Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

And yet there are persons among us who seek to put this great question aside. Some clamor for financial reform, and hold up a tax-bill; others clamor for a modification of the elective franchise, and they hold up the Pope; some speak in the name of old parties, calling themselves Democrats or Whigs; others in the name of a new party, which shall be nameless at present. Surely the people of Massachusetts will not be diverted from the true issue, involving Freedom for broad territories and Freedom for themselves, by holding up a tax-bill or by holding up the Pope. The people of Massachusetts are intelligent and humane.

…

But above all these is heard the great question, which will not be postponed, Are you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery? “Under which king, Bezonian? Speak or die!” Are you for Freedom, with its priceless blessings, or are you for Slavery, with its countless wrongs and woes? Are you for God, or are you for the Devil?

Fellow-Citizens, I speak plainly; nor can words exhibiting the enormity of Slavery be too plain, whether it be regarded simply in the legislative and judicial decisions by which it is upheld, or in the unquestionable facts by which its character is revealed. It has been my fortune latterly to see Slavery face to face in its own home, in the Slave States; and I take this early opportunity to offer my testimony to the open barbarism which it sanctions. I have seen a human being knocked off at auction on the steps of a court-house, and, as the sale went on, compelled to open his mouth and show his teeth, like a horse; I have been detained in a stage-coach, that our driver might, in the phrase of the country, “help lick a nigger”; and I have been constrained, at public table, to witness the revolting spectacle of a poor slave, yet a child, almost felled to the floor by a blow on the head from a clenched fist. Such incidents were not calculated to shake my original convictions. The distant slaveholder, who, in generous solicitude for that truth which makes for Freedom, feared, that, like a certain Doctor of Divinity, I might, under influence of personal kindness, be hastily swayed from these convictions, may be assured that I saw nothing to change them one tittle, but much to confirm them,--while I was entirely satisfied that here in Massachusetts, where all read, the true character of Slavery is better known than in the Slave States themselves, where ignorance and prejudice close the avenues of knowledge.

And now, grateful for the attention with which you honor me, I venture to hope that you are assembled honestly to hear the truth,--not to gratify prejudice, to appease personal antipathies, or to indulge a morbid appetite for excitement, but with candor and your best discrimination to weigh facts and arguments in order to determine the course of duty. I address myself particularly to the friends of Freedom, Republicans, on whose invitation I appear to-night; but I make bold to ask you of other parties, who now listen, to divest yourselves, for the time, of partisan constraint,--to forget, for the moment, that you are Whigs or Democrats, or however called, and to remember only that you are _men_, with hearts to feel, with heads to understand, and with consciences to guide. Then only will you be in condition to receive the truth. “If men are not aware of the probable influence of party over them, they are so much the more likely to be blindly governed by it.” Such is the wise remark of Wilberforce.[25] And I fear that among us there are too many unconsciously governed by such bias. There are men, who, while professing candor, yet show that the bitterness of party has entered into their whole character and lives, as the bitterness of the soil in Sardinia is said to appear even in its honey.

…

There are honorable responsibilities belonging to Massachusetts, as an early and constant vindicator of Freedom, which she cannot renounce. “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” The distant emigrant, the whole country, awaits the voice of our beloved Commonwealth in answer to the question, Are you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery? So transcendent, so exclusive, so all-absorbing at the present juncture is this question, that it is vain to speak of the position of candidates on other things. To be doubtful on this is to be wrong, and to be wrong on this is to be wholly wrong. Passing strange it is that here in Massachusetts, in this nineteenth century, we should be constrained to put this question; passing strange, that, when it is put, there should be any hesitation to answer it, by voice and vote, in such way as to speak the loudest for Freedom.

…

But, without exposing the game of political sweepstakes which the Slave Oligarchy has perpetually played,--interesting as it would be,--I prefer to hold up for one moment the assumptions, aggressions, and usurpations by which, in defiance of the Constitution, it has made Slavery national, when it is in reality sectional. Here is a brief catalogue.

…

Fellow-citizens, I have said enough to stir you; but this humiliating tale is not yet finished. An oligarchy seeking to maintain an outrage like Slavery, and drawing its inspirations from this fountain of wickedness, is naturally base, false, and heedless of justice. It is vain to expect that men who have brought themselves to become propagandists of this enormity will be constrained by any compromise, compact, bargain, or plighted faith. As the less is contained in the greater, so there is no vileness of dishonesty, no denial of human rights, that is not plainly involved in the support of an enormity which begins by changing man, created in the image of God, into a chattel, and consigns little children to the auction-block. A power which Heaven never gave can be maintained only by means which Heaven can never sanction. And this conclusion of reason is confirmed by late experience.

