? Sir, it is as constitutional as the Constitution -itself. You may arraign that great charter; you may call it in doubt; -you may say that it is imperfect, that it is wrong; but I thank God it -exists to be our guide and master, so that even my excellent friend, -the able and ingenious Senator, snatching reasons, if not inspiration, -from _ante bellum_ arguments, when State Rights were the constant cry, -and from speeches in other days, cannot overturn it. The Constitution -still lives, and as long as it lives it must be interpreted by the -Declaration of Independence to advance human rights. - -This is my answer to the Senator on the question of power, to which he -invited attention. I have spoken frankly, I hope not unkindly: but on -this question I must be plain and open. Nor is this all. - -Sir, there is a new force in our country. I have alluded to a new rule -of interpretation; I allude now to a new force: it is the colored -people of the United States counted by the million; a new force with -votes; and they now insist upon their rights. They appear before you -in innumerable petitions, in communications, in letters, all praying -for their rights. They appeal to you in the name of the Constitution, -which is for them a safeguard,--in the name of that great victory over -the Rebellion through which peace was sealed; and they remind you that -they mean to follow up their appeal at the ballot-box. I have here an -article in the last “New National Era,” of Washington, a journal edited -by colored persons,--Frederick Douglass is the chief editor,--and -devoted to the present Administration. What does it say? - - “Here, then, is a measure, just and necessary, the embodiment - of the very principles upon which the Government is founded, - and which distinguish it from monarchical and aristocratic - Governments,--a measure upon which there should be no division - in the Republican Party in Congress, and of which there is - no question as to its being of more importance than Amnesty. - Without this measure Amnesty will be a crime, merciless to the - loyal blacks of the South, and an encouragement of treason - and traitors. We have met colored politicians from the South - who think that the Amnesty proposition is an attempt to gain - the good-will of the white voters of the South at the expense - of the colored voters. Should this feeling become general - among the colored people, there is danger of a division of the - colored vote to such an extent as to defeat the Republican - Party. Give us the just measure of protection of our civil - rights before the pardoning of those who deny us our rights and - who would destroy the nation, and the colored people can feel - assured that they are not to be forced into a back seat, and - that traitors are not to be exalted.” - -Is not this natural? If you, Sir, were a colored citizen, would you -not also thus write? Would you not insist that you must doubt any -political party, pretending to be your friend, that failed in this -great exigency? I know you would. I know you would take your vote in -your hand and insist upon using it so as to secure your own rights. - -The testimony accumulates. Here is another letter, which came this -morning, signed, “An Enfranchised Republican,” dated at Washington, -and published in the “New York Tribune.” It is entitled, “President -Grant and the Colored People.” The writer avows himself in favor of -the renomination of General Grant, but does not disguise his anxiety -at what he calls “the President’s unfortunate reply to the colored -delegation which lately waited on him.” - -Now, Sir, in this sketch you see a slight portraiture of a new force -in the land, a political force which may change the balance at any -election,--at a State election, at a Presidential election even. Take, -for instance, Pennsylvania. There are colored voters in that State -far more than enough to turn the scale one way or the other, as they -incline; and those voters, by solemn petition, appeal to you for their -rights. The Senator from Maine rises in his place and gravely tells -them that they are all mistaken, that Congress has no power to give -them a remedy,--and he deals out for their comfort an ancient speech. - -Sir, I trust Congress will find that it has the power. One thing I -know: if it has the power to amnesty Rebels, it has the power to -enfranchise colored fellow-citizens. The latter is much clearer than -the former. I do not question the former; but I say to my excellent -friend from Maine that the power to remove the disabilities of colored -fellow-citizens is, if possible, stronger, clearer, and more assured -than the other. Unquestionably it is a power of higher necessity and -dignity. The power to do justice leaps forth from every clause of -the Constitution; it springs from every word of its text; it is the -inspiration of its whole chartered being. - -Mr. President, I did not intend to say so much. I rose to-day merely to -enable the absent to speak,--that colored fellow-citizens, whose own -Senators had failed them, might be heard through their written word. I -did not intend to add anything of my own; but the subject is to me of -such incalculable interest, and its right settlement is so essential to -the peace of this country, to its good name, to the reconciliation we -all seek, that I could not resist the temptation of making this further -appeal. - - February 1st, Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, in an elaborate - speech, replied to Mr. Sumner, and criticized his bill, - especially so far as it secured equal rights in churches and - juries. - - February 5th, in pursuance of the opposition announced in - his speech, Mr. Carpenter moved another bill as a substitute - for Mr. Sumner’s. Mr. Norwood, of Georgia, sustained the - substitute; Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, Mr. Frelinghuysen of - New Jersey, and Mr. Morton of Indiana predicated the earlier - proposition. Mr. Sumner then replied to Mr. Carpenter. - -Before the vote is taken, I hope the Senate will pardon me, if I -explain briefly the difference between the two amendments. - -First let me say a word in regard to the way in which the amendment -moved by me comes before the Senate. Even this circumstance has been -dwelt on in this debate, and I have been criticized--I think not always -justly--on that account. Here is a memorandum made for me at the -desk from the Journal of the Senate, which shows the history of this -amendment. I will read it.[225] - -… - -At last, during this session, before the holidays, when the present -measure of Amnesty was under consideration, I found for the first time -a chance. Twice had I introduced the bill, and on my motion it was -referred to the Judiciary Committee, who had twice reported against -it. Sir, was I to be discouraged on that account? No committee enjoys -higher authority on this floor than the Judiciary Committee; but I -have been here long enough to know that its reports do not always find -favor. Have we not during this very session, within a very few days, -seen that committee overruled on the Apportionment question? - - -REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. - -Therefore, Sir, I am not without precedent, when I bring forward an -important measure and ask your votes, even though it have not the -sanction of this important committee. I wish it had their sanction; -but I do not hesitate to say that this bill is more important to the -Judiciary Committee than that committee is important to the bill. In -this matter the committee will suffer most. A measure like this, which -links with the National Constitution, and with the Declaration of -Independence, if the Senator from Wisconsin will pardon me-- - - MR. CARPENTER. I rise to ask why that inquiry is made of me. - Have I criticized allusions to the Declaration of Independence? - -MR. SUMNER. I feared the Senator would not allow allusion to the -Declaration, except as a “revolutionary” document. I say, this measure, -linked as it is with the great title-deeds of our country, merits the -support not only of the Judiciary Committee, but of this Chamber. The -Senate cannot afford to reject it. - -Sir, I am weak and humble; but I know that when I present this measure -and plead for its adoption I am strong, because I have behind me -infinite justice and the wrongs of an oppressed race. The measure is -not hasty. It has been carefully considered already in this Chamber, -much considered elsewhere, considered by lawyers, by politicians,--ay, -Sir, and considered by our colored fellow-citizens, whose rights it -vindicates. But at the eleventh hour the Senator comes forward with a -substitute which is to a certain extent an emasculated synonym of the -original measure, seeming to be like and yet not like, feeble where the -original is strong, incomplete where the original is complete, petty -where the original is ample, and without machinery for its enforcement, -while the original is well-supplied and most effective. - -That you may understand the amendment introduced by me, I call -attention to the original Civil Rights Act, out of which it grows and -to which it is a supplement. That great statute was passed April 9, -1866, and is entitled, “An Act to protect all persons in the United -States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means of their -vindication.”[226] It begins by declaring who are citizens of the -United States, and then proceeds:-- - - “Such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any - previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except - as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been - duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and - Territory in the United States,”-- - -To do what? - - “to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give - evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey - real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit - of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and - property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject - to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, - any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the - contrary notwithstanding.” - -The Senate will perceive that this Act operates not only in the -National but in the State jurisdiction. No person will question that. -It operates in every National court and in every State court. The -language is, “in every State and Territory in the United States.” -Every State court is opened. Persons without distinction of color are -entitled to sue and be sued, especially to be heard as witnesses, and -the colored man may hold up his hand as the white man.… - -Now I ask the Senator from Wisconsin to consider what is the difference -in character between the right to testify and the right to sit on a -jury. - - MR. CARPENTER. Or on the bench. