Chapter MCM

COPYRIGHT, 1900,
BY
LEE AND SHEPARD.

Statesman Edition.

LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES.
OF WHICH THIS IS

No. 565

Norwood Press:
NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME IV.

PAGE

ANDREW J. DOWNING, THE LANDSCAPE GARDENER. Speech
in the Senate, in Favor of an Allowance to the Widow of
the late Andrew J. Downing, August 26, 1852 1

THE PARTY OF FREEDOM: ITS NECESSITY AND PRACTICABILITY.
Speech at the State Convention of the Free-Soil
Party of Massachusetts, held at Lowell, September 15, 1852 3

CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES. Speech in the Senate,
on the Proposition to change the Superintendents of
Armories, February 23, 1853 12

NECESSITY OF UNION TO UPHOLD FREEDOM. Letter to a
Rhode Island Committee, March 26, 1853 15

AGAINST SECRECY IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE. Speech
in the Senate, on the Proposition to limit the Secret Sessions
of the Senate, April 6, 1853 16

THE GERMAN EMIGRANT MUST BE AGAINST SLAVERY. Letter
to Lewis Tappan, Esq., May 17, 1853 19

POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA: EXEMPTIONS
FOR CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES. Speech in Convention
to revise and amend the Constitution of Massachusetts,
June 21, 1853 20

POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA: COLORED COMPANIES.
Speech in Convention to revise and amend the
Constitution of Massachusetts, June 22, 1853 25

THE PACIFIC RAILROAD AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
Letter to the Mayor of Boston, for the Celebration
of July 4, 1853 32

THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM, AND ITS PROPER BASIS.
Speech on the Proposition to amend the Basis of the
House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in the Convention
to revise and amend the Constitution of that
State, July 7, 1853 33

BILLS OF RIGHTS: THEIR HISTORY AND POLICY. Speech on
the Report from the Committee on the Bill of Rights, in
the Convention to revise and amend the Constitution of
Massachusetts, July 25, 1853 62

FINGER-POINT FROM PLYMOUTH ROCK. Speech at the Plymouth
Festival in Commemoration of the Embarkation
of the Pilgrims, August 1, 1853 73

IRELAND AND IRISHMEN. Letter to a Committee of Irish-born
Citizens, August 2, 1853 80

THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM: NO REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI
COMPROMISE. Speech in the Senate, against the
Repeal of the Missouri Prohibition of Slavery north of
36° 30´ in the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, February 21, 1854 81

WHEN WILL THE NORTH BE AROUSED? Letter to a Personal
Friend, March 30, 1854 137

A LIBERTY-LOVING EMIGRATION TO GUARD KANSAS. Letter
to a Massachusetts Committee, May 1, 1854 138

FINAL PROTEST, FOR HIMSELF AND THE CLERGY OF NEW
ENGLAND, AGAINST SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
Speech in the Senate, on the Night of the Final Passage
of the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, May 25, 1854 140

UNION OF ALL PARTIES NECESSARY AGAINST THE SLAVE
POWER. Letter to a Massachusetts Committee, May 29, 1854 157

BOSTON PETITION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE
ACT. Speech in the Senate, on the Boston Petition for
the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, June 26, 1854 159

REPLY TO ASSAILANTS: OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION;
WEAKNESS OF THE SOUTH FROM SLAVERY. Second
Speech in the Senate on the Boston Petition for the
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, June 28, 1854 172

PEACEFUL OPPOSITION TO THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. Letter
to the Mayor of Boston, for the Celebration of July 4, 1854 228

NO PENSION FOR SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF THE FUGITIVE
SLAVE ACT. Minority Report to the Senate of the
United States, on the Bill granting to the Widow of
James Batchelder a Provision for her Future Support,
July 13, 1854 230

JAMES OTIS AN EXAMPLE TO MASSACHUSETTS. Letter to
the Cape Cod Association of Massachusetts, July 30, 1854 237

STRUGGLE FOR REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. Debate
in the Senate, July 31, 1854 239

DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. FORMATION
OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Speech before the
Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 7,
1854 255

