Chapter VI: Front Matter (6)

The session wore on, with constantly recurring ballots, always unsuccessful, when the organ of the Free-Soil party made another appeal, in which it presented strongly the issue of principle involved. An extract will show the character of this appeal. "Circumstances have conspired to give extraordinary interest to this election in Massachusetts. Not here only, but elsewhere, both North and South, it is regarded as symbolical of the march of new opinions on an important subject. There can be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable man that there is gradually, but certainly, approaching that tremendous moral conflict in politics which was early foreseen by the wise men of the Republic as sure at some day to happen, and which no human power can do more than to retard.... One peculiarity attending this election is, that it involves a true issue of principle.... The question is not so much whether Mr. Sumner or any one else is to be Senator as whether the antislavery sentiment shall be understood as having established itself not only in the internal and domestic policy of the Commonwealth, where it has always been, but also in the channels through which it connects itself with the government of the Union. Tenfold importance has been attached to this decision from the fact of the apostasy to Freedom lately committed by the person who for many years was considered as the leading exponent of Massachusetts doctrines in the Senate. The election of such a man as Charles Sumner in the room of such a man as Daniel Webster may be construed to be quite as much a complete disavowal of the late conduct of the one as a sanction of the system advocated by the other. Herein it is not difficult to trace the real causes as well of the extraordinary opposition on the one side as of the tenacious adherence on the other."[65]

[65] Ibid., March 31, 1851.

This was followed in a few days by the annunciation of the determination of the party. "But one course is left,--to stand by Charles Sumner, as our first, our last, our only choice. And if we fail, we fail in a good cause, true to our promises, true to our faith."[66]

[66] Ibid., April 2, 1851.

On April 23d there was another ballot, when the result was announced as follows: Whole number of votes, 387; necessary to a choice, 194; Charles Sumner, 194; R.C. Winthrop, 167; scattering, 26. On the report it appeared that Mr. Sumner was elected, when it was insisted that a vote having his name printed upon it, with the name of John Mills in pencil beneath, which had been thrown out, should be counted for Mr. Mills, thus making one more necessary to a choice. It was also stated that the record of the clerk showed that only 386 votes were cast, while this count showed 388. This inconsistency was not explained. Three other ballots were had unsuccessfully. On April 24th there was another unsuccessful ballot, when, on motion of Sidney Bartlett, Esq., the eminent lawyer, and a Whig, it was ordered, that, "in the further balloting, the ballot be placed in an envelope, and that, where two votes for one person are found in the same envelope, one shall be rejected, and that, where two votes for different persons are cast, both shall be rejected; the envelopes to be of a uniform character, furnished by the Sergeant-at-Arms." At the ballot that ensued the votes were: Whole number, 384; necessary to a choice, 193; Charles Sumner, 193; R.C. Winthrop, 166; H.W. Bishop, 11; S.C. Phillips, 4; Caleb Cushing, 3; Isaac Davis, 3; John Mills, 1; H.H. Childs, 1; N.P. Banks, Jr., 1; B.F. Hallett, 1. There were also two blanks, not counted, making 386 who had voted. The Speaker read the report of the committee, and declared Mr. Sumner elected. The announcement was received with applause in the galleries, which the Speaker and Sergeant-at-Arms promptly suppressed. This was the twenty-sixth ballot.

The election had been so long in suspense, and had so much occupied the public mind, that the final result was received with much feeling. As the news spread, some were dejected and angry, others were joyous and satisfied. Mr. Sumner heard of it while at the house of Hon. Charles F. Adams, in Boston, and there received the first congratulations. A proposition for a public demonstration at his own house in the evening he discountenanced, saying, according to the published report, that, while feeling grateful to friends for their kindness, he was unwilling to do or say anything that could be construed by any one as evidence of personal triumph,--that it was the triumph of the cause, but that his heart dictated silence. In the evening there was a meeting for congratulation in State Street, where speeches were made by Hon. Henry Wilson, Joseph Lyman, and Thomas Russell. Similar meetings were held in other towns of Massachusetts, on receiving the news. The crowd in State Street moved to the house of Mr. Sumner, but he had left the city; then to the house of Mr. Adams, who said that he "was glad of the opportunity to be able to congratulate his friends upon the glorious triumph of Liberty in the election of Mr. Sumner"; then to the house of Richard H. Dana, Jr., who, being out of town, was represented by his venerable father, who said that he had "kept his bed until noon through illness, but, on learning the news of the election of Mr. Sumner, he suddenly became better."

The language of leading journals attests the prevailing interest, and the deep sense of the issue that had been tried. A few of these will be mentioned, beginning with the Free-Soil organ in Boston, which thus announced the result: "In congratulating the world on this event, we congratulate the defeated themselves: for, if they did but know it, there is no firm basis for property except the equal rights of man; there can be no durable Union contrary to our immortal Declaration of Independence and the solemn preamble of our Constitution.... Those very men have the greatest reason to rejoice in our victory, for their _children_, if not for themselves."[67]

[67] Daily Commonwealth, April 25, 1851.