And here I approach the special question under which the country now shakes from side to side. The protracted struggle of 1820, known as the Missouri Question, ended with the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding State, and the prohibition of Slavery in all the remaining territory west of the Mississippi and north of 36° 30´. Here was a solemn act of legislation, called at the time a compromise, a covenant, a compact, first brought forward by the Slave Oligarchy, vindicated by it in debate, finally sanctioned by its votes,--also upheld at the time by a slaveholding President, James Monroe, and his cabinet, of whom a majority were slaveholders, including Mr. Calhoun himself,--and made the condition of the admission of Missouri, without which that State could not have been received into the Union. Suddenly, during the last year, without any notice in the public press or the prayer of a single petition, after an acquiescence of thirty-four years, and the irreclaimable possession by the Slave Oligarchy of its special share in the provisions of this Compromise, in violation of every obligation of honor, compact, and good neighborhood, and in contemptuous disregard of the outgushing sentiments of an aroused North, this time-honored Prohibition, in itself a Landmark of Freedom, was overturned, and the vast region now known as Kansas and Nebraska was opened to Slavery: and this was done under the disgraceful lead of Northern politicians, and with the undisguised complicity of a Northern President, forgetful of Freedom, forgetful also of his reiterated pledges that during his administration the repose of the country should receive no shock.

And all this was perpetrated under pretences of popular rights. Freedom was betrayed by a kiss. In defiance of uninterrupted prescription down to our day, early sustained at the South as well as the North, leaning at once on Jefferson and Washington, sanctioned by all the authoritative names of our history, and beginning with the great Ordinance by which Slavery was prohibited in the Northwest,--it was pretended that the people of the United States, who are the proprietors of the national domain, and who, according to the Constitution, may “make all needful rules and regulations” for its government, nevertheless were not its sovereigns, that they had no power to interdict Slavery there, but that this eminent dominion resided in the few settlers, called squatters, whom chance or a desire to better their fortunes first hurried into these places. To this precarious handful, sprinkled over immense spaces, it was left, without any constraint from Congress, to decide whether into these vast unsettled lands, as into the veins of an infant, should be poured the festering poison of Slavery, destined, as time advances, to show itself in cancers and leprous disease, or whether they should be filled with all the glowing life of Freedom. And this great power, transferred from Congress to these few settlers, was hailed by the new-fangled name of _Squatter Sovereignty_.

It was fit that the original outrage perpetrated under such pretences should be followed by other outrages perpetrated in defiance of these pretences. In the race of emigration the Freedom-loving citizens of the North promised to obtain the ascendency, and, in the exercise of the conceded sovereignty of the settlers, to prohibit Slavery. The Slave Oligarchy was aroused to other efforts. Of course it stuck at nothing. On the day of election, when this vaunted popular sovereignty was first invoked, hirelings from Missouri, having no home in the Territory, entered it in bands of fifties and hundreds, and, assuming an electoral franchise to which they had no claim, trampled under foot the Constitution and laws. Violently, ruthlessly, the polls were possessed by these invaders. The same Northern President, who did not shrink from unblushing complicity in the original outrage, now assumed another complicity. Though prompt to lavish the Treasury, the Army, and the Navy of the Republic in hunting a single slave through the streets of Boston, he could see the Constitution and laws which he was sworn to protect, and those popular rights which he had affected to promote, all struck down in Kansas,--and then give new scope to these invaders by the removal of the faithful Governor, who had become obnoxious to the Slave Oligarchy because he would not become its tool, and the substitution of another, who vindicated the dishonest choice by making haste, on his first arrival there, to embrace the partisans of Slavery. The Legislature, which was constituted by the overthrow of the electoral franchise, proceeded to overthrow every safeguard of Freedom. At one swoop it adopted all the legislation of Missouri, including its Slave Code; by another act it imposed unprecedented conditions upon the exercise of the electoral franchise; and by still another act it denounced _the punishment of death_ no less than five times against as many different forms of interference with the alleged property in human flesh, while all who but write or speak against Slavery are adjudged to be felons. Yes, fellow-citizens, should any person there presume to print or circulate the speech in which I now express my abhorrence of Slavery, and deny its constitutional existence anywhere within the national jurisdiction, he would become liable under this act as a felon. And this overthrow of all popular rights is done in the name of Popular Sovereignty. Surely its authors follow well the example of the earliest Squatter Sovereign,--none other than Satan,--who, stealing into Eden, was there discovered by the celestial messengers just beginning his work: as Milton tells us,--

“Him there they found
_Squat_ like a toad, close at the ear of Eve.”