THE GOOD FARMER AND THE GOOD CITIZEN. Letter to the
Norfolk Agricultural Society, September 25, 1854 280

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT TO BE DISOBEYED. Letter to a
Committee at Syracuse, New York, September 28, 1854 282

POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT, ILLUSTRATED BY
THE LIFE OF GRANVILLE SHARP. Address before the
Mercantile Library Association of Boston, on the Evening
of November 13, 1854 283

WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK. Speech in the
Senate, on introducing a Bill to secure Wages to Seamen
in Case of Wreck, February 12, 1855 324

AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Letter to a Committee of
the Massachusetts Legislature, February 12, 1855 331

THE DEMANDS OF FREEDOM: REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE
SLAVE ACT. Speech in the Senate against Mr. Toucey's
Bill, and for the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, February
23, 1855 333

ANDREW J. DOWNING, THE LANDSCAPE GARDENER.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, IN FAVOR OF AN ALLOWANCE TO THE WIDOW
OF THE LATE ANDREW J. DOWNING, AUGUST 26, 1852.

The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill being under consideration, Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, under instructions from the Committee on Finance, moved the following amendment:--

"For the payment of the arrears of salary due to the late Rural
Architect, A. J. Downing, deceased, from the 1st of May, 1852,
to the date of his death, and a further allowance to his widow,
equal to the salary for one year, $2,500: _Provided_, that the
said sum shall be in full of all claim for the services of the
said deceased, and for all models, specifications, and drawings,
designed for the benefit of the United States, which are not in its
possession."

In the course of the debate which ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

Mr. President--The laborer is worthy of his hire; and I believe at this moment there is no question of charity to the widow of the late Mr. Downing. The simple proposition is, to make compensation for services rendered to the United States by this eminent artist as superintendent of the public grounds in Washington. And since the plans he has left behind and the impulse he has given to improvements here by his remarkable genius will continue to benefit us, though he has been removed, it is thought reasonable to continue his salary to the close of the unexpired year from which it commenced. These plans alone have been valued at five thousand dollars, and we are to have the advantage of them. In pursuance of these, his successor will be able to proceed in arranging the public grounds, and in embellishing the national capital, without further expenditure for others. Thus, as I said at the outset, it is not a question of charity, but of compensation; and on this ground I doubt not the estate of the departed artist deserves the small pittance it is proposed to pay. For myself, I should be much happier to vote a larger appropriation, believing, that, over and above the services actually rendered in the discharge of his duties, these plans are amply worth it, and that we shall all feel better by such recognition of our debt.

Few men in the public service have vindicated a title to regard above Mr. Downing. At the age of thirty-seven he has passed away, "dead ere his prime,"--like Lycidas, also, "floating upon his watery bier,"[1]--leaving behind a reputation above that of any other citizen in the beautiful department of Art to which he was devoted. His labors and his example cannot be forgotten. I know of no man among us, in any sphere of life, so young as he was at his death, who has been able to perform services of such true, simple, and lasting beneficence. By wide and active superintendence of rural improvements, by labors of the pen, and by the various exercise of his genius, he has contributed essentially to the sum of human happiness. And now, Sir, by practical services here in Washington, rendered at the call of his country, he has earned, it seems to me, this small appropriation, not as a charity to his desolate widow, but as a remuneration for labor done. I hope the amendment will be agreed to.

[1] Mr. Downing was accidentally drowned in the Hudson River.

THE PARTY OF FREEDOM: ITS NECESSITY AND
PRACTICABILITY.

SPEECH AT THE STATE CONVENTION OF THE FREE-SOIL PARTY OF
MASSACHUSETTS, HELD AT LOWELL, SEPTEMBER 15, 1852.

The annual State Convention of the Free-Soil Party of Massachusetts met at Lowell September 15, 1852. It was organized with the following officers: Hon. Stephen C. Phillips, of Salem, President,--Rodney French, of New Bedford, George B. Atwood, of Taunton, William Jackson, of Newton, George F. Williams, of Boston, Charles Beck, of Cambridge, John B. Alley, of Lynn, Benjamin F. Thompson, of Winchester, John Nesmith, of Lowell, John Edgell, of Gardner, Francis Bates, of Springfield, Calvin Marden, of Pittsfield, Vice-Presidents,--George M. Brooks, of Concord, Edmund Anthony, of New Bedford, William S. Robinson, of Lowell, Andrew J. Aiken, of Adams, Benjamin F. White, of Weymouth, Secretaries.