The same organ replied to the assaults on Mr. Sumner: "No man ever accepted office with cleaner hands than Charles Sumner. He consented to receive the nomination with extreme reluctance. His pursuits, his tastes, and aspirations were in a different direction. He earnestly entreated his friends to select some other candidate. After he was nominated, and an onslaught unprecedented for ferocity and recklessness in political warfare had seemed to render his election impossible, unless he would authorize some qualification of the alleged obnoxious doctrines of his speeches, particularly of his last Faneuil-Hall speech, Mr. Sumner refused to retract, qualify, or explain. Ten lines from his pen--lines that a politician might have written without even the appearance of a change of sentiment--would have secured his election in January. No solicitation, of friends or opponents, could extort a line. A delegation of Hunkers applied to him for a few words to cover their retreat; in reply, he stated that he had no pledges to give, no explanations to make; he referred them to his published speeches for his position, and added, that he had not sought the office, but, if it came to him, it must find him an independent man. To another Democrat, who called on him on the same errand, he said, 'If by walking across my office I could secure the Senatorship, I would not take a step.' In February he placed in the hands of General Wilson a letter authorizing that gentleman to withdraw his name, whenever, in his judgment, the good of the cause should require it."[68]

[68] Ibid., April 28, 1851.

The _National Era_, edited by Dr. Bailey, and the organ of the Free-Soil party at Washington, after speaking of Mr. Sumner in most flattering terms, proceeded as follows: "When it is considered that he is the exponent and advocate of opinions and measures which Mr. Webster has renounced and is seeking to put down, that the whole weight of the influence of this gentleman, with that of the cotton interest, the Administration, and Hunker Democracy, has been brought to bear against him, that at no time has he consented to qualify any word he has ever written or spoken on the questions at issue between him and his opponents, or to give a single pledge, direct or indirect, respecting his course, his election must be regarded as one of the most brilliant, honorable, and decisive triumphs yet achieved by the opponents of Slavery and Conservatism."[69]

[69] National Era, May 1, 1851.

The _Tribune_ in New York, though closely allied with the Whig party, rendered justice to Mr. Sumner. "We do not know the man who has entered the Senate under auspices so favorable to personal independence as Mr. Sumner. He has not sought the office, has not made an effort for its acquisition. No pledge has he given to any party or any person upon any question or measure. When asked as to the course he should pursue as Senator, his answer has been a reference to his past acts and published writings; in them were the only promises he had to offer. Though it would have been easy for him to secure the election three months ago by the slightest shadow of a concession to some of the Hunker members of the Legislature, he has steadily refused to say or do anything that could be construed in that manner. To every overture he has replied, that, if chosen, it must be on the footing of absolute independence,--that the Senatorship must come to him, and not he pursue the Senatorship. Such stern adherence to what he considered the path of duty and manliness has thus delayed his election. But it has not prevented it, and now Mr. Sumner enters the Senate free of all trammels whatever. This it is especially which makes us rejoice at the event. It is a new thing in our recent politics, and the loftiest success we can wish him in his Congressional career is an unflinching preservation of the same spirit and conduct."[70]

[70] New York Tribune, April 25, 1851.

The London _Times_ had a leader on the election, where, among other things, it said: "He was opposed by the Protectionists of Massachusetts as a partisan of greater freedom of trade, and by the adherents of the Government as an opponent of the Fugitive Slave Act. Yet such was the strength of feeling in Massachusetts on that point alone, that the Free-Soil party have succeeded in sending to the Senate the most active and able representative of their cause, and Mr. Sumner enters upon his ostensible political career under these remarkable and flattering circumstances.... The election of Mr. Sumner to the Senate is everywhere regarded as an emphatic declaration, on the part of his own State, that the law is at least not to remain in its present form unassailed. The South responds to such an election by louder declarations of its resistance to all infractions on its local institutions, even at the sacrifice of the integrity of the Union."[71]

[71] London Times, May 24, 1851.

Congratulations came from every quarter. They are alluded to here only because they belong to the history of this election. Some of them are given. One of the earliest was from Richard H. Dana, the scholar, and father of the eminent lawyer, who wrote: "I am thankful that Massachusetts is to speak through you in Washington,--through one whom neither West nor South will be able to win over or to browbeat." John G. Whittier wrote: "I rejoice, that, unpledged, free, and without a single concession or compromise, thou art enabled to take thy place in the Senate. I never knew such a general feeling of real heart pleasure and satisfaction as is manifested by all except inveterate Hunkers in view of thy election. The whole country is electrified by it. Sick abed, I heard the guns, Quaker as I am, with real satisfaction." William C. Bryant wrote: "I am glad that my native State is once more worthily represented in the United States Senate." John Bigelow, who was at the time associated with Mr. Bryant in the _Evening Post_, wrote: "I was quite overcome when I read the despatch which announced your election; and when the news was communicated through the building, it gave everybody else, including printers and clerks, almost as much pleasure as to me." Epes Sargent, who edited a Whig paper, wrote: "My private acquaintance is a sufficient assurance that your public course will be honorable and patriotic." Neal Dow wrote: "I thank God Massachusetts has at last done something effectual to redeem her character. I am sure that upon the floor of the Senate you will not forget to assert the rights of your State, and maintain with firmness and dignity the great principles upon which a free government _should be_ based." Mr. Chase wrote: "_Laus Deo!_ From the bottom of my heart I congratulate you--no, not you, but all friends of Freedom everywhere--upon your election to the Senate." Mr. Giddings wrote from Ohio: "A most intense interest was felt in this whole region, and I have seen no event which has given greater joy to the population generally." Judge Jay wrote: "May God enable you to leave the public service with a conscience and a reputation as unsullied as those you carry with you!" John Jay telegraphed: "Your election has made us most happy and thankful." Elihu Burritt, who was then in England, wrote: "My soul is gladdened to great and exceeding joy at the news of your election to fill the place of the late Daniel Webster. It has been hailed by the friends of human freedom and progress in this country with exultation. There are more eyes and hearts fixed upon your course than upon that of any man in America." Nobody expressed himself more cordially than John Van Buren, who wrote at once: "You will need no assurance of how delighted I was to hear that you were in fact a Senator from Massachusetts for six years"; and in another letter he said: "I was as much pleased with seeing your frank as I was with the inside of your note. Independent of the fact that it proves your election to the United States Senate, the inscription, '_Free_ Charles Sumner,' seems to me mighty pretty reading."