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator will allow me to put the question in my own -way. I say nothing about the bench, and the Senator is too good a -lawyer not to see why. He knows well the history of trial by jury; -he knows that at the beginning jurors were witnesses from the -neighborhood,--afterward becoming judges, not of law, but of fact. -They were originally witnesses from the vicinage; so that, if you go -back to the very cradle of our jurisprudence, you find jurors nothing -but witnesses: and now I insist that they must come under the same -rule as witnesses. If the courts are opened to colored witnesses, I -insist by the same title they must be opened to colored jurors. Call -the right political or civil, according to the distinction of the -Senator. No matter. The right to be a juror is identical in character -with the right to be a witness. I know not if it be political or civil; -it is enough for me that it is a right to be guarded by the Nation. -I say nothing about judges; for the distinction is obvious between -the two cases. I speak now of colored jurors; and I submit, as beyond -all question, that every reason or argument which opens the courts -to colored witnesses must open them to colored jurors. The two go -together, as natural yoke-fellows. - -But do not, Sir, forget the necessity of the case. How can justice be -administered throughout States thronging with colored fellow-citizens, -unless you have them on the juries? Denying to colored fellow-citizens -their place on the juries, you actually deny them justice. This is -plain, and presents a case of startling wrong. I am in the receipt of -letters almost daily, complaining of the impossibility of obtaining -justice in State courts because colored fellow-citizens are excluded -from juries. I say, therefore, from the necessity of the case, and also -from the analogy of witnesses, the courts should be opened to colored -jurors. The Senator makes a mistake, when he deals his blow in the very -Temple of Justice. He strikes down the safeguards of justice for the -whole colored race; and what is the excuse? That to sit on the jury is -a question of politics,--that it is a political right, and not a civil -right. Sir, I cannot bring myself to make any question whether it is a -civil right or a political right; it is a right. It is a right which -those men have by the Law of Nature, and by the National Constitution -interpreted by the National Declaration. - -But, Sir, not content with striking at the colored race even in -the very Temple of Justice, the Senator, finding an apology in the -Constitution, insists upon the very exclusion from churches which the -famous Petroleum V. Nasby had set up before. From juries I now come to -churches. The Senator is not original; he copies, as I shall show, from -a typical Democrat, who flourished during the war. But before I come to -his prototype, let us consider the constitutional question presented by -the Senator with so much gravity, without even the smile that plays so -readily on his countenance. He seemed in earnest, when he read these -words of the National Constitution:-- - - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of - religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” - -And still without a smile he argued that the application of the -great political principles of the Declaration and of the recent -Constitutional Amendments to a church organization incorporated by -law was a violation of this provision, and he adduced the work of the -much-venerated friend of my early life, and my master, the late Judge -Story, expounding that provision. I do not know if the Senator read -these words from the commentary of that great jurist:-- - - “The real object of the Amendment was not to countenance, much - less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by - prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among - Christian sects,”-- - -Observe, Sir, what it is,-- - - “but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to - prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should - give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the National - Government.”[227] - -How plain and simple! The real object was to exclude all rivalry -among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical -establishment. Such was the real object. - -But the Senator says, if Congress decrees that the Declaration of -Independence in its fundamental principles is applicable to a church -organization incorporated by State or National authority, we violate -this provision of the Constitution! You heard him, Sir; I do no -injustice to his argument. - -Our authority, Judge Story, continues in another place:-- - - “It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from - ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and - the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic as - well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to - exclude from the National Government all power to act upon the - subject.”[228] - -To act upon what? The subject of a religious establishment. No pretence -here of denying to Congress the establishment of police regulations, -if you please, or the enforcement by law of the fundamental principles -of the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing in this text -inconsistent with such a law. The Constitution forbids all interference -with religion. It does not forbid all effort to carry out the -primal principles of republican institutions. Now, Sir, here is no -interference with religion. I challenge the Senator to show it. There -is simply the assertion of a political rule, or, if you please, a -rule of political conduct. Why, Sir, suppose the manners and morals -which prevailed among the clergy of Virginia during the early life -of Mr. Jefferson, and recently revealed by the vivid pen of one of -our best writers, should find a home in the churches of Washington. -You have read Mr. Parton’s account in a late number of the “Atlantic -Monthly.”[229] Suppose Congress, taking into consideration the peculiar -circumstances, should give expression to public sentiment and impose -a penalty for such scandalous conduct here under our very eyes; would -that be setting up an Established Church? Would that be a violation of -the National Constitution, in the provision which the Senator invokes, -“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? -And yet, in the case I suppose, Congress would enter the churches; -it might be only in the District of Columbia; but the case shows how -untenable is the position of the Senator, according to which the effort -of Congress to preserve churches from the desecration of intemperance -would be kindred to setting up an established religion. There is a -desecration as bad as intemperance, which I now oppose. I introduce the -case of intemperance only as an illustration. - -And now, Sir, I come to the question. Suppose Congress declares that no -person shall be excluded from any church on account of race, color, or -previous condition; where is the interference with the constitutional -provision? Is that setting up a church establishment? Oh, no, Sir! It -is simply setting up the Declaration of Independence in its primal -truths, and applying them to churches as to other institutions. - - MR. CARPENTER. Will my friend allow me,--not for the purpose of - interrupting him, but to come to the point? Suppose Congress - should pass a law that in no church in this country should the - Host be exalted during divine service. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator knows well the difference. This is a religious -observance. - -Congress cannot interfere with any religious observance. Congress can -do nothing to set up a religious establishment. It can make no law -respecting an establishment of religion. But the Senator must see -that in the case he puts, the proposed law would be the very thing -prohibited by the Constitution. I thank him for that instance. I -propose no interference with any religious observance,--not in the -least: far from it. - -Sir, the case is clear as day. All that I ask is, that, in harmony with -the Declaration of Independence, there be complete equality before the -law everywhere,--in the inn, on the highway, in the common school, -in the church, on juries,--ay, Sir, and in the last resting-place -on earth. The Senator steps forward and says: No,--I cannot accept -equality in the church. There the Constitutional Amendments interpreted -by the Declaration are powerless; there a White Man’s Government -shall prevail. A church organization may be incorporated by National -or State authority, and yet allowed to insult brothers of the human -family on account of the skin. In the church this outrage may be -perpetrated,--because to forbid it would interfere with religion and -set up an establishment. - -Such, Sir, is the argument of the Senator; and he makes it in the name -of Religious Liberty! Good God, Sir! Religious liberty! The liberty -to insult a fellow-man on account of his skin! You listened to his -eloquent, fervid appeal. I felt its eloquence, but regretted that such -power was employed in such a cause. - -I said, that, consciously or unconsciously, he had copied Petroleum V. -Nasby, in the letter of that renowned character entitled, “Goes on with -his Church,” from which I read a brief passage:-- - - “CHURCH OF ST. VALLANDIGUM, - “_June the 10th, 1863_. - - “We hed a blessid and improvin time yisterday. My little flock - staggered in at the usual hour in the mornin, every man in a - heavenly frame uv mind, hevin bin ingaged all nite in a work - uv mercy, to wit: a mobbin uv two enrollin officers. One uv - em resisted, and they smote him hip and thigh, even ez Bohash - smote Jaheel. (Skriptooral, wich is nessary, bein in the - ministry.) He wuz left for dead. - - “We opened servis by singin a hym, wich I writ, commencin ez - follows:-- - - “Shel niggers black this land possess, - And mix with us up here? - O, no, my friends; we rayther guess - We’ll never stand that ’ere.”