Would you know the secret of this unprecedented endeavor, beginning with the repeal of the Prohibition of Slavery, down to the latest atrocity? The answer is at hand. It is not merely to provide new markets for slaves, or even to guard Slavery in Missouri, but to build another Slave State, and thus, by the presence of two additional Slaveholding Senators, to give increased preponderance to the Slave Oligarchy in the National Government. As men are murdered for the sake of their money, so is this Territory blasted in peace and prosperity in order to wrest its political influence to the side of Slavery.

* * * * *

But a single usurpation is not enough to employ the rapacious energies of our Oligarchy. At this moment, while the country is pained by the heartless conspiracy against Freedom in Kansas, we are startled by another effort, which contemplates not merely the political subjugation of the National Government, but the actual introduction of Slavery into the Free States. The vaunt is made that slaves will yet be counted in the shadow of the monument on Bunker Hill, and more than one step has been taken towards this effrontery. A person of Virginia has asserted his right to hold slaves in New York on the way to Texas; and this claim is still pending before the highest judicial tribunal of the land. A similar claim has been asserted in Pennsylvania, and thus far been sustained by the court. A blameless citizen, who, in obedience to generous impulses, and in harmony with received law, merely gave notice to a person held as a slave in a Free State that she was in reality free, has been thrust into jail, and now, after the lapse of months, still languishes there, the victim of this pretension; while--that no excess might be wanting in the madness of this tyranny--the great writ of Habeas Corpus, proudly known as the writ of deliverance, has been made the instrument of his imprisonment.[26] Outrage treads upon outrage, and great rights pass away to perish. Alas! the needful tool for such work is too easily found in places low and high,--in the lanes and cellars of Boston, on the bench of the judge, in the chair of the President. But it is the power behind which I impeach. The Slave Oligarchy does it; the Slave Oligarchy does it all.

* * * * *

To the prostration of this Oligarchy we are bound by a threefold cord of duty: _first_, as we would secure Freedom for ourselves; _secondly_, as we would uphold Freedom in distant Kansas; and, _thirdly_, as we would preserve the Union in its early strength and integrity. The people of Kansas are, many of them, from Massachusetts,--bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh; but as fellow-citizens under the Constitution they are bound to us by ties which we cannot disown; nay, more,--by the subtile cord which connects this embryo settlement with the Republic, they are made part of us. The outrage which touches them touches us. What galls them galls us. The fetter which binds the slave in Kansas binds every citizen in Massachusetts. Thus are we prompted to their rescue, not only to save them, but also to save ourselves. The tyranny which now treads them down has already trampled on us, and only awaits an opportunity to do it again. In its complete overthrow is the only way of safety. Indeed, this must be done before anything else can be done.

…

In the choice of men we are driven to the organization of parties; and here occurs the practical question on which hinges immediate duty,--By what political party can our desire be accomplished? There are individuals in all parties, even the Democratic, who hate Slavery, and say so; but a political party cannot be judged by the private opinions of some of its members. Something else, more solid and tangible, must appear. The party that we select to bear the burden and honor of our great controversy should be adapted to the work. It must be a perfect machine. Wedded to Freedom for better or for worse, and clinging to it with a grasp never to be unloosed, it must be clear, open, and unequivocal in its declarations, and should admit no other question to divert its energies. It must be all for Freedom, and, like Cæsar’s wife, above suspicion. But besides this character which it should sustain in Massachusetts, it must be prepared to take its place in close phalanx with the united masses of the North, now organizing through all the Free States, _junctæque umbone phalanges_, for the protection of Freedom and the overthrow of the Slave Oligarchy.