This history brings us to the Letter of Acceptance addressed to the Legislature, which was read in the two Houses,--in the Senate by Hon. Henry Wilson, President, and in the House of Representatives by Hon. N.P. Banks, Speaker. In addressing the Legislature directly Mr. Sumner follows the precedent of John Quincy Adams, in 1808, resigning his seat in the Senate.

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--

By the hands of the Secretary of the Commonwealth I have received
a certificate, that by concurrent votes of the two branches of
the Legislature, namely, by the Senate on the 22d day of January,
and the House of Representatives on the 24th day of April, in
conformity to the provisions of the Constitution and Laws of the
United States, I was duly elected a Senator to represent the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Senate of the United States
for the term of six years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1851.

If I were to follow the customary course, I should receive this
in silence. But the protracted and unprecedented contest which
ended in my election, the interest it awakened, the importance
universally conceded to it, the ardor of opposition and the
constancy of support which it aroused, also the principles which
more than ever among us it brought into discussion, seem to
justify, what my own feelings irresistibly prompt, a departure from
this rule. If, beyond these considerations, any apology is needed
for thus directly addressing the Legislature, I may find it in the
example of an illustrious predecessor, whose clear and venerable
name will be a sufficient authority.

The trust conferred on me is one of the most weighty which a
citizen can receive. It concerns the grandest interests of our own
Commonwealth, and also of the Union in which we are an indissoluble
link. Like every post of eminent duty, it is a post of eminent
honor. A personal ambition, such as I cannot confess, might be
satisfied to possess it. But when I think what it requires, I am
obliged to say that its honors are all eclipsed by its duties.

Your appointment finds me in a private station, with which I am
entirely content. For the first time in my life I am called to
political office. With none of the experience possessed by others
to smooth the way of labor, I might well hesitate. But I am cheered
by the generous confidence which throughout a lengthened contest
persevered in sustaining me, and by the conviction, that, amidst
all seeming differences of party, the sentiments of which I am
the known advocate, and which led to my original selection as
candidate, are dear to the hearts of the people throughout this
Commonwealth. I derive, also, a most grateful consciousness of
personal independence from the circumstance, which I deem it frank
and proper thus publicly to declare and place on record, that this
office comes to me unsought and undesired.

Acknowledging the right of my country to the service of her sons
wherever she chooses to place them, and with a heart full of
gratitude that a sacred cause is permitted to triumph through me, I
now accept the post of Senator.

I accept it as the servant of Massachusetts, mindful of the
sentiments solemnly uttered by her successive Legislatures, of the
genius which inspires her history, and of the men, her perpetual
pride and ornament, who breathed into her that breath of Liberty
which early made her an example to her sister States. In such a
service, the way, though new to my footsteps, is illumined by
lights which cannot be missed.

I accept it as the servant of the Union, bound to study and
maintain the interests of all parts of our country with equal
patriotic care, to discountenance every effort to loosen any of
those ties by which our fellowship of States is held in fraternal
company, and to oppose all _sectionalism_, in whatsoever form,
whether in unconstitutional efforts by the North to carry so great
a boon as Freedom into the Slave States, in unconstitutional
efforts by the South, aided by Northern allies, to carry the
_sectional_ evil of Slavery into the Free States, or in any efforts
whatsoever to extend the _sectional_ domination of Slavery over the
National Government. With me the Union is twice blessed: first,
as powerful guardian of the repose and happiness of thirty-one
States, clasped by the endearing name of country; and next, as
model and beginning of that all-embracing Federation of States, by
which unity, peace, and concord will finally be organized among the
Nations. Nor do I believe it possible, whatever the delusion of the
hour, that any part can be permanently lost from its well-compacted
bulk. _E Pluribus Unum_ is stamped upon the national coin, the
national territory, and the national heart. Though composed of many
parts united into one, the Union is separable only by a crash which
shall destroy the whole.