[230] - - [_Laughter._] - -I ask if that is not the Senator’s speech? [_Laughter._] I know not -whether it is necessary for me to go further. Something more, I might -say. Very well, I will; the Senator rather invites me. - -The Senator becomes here the representative of Caste; and where, Sir? -In a Christian church; and while espousing that cause, he pleads the -National Constitution. Now, Sir, I have to repeat--and here I am -determined not to be misunderstood--we have no right to enter the -church and interfere in any way with its religious ordinances, as -with the raising of the Host; but when a church organization asks the -benefit of the law by an act of incorporation, it must submit to the -great primal law of the Union,--the Constitution of the United States, -interpreted by the Declaration of Independence. The Senator smiles -again; I shall come to that by-and-by. Whenever a church organization -seeks incorporation, it must submit to the great political law of the -land. It can have the aid it seeks only by submitting to this political -law. Here is nothing of religion; it is the political law, the law of -justice, the law of Equal Rights. The Senator says, No; they may do as -they please in churches, because they are churches, because they are -homes of religion, of Christianity; there they may insult on account -of the skin. I call that a vindication of Caste, and Caste in one of -its most offensive forms. You all know, Sir, the history of Caste. It -is the distinction of which we first have conspicuous record in the -East, though it has prevailed more or less in all countries; but it -is in the East that it showed itself in such forms as to constitute -the type by which we describe the abuse. It is an offensive difference -between persons founded on birth, not unlike that maintained among us -on account of a skin received from birth. - -And now pardon me, if I call attention to the way in which this -discrimination has been characterized by the most eminent persons -familiar with it. I begin with the words of an estimable character -known in religion and also in poetry,--Bishop Heber, of Calcutta, who -pictured Caste in these forcible terms:-- - - “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.”[231] - -Then comes the testimony of Rev. Mr. Rhenius, a zealous and successful -missionary in the East:-- - - “I have found Caste, both in theory and practice, to be - diametrically opposed to the Gospel, which inculcates love, - humility, and union; whereas Caste teaches the contrary. It is - a fact, in those entire congregations where Caste is allowed, - the spirit of the Gospel does not enter; whereas in those from - which it is excluded we see the fruits of the Gospel spirit.” - - * * * * * - - MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him to - ask whether these commentaries are read for the purpose of - construing the Constitution of the United States? That is the - only point of difference between us. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator will learn before I am through. I shall apply -them. - - After quoting other authorities, Mr. Sumner proceeded:-- - -These witnesses are strong and unimpeachable. In Caste, Government is -nurturing a tremendous evil,--a noxious plant, by the side of which the -Graces cannot flourish,--part and parcel of Idolatry,--a system which, -more than anything else the Devil has yet invented, tends to destroy -the feelings of general benevolence. Such is Caste,--odious, impious, -accursed, wherever it shows itself. - -Now, Sir, I am ready to answer the inquiry of the Senator, whether -I read these as an interpretation of the Constitution of the United -States. Not precisely; but I do read them to exhibit the outrage -which seems to find a vindicator in the Senator from Wisconsin,--in -this respect, at least, that he can look at the National Constitution, -interpreted by the National Declaration, proclaiming the Equal Rights -of All, and find no word empowering Congress to provide that in -churches organized by law this hideous outrage shall cease. I think I -do no injustice to the Senator. He finds no power. He tells us that -if we exercise this power we shall have an Established Church, and he -invokes the National Constitution. Sir, I, too, invoke the National -Constitution,--not in one solitary provision, as the Senator does, but -from its Preamble to its last Amendment,--and I invoke the Declaration -of Independence. The Senator may smile. I know how he treats that great -charter. I know how in other days he has treated it. But, Sir, the -Declaration survives. It has been trifled with, derided, insulted often -on this floor, but it is more triumphant now than ever. Its primal -truths, announced as self-evident, are more commanding and more beaming -now than when first uttered. They are like the sun in the heavens, with -light and warmth. - -… - -Sir, is not the Senator answered? Is not the distinction clear as -noonday between what is prohibited by the Constitution and what is -proposed by my amendment? The difference between the two is as wide -as between the sky and the earth. They cannot be mingled. There is -no likeness, similitude, or anything by which they can be brought -together. The Senator opposes a religious amendment. I assert that -there shall be no political distinction; and that is my answer to his -argument on churches. - -And now, Sir, may I say, in no unkindness, and not even in criticism, -but simply according to the exigencies of this debate, that the Senator -from Wisconsin has erred? If you will listen, I think you will see the -origin of his error. I do not introduce it here; nor should I refer to -it, if he had not introduced it himself. The Senator has never had an -adequate idea of the Great Declaration. The Senator smiles. I have been -in this Chamber long enough to witness the vicissitudes of opinion on -our Magna Charta. I have seen it derided by others more than it ever -was by the Senator from Wisconsin. - - MR. CARPENTER. I should like to ask the Senator from - Massachusetts when he ever heard me deride it. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator will pardon me; I am coming to that. The -Senator shall know. The person who first in this Chamber opened assault -upon the Declaration was John C. Calhoun, in his speech on the Oregon -Bill, June 27, 1848. He denounced the claim of equality as “the most -false and dangerous of all political errors”; and he proceeded to say -that it “has done more to retard the cause of Liberty and Civilization, -and is doing more at present, than all other causes combined.” He then -added, that “for a long time it lay dormant, but in the process of time -it began to germinate and produce its poisonous fruits,”[232]--these -poisonous fruits being that public sentiment against Slavery which was -beginning to make itself felt. - -This extravagance naturally found echo from his followers. Mr. Pettit, -a Senator from Indiana, after quoting “We hold these truths to be -self-evident, that all men are created equal,” proceeded:-- - - “I hold it to be a self-evident lie. There is no such thing. - Sir, tell me that the imbecile, the deformed, the weak, the - blurred intellect in man is my equal, physically, mentally, or - morally, and you tell me a lie. Tell me, Sir, that the slave - in the South, who is born a slave, and with but little over - one-half the volume of brain that attaches to the northern - European race, is his equal, and you tell what is physically a - falsehood. There is no truth in it at all.”[233] - -This was in the Senate, February 20, 1854. Of course it proceeded on a -wretched misconstruction of the Declaration, which announced equality -of rights and not any other equality, physical, intellectual, or moral. -It was a declaration of rights,--nor more nor less. - -Then, in the order of impeachment, followed a remarkable utterance -from a much-valued friend of my own and of the Senator, the late Rufus -Choate, who, without descending into the same particularity, seems -to have reached a similar conclusion, when, in addressing political -associates, he characterized the Declaration of Independence as “that -passionate and eloquent manifesto of a revolutionary war,” and then -again spoke of its self-evident truths as “the glittering and sounding -generalities of natural right.”[234] This was in his letter to the -Maine Whig State Central Committee, August 9, 1856. In my friendship -for this remarkable orator, I can never think of these too famous words -without a pang of regret. - -This great question became a hinge in the memorable debate between -Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln in the contest for the Senatorship of -Illinois, when the former said, in various forms of speech, that “the -Declaration of Independence only included the white people of the -United States”;[235] and Abraham Lincoln replied, that “the entire -records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence -up to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single -affirmation, from one single man, that the negro was not included in -the Declaration.”[236] This was in Mr. Lincoln’s speech at Galesburg, -October 7, 1858. Elsewhere he repeated the same sentiment. - -Andrew Johnson renewed the assault. After quoting the great words of -the Declaration, he said in this Chamber, December 12, 1859:-- - - “Is there an intelligent man throughout the whole country, is - there a Senator, when he has stripped himself of all party - prejudice, who will come forward and say that he believes that - Mr. Jefferson, when he penned that paragraph of the Declaration - of Independence, intended it to embrace the African population? - Is there a gentleman in the Senate who believes any such - thing?… There is not a man of respectable intelligence who will - hazard his reputation upon such an assertion.”[237] - -All this is characteristic of the author, as afterward revealed to us. - -Then, Sir, in the list we skip to April 5, 1870, when the Senator -from Wisconsin ranges himself in the line, characterizing the great -truths of the Declaration as “the generalities of that revolutionary -pronunciamento.” In reply to myself, he rebuked me, and said that it -was my disposition, if I could not find a thing in the Constitution, -to seek it in the Declaration of Independence,--and if it were not -embodied in “the generalities of that revolutionary pronunciamento,” -then to go still further.[238] - -I present this exposition with infinite reluctance; but the Senator -makes it necessary. In his speech the other day, he undertook to state -himself anew with regard to the Declaration. He complained of me -because I made the National Constitution and the National Declaration -coëqual, and declared, that, if preference be given to one, it must be -to the Declaration. To that he replied:-- - - “Now the true theory is plain.” - -Mr. President, you are to have the “true theory” on this important -question:-- - - “If the Senator from Massachusetts says, that in doubtful - cases it is the duty of a court, or the duty of the Senate, or - the duty of any public officer, to consider the Declaration - of Independence, he is right. So he must consider the whole - history of this country; he must consider the history of the - Colonies, the Articles of Confederation, all anterior history. - That is a principle of Municipal Law. A contract entered into - between two individuals, in the language of the cases, must - be read in the light of the circumstances that surrounded - the parties who made it. Certainly the Constitution of the - United States must be construed upon the same principle; and - when we are considering a doubtful question, the whole former - history of the country, the Declaration of Independence, the - writings of Washington and of Jefferson and of Madison, the - writings in ‘The Federalist,’--everything that pertained to - that day and gives color and tone to the Constitution, must be - considered.”