Eloquent speeches were made by the President, Hon. S. C. Phillips, Hon. Henry Wilson, Hon. John W. Graves, Hon. E. L. Keyes, Hon. Rodney French, Dr. Caleb Swan, Richard H. Dana, Jr., Esq., Hon. Horace Mann, Hon. Amasa Walker, Hon. Anson Burlingame, and Seth Webb, Jr., Esq. The resolutions adopted by the Convention were reported by Hon. C. F. Adams. Hon. Horace Mann was nominated as candidate for Governor, and Hon. Amasa Walker as candidate for Lieutenant-Governor.

Early in the proceedings Mr. Sumner was introduced to the audience by the President. This incident is copied from the report in the papers, as is also the speech which he made, with the interruptions.

"The President remarked, that there was one gentleman present
whom the Convention would all delight to hear: he alluded to our
distinguished Senator in Congress, Hon. Charles Sumner.

"The name of Mr. Sumner was received with 'three times three'
rousing cheers, and the waving of hats, canes, handkerchiefs,
&c.; which demonstrations of regard were renewed as he made his
appearance on the platform."

Among those on the platform was Captain Drayton, called "The Hero
of the Pearl," recently liberated from prison through the exertions
of Mr. Sumner (_ante_, p. 49), who took his seat "amid the hearty
cheers of the whole assembly."

MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS:--

I should be dull indeed,--dull as a weed,--were I insensible to this generous, heart-speaking welcome. After an absence of many months, I have now come home to breathe anew this invigorating Northern air [_applause_], to tread again the free soil of our native Massachusetts [_cheers_], and to enjoy the sympathy of friends and fellow-citizens. [_Renewed applause._] But, while glad in your greetings, thus bounteously lavished, I cannot accept them for myself. I do not deserve them. They belong to the cause [_applause_] which we all have at heart, and which binds us together. [_Cheers._]

Fellow-citizens, I have not come here to make a speech. The occasion requires no such effort. Weary with other labors, and desiring rest, I have little now to say,--and that little will be too much, if about myself. If, at Washington, during a long session of Congress,--my first experience of public life,--I have been able to do anything which meets your acceptance, I am happy. [_Cheers._] I have done nothing but my duty. ["_Hear! hear!_"] Passing from this, and taking advantage of the kind attention with which you honor me, let me add one word in vindication of our position as a _national party_.

We are on the eve of two important elections,--one of National officers, and the other of State officers. A President and Vice-President of the United States and members of Congress are to be chosen; also, Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of the Commonwealth, and members of the Legislature. And at these elections we are to cast our votes so as most to advance the cause of Freedom under the National Constitution. [_Cheers._] This is our peculiar object,--though associated with it are other aims, kindred in their humane and liberal character.

Against Freedom both the old parties are banded. Opposed to each other in the contest for power, they concur in opposing every effort for the establishment of Freedom under the National Constitution. [_Applause._] Divided as parties, _they are one_ as supporters of Slavery. On this question we can have no sympathy with either, but must necessarily be against both. ["_Hear! hear!_"] They sustain Slavery in the District of Columbia: we are against it. They sustain the coastwise Slave-Trade under the National Flag: we abhor it. [_Cheers._] They sustain the policy of silence on Slavery in the Territories: we urge the voice of positive prohibition. They sustain that paragon of legislative monsters,--unconstitutional, unchristian, and infamous,--the Fugitive Slave Bill [_sensation_]: we insist on its repeal. [_Great applause._] They concede to the Slave Power new life and protection: we cannot be content except with its total destruction. [_Enthusiasm._] Such, fellow-citizens, is the difference between us.