Entering now upon the public service, I venture to bespeak for
what I do or say that candid judgment which I trust always to have
for others, but which I am well aware the prejudices of party too
rarely concede. I may fail in ability, but not in sincere effort,
to promote the general weal. In the conflict of opinion, natural
to the atmosphere of liberal institutions, I may err; but I trust
never to forget the prudence which should temper firmness, or the
modesty which becomes the consciousness of right. If I decline to
recognize as my guides the leading men of to-day, I shall feel
safe while I follow the master principles which the Union was
established to secure, leaning for support on the great Triumvirate
of American Freedom,--Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson. And
since true politics are simply morals applied to public affairs,
I shall find constant assistance from those everlasting rules
of right and wrong which are a law alike to individuals and
communities.

Let me borrow, in conclusion, the language of another: "I see my
duty,--that of standing up for the liberties of my country; and
whatever difficulties and discouragements lie in my way, I dare not
shrink from it; and I rely on that Being who has not left to us the
choice of duties, that, whilst I conscientiously discharge mine, I
shall not finally lose my reward." These are words attributed to
Washington, in the early darkness of the American Revolution. The
rule of duty is the same for the lowly and the great; and I hope it
may not seem presumptuous in one so humble as myself to adopt his
determination, and to avow his confidence.

I have the honor to be,
fellow-citizens,

With sincere regard,

Your faithful friend and servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

BOSTON, May 14, 1851.

* * * * *

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES OUR TWO TITLE-DEEDS.

LETTER TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON, FOR JULY 4, 1851.

From the beginning, Mr. Sumner never missed an opportunity, in speech or letter, of invoking the Declaration of Independence as a rule of action. The following letter is an example.

BOSTON, July 3, 1851.

Dear Sir,--I have been honored by an official invitation to
unite in the celebration by our City Council of the approaching
anniversary of American Independence.

Though it will not be in my power to partake of this celebration,
I wish not to seem indifferent to the kind attentions of your
Committee or to the hospitality of Boston.

I venture to inclose a sentiment, suggested particularly by the
occasion, and in harmony, I trust, with the convictions of all
sincere lovers of the Union.

I have the honor to be, dear Sir,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

_The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of
the United States,--the two immortal title-deeds of American
liberties._ Defenders of the Constitution, let us not forget the
principles of the Declaration, but, for the equal support of both,
in the spirit of our fathers, without compromise, and with a firm
reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, mutually pledge to
each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

HON. JOHN P. BIGELOW, &c., &c.

* * * * *

POSITION OF THE AMERICAN LAWYER.

LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE STORY ASSOCIATION,
JULY 15, 1851.

BOSTON, July 15, 1851.

DEAR SIR,--As a faithful pupil of the Law School, and an attached
friend, during life, of the founder, whose illustrious name your
Association bears, I feel a thrill at every act or word which does
them honor. And since I may not be able to be present at your
festival, I venture to send congratulations on the happy auspices
of the day, and--mindful that I address a professional assembly--to
inclose a sentiment commemorating the dignity and the duties of the
American Lawyer.

A brief personal experience will properly introduce it. Some
years ago, while at Heidelberg, in Germany, it was my fortune to
see much of Thibaut and Mittermaier, both jurists of eminent fame:
the first--now dead--renowned for learning in the Roman Law, and
for early and constant support of a just scheme for the reduction
of the unwritten law to the certainty of a written text; and the
other, who is still spared, the greatest living master of Criminal
Law, and of the various systems of Foreign Jurisprudence. Next
after the aristocracy of birth, they were unquestionably at that
moment among the most conspicuous men of Germany.

In the course of a long conversation, chiefly on matters of
juridical interest, in the freedom of social intercourse at dinner,
one of them asked with regard to the position of the American
Lawyer, and both seemed earnest for my answer. I promptly replied:
"No person is his superior. His position, Gentlemen, if you will
pardon me for saying it, is what yours would be in Germany, if
there were no aristocracy of birth." Both seemed penetrated by this
allusion, and, looking each other in the face, exclaimed at once,
in apparent consciousness of their true rank: "That is very high
indeed!"

The sentiment which I now submit was suggested by this incident.

I have the honor to be, dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE STORY ASSOCIATION.

_The American Lawyer_: Distinguished by the lofty sphere of his
influence, may he find in it new motive to the cultivation of those
moral excellences, and those generous virtues of the heart, which
give the truest elevation to the character! _Nobilitas sola est
atque unica virtus._

* * * * *

SYMPATHY WITH THE RIGHTS OF MAN EVERYWHERE.

LETTER TO A MEETING AT FANEUIL HALL, OCTOBER 27, 1851.

This meeting was held to consider the case of Smith O'Brien and his fellow-exiles in Australia, and to ask the intercession of our Government in their behalf. Governor Boutwell presided and addressed the meeting.

BOSTON, October 27, 1851.

DEAR SIR,--It will not be in my power to be present at Faneuil Hall
this evening; nor am I entirely satisfied that it would be proper
for me, holding the official position I now do, to take part in the
proceeding which you propose to institute.

But though not present with you, and not undertaking to express any
opinion on the precise question of national duty, I wish it to be
understood that I can never fail to unite in every earnest, manly
word by which the sympathies of our country are extended to all, in
whatever land, who are defending the Rights of Man. To this cause
we are pledged as a nation by the Declaration of Independence; and
my heart warmly responds to the vow.