[239] - -Plainly, here is improvement. There is no derision. The truths of the -Declaration are no longer “the generalities of that revolutionary -pronunciamento.” - - MR. CARPENTER. Oh, yes, it is; I stand by that. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator stands by that. Very well. - - MR. CARPENTER. I glory in it. I glory in all the history of - that revolutionary period, our revolutionary fathers, our - revolutionary war. It is the Revolution that I make my stand - upon. - -MR. SUMNER. Then, as the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] remarks, -the Senator should give some effect to what he glories in. I hope he -will not take it all out in glory, but will see that a little of it is -transfused into Human Rights. - - MR. CARPENTER. All that is consistent with the express - provisions of the Constitution. - -MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that. The point is, that the Senator treats -the Declaration of Independence as no better than the writings of -Washington, of Jefferson, of Madison, “The Federalist,” and everything -that pertains to that day. It is only part and parcel of contemporary -history,--of no special consequence, no binding character, not -supreme, but only one of the authorities, or at least one of the -witnesses, by which we are to read the Constitution. Sir, is it so -regarded by Congress,--or at least is it so regarded by the committee -of this body under whose direction is printed what is known familiarly -as “The Constitution, Rules, and Manual”? Here is the little volume, -to which we daily turn. I find that the first document is the National -Declaration, preceding the National Constitution. Sir, it precedes -the Constitution in time, as it is more elevated in character. The -Constitution is a machine, great, mighty, beneficent. The Declaration -supplies the principles giving character and object to the machine. -The Constitution is an earthly body, if you please; the Declaration is -the soul. The powers under the Constitution are no more than the hand -to the body; the Declaration is the very soul itself. But the Senator -does not see it so. He sees it as no better than a letter of Jefferson -or Madison, or as some other contemporary incident which may help us -in finding the meaning of the Constitution. The Senator will not find -many ready to place themselves in the isolation he adopts. It was not -so regarded by the historian who has described it with more power and -brilliancy than any other,--Mr. Bancroft. After setting forth what it -contains, he presents it as a new and lofty Bill of Rights:-- - - “This immortal state-paper, which for its composer was the - aurora of enduring fame, was ‘the genuine effusion of the soul - of the country at that time,’ the revelation of its mind, - when, in its youth, its enthusiasm, its sublime confronting of - danger, it rose to the highest creative powers of which man is - capable. _The bill of rights which it promulgates_ is of rights - that are older than human institutions, and spring from the - eternal justice that is anterior to the State.”[240] - -The vivid presentment of this state-paper, in its commanding character, -like an ordinance for mankind, above all other contemporary things, -shows its association with our great national anniversary. - - “The nation, when it made the choice of a day for its - great anniversary, selected not the day of the resolution - of independence, when it closed the past, but that of the - declaration of the principles on which it opened its new - career.”[241] - -Shall I remind you, Sir, of that famous letter by John Adams to his -wife, written the day after the Resolution of Independence, and pending -the Declaration? Of this epoch he predicts, in words quoted with -annual pride, that it “will be the most memorable in the history of -America,--celebrated by descending generations as the great anniversary -festival,--commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts -of devotion to God Almighty,--solemnized with pomp and power, with -cheers, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, -from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward -forevermore.”[242] And yet this Declaration, annually celebrated, -having the first pages of our statute-book, placed in the fore-front of -the volume of rules for our guidance in this Chamber, this triumphant -Magna Charta, is to be treated as “the generalities of a revolutionary -pronunciamento,” or at best as of no more value than the letter of a -contemporary statesman. Sir, the Senator misconceives the case; and -there, allow me to say, is his error. - - MR. CARPENTER. The Senator understood me to say, at least I - said, in construing the Constitution you must undoubtedly - look to the Declaration of Independence, as you must look to - all the contemporary history of that day. Did I say there - was no difference in the different documents? Did I say that - no more importance was to be attached to the Declaration of - Independence than to a letter of Madison or Washington? No, - Sir,--I said no such thing. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator shall speak for himself. He has spoken now, and -you shall hear what he said before:-- - - “Certainly the Constitution of the United States must be - construed upon the same principle.” - -That is, as “a contract entered into between two individuals.” - - “And when we are considering”-- - -What?-- - - “a doubtful question, the whole former history of the country, - the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Washington and - of Jefferson and of Madison, the writings in ‘The Federalist,’ - everything that pertained to that day and gives color and tone - to the Constitution, must be considered.” - -I am happy in any word of respect for the Declaration,--because the -claim of Equal Rights stands on the Constitution interpreted by the -Declaration. - -This brings me again to the main question. We have the National -Constitution from the Preamble to the signature of George Washington, -and then we have the recent Amendments, all to be interpreted by the -National Declaration, which proclaims, as with trumpet:-- - - “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are - created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with - certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, - and the pursuit of happiness.” - -Unquestionably the Constitution supplies the machinery by which these -great rights are maintained. I say it supplies the machinery; but I -insist, against the Senator, and against all others, that every word -in the Constitution must be interpreted by these primal, self-evident -truths,--not merely in a case that is doubtful, as the Senator says, -but constantly and always, so that the two shall perpetually go -together, as the complement of each other; but the Declaration has -a supremacy grander than that of the Constitution, more sacred and -inviolable, for it gives the law to the Constitution itself. Every word -in the Constitution is subordinate to the Declaration. - -Before the war, when Slavery prevailed, the rule was otherwise, -naturally; but, as I have already said, the grandest victory of the -war was the establishment of the new rule by which the Declaration -became supreme as interpreter of the Constitution. Take, therefore, -any phrase in the Constitution, take any power, and you are to bring -it all in subordination to those supreme primal truths. Every power -is but the agent by which they are maintained; and when you come to -those several specific powers abolishing slavery, defining citizenship, -securing citizens in their privileges and immunities, guarding them -against any denial of the equal protection of the laws, and then again -securing them the right to vote, every one of these safeguards must be -interpreted so as best to maintain Equal Rights. Such I assert to be -Constitutional Law. - -Sir, I cannot see it otherwise. I cannot see this mighty Magna Charta -degraded to the level of a casual letter or an item of history. Why, -Sir, it is the baptismal vow of the Republic; it is the pledge which -our fathers took upon their lips when they asked the fellowship of -mankind as a free and independent nation. It is loftier than the -Constitution, which is a convenience only, while this is a guide. -Let no one smile when it is invoked. Our fathers did not smile on -the great day. It was with them an earnest word, opening the way to -victory, and to that welcome in the human family with which our nation -has been blest. Without these words what would have been the National -Declaration? How small! Simply a dissolution of the tie between the -Colonies and the mother country; a cutting of the cord,--that is all. -Ah! it was something grander, nobler. It was the promulgation of primal -truths, not only for the good of our own people, but for the good -of all mankind. Such truths can never die. It is for us to see that -they are recognized without delay in the administration of our own -Government. - - Mr. Carpenter replied at some length. Mr. Sumner followed. - - -SECOND REPLY TO MR. CARPENTER. - -The Senator insists that I am willing to disregard the Constitution. On -what ground can the Senator make any such assertion? Does he suppose -that his oath is stronger with him than mine with me? - - MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to answer him? - -MR. SUMNER. Certainly. - - MR. CARPENTER. I assume that, for the reason that when we - come here to discuss a constitutional question, the power of - Congress to do a certain thing, the Senator flies from the - Constitution and goes to the Declaration of Independence, and - says that is the source of power. - -MR. SUMNER. The Senator ought to know very well that I have never said -any such thing. The Senator proclaims that I fly from the Constitution -to the Declaration, which I insist is the source of power. I now yield -the floor again, and ask the Senator when I said what he asserts. - - MR. CARPENTER. The Senator said that the Declaration was - coördinate in authority with the Constitution. What did he - mean by that? I supposed he used the word in the ordinary - acceptation; and if he did, he meant to say that the - Declaration was a coördinate grant of power. - -MR. SUMNER. Just the contrary, Mr. President. Senators will bear me -witness. I appeal to you all. I said just the contrary. Repeatedly -I said that in my judgment the Declaration of Independence was not -a grant of power, but coëqual with the Constitution,--the one being -a grant of power, and the other a sovereign rule of interpretation. -That is what I said. And now the Senator, in the face of my positive -words, not heeding