And now, if here in Massachusetts there be any who, on grounds of policy or conscience, feel impelled to support Slavery, let them go and sink in the embrace of the old parties. [_Applause._] There they belong. On the other hand, all sincerely opposed to Slavery, who desire to act against Slavery, who seek to bear their testimony for Freedom, who long to carry into public affairs those principles of morality and Christian duty which are the rule of private life,--let them come out from both the old parties, and join us. [_Cheers._] In our organization, with the declared friends of Freedom, they will find a place in harmony with their aspirations. [_Enthusiasm._]

There is one apology, common to the supporters of both the old parties, and often in their mouths, when pressed for inconsistent persistence in adhering to these parties. It is dogmatically asserted that there can be but two parties,--that a new party is impossible, particularly in our country,--and that, therefore, all persons, however opposed to Slavery, must be content in one of the old parties. This assumption, which is without foundation in reason, is so often put forth, that it has acquired a certain currency; and many, who reason hastily, or implicitly follow others, have adopted it as the all-sufficient excuse for their conduct. Confessing their own opposition to Slavery, they yield to the domination of party, and become dumb. All this is wrong morally, and therefore must be wrong practically.

Party, in its true estate, is the natural expression and agency of different forms of opinion on important public questions, and itself assumes different forms precisely according to the prevalence of different opinions. Thus, in the early Italian republics there were for a while the factions of Guelphs and Ghibellines, rival supporters of Pope and Emperor,--also of Whites and Blacks, taking their names from the color of their respective badges,--and in England, the two factions of the White and Red Roses, in which was involved the succession to the crown. In all these cases the party came into being, died out, or changed with the objects originating it. If there be in a community only two chief antagonist opinions, then there will be but two parties embodying these opinions. But as other opinions practically prevail and seek vent, so must parties change or multiply. This is so strongly the conclusion of reason and philosophy, that it could not be doubted, even if there were no examples of such change and multiplicity. But we need only turn to the recent history of France and England, the two countries where opinion has the freest scope, to find such examples.

Thus, for instance, in France,--and I dwell on this point because I have myself observed, in conversation, that it is of practical importance,--under Louis Philippe, anterior to the late Republic, there was the party of Legitimists, supporters of the old branch of Bourbons, and the party of Orleanists, supporters of the existing throne: these two corresponding at the time, in relative rank and power, to our Whigs and Democrats. Besides these was a third party, _the small band of Republicans, represented in the Legislature by a few persons only_, but strong in principles and purposes, which in February, 1848, prevailed over both the others. [_Applause._] On the establishment of the Republic, the multiplication of parties continued, until, with the freedom of opinion and the freedom of the press, all were equally overthrown by Louis Napoleon, and their place supplied by the enforced unity of despotism.

In England, the most important measure of recent reform, the abolition of the laws imposing a protective duty on corn, was carried only by a third party. Neither of the two old parties could be brought to adopt this measure and press it to consummation. A powerful public opinion, thwarted in the regular parties, had recourse to a new one, neither Whig nor Tory, but formed from both the old ones, where Sir Robert Peel, the great Conservative leader, took his place, side by side, in honorable coalition, with Mr. Cobden, the great Liberal leader. ["_Hear! hear!_"] In this way the Corn Laws were finally overthrown. The multiplicity of parties engendered by this contest still continues in England. At the general election for the new Parliament which has just taken place, the strict lines of ancient parties seemed to be effaced, and many were returned, not as Whigs and Tories, but as Protectionists and Anti-Protectionists.

Thus by example in our own day we confirm the principle of political philosophy, that parties naturally adapt themselves in character and number to prevailing public opinion.

At the present time, in our country, there exists a deep, controlling, conscientious feeling against Slavery. [_Cheers._] You and I, Sir, and all of us, confess it. While recognizing the Constitution, we desire to do everything in our power to relieve ourselves of responsibility for this terrible wrong. ["_Yes! yes!_"] We would vindicate the Constitution, and the National Government it has established, from all participation in this outrage. [_Cheers._] Both the old political parties, forgetful of the Fathers, and of the spirit of the Constitution, not only refuse to be agents or representatives in any degree of our convictions, but expressly discourage and denounce them. Thus baffled in effort for utterance, these convictions naturally seek expression in a new agency, _the party of Freedom_. [_Cheers._] Such is the party, representing the great doctrines of Human Rights, as enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, and inspired by a truly Democratic sentiment, now assembled here under the name of the Free Democracy. [_Cheers._]