Nor can I forbear to add, that the clemency which you entreat from
a powerful government towards those whom it classes as political
offenders is in harmony with the Spirit of the Age and with the
lessons of Christianity. It is a grace never otherwise than
honorable to ask and honorable to bestow:--

"And 'tis in crowns a nobler gem
To grant a pardon than condemn."

A recent instance enforces the appeal. Kossuth has at last passed
from the house of bondage. His emancipation, promoted by the
aspirations, the prayers, and the express intervention of our
Republic, is an example to all nations,--while the brightness of
his fame shows how vain it is for any earthly edict to stigmatize
as crime a sincere and generous effort for Human Freedom. Austria
brands the great Hungarian as traitor; but an enlightened Public
Opinion, the predestined queen of the civilized world, already
re-judges the justice of the tyrant government. To the judgments of
this exalted authority mankind must bow. No people, for the sake
of any seeming temporary expediency, can afford to sacrifice a
principle of justice or a sentiment of humanity, and thus to peril
the everlasting verdict of History.

In reaching across the sea as far as distant Turkey, to plead
for the freedom of the fugitive Kossuth, our Republic has done
well; and the Mahometan Sultan, in consenting to his liberation,
at extraordinary hazards, has taught a lesson of magnanimity to
Christian nations.

The step we have thus taken cannot be the last. With increasing
power are increasing duties. The influence we now wield is a sacred
trust, to be exercised firmly and discreetly, in conformity with
the Laws of Nations, and with an anxious eye to the peace of the
world, but always so as most to promote Human Rights. Our example
can do much. The magnetism of our national flag will be felt
wherever it floats; individual citizens may labor faithfully; but
all these will be quickened incalculably by a system of conduct,
on the part of our Government, at home and abroad, which, while
avoiding all improper interference with other countries, and
teaching the beauty of honesty, shall show a prompt and benevolent
sympathy with those vital principles without which our Republic is
but a name.

In this work, Irishmen, and the children and grandchildren of
Irishmen, scattered in millions throughout the land, can help.
Their native love of Liberty and hatred of Oppression will here
find opportunity for action.

Believe me, dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE COMMITTEE.

* * * * *

WELCOME TO KOSSUTH.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 10, 1851.

Mr. Sumner's credentials as Senator were presented at the opening of the 32d Congress, December 1, 1851, when he took the oath of office. Among those who took the oath on the same day were Hon. Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, Hon. Hamilton Fish, of New York, and Hon. Stephen R. Mallory, of Florida, afterward Secretary of the Navy in the Rebel Government. The seat of the last was contested, and the question on his reception drew forth Mr. Clay, who was present for the last time in the Senate. Though living till June, he never again appeared in the Chamber. On the arrangement of the Committees, Mr. Sumner found himself at the bottom of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims and the Committee on Roads and Canals.

On the first day of the session a joint resolution was announced by Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, providing for the reception and entertainment of Louis Kossuth, the recent head of the revolutionary government in Hungary. Governor Kossuth, having escaped from Hungary, had found refuge in Turkey, where he was received on board one of our ships of war. After an interesting visit in England, where he addressed large public audiences with singular power and eloquence, he arrived in New York. Interest in the cause which he so ably represented, and personal sympathy with the exile, quickened by his genius, found universal expression in the country; but there was a protracted debate in the Senate before the vote was taken.

The debate proceeded on a resolution introduced by Mr. Seward, December 8th, as follows:--

"_Resolved, &c._, That the Congress of the United States, in the
name and behalf of the people of the United States, give to Louis
Kossuth a cordial welcome to the capital and to the country,
and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to him by the
President of the United States."

On the same day, Mr. Shields, of Illinois, introduced a resolution in the following terms:--

"_Resolved_, That a committee of three be appointed by the Chair to
wait on Louis Kossuth, Governor of Hungary, and introduce him to
the Senate."

December 9th, Mr. Berrien, of Georgia, addressed the Senate at length in opposition to action by Congress, and, in closing his speech, moved the following amendment:--

"_And be it further Resolved_, That the welcome thus afforded to
Louis Kossuth be extended to his associates who have landed on our
shores; but while welcoming these Hungarian patriots to an asylum
in our country, and to the protection which our laws do and always
will afford to them, it is due to candor to declare that it is
not the purpose of Congress to depart from the settled policy of
this Government, which forbids all interference with the domestic
concerns of other nations."

The final question was not reached till December 12th, when the amendment of Mr. Berrien was rejected: yeas 15, nays 26. The question then recurred on the resolution of Mr. Seward, which was adopted: yeas 33, nays 6. The resolution passed the House of Representatives, and was signed by the President.

On the 10th of December Mr. Sumner spoke. It was his first speech in the Senate. He rose to speak late in the afternoon of the day before, but gave way to an adjournment, which was moved by Mr. Rusk, of Texas. The next day, on motion of Mr. Seward, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution, when Mr. Sumner took the floor.

The following characteristic letter from Mr. Choate, one of his predecessors as Senator from Massachusetts, illustrates the reception of the speech in the country, besides being a souvenir of friendly relations amidst political differences.

"BOSTON, December 29, 1851.