them at all, although they are found in the “Globe,” -vindicates himself by putting into my mouth what I never said or -suggested, and then proceeds to announce somewhat grandly that I set -the Constitution at nought. I challenge the Senator again to point -out one word that has ever fallen from my lips, during my service in -this Chamber, to sustain him in his assertion. I ask him to do it. He -cannot. But why this imputation? Is the oath we have all taken at -that desk binding only on him? Does he assume that he has a monopoly -of its obligations; that other Senators took it with levity, ready -to disregard it,--or at least that I have taken it so? Such is the -assumption; at least it is his assumption with regard to me. - -Now I tell the Senator, and I beg him to understand it for the future, -that I shall not allow him to elevate himself above me in any loyalty -to the Constitution. Willingly do I yield to the Senator in all he can -justly claim of regard and honor. But I do not concede precedence in -that service, where, if he does not magnify himself, he degrades me. - -I have served the National Constitution longer than he has, and with -such fidelity as I could command. I have served it at moments of peril, -when the great principles of Liberty to which I have been devoted were -in jeopardy; I have served it when there were few to stand together. -In upholding this Constitution, never did I fail at the same time to -uphold Human Rights. That was my supreme object; that was the ardent -aspiration of my soul. Sir, I know how often I have failed,--too often; -but I know that I never did fail in devotion to the Constitution, -for the true interpretation of which I now plead. The Senator speaks -without authority, and, he must pardon me if I say, with levity, when -he makes such an allegation against one whose record for the past -twenty years in this Chamber is ready to answer him. I challenge him to -point out one word ever uttered by me to justify his assault. He cannot -do it. He makes his onslaught absolutely without one tittle of evidence. - -Sir, I have taken the oath to support the Constitution, but it is that -Constitution as I understand it. In other days, when this Chamber was -filled with intolerant slave-masters, I was told that I did not support -the Constitution, as I have been told to-day by the Senator, and I -was reminded of my oath. In reply I borrowed the language of Andrew -Jackson, and announced, that, often as I had taken that oath, I had -taken it always to support the Constitution as I understood it; and -it is so now. I have not taken an oath to support the Constitution as -the Senator from Wisconsin understands it, without its animating soul. -Sir, my oath was to support the National Constitution as interpreted -by the National Declaration. The oath of the Senator from Wisconsin -was different; and there, Sir, is the precise divergence between us. -He swore, but on his conscience was a soulless text. I am glad that my -conscience felt that there was something more. - -The Senator must hesitate before he assaults me again for any failure -in devotion to the Constitution. I put my life against the life of the -Senator; I put my little service, humble as it is, against the service -of the Senator; I put every word uttered by me in this Chamber or -elsewhere against all that has been said by the Senator,--and the world -shall pronounce between us on the question he has raised. If I have -inclined in favor of Human Rights, if I have at all times insisted that -the National Constitution shall be interpreted always so that Human -Rights shall find the greatest favor, I have committed no error. In -the judgment of the Senator I may have erred, but I know that in the -judgment of the American people I have not erred; and here I put myself -upon the country to be tried. - -Sir, on that issue I invoke the sentiments of mankind and posterity -when all of us have passed away. I know that it will be then written, -that the National Constitution is the Charter of a mighty Republic -dedicated to Human Rights, dedicated at its very birth by the Great -Declaration, and that whoever fails to enlarge and ennoble it by the -interpretation through which Human Rights are most advanced will fail -in his oath to support the Constitution: ay, Sir, fail in his oath! - - The debate was continued successive days: Mr. Thurman of Ohio, - Mr. Ferry of Connecticut, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Kelly, both of - Oregon, Mr. Hill of Georgia, Mr. Stevenson of Kentucky, and - Mr. Tipton of Nebraska speaking against Mr. Sumner’s bill; Mr. - Harlan, of Iowa, in favor of it; and Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New - Jersey, declaring his support, if Mr. Sumner would modify its - provisions as to “churches.” - - The substitute of Mr. Carpenter was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays - 34. A motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen to make the bill inapplicable - to “churches” was carried,--Yeas 29, Nays 24. The next - question was on a motion of Mr. Carpenter to strike out the - clause relating to “juries.” This was earnestly debated by Mr. - Edmunds, of Vermont. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sumner - remarked:-- - -There is a famous saying that comes to us from the last century, -that the whole object of government in England--of King, Lords, and -Commons--is to bring twelve men into a jury-box. Sir, that is the whole -object of government, not only in England, but in every other country -where law is administered through popular institutions; and especially -is it the object of government here in the United States; and the -clause in this bill which it is now proposed to strike out is simply to -maintain that great principle of popular institutions. - - This amendment was rejected,--Yeas 12, Nays 42. Other - amendments were moved and rejected. - - * * * * * - - The question was then taken on Mr. Sumner’s bill as an - amendment to the Amnesty Bill, and it was adopted by the - casting vote of Vice-President Colfax,--the Senate being - equally divided, Yeas 28, Nays 28, as follows:-- - - YEAS,--Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Brownlow, Cameron, Chandler, - Clayton, Conkling, Cragin, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan, - Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan, Morrill of Vermont, - Morton, Osborn, Patterson, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Sherman, - Spencer, Sumner, West, Wilson, Windom, and Wright,--28. - - NAYS,--Messrs. Blair, Boreman, Carpenter, Cole, Corbett, Davis - of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Hamilton - of Texas, Hill, Hitchcock, Johnston, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of - Maine, Norwood, Pool, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz, - Scott, Stevenson, Stockton, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, and - Vickers,--28. - - ABSENT,--Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Buckingham, Caldwell, - Casserly, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Flanagan, - Hamilton of Maryland, Howe, Kellogg, Lewis, Nye, Pratt, - Sprague, and Stewart,--17. - - The announcement of the adoption of the amendment was received - with great applause in the galleries. - - The provisions relating to Amnesty were then taken up, and - after some modification of them Mr. Sumner declared his purpose - to vote for the Bill as amended,--that it was now elevated and - consecrated, and that whoever voted against it must take the - responsibility of opposing a great measure for the assurance of - Equal Rights. - - The question was then taken on the passage of the bill as - amended, when it was rejected,--Yeas 33, Nays 19,--two-thirds - not voting in the affirmative. Democrats opposed to the Civil - Rights Bill voted against Amnesty with this association. - - The attention of the Senate was at once occupied by other - business, so that Amnesty and Civil Rights were for the time - superseded. - - * * * * * - - May 8th, another Amnesty Bill, which had passed the House, - being under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved to strike out - all after the enacting clause and insert the Civil Rights - Bill. Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, promptly objected that the - amendment was not in order; but Vice-President Colfax overruled - the point, and was sustained by the Senate. The next day Mr. - Ferry moved to strike out of Mr. Sumner’s bill the words - applicable to “common schools and other public institutions - of learning,” which was rejected,--Yeas 25, Nays 26. Mr. - Blair, of Missouri, then moved that “the people of every city, - county, or State” should “decide for themselves the question - of mixed or separate schools,” and this was rejected,--Yeas - 23, Nays 30. Mr. Carpenter moved to strike out the section - relating to “juries,” and this was rejected,--Yeas 16, Nays - 33. On a motion by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to strike out - the first five sections of Mr. Sumner’s bill, the votes being - Yeas 29, Nays 29, the casting vote of Vice-President Colfax - was given in the negative, amidst manifestations of applause - in the galleries. The question was then taken on the motion to - substitute the Civil Rights Bill for the Amnesty Bill, and it - was lost,--Yeas 27, Nays 28. Mr. Sumner at once moved the Civil - Rights Bill as an addition, with the result,--Yeas 28, Nays 28, - and the adoption of the amendment by the casting vote of the - Vice-President. This amendment as in Committee of the Whole - was then concurred in by the Senate,--Yeas 27, Nays 25. On the - passage of the bill thus amended, the vote stood, Yeas 32, Nays - 22; so that, two-thirds not voting in the affirmative, the bill - was rejected. - - Again there was a lull in the two measures. - - * * * * * - - May 10th, Mr. Sumner introduced another Supplementary Civil - Rights Bill, being his original bill with such verbal changes - and emendations as had occurred during its protracted - consideration, and the bill was placed on the calendar of the - Senate without reference to a committee. - - * * * * * - - May 21st, the Senate having under consideration a bill to - extend the provisions of the Enforcement Act in the Southern - States, known as the Ku-Klux Act, and entering upon a “night - session” in order to pass the bill, Mr. Sumner, who was an - invalid, contrary to his habit left the Chamber. In the early - morning the bill was passed, when the Senate, on motion of Mr. - Carpenter, of Wisconsin, took up Mr. Sumner’s Civil Rights - Bill, and, striking out all after the enacting clause, inserted - a substitute, imperfect in machinery, and with no allusion - to schools, institutions of learning, churches, cemeteries, - juries, or the word “white.” The bill thus changed passed the - Senate in Mr. Sumner’s absence. Meanwhile Mr. Spencer, of - Alabama, had moved an adjournment, saying, “It is unfair and - unjust to take a vote upon this bill during the absence of the - Senator from Massachusetts.