The rising public opinion against Slavery cannot flow in the old political channels. It is impeded, choked, and dammed back. But if not _through_ the old parties, then _over_ the old parties [_tremendous cheering_], this irresistible current _shall_ find its way. [_Enthusiasm._] It cannot be permanently stopped. If the old parties will not become its organs, they must become its victims. [_Cheers._] The party of Freedom will certainly prevail. [_Sensation._] It may be by entering into and possessing one of the old parties, filling it with our own strong life; or it may be by drawing to itself the good and true from both who are unwilling to continue in a political combination when it ceases to represent their convictions; but, in one way or the other, its ultimate triumph is sure. [_Great applause._] Of this let no man doubt. [_Repeated cheers._]

At this moment we are in a minority. At the last popular election in Massachusetts, there were twenty-eight thousand Free-Soilers, forty-three thousand Democrats, and sixty-four thousand Whigs. But this is no reason for discouragement. According to recent estimates, the population of the whole world amounts to about eight hundred millions. Of these only two hundred and sixty millions are Christians, while the remaining five hundred and forty millions are mainly Mahometans, Brahmins, and Idolaters. Because the Christians are in this minority, that is no reason for renouncing Christianity, and for surrendering to the false religions [_cheers_]; nor do we doubt that Christianity will yet prevail over the whole earth, as the waters cover the sea. ["_Hear! hear!_"] The friends of Freedom in Massachusetts are likewise in a minority; but they will not therefore renounce Freedom [_cheers_], nor surrender to the political Mahometans, Brahmins, and Idolaters of Baltimore ["_Never! never!_"]; nor can they doubt that their cause, like Christianity, will yet prevail. [_Enthusiastic cheers._]

Our party commends itself. But it is also commended by our candidates. [_Cheers._] In all that makes the eminent civilian or the accomplished statesman fit for the responsibilities of government, they will proudly compare with any of their competitors [_applause_], while they are dear to our hearts as able, well-tried, loyal supporters of those vital principles which we seek to establish under the Constitution of the United States. [_Applause._] In the Senate, Mr. Hale [_cheers_] is admitted to be foremost in aptitude and readiness for debate, whether in the general legislation of the country, or in constant and valiant championship of our cause. [_Applause._] His genial and sun-like nature irradiates the antagonism of political controversy [_cheers_], while his active and practical mind, richly stored with various experience, never fails to render good service. [_Great cheering._]

Of Mr. Julian, our candidate for the Vice-Presidency, ["_Hear! hear!_"] let me say simply, that, in ability and devotion to our principles, he is a worthy compeer of Mr. Hale. To vote for such men will itself be a pleasure. But it will be doubly so, when we reflect that in this way we do something to accomplish a noble work, with which the happiness, welfare, and fame of our country are indissolubly connected. [_Repeated and enthusiastic cheers._]

With such a cause and such candidates, no man can be disheartened. The tempest may blow,--but ours is a life-boat, not to be harmed by wind or wave. The Genius of Liberty sits at the helm. I hear her voice of cheer, saying, "Whoso sails with me comes to shore!"

Mr. Sumner resumed his seat amid heartiest and long-protracted applause.

CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE PROPOSITION TO CHANGE THE
SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES, FEBRUARY 23, 1853.

The Army Appropriation Bill being under discussion, Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, moved the following amendment:--

"That from and after the first day of July next, the Act of
Congress approved August 23, 1842, be so modified, that the
President may, if in his opinion the public interest demands it,
place over any of the armories a superintendent who does not belong
to the Army."

In the course of the debate, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

Mr. President,--I do not desire to speak upon the general subject of the manufacture of arms under the authority of the United States, which has been opened in debate by honorable Senators. What I have to say will be on the precise question before the Senate, and nothing else. That question, as I understand it, is on the amendment proposed by my colleague [Mr. DAVIS], according to which the Act of 1842 is to be so far modified, that the President, in his discretion, may place over the armories persons not of the army,--leaving it, therefore, to his judgment whether the superintendent shall be a military man or a civilian. This is all.