"MY DEAR MR. SUMNER,--

"I thank you for the copy of your beautiful speech, and for the
making of it. All men say it was a successful one, parliamentarily
expressing it; and I am sure it is sound and safe, steering
skilfully between _cold-shoulderism_ and _inhospitality_, on the
one side, and the splendid folly and wickedness of coöperation, on
the other. Cover the Magyar with flowers, lave him with perfumes,
serenade him with eloquence, and let him go home _alone_,--if he
will not live here. Such is all that is permitted to wise states,
aspiring to the 'True Grandeur.'

"I wish to Heaven you would write me _de rebus Congressus_. How
does the Senate strike you? The best place this day on earth for
reasoned and thoughtful, yet stimulant public speech. Think of that.

"Most truly yours--_in the Union_,--

"RUFUS CHOATE."

MR. PRESIDENT,--Words are sometimes things; and I cannot disguise from myself that the resolution in honor of Louis Kossuth now pending before the Senate, when finally passed, will be an act of no small significance in the history of our country. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] was right, when he said that it was no unmeaning compliment. Beyond its immediate welcome to an illustrious stranger, it will help to combine and direct the sentiments of our own people everywhere; it will inspire all in other lands who are engaged in the contest for freedom; it will challenge the disturbed attention of despots; and will become a precedent, whose importance will grow, in the thick-coming events of the future, with the growing might of the Republic. Therefore it becomes us to consider well what we do, and to understand the grounds of our conduct.

I am prepared to vote for it without amendment or condition of any kind, and on reasons which seem to me at once obvious and conclusive. In assigning these I shall be brief; and let me say, that, novice as I am in this hall, and, indeed, in all legislative halls, nothing but my strong interest in the question as now presented, and a hope to say something directly upon it, could prompt me thus early to mingle in these debates.

The case seems to require a statement, rather than an argument. As I understand, the last Congress requested the President to authorize the employment of a national vessel to receive and convey Louis Kossuth to the United States. That honorable service was performed, under the express direction of the President, and in pursuance of the vote of Congress, by one of the best appointed ships of our navy,--the steam-frigate Mississippi. Far away from our country, in foreign waters, on the current of the Bosphorus, the Hungarian chief, passing from his Turkish exile, first pressed the deck of this gallant vessel, first came under the protection of our national flag, and for the first time in his life rested beneath the ensign of an unquestioned Republic. From that moment he became our guest. The Republic--which thus far he had seen only in delighted dream or vision--was now his host; and though this relation was interrupted for a few weeks by his wise and brilliant visit to England, yet its duties and its pleasures, as I confidently submit, are not yet ended. The liberated exile is now at our gates. Sir, we cannot do things by halves; and the hospitality, which, under the auspices of Congress, was thus begun, must, under the auspices of Congress, be continued. The hearts of the people are already open to receive him; Congress cannot turn its back upon him.

I would join in this welcome, not merely because it is essential to complete and crown the work of the last Congress, but because our guest deserves it. The distinction is great, I know; but it is not so great as his deserts. He deserves it as the early, constant, and incorruptible champion of the Liberal Cause in Hungary, who, while yet young, with unconscious power, girded himself for the contest, and by a series of masterly labors, with voice and pen, in parliamentary debate and in the discussions of the press, breathed into his country the breath of life. He deserves it by the great principles of true democracy which he caused to be recognized,--representation of the people without distinction of rank or birth, and _Equality before the law_.[72] He deserves it by the trials he has undergone, in prison and in exile. He deserves it by the precious truth he now so eloquently proclaims, of the Fraternity of Nations.

[72] This important phrase is thus early introduced.

As I regard his course, I am filled with reverence and awe. I see in him, more than in any other living man, the power which may be exerted by a single, earnest, honest soul in a noble cause. In himself he is more than a whole cabinet, more than a whole army. I watch him in Hungary, while, like Carnot in France, he "organizes victory"; I follow him in exile to distant Mahometan Turkey, and there find him, with only a scanty band, in weakness and confinement, still the dread of despots; I sympathize with him in his happy release; and now, as he comes more within the sphere of immediate observation, amazement fills us all in the contemplation of his career, while he proceeds from land to land, from city to city, and, with words of matchless power, seems at times the fiery sword of Freedom, and then the trumpet of resurrection to the Nations,--

"Tuba mirum spargens sonum."[73]

I know not how others are impressed; but I call to mind no incident in history, no event of peace or war,--certainly none of war,--more strongly calculated, better adapted, to touch and exalt the imagination and the heart than his recent visit to England. He landed on the southern coast, not far from where William of Normandy, nearly eight centuries ago, had landed,--not far from where, nineteen centuries ago, Julius Cæsar had landed also; but William on the field of Hastings, and Cæsar in his adventurous expedition, made no conquest comparable in grandeur to that achieved by the unarmed and unattended Hungarian. A multitudinous people, outnumbering far the armies of those earlier times, was subdued by his wisdom and eloquence; and this exile, proceeding from place to place, traversing the country, at last, in the very heart of the Kingdom, threw down the gauntlet of the Republic. Without equivocation, amidst the supporters of monarchy, in the shadow of a lofty throne, he proclaimed himself a republican, and proclaimed the republic as his cherished aspiration for Hungary. And yet, amidst the excitements of this unparalleled scene, with that discretion which I pray may ever attend him as a good angel,--the ancient poet aptly tells us that no Divinity is absent where Prudence is present,[74]--he forbore all suggestion of interference with the institutions of the country whose guest he was, recognizing that vital principle of self-government by which every state chooses for itself the institutions and rulers it prefers.