… I insist on the motion to adjourn, - as the Senator from Massachusetts is not here.” The motion - was rejected. A messenger from the Senate informed Mr. Sumner - of the effort making, and he hurried to the Chamber; but the - bill had been already acted on, and another Amnesty Bill on - the calendar taken up, on motion of Mr. Robertson, of South - Carolina, and pressed to a final vote. Mr. Sumner arrived in - season to protest against this measure, unless associated with - Equal Rights. At the first opportunity after reaching his seat, - he said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT, I understand that in my absence, and without any notice -to me from any quarter, the Senate have adopted an emasculated Civil -Rights Bill, with at least two essential safeguards wanting,--one -concerning the Common Schools, and the other concerning Juries. The -original bill contains both, and more; and I now ask the Senate, most -solemnly, to consider whether, while decreeing equal rights for all -in the land, they will say that those equal rights shall not prevail -in the common school and in the jury. Such I understand to have been -the vote of the Senate. What will ensue, should it be confirmed by -the other House? The spirit of Caste will receive new sanction in the -education of children; justice will find a new impediment in the jury. - -Sir, I plead for the colored race, who unhappily have no representative -on this floor. I ask the Senate to set its face against the spirit of -Caste now prevailing in the common schools, against the injustice now -installed in the jury. I insist that the Senate shall not lose this -great opportunity. You recognize the commanding principle of the bill. -Why not, then, apply it throughout, so that hereafter there shall be no -question? For, Sir, be well assured, there is but one way of settling -this great cause, and that is by conceding these equal rights. So long -as they are denied you will have the colored people justly complaining -and knocking at your doors,--and may I say, so long as I remain in this -Chamber you will have me perpetually demanding their rights. I cannot, -I will not cease. I ask, Sir, that this terrible strife be brought -to an end, and the cause settled forever. Now is the time. But this -cannot be, except by the establishment of equal rights absolutely and -completely wherever the law can reach. - -Sir, early in life I vowed myself to nothing less than the idea of -making the principles and promises of the Declaration of Independence -a living reality. This was my aspiration. For that I have labored. And -now at this moment, as its fulfilment seems within reach, I appeal to -my fellow-Senators that there shall be no failure on their part. Make, -I entreat you, the Declaration of Independence in its principles and -promises a living letter; make it a practical reality. - -One word more. You are about to decree the removal of disabilities -from those who have been in rebellion. Why will you not, with better -justice, decree a similar removal of disabilities from those who have -never injured you? Why will you not accord to the colored race the -same amnesty you offer to former Rebels? Sir, you cannot go before -the country with this unequal measure. Therefore, Sir, do I insist -that Amnesty shall not become a law, unless at the same time the Equal -Rights of All are secured. In debate this winter I have often said -this, and I repeat it now with all the earnestness of my nature. Would -I were stronger, that I might impress it upon the Senate! - - A motion by Mr. Sumner to append his bill was rejected,--Yeas - 13, Nays 27,--and the question returned on the Amnesty Bill. - - Mr. Sumner then declared his purpose to vote against the - Amnesty Bill:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT, I long to vote for amnesty; I have always hoped to vote -for it; but, Sir, I should be unworthy of my seat as a Senator if I -voted for it while the colored race are shut out from their rights, -and the ban of color is recognized in this Chamber. Sir, the time has -not come for amnesty. How often must I repeat, “Be just to the colored -race before you are generous to former rebels”? Unwillingly I press -this truth; but it belongs to the moment. I utter it with regret; for -I long to record my name in behalf of amnesty. And now let it not go -forth that I am against amnesty. I here declare from my seat that I am -for amnesty, provided it can be associated with the equal rights of -the colored race; but if not so associated, then, so help me God, I am -against it. - - The Amnesty Bill was then passed, with only two dissenting - votes,--Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Nye, of Nevada. - - Mr. Sumner then made an ineffectual effort to obtain a - reconsideration of the votes just taken, so that on another - day, in a full Senate, he could be heard. Here he said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT, I had supposed that there was an understanding among the -friends of civil rights that the bill for their security should be kept -on a complete equality with that for amnesty,--which could be only by -awaiting a bill from the House securing civil rights, precisely as we -have a bill from the House securing amnesty. The two measures are not -on an equality, when the Senate takes up a House bill for amnesty and -takes up simply a Senate bill for civil rights. I will not characterize -the transaction; but to me it is painful, for it involves the sacrifice -of the equal rights of the colored race,--as is plain, very plain. -All this winter I have stood guard here, making an earnest though -unsuccessful effort to secure those rights, insisting always that they -should be recognized side by side with the rights of former Rebels. -Many Senators agreed with me; but now, at the last moment, comes the -sacrifice. The Amnesty Bill, which has already prevailed in the House, -passes, and only awaits the signature of the President; while an -imperfect Civil Rights Bill, shorn of its best proportions, which has -never passed the House, is taken up and rushed through the Senate. Who -can tell its chances in the other House? Such, Sir, is the indifference -with which the Senate treats the rights of an oppressed people! - -Sir, I sound the cry. The rights of the colored race have been -sacrificed in this Chamber, where the Republican Party has a large -majority,--that party, by its history, its traditions, and all its -professions, bound to their vindication. Sir, I sound the cry. Let it -go forth that the sacrifice has been perpetrated. Amnesty is adopted; -but where are the equal rights of the colored race?--still afloat -between the two Houses on an imperfect bill. And what is their chance? -Pass the imperfect bill and still there is a denial of equal rights. -But what is the chance of passing even this imperfect measure? Who can -say? Is it not a sham? Is it not a wrong which ought to ring through -the land? - -Sir, I call upon the colored people throughout the country to take -notice how their rights are paltered with. I wish them to understand, -that here in this Chamber, with a large majority of Republicans, the -sacrifice has been accomplished; and let them observe how. They will -take note that amnesty has been secured, while nothing is secured -to them. Now, Sir, would you have your work effective, you should -delay amnesty until a bill for civil rights has passed the House, and -reaching this Chamber the two measures will then be on a complete -equality. Anything else is sacrifice of the colored race; anything else -is abandonment of an imperative duty. - - The Senate then adjourned at ten o’clock and twenty minutes on - the morning of May 22d. - - Nothing further occurred on this interesting subject during - the remainder of the session. The Amnesty Bill became a law. - The Civil Rights Bill was not considered in the House; so that - even this imperfect measure failed. At the next session of - Congress Mr. Sumner was an invalid, under medical treatment, - and withdrawn from the Senate, so that he was unable to press - his bill; nor did any other Senator move it. - - * * * * * - - December 1, 1873, on the first day of the session, Mr. Sumner - again brought forward his bill in the following terms:-- - - A Bill supplementary to an Act entitled “An Act to protect - all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and - furnish the means of their vindication,” passed April 9, - 1866. - - _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives - of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, - That no citizen of the United States shall, by reason - of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, - be excepted or excluded from the full enjoyment of - any accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege - furnished by innkeepers; by common carriers, whether on - land or water; by licensed owners, managers, or lessees - of theatres or other places of public amusement; by - trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers, or - other officers of common schools and public institutions of - learning, the same being supported by moneys derived from - general taxation or authorized by law; also of cemetery - associations and benevolent associations supported or - authorized in the same way: _Provided_, That private - schools, cemeteries, and institutions of learning, - established exclusively for white or colored persons, - and maintained respectively by voluntary contributions, - shall remain according to the terms of their original - establishment. - - SEC. 2. That any person violating any of the provisions - of the foregoing section, or aiding in their violation, - or inciting thereto, shall, for every such offence, - forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the - person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action - on the case, with full costs, and shall also, for every - such offence, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, - upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than - five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall - be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than - one year: _Provided_, That the party aggrieved shall not - recover more than one penalty; and when the offence is a - refusal of burial, the penalty may be recovered by the - heirs-at-law of the person whose body has been refused - burial. - - SEC. 3. That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby - conferred, and the same duties enjoined upon the courts - and officers of the United States in the execution of this - Act, as are conferred and enjoined upon such courts and - officers in sections three, four, five, seven, and ten - of an Act entitled “An Act to protect all persons in the - United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means - of their vindication,” passed April 9, 1866, and these - sections are hereby made a part of this Act; and any of - the aforesaid officers, failing to institute and prosecute - such proceedings herein required, shall, for every such - offence, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to - the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action - on the case, with full costs, and shall, on conviction - thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined - not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five - thousand dollars. - - SEC. 4. That no citizen, possessing all other - qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law, - shall be disqualified for service as juror in any court, - National or State, by reason of race, color, or previous - condition of servitude; and any officer or other person - charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of - jurors, who shall fail to summon any citizen for the reason - above named, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty - of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than one thousand - dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. - - SEC. 5. That every discrimination against any citizen on - account of color, by the use of the word “white,” or any - other term in law, statute, ordinance, or regulation, - National or State, is hereby repealed and annulled. - - On the reïntroduction of this bill, the original clause - relating to “churches” was omitted, in order to keep it in - substantial harmony with the votes of the Senate. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20. - -[2] Ibid., p. 7. - -[3] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, p. 7. - -[4] Ibid. - -[5] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, p. 7. - -[6] Ibid. - -[7] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, pp. 7-8. - -[8] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, p. 10. - -[9] Ibid., p. 34. - -[10] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, pp. -34-35. - -[11] See, _ante_, Vol. XVIII. pp. 259, 299. - -[12] Sesiones de Cortes, 14 Nov., 1861, Vol. I. Apend. VI. al Núm. 4, -p. 7. - -[13] Sesiones de Cortes, 14 Nov., 1861, Vol. I. Apend. VI. al Núm. 4, -p. 11. - -[14] Ibid., p. 8. - -[15] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 45, p. 3. - -[16] 8 Geo. II. c. 30. - -[17] 10 & 11 Vict. c. 21. - -[18] Commentaries, I. 178. - -[19] Triggs _v._ Preston: Clarke and Hall, Cases of Contested Elections -in Congress, pp. 78-80. - -[20] Letters to Perry and Babcock,--Report on the Memorial of Davis -Hatch, pp. 90, 136: Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234. - -[21] Digest. Lib. L. Tit. xvii.: _De diversis regulis juris antiqui_, -19. - -[22] Elements of International Law, Part III. Ch. 2, § 6, ed. Lawrence; -§ 266, ed. Dana. - -[23] Halleck, International Law, Ch. VI. § 9. - -[24] Speech in the House of Lords, February 5, 1839: Times, Feb. 6th. - -[25] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 12. - -[26] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 104. - -[27] Ibid. - -[28] Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess. No. 234, p. 63. - -[29] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 105. - -[30] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 107. - -[31] Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, p. 195. - -[32] Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, p. 186. - -[33] Ibid., pp. 1-3; 7-19; 148-163; 165. - -[34] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 106. - -[35] Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, pp. 135-36. - -[36] Ibid., p. 181. - -[37] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 108. - -[38] Ibid. - -[39] Ibid., pp. 109-10. - -[40] Ibid., p. 111. - -[41] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 17, p. 109. - -[42] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, pp. 2, 3. - -[43] Ibid., No. 34, p. 3; No. 45, p. 3. - -[44] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 5. - -[45] Ibid., No. 17, p. 79. - -[46] Ibid., No. 34, p. 6. - -[47] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 8. - -[48] Senate Reports, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., No. 234, p. 188. - -[49] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 9. - -[50] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 11. - -[51] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 15. - -[52] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 12. - -[53] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 17. - -[54] Ibid., p. 19. - -[55] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 19. - -[56] Ibid., p. 20. - -[57] Ibid., p. 22. - -[58] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 23. - -[59] Ibid., pp. 23-24. - -[60] Ibid., p. 24. - -[61] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 31. - -[62] Ibid., p. 26. - -[63] Ibid., p. 31. - -[64] Ibid., p. 32. - -[65] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 27. - -[66] Executive Documents, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., Senate, No. 34, p. 14. - -[67] Law of Nations, (London, 1797,) Preliminaries, §§ 18, 19. - -[68] Le Louis: 2 Dodson, R., 243. - -[69] Le Droit International, (Berlin et Paris, 1857,) § 27. - -[70] Commentaries upon International Law, (London, 1855,) Vol. II. pp. -33-34. - -[71] Law of Nations: Rights and Duties in Time of Peace, § 12, p. 11. - -[72] Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 21. - -[73] International Law, pp. 97-98. - -[74] Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. XI. p. 382. - -[75] Elements of International Law, ed. Dana, p. 120; ed. Lawrence, p. -132. - -[76] International Law, p. 338. - -[77] International Law, p. 339. - -[78] Ibid., p. 335. - -[79] See Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, tr. Whewell, (Cambridge, -1853,) Prolegomena, pp. xxxix-xl. - -[80] Commentaries on the Constitution, § 1166. See also § 1512. - -[81] Treaty, Art. IV.: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., -Senate, No. 17, p. 99. - -[82] Federalist, No. LXIX. - -[83] Federalist, No. LXIX. - -[84] Ibid., No. LXXV. - -[85] Commentaries on the Constitution, § 1506. - -[86] Ibid., § 1507. - -[87] Treaty, Art. V.: Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 202. - -[88] Treaty, Art. VII.: Ibid., p. 258. - -[89] Thirty Years’ View, Vol. II. p. 642. - -[90] Ibid., p. 643. - -[91] Senate Documents, 28th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 349, p. 10. - -[92] Thirty Years’ View, Vol. II. p. 643. - -[93] Executive Documents, 29th Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 4, p. 15. - -[94] For this debate, and the attendant proceedings, see Congressional -Globe, 42d Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 33-53. - -[95] Speech in the Senate, March 27, 1871,--_ante_, p. 19. - -[96] Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran, December 30, 1870; Recall of Minister -Motley: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 11, pp. -27, seqq. - -[97] Debate of March 10, 1871: Congressional Globe, p. 36, col. 2. - -[98] Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran, December 30, 1870: Executive Documents, -41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 11, pp. 36-37. - -[99] Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran: Ex. Doc., _ut supra_, p. 37. - -[100] Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran: Ex. Doc., _ut supra_, p. 37. - -[101] Ibid., p. 32. - -[102] Mr. Fish to Mr. Moran: Ex. Doc., _ut supra_, p. 34. - -[103] _Ante_, p. 111. - -[104] Report of Select Committee to investigate the alleged Outrages -in the Southern States,--North Carolina: Senate Reports, 42d Cong. 1st -Sess., No. 1. - -[105] A case in Executive Session of the Senate, March and April, 1848, -relative to the surreptitious procurement and publication of a copy of -the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. For some particulars of this case, see -speech entitled “Usurpation of the Senate in imprisoning a Citizen,” -June 15, 1860,--_ante_, Vol. VI. p. 90, note. - -[106] Case of Woolley: Congressional Globe, 40th Cong. 2d Sess., House -Proceedings, May 25 to June 11, 1868. - -[107] Case of Hyatt: Ibid., 36th Cong. 1st Sess., Senate Proceedings, -February 21 to June 15, 1860. - -[108] Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of -Parliament, (6th edition, London, 1868,) p. 105. - -[109] Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of -Parliament, _ut supra_. Stockdale _v._ Hansard, 9 Adolphus & Ellis, R., -114. - -[110] Digest., Lib. L. Tit. XVI. Cap. 85. - -[111] Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of -Parliament, and Stockdale _v._ Hansard, 9 Adolphus & Ellis, _ut supra_. - -[112] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States, -(Boston, 1863,) § 677, p. 267. - -[113] Stockdale _v._ Hansard, _ut supra_. - -[114] Kielley _v._ Carson et als.: 4 Moore, Privy Council Cases, 63. - -[115] Fenton et al. _v._ Hampton: 11 Moore, Privy Council Cases, 347. - -[116] Ibid., 396-97. - -[117] Quoting Magna Charta,--“Nec super eum [liberum hominem] ibimus, -nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per -legem terræ.” - -[118] 2 Inst., 50-51. - -[119] Commentaries on the Constitution, § 1783, Vol. III. p. 661. - -[120] For the proceedings in this case, see Annals of Congress, 6th -Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, at the pages referred to in the Index, under -the title _Aurora_. On the cases of Hyatt and Nugent, see, _ante_, pp. -132, 133, and the references there named. - -[121] Vol. I. p. 448, 6th edition, London, 1850. - -[122] 15 Gray’s Reports, 399. - -[123] Speech, June 14, 1844: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d -Series, Vol. LXXV. col. 898-99. - -[124] Speech, June 17, 1844: Ibid., col. 980-81. - -[125] Ibid., col. 981. - -[126] Speech, June 24, 1844: Hansard, 3d Series, Vol. LXXV. col. 1292. - -[127] 9 Ann., cap. 10, § 40. - -[128] Vol. VII. p. 7, cartoon. - -[129] Encyclopædia Britannica, (8th edition,) arts. BRITAIN and LONDON: -Vols. V. pp. 424-25; XIII. 659. - -[130] Annual Message, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., December 5, 1870. - -[131] Annual Message, 21st Cong. 1st Sess., December 8, 1829. - -[132] Annual Message, 21st Cong. 2d Sess., December 7, 1830. - -[133] Annual Message, 22d Cong. 1st Sess., December 6, 1831. - -[134] Letter to Harmer Denny, December 2, 1838, cited in Letter of -Acceptance, December 19, 1839: Niles’s Register, Vol. LV. p. 361; LVII. -379. - -[135] Speech at the Dayton Convention, September 10, 1840: Niles’s -Register, Vol. LIX. p. 70. - -[136] Speech at Taylorsville, Hanover County, Virginia, June 27, 1840: -Works, Vol. VI. p. 421. - -[137] Letter to the Young Men of Philadelphia: National Intelligencer, -September 26, 1842. - -[138] National Intelligencer, May 2, and Boston Daily Advertiser, May -6, 1844. - -[139] National Intelligencer, May 4, 1844. - -[140] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 932. - -[141] De la Démocratie en Amérique, Tom. I. Ch. VIII., _De la -Réélection du Président_. - -[142] Ibid. - -[143] Discourse IV. - -[144] On the subject of this picture, see Wornum, _Descriptive and -Historical Catalogue of the Pictures in the National Gallery, Foreign -Schools_, p. 288; also, Larousse, _Dictionnaire Universel_, Tom. IV. p. -932, art. CONGRÈS DE MÜNSTER. - -[145] De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konstschilders en -Schilderessen. Gravenhage, 1753. - -[146] La Calcografia propriamente detta, ossia L’Arte d’incidere in -Rame coll’ Acqua-forte, col Bulino e colla Punta: Ragionamenti letti -nelle adunanze dell’ I. R. Istituto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arte -del Regno Lombardo-Veneto. Da Giuseppe Longhi. Vol. I. Concernénte -la Teorica dell’ Arte. Milano, 1830.