The Senate is exhorted not to act precipitately. But the character of this proposition excludes all idea of precipitation. We do not determine absolutely that the system shall be changed, but simply that it may be changed in the discretion of the President. This discretion, which will be exercised only after ample inquiry, stands in the way of all precipitation; and this is my answer to the Senator from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS].

Again, it is urged, that under a military head the armories are better administered than they would be under a civil head, and that the arms are better and cheaper; and here my friend from South Carolina, who sits before me [Mr. BUTLER], dwelt with his accustomed glow upon the success with which this manufacture is conducted at the national armories, and the extent to which it is recognized in Europe. But, Sir, in the precise question before you the merits of the armories are not involved. We do not undertake to judge the military superintendents or their works. The determination of this question is referred to the President; and this is my answer to the Senator from South Carolina.

The objections to this amendment of my colleague, then, seem to disappear. But there are two distinct arguments in its favor, which, at the present moment, do not seem to me susceptible of any answer.

In the first place, there are complaints against the existing system, which ought to be heard. A memorial from five hundred legal voters of Springfield, now on your table, bears testimony to them. Letters to myself and others, from persons whose opinions I am bound to regard, set them forth sometimes in very strong language. The administration of the arsenal at Springfield is commended by many; but there are others who judge it differently. As now conducted, it is sometimes represented to be the seat of oppressive conduct, and the occasion of heart-burning and strife, often running into local politics. In the eyes of some this arsenal is little better than a sore on that beautiful town. Now on these complaints and allegations I express no opinion. I do not affirm their truth or untruth. What I know of the superintendent makes it difficult for me to believe that anything unjust, oppressive, or hard can proceed from him. But the whole case justifies inquiry at least, and such will be secured by the proposition before the Senate. This is the smallest thing we can do.

This proposition is enforced by another consideration which seems to me entitled to weight. I have nothing to say now on the general question of reducing the army or modifying the existing military system. But I do affirm, confidently, that the genius of our institutions favors civil life rather than military life,--and that, in harmony with this, it is our duty, whenever the public interests will permit, to limit and restrict the sphere of military influence. This is not a military monarchy, where the soldier is supreme, but a republic, where the soldier yields to the civilian. But the law, as it now stands, gives to the soldier an absolute preference in a service which is not military, and which, from its nature, belongs to civil life. The manufacture of arms is a mechanical pursuit, and, for myself, I can see no reason why it should not be placed in charge of one bred to the business. Among the intelligent mechanics of Massachusetts there are many fully fit to be at the head of the arsenal at Springfield; but by the existing law all these are austerely excluded from any such trust. The idea which has fallen from so many Senators, that the superintendent of an armory ought to be a military man, that a military man only is competent, or even that a military man is more competent than a civilian, seems to me as illogical as the jocular fallacy of Dr. Johnson, that he "who drives fat oxen should himself be fat."

NECESSITY OF UNION TO UPHOLD FREEDOM.

LETTER TO A RHODE ISLAND COMMITTEE, MARCH 26, 1853.

WASHINGTON, March 26, 1853.

Dear Sir,--I cannot promise myself the pleasure of being in Rhode
Island at the time you propose, and am therefore constrained to
decline the invitation with which you have honored me.

But let me assure you, that, in all our political contests, I see
no question comparable in practical importance, as surely there is
none equal in moral grandeur, to that which is presented by the
Free Democracy, and which now enlists your sympathies.

Both the old parties unite in upholding Slavery. It becomes all
good citizens to unite in upholding Freedom; nor should any one
believe that his single vote may not exert an influence on the
struggle.

Believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,
CHARLES SUMNER.

GEORGE L. CLARKE, Chairman of the State Central Committee of the
Free Democracy of Rhode Island.

AGAINST SECRECY IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE PROPOSITION TO LIMIT THE SECRET
SESSIONS OF THE SENATE, APRIL 6, 1853.

The following resolution was submitted by Mr. Chase, of Ohio.

"_Resolved_, That all sessions and all proceedings of the Senate
shall be public and open, except when matters communicated in
confidence by the President shall be received and considered,
and in such other cases as the Senate by resolution from time to
time shall specially order; and so much of the thirty-eighth,
thirty-ninth, and fortieth rules as may be inconsistent with this
rule is hereby rescinded."