[73] Dies Iræ, st. 3.

[74] "Nullum numen abest, si sit Prudentia."--JUVENAL, _Sat._ X.
365.

Such a character, thus grandly historic,--a living Wallace, a living Tell, I had almost said a living Washington,--deserves our homage. Nor am I tempted to ask if there be any precedent for the resolution now under consideration. There is a time for all things; and the time has come for us to make a precedent in harmony with his unprecedented career. The occasion is fit; the hero is near; let us speak our welcome. It is true, that, unlike Lafayette, he has never directly served our country; but I cannot admit that on this account he is less worthy. Like Lafayette, he perilled life and all; like Lafayette, he did penance in an Austrian dungeon; like Lafayette, he served the cause of Freedom; and whosoever serves this cause, wheresoever he may be, in whatever land, is entitled, according to his works, to the gratitude of every true American bosom, of every true lover of mankind.

The resolution before us commends itself by simplicity and completeness. In this respect it seems preferable to that of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS]; nor is it obnoxious to objections urged against that of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. FOOTE]; and I do not see that it can give any just umbrage, in our diplomatic relations, even to the sensitive representative of the House of Austria. Though we have the high authority of the President, in his Message, for styling our guest "Governor,"--a title which seems to imply the _de facto_ independence of Hungary, when it is known that our Government declined to acknowledge it,--the resolution avoids this difficulty, and speaks of him without title of any kind,--simply as a private citizen. As such, it offers him welcome to the capital and to the country.

The Comity of Nations I respect. To the behests of the Law of Nations I profoundly bow. In our domestic affairs all acts are brought to the Constitution, as to a touchstone; so in our foreign affairs all acts are brought to the touchstone of the Law of Nations,--that supreme law, the world's collected will, which overarches the Grand Commonwealth of Christian States. What that forbids I forbear to do. But no text of this voluminous code, no commentary, no gloss, can be found, which forbids us to welcome any exile of Freedom.

Looking at this resolution in its various lights, as a carrying out of the act of the last Congress, as justly due to the exalted character of our guest, and as proper in form and consistent with the Law of Nations, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion in its favor. On its merits it would naturally be adopted. And here I might stop.

An appeal is made against the resolution on grounds which seem to me extraneous and irrelevant. There is an attempt to involve it with the critical question of intervention by our country in European affairs; and recent speeches in England and New York are adduced to show that such intervention is sought by our guest. It is sufficient to say, in reply to this suggestion, introduced by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] with a skill which all might envy, and adopted by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. MILLER], _that no such intervention is promised or implied by the resolution_. It does not appear on the face of the resolution; it is not in any way suggested by the resolution, directly or indirectly. It can be found only in the imagination, the anxieties, or the fears of Senators. It is a mere ghost, and not a reality. As such we may dismiss it. But I feel strongly on this point, and desire to go further. Here, again, I shall be brief; for the occasion allows me to give conclusions only, and not details.

While thus warmly, with my heart in my hand, joining in this tribute, I wish to be understood as in no respect encouraging any idea of belligerent intervention in European affairs. Such a system would have in it no element of just self-defence, and would open vials of perplexities and ills which I trust our country will never be called to affront. I inculcate no frigid isolation. God forbid that we should ever close our ears to the cry of distress, or cease to swell with indignation at the steps of tyranny! In the wisdom of Washington we find perpetual counsel. Like Washington, in his eloquent words to the Minister of the French Directory, I would offer sympathy and God-speed to all, in every land, who struggle for Human Rights; but, sternly as Washington on another occasion, against every pressure, against all popular appeals, against all solicitations, against all blandishments, I would uphold with steady hand the peaceful neutrality of the country. Could I now approach our mighty guest, I would say to him, with the respectful frankness of a friend: "Be content with the outgushing sympathy which you now inspire everywhere throughout this wide-spread land, and may it strengthen your soul! Trust in God, in the inspiration of your cause, and in the Great Future, pregnant with freedom for all mankind. But respect our ideas, as we respect yours. Do not seek to reverse our traditional, established policy of peace. _Do not, under the too plausible sophism of upholding non-intervention, provoke American intervention on distant European soil._ Leave us to tread where Washington points the way."

And yet, with these convictions, Mr. President, which I now most sincerely express, I trust the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] will pardon me when I say I cannot join in his proposed amendment,--and for this specific reason. To an act of courtesy and welcome it attaches a condition, which, however just as an independent proposition, is most ungracious in such connection. It is out of place, and everything out of place is to a certain extent offensive. If adopted, it would impair, if not destroy, the value of our act. A generous hospitality will not make terms or conditions with a guest; and such hospitality I trust Congress will tender to Louis Kossuth.

* * * * *

OUR COUNTRY ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM, WITHOUT BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION.

LETTER TO A PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE, DECEMBER 23, 1851.

When this letter was written, Kossuth was engaged in the effort to enlist our country in active measures for the liberation of Hungary.

WASHINGTON, December 23, 1851.