--The death of the author the -following year prevented the completion of his work; but in 1837 -a supplementary volume on the Practice of the Art, by Carl Barth, -appeared in connection with a translation by him of Longhi’s volume, -under the title, _Die Kupferstecherei oder die Kunst in Kupfer zu -stechen und zu ätzen_. (No translation has been made into French or -English.) This rare volume is in the Congressional Library, among the -books which belonged originally to Hon. George P. Marsh, our excellent -and most scholarly Minister in Italy. I asked for it in vain at the -Paris Cabinet of Engravings, and also at the Imperial Library. - -[147] La Calcografia, p. 31. - -[148] La Calcografia, pp. 8-13. - -[149] La Calcografia, p. 71. - -[150] “Ich bin dazu geboren, dass ich mit den Rotten und Teufeln muss -kriegen und zu Felde liegen; darum meine Bücher viel stürmisch und -kriegerisch sind. Ich muss die Klötze und Stämme ausreuten, Dornen und -Hecken wegbauen, die Plätzen ausfüllen, und bin der grobe Waldrechter, -der Bahn brechen und zurichten muss. Aber M. Philipps fahret säuberlich -und stille daher, bauet und pflanzet, säet und begeusst, mit Lust, -nachdem Gott ihm hat gegeben seine Gaben reichlich.”--_Vorrede auf -Philippi Melanchthonis Auslegung der Epistel an die Colosser_: -Sämtliche Schriften, (Halle, 1740-53,) 1 Theil, coll. 199-200. - -[151] Vite, (Firenze, 1857,) Vol. XIII. p. 39. - -[152] La Calcografia, pp. 99-100, note. - -[153] “Se cieca fede prestarsi dovesse alle decisioni dell’Enciclopedia -metodica, noi dovremmo ammirare in Cornelio Wisscher il corifeo -dell’arte nostra, dicendo essa, che gli artisti s’accordano in -aggiudicargli la palma dell’incisione.”--_La Calcografia_, p. 144. - -[154] XVIe et XVIIe Siècles, p. 122. - -[155] Les Homines Illustres, Tom. II. p. 97.--The excellent copy of -this work in the Congressional Library belonged to Mr. Marsh. The -prints are early impressions. - -[156] La Calcografia, p. 116. - -[157] Ibid., p. 165, note. - -[158] Something in this success is doubtless due to Le Brun, whom -Nanteuil translated,--especially as an earlier portrait of Pomponne by -him is little regarded. But it is the engraver, and not the painter, -that is praised,--thus showing the part which his art may perform. - -There is much in this portrait, especially in the eyes, to suggest the -late Sir Frederick Bruce, British Minister at Washington, who, when -a youth in the diplomatic suite of Lord Ashburton, was called by Mr. -Choate “the Corinthian part of the British Legation.” - -[159] Panegyrique Funebre de Messire Pomponne de Bellièvre, Premier -President au Parlement. Prononcé à l’ Hostel Dieu de Paris le 17 -Avril 1657, au Service solennel fait par l’ordre de Messieurs les -Administrateurs. Par un Chanoine Regulier de la Congregation de France. -A Paris, M. DC. LVII.--The Dedication shows this to have been the work -of F. L. Alemant. - -[160] “Jettent plutost de la fumée que de la lumière”: “magis de -sublime fumantem quam flammantem.”--_Præfat. in vit. S. Malach._ - -[161] An application by the preacher, of the first clause of his text: -“_Gloria et divitiæ in domo ejus, et justitia ejus manet in sæculum -sæculi_.”--Ps. cxi. 3, Vulg. - -[162] _Les Hommes Illustres_, par Perrault,--cited _ante_, p. 337. See, -Tom. II. p. 53, a memoir of Bellièvre, with a portrait by Edelinck. - -[163] La Calcografia, pp. 172, 177. - -[164] La Calcografia, p. 176. - -[165] Metam. Lib. II. 5. - -[166] La Calcografia, pp. 165, 418. - -[167] See Quatremère De Quincy, Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de -Raphaël, (Paris, 1833,) pp. 193-97. - -[168] Les Arts au Moyen Age et à l’Epoque de la Renaissance, par Paul -Lacroix, (Paris, 1869,) p. 298. - -[169] Virgil, Ecl. I. 67. - -[170] Arnold Houbraken, De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche -Konstschilders en Schilderessen. Cited, _ante_, p. 331. - -[171] La Calcografia, p. 209. - -[172] Visits and Sketches at Home and Abroad, (London, 1834,) Vol. II. -p. 188, note. - -[173] Longhi, La Calcografia, p. 199. - -[174] Speech in the Senate, on the Oregon Bill, June 27, 1848: -Speeches, Vol. IV. pp. 507-12. - -[175] Speech of Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, in the Senate, on the Nebraska -and Kansas Bill, February 20, 1854: Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st -Sess., p. 214. - -[176] Congressional Globe, 36th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 487. - -[177] Crosby’s Life of Lincoln, (Philadelphia, 1865,) pp. 86, 87. -Philadelphia Inquirer, February 23, 1861. - -[178] Rebellion Record, Vol. I., Documents, pp. 45, 46. - -[179] Address at the Consecration of the National Cemetery at -Gettysburg, November 19, 1863.--“Copied from the original.” Arnold’s -History of Abraham Lincoln and the Overthrow of Slavery, (Chicago, -1866,) pp. 423-46. - -[180] Table-Talk; _The King_. - -[181] Essai Politique sur le Royaume de La Nouvelle Espagne, Liv. II. -ch. 6. - -[182] Charles Comte, Traité de Législation, Tom. IV., pp. 129, 445. - -[183] Bouvier, Law Dictionary, (3d edit.,) art. FREEMAN. - -[184] Corfield _v._ Coryell, 4 Washington, C. C. R., 381. - -[185] Johnson: Prologue spoken by Mr. Garrick at the opening of the -Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, 1747. - -[186] Du Contrat Social, Liv. II. ch. 11. - -[187] Chronicles, (London, 1807,) Vol. I. p. 414: Description of -England, Book III. ch. 16. - -[188] Wintermute _v._ Clarke, 5 Sandford, R., 247. - -[189] Law of Bailments, § 476. - -[190] 2 Commentaries, 592, note. - -[191] 2 Commentaries, 597, note. - -[192] 2 Law of Contracts, 150. - -[193] Chambers’s Encyclopædia, art. INN and INNKEEPER. - -[194] Story, Law of Bailments, § 591. - -[195] 2 Law of Contracts, 225-29. - -[196] Pierce, American Railroad Law, 489. - -[197] West Chester and Philadelphia Railroad Co. _v._ Miles; 55 -Pennsylvania State R., 209 (1867). - -[198] - - “Pallida Mors æquo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas, - Regumque turres.”--_Carm._ I. iv. 13-14. - -[199] This sentiment of Equality appears also in the “Roman de la -Rose,” an early poem of France, where the bodies of princes are said to -be worth no more than that of a ploughman:-- - - “Car lor cors ne vault une pomme - Oultre le cors d’ung charruier.”--vv. 18792-3. - -[200] Romaunt of the Rose, 2187-97: Poetical Works, ed. Tyrwhitt -(London, Moxon, 1843). - -[201] Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, art. SERVUS. - -[202] Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. I. p. 180. - -[203] Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. XL. - -[204] Sismondi, History of the Italian Republic, (London, 1832,) p. 115. - -[205] Boswell’s Life of Johnson, (London, 1835,) Vol. II. p. 263. - -[206] Constitution, Article VI. - -[207] Smith _v._ Gould, 2 Lord Raymond, R. 1274. - -[208] Declaration of Rights, October 14, 1774: Journal of Congress, -1774-89, (1st edit.,) Vol. I. pp. 27-30. - -[209] Campbell, Lives of the Chief-Justices of England, (London, 1849,) -Vol. II. p. 138. - -[210] Ibid., pp. 118, 135. - -[211] 12 Ohio Rep., 237. - -[212] Van Camp _v._ Board of Education of Logan: 9 Ohio State Rep., 406. - -[213] 4 Ohio Rep., 354. - -[214] Address of President Lincoln at Gettysburg: _Ante_, p. 378. - -[215] Matthew, xxiii. 27. - -[216] 1 Samuel, xvi. 7. - -[217] Acts, xxii. 25, 26, 29. - -[218] Plutarch. De Alexandri Magni sive Fortuna sive Virtute,--Orat. -I.: Moralia, ed. Reiske, p. 302. - -[219] Speech in the Senate, May 19, 1862: Congressional Globe, 37th -Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 2190, 2195; _ante_, Vol. IX. pp. 27, 70. - -[220] The first seven paragraphs under the head of “Need of Additional -Legislation”: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 20, -pp. 7, 8. - -[221] Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 587. - -[222] Ibid., Appendix, p. 4. - -[223] 4 Wheaton, R., pp. 413, 421. - -[224] See, _ante_, p. 234. - -[225] For this history, see Introduction, _ante_, p. 205. - -[226] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 27-29. - -[227] Commentaries on the Constitution, (2d edit.,) § 1877. - -[228] Ibid., § 1879. - -[229] See No. for February, 1872, Vol. XXIX. pp. 189-191. Also, -Parton’s Life of Jefferson, pp. 55-58. - -[230] The Struggles, (Social, Financial, and Political,) of Petroleum -V. Nasby, p. 71. - -[231] Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, (London, 1829,) -Vol. III. p. 355. - -[232] Works, Vol. IV. pp. 507, 511, 512. - -[233] Speech in the Senate, on the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, February -20, 1854: Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., Appendix, p. 214. - -[234] Works, Vol. I. pp. 214, 215. - -[235] Political Debates between Hon. Abraham Lincoln and Hon. Stephen -A. Douglas in the Campaign of 1858 in Illinois, pp. 35, 37, 52, 116, -155, 175. - -[236] Ibid., p. 178. - -[237] Speech on Mr. Trumbull’s Amendment to Mr. Mason’s Resolution -relative to the Invasion of Harper’s Ferry by John Brown: Congressional -Globe, 36th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 100. - -[238] Speech on the Admission of Georgia to Representation in Congress: -Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 2d Sess., p. 243-45. - -[239] Speech, February 1, 1872: Congressional Globe, 42d Cong. 2d -Sess., p. 761. - -[240] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. VIII. p. 472. - -[241] Ibid., p. 475. - -[242] Works, Vol. IX. p. 420. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, -volume 19 (of 20), by Charles Sumner - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER; COMPLETE WORKS, VOL 19 *** - -***** This file should be named 50386-0.txt or 50386-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/3/8/50386/ - -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. - |