In the debate which ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

Mr. President,--Party allusions and party considerations have been brought to bear upon this question. I wish to regard it for a moment in the light of the Constitution, and in the spirit of our institutions. In the Constitution there is no injunction of secrecy on any of the proceedings of the Senate; nor is there any requirement of publicity. To the Senate is left the determination of its rules of proceeding. Thus abstaining from all regulation of this matter, the framers of the Constitution obviously regarded it as in all respects within the discretion of the Senate, to be exercised from time to time as it thinks best.

The Senate possesses three important functions: _first_, the legislative or parliamentary power, where it acts concurrently with the House of Representatives, as well as the President; _secondly_, the diplomatic power, or that of "advice and consent" to treaties with foreign countries in concurrence with the President; and, _thirdly_, the executive power, or that of "advice and consent" to nominations by the President for offices under the Constitution. I say nothing of another, rarely called into activity, the sole power to try impeachments.

At the first organization of the Government, the proceedings of the Senate, whether in legislation or on treaties or nominations, were with closed doors. In this respect legislative business and executive business were alike. This continued down to the second session of the Third Congress, in 1794, when, in pursuance of a formal resolution, the galleries were opened so long as the Senate were engaged in their legislative capacity, unless where, in the opinion of the Senate, secrecy was required; and this rule has continued ever since. Here was an exercise of discretion, in obvious harmony with public sentiment and the spirit of our institutions.

The change now proposed goes still further. It opens the doors on all occasions, whether legislative or executive, except when specially ordered otherwise. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] says that the Senate is a confidential body, and should be ready to receive confidential communications from the President. But this will still be the case, if we adopt the resolution now submitted to us. The limitation proposed seems adequate to all exigencies, while the general rule will be publicity. Executive sessions with closed doors, shrouded from the public gaze and public criticism, constitute an exceptional part of our system, too much in harmony with the proceedings of other Governments less liberal in character. The genius of our institutions requires publicity. The ancient Roman, who bade his architect so to construct his house that his guests and all that he did could be seen by the world, is a fit model for the American people.

THE GERMAN EMIGRANT MUST BE AGAINST SLAVERY.

LETTER TO LEWIS TAPPAN, ESQ., MAY 17, 1853.

BOSTON, May 17, 1853.

Dear Sir,--I know Mr. Schmidt by the good name he has won, and I
have also had the pleasure of making his personal acquaintance.
I understand him to be a scholar, believing in the demand which
Liberty in our country now makes upon every citizen. Thus
endowed in mind and character, he will address his compatriots
from Germany, in their own language, with persuasive power. I
trust he will find the opportunity he covets; and I know of none
which promises better than his present plan of a Weekly German
Antislavery Newspaper at Washington.

The number of persons to be addressed by such a journal is very
large; and they should be easy converts. The German emigrant who
is not against Slavery here leads us to doubt the sincerity of his
opposition to the Tyranny he has left behind in his native land.

Believe me, dear Sir,
faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

LEWIS TAPPAN, ESQ.

POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA: EXEMPTIONS FOR CONSCIENTIOUS
SCRUPLES.

SPEECH IN CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS,[2] JUNE 21, 1853.

Propositions of amendment on the general subject of the Militia being under consideration in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the precise question on which we are to vote. This does not, as it seems to me, properly open the discussion to which we have been listening. I do not understand that it involves the topics introduced by my friend opposite [Mr. WILSON],--the present condition of Europe, the prospects of the liberal cause in that quarter of the globe, or the extent to which that cause may be affected by a contemporaneous movement for peace. Nor do I understand that the important considerations introduced by the gentleman on my right [Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston], regarding the extent to which Government may be intrusted with the power of the sword, can materially influence our decision. I put these things aside at this time.

[2] The members of this Convention were not required to have their
domiciles in the places which they represented. Mr. Sumner sat as
member for Marshfield, by which place he was chosen while absent
from the State.