DEAR SIR,--It is not in my power to unite with the citizens of
Philadelphia in their banquet to Governor Kossuth. But though not
present in person, my heart will be with them in every word of
honor to that illustrious man, in every assurance of sympathy for
his great cause, and in every practical effort to place our country
openly on the side of Freedom.

Among citizens all violence is forbidden by the Municipal Law,
which is enforced by no private arm, but by the sheriff, in the
name of the Government, and under the sanctions of the magistrate.
So, among the Nations, all violence, and especially all belligerent
intervention, should be forbidden by International Law; and I trust
the day is not far distant when this prohibition will be maintained
by the Federation of Christian States, with an _executive power_
too mighty for any contumacious resistance.

I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE COMMITTEE.

* * * * *

CLEMENCY TO POLITICAL OFFENDERS.

LETTER TO AN IRISH FESTIVAL AT WASHINGTON, JANUARY 22, 1852.

At the festival the following toast was given: "_Hon. Charles Sumner_: In the Cradle of Liberty the cause of the exile will ever find a friend."

The following letter was then read.

WASHINGTON, January 22, 1852.

GENTLEMEN,--It is not in my power to unite in your festal meeting
this evening. But be assured I shall rejoice in every word of
affection and honor for Ireland, and of sympathy with all her
children, especially those patriots who have striven and suffered
for the common good.

In answer to your express request, I beg leave to inclose a
sentiment, which I trust may find a response at once from our own
Government and from that of Great Britain.

I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JOHN T. TOWERS, Esq., Chairman, &c.

_Clemency_: A grace which it can never be otherwise than honorable
to ask and honorable to grant.

"'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown."

* * * * *

JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES, AND POLICY OF ROADS.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE ON THE IOWA RAILROAD BILL, JANUARY 27,
FEBRUARY 17, AND MARCH 16, 1852.

The Senate having under consideration the "bill granting the right of way, and making a grant of land to the State of Iowa, in aid of the construction of certain railroads in said State," Mr. Sumner entered into the debate, speaking several times. His remarks were much noticed at the time in the Senate, and also in the country, especially in the West. At home in Massachusetts political opponents seized the occasion for criticism, and resolutions on the subject were introduced into the Legislature of Massachusetts. He spoke first January 27, 1852, as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--This bill is important by itself, inasmuch as it promises to secure the building of a railroad, at large cost, for a long distance, through a country not thickly settled, in a remote corner of the land. It is more important still as a precedent for a series of similar appropriations in other States. In this discussion, then, we have before us, at the same time, the special interests of the State of Iowa, traversed by this projected road, and also the great question of the public lands.

I have no inclination to enter into these matters at length, even if I were able; but entertaining no doubt as to the requirements of policy and of justice in the present case, and in all like cases,--seeing my way clearly before me by lights that cannot deceive,--I hope in a few words to exhibit these requirements and to make this way manifest to others. I am especially moved to do so by the tone of remark often heard out of the Senate, and sometimes even here, begrudging these appropriations, and charging particular States for which they are made with undue absorption of the national property. It is sometimes said--not in this body, I know--that "the West is stealing the public lands"; and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], who expresses himself with frankness and moderation worthy of regard, in discussing this very measure, distinctly says that "we are squandering away the public lands"; and he complains that such appropriations are partial, "because very large amounts of land are distributed to those States in which they lie, while nothing is given to the old States." And the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD], taking up this strain, dwells at great length, and in every variety of expression, on the alleged partiality of the distribution.

Now I know full well that the States in which these lands lie need no defender like myself. But, as a Senator from one of the old States, I desire thus early to declare my dissent from these views, and the reasons for this dissent. Beyond a general concern that the public lands, of which the Union is now almoner, custodian, and proprietor, should be administered freely, generously, bountifully, in such wise as most to promote their settlement, and to build upon them towns, cities, and States, the nurseries of future empire,--beyond this concern, which leads me gladly to adopt the proposition in favor of actual settlers brought forward by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WALKER], I find clear and special reason for supporting the measure before the Senate in an undeniable rule of justice to the States in which the lands lie.

Let me speak, then, for _justice_ to the Land States. And in doing so I wish to present an important, and, as it seems to me, decisive consideration,--not adduced thus far in this debate, nor do I know that it has been argued in any former discussion,--_founded on the exemption from taxation enjoyed by the national lands in the several States, and the unquestionable value of this franchise_. The subject naturally presents itself under two heads: _first_, the origin and nature of this franchise; and, _secondly_, its extent and value, after deducting all reservations and grants to the several States.

* * * * *

I. In the _first_ place, as to the origin and nature of the immunity enjoyed by the national domain in the several States.

The United States are proprietors of large tracts within the municipal and legislative jurisdiction of States, not held directly by virtue of any original prerogative or eminent domain, by any right of conquest, occupancy, or discovery, but under acts of cession from the old States, in which the lands were situated, and from foreign countries, recognized and confirmed in the statutes by which the different States have been constituted. Words determining this relation are found in the Ordinance of 1787, as follows: "The Legislatures of those districts or new States shall never interfere with _the primary disposal of the soil_ by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the _bona fide_ purchasers." This provision is incorporated, as an article of compact, in subsequent statutes under which the new States took their place in the Union. It is "the primary disposal of the soil," without any incident of _sovereignty_, which is here secured.