The question is on the final passage of the fifteen resolutions reported by the Committee on the Militia. And here let me adopt a suggestion dropped by my friend opposite [Mr. WILSON]. He regretted, if I understood him, that this whole subject was not compressed into one or two resolutions. Am I right?

MR. WILSON. The gentleman is correct.

MR. SUMNER. I agree with him. I regret that it was not compressed into one or two resolutions. I object to these resolutions for several reasons. In the first place, there are too many; in the second place, at least two of them seem to be an assumption of power belonging to Congress, and therefore at least of doubtful constitutionality; and, in the third place, because twelve of them undertake to control matters which it were better to leave with the Legislature.

On the formation of the Constitution of Massachusetts, in 1780, it was natural that our fathers should introduce details with regard to the militia and its organization. The Constitution of the United States had not then been made. But since the establishment of this Constitution the whole condition of the militia is changed. Among the powers expressly given to Congress is the power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, _reserving_ to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." And Congress has proceeded to exercise this power by the organization of a national militia. Whatever might have been the original inducement to multiform provisions on this subject in the Constitution of Massachusetts, none such exists at this day, and it is impolitic at least to introduce them.

I fear that they are more than impolitic. I will not argue here the question of Constitutional Law; but I appeal to the better judgment of my professional brethren--and I am happy to see some of them lingering at this late hour--that any attempt on the part of the State to interfere, in any way, by addition or subtraction, with the organization of the national militia, is an experiment which we should not introduce into the permanent text of our organic law. If the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the powers of Congress are to prevail, then, it seems to me, any such assumption, in a case where the original power of Congress is clear, will be unconstitutional and void. In the famous case of _Prigg_ v. _Pennsylvania_, after an elaborate discussion at the bar, all State legislation on the subject of fugitive slaves was declared unconstitutional and void, while Congress is recognized as the sole depository of power on this subject. According to my recollection, it was expressly held that legislation by Congress excluded all State legislation on the same subject, whether to control, qualify, or _superadd_ to the remedy enacted by Congress. I commend gentlemen, now so swift with these provisions, to the study of this precedent. It is comparatively recent; and the principle of interpretation which it establishes is applicable to State laws on the militia, even though entirely inapplicable to State laws on fugitive slaves,--for the simple reason, that in the former case the original power of Congress is clear, while in the latter it is denied.

But the States are not without power over the militia. In the very grant to Congress is a reservation to them as follows: "reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." And here is precisely what the States can do. They may appoint the officers and train the militia.

Now, Sir, the first two resolutions before us transcend the powers of the State. They touch the enrolment and organization of the militia, and on this account are an assumption of power forbidden by the principle to which I have referred. The other thirteen resolutions, with the exception of the seventh, are in the nature of a military code, concerning the choice of officers, all of which should be left to the action of the Legislature.

In conformity with these views, Mr. Chairman, and in the hope of presenting a proposition on which the Convention may unite, I propose to strike out all after the preamble and insert two resolutions, as follows.

ART. 1. The Governor shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army
and Navy of the State, and the Militia thereof, excepting when
these forces shall be actually in the service of the United
States,--and shall have power to call out the same to aid in the
execution of the laws, to suppress insurrection, and to repel
invasion.

ART. 2. The appointment of officers and the training of the Militia
shall be regulated in such manner as may hereafter be deemed
expedient by the Legislature; and all persons, who from scruples
of conscience shall be averse to bearing arms, shall be excused on
such conditions as shall hereafter be prescribed by law.

The first of these resolutions is identical with the seventh resolution of the Committee. The second provides for the exercise by the Legislature of powers expressly reserved to the States over the appointment of officers and the training of the militia; and taking advantage of the Act of Congress which allows the States to determine who shall be exempted from military duty, it plants in the text of the Constitution a clause by which this immunity is secured to all persons who from scruples of conscience are averse to bearing arms. I believe we cannot go far beyond these without doing too much, while these seem to me enough.

POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA: COLORED COMPANIES.

SPEECH IN CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS, JUNE 22, 1853.

On 22d June the following resolution was brought forward by Mr. Wilson:--

"_Resolved_, That no distinction shall ever be made, in the
organization of the volunteer militia of this Commonwealth, on
account of color or race."

On this proposition Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.