Bearing these conditions in mind, there are three parties which we may dismiss, one by one, as they pass in review. Men do not gather grapes from thorns, nor figs from thistles; nor do they expect patriotism from Benedict Arnold. A party which sustains the tyrannies and perfidies of the Slave Oligarchy, and is represented by the President, through whom has come so much of all our woe, need not occupy our time; and such is the Democratic party. If there be within the sound of my voice a single person, professing sympathy with Freedom, who still votes with this party, to him I would say: The name of Democrat is a tower of strength; let it not be the bulwark of Slavery; for the sake of a name do not sacrifice the thing; for the sake of party do not surrender Freedom.

According to familiar rule, handed down from distant antiquity, we are to say nothing but good of the dead. How, then, shall I speak of the late powerful Whig party, by whose giant contests the whole country was once upheaved, but which has now ceased to exist, except as the shadow of a name? Here in Massachusetts, a few who do not yet know that it is dead have met together and proffered the old allegiance. They are the Rip Van Winkles of our politics. This respectable character, falling asleep in the mountains, drowsed undisturbed throughout the war of the Revolution, and then, returning to his native village, ignorant of all that had passed, made haste to declare himself “a loyal subject of the King, God bless him!” But our Whigs are less tolerant and urbane than this awakened sleeper. In petulant and irrational assumption they are like the unfortunate judge, who, being aroused from slumber on the bench by a sudden crash of thunder, exclaimed, “Mr. Crier, stop the noise in Court!” The thunder would not be hushed; nor will the voice of Freedom, now reverberating throughout the land. Some there are among these who openly espouse the part of Slavery, while others, by indifference, place themselves in the same unhappy company. If their position at this moment were of sufficient importance to justify grave remark, they should be exhibited as kindred in spirit and isolation to the Tories of our Revolution, or at least as the Bourbons of Massachusetts,--always claiming everything, learning nothing, forgetting nothing, and at last condemned by an aroused people for disloyalty to Freedom. Let no person who truly loves Freedom join this company, tempted by its name and old associations.

There is still another party claiming your votes, but permit me to say, at this crisis, with little reason. I am at a loss to determine the name by which it may be called. It is sometimes styled the Know Nothing party, sometimes the American party; but it cannot be entitled to these designations,--if they be of any value,--for it does not claim to belong to the organization which first assumed and still retains them. It is an isolated combination, peculiar to Massachusetts, which, while professing certain political sentiments, is bound together by the support of one of the candidates for Governor.[27] At this moment this is its controlling idea. It is therefore a _personal_ party; and I trust that I shall not be considered as departing from that courtesy which is with me a law, if I say, that, in the absence of any appropriate name, expressive of principles, it may properly take its designation from the candidate it supports.

Of course such a party wants the first essential condition of the organization which we seek. It is a _personal_ party, whose controlling idea is predilection for a man, and not a principle. Whatever may be the private sentiments of some of its members, clearly it is not a party wedded to Freedom for better and for worse, and clinging to it with a grasp never to be unloosed. While professing opposition to Slavery, it also arraigns Catholics and foreigners, and allows the question of their privileges to disturb its energies. It is not all for Freedom; nor is it, like Cæsar’s wife, above suspicion. Besides, even as party of Freedom, it is powerless from its isolation; for it stands by itself, and is in no way associated with that great phalanx now rallying throughout the North. In this condition should it continue to exist, it will, in the coming Presidential contest, from natural affinity, lapse back into the American party of the country, which is ranged on the side of Slavery. Of course, as a separate party, it is necessarily short-lived. Cut off from the main body, it may show a brief vitality, as the head of a tortoise still bites for some days after it is severed from the neck; but it can have no permanent existence. Surely this is not the party of Freedom which we seek.

The incompetency of this party, as organ of our cause, is enhanced by the uncongenial secrecy in which it had its origin and yet shrouds itself. For myself let me say, that on the floor of the Senate I have striven by vote and speech, in conjunction with my distinguished friend Mr. Chase, to limit the secret sessions of that body, under shelter of which so much of the public business is transacted; and I have there presented, as the fit model for American institutions, the example of that ancient Roman who bade his architect so construct his house that all that he did might be seen by the world.[28] What I urged there I now urge here. But the special aims which this party proposes are in harmony with the darkness in which it begins. Even if justifiable on any ground of public policy, they should not be associated with our cause: but I am unwilling to allude to them without expressing my frank dissent.

It is proposed to attaint men for religion, and also for birth. If this object can prevail, vain are the triumphs of Civil Freedom in its many hard-fought fields, vain is that religious toleration which we profess. The fires of Smithfield, the tortures of the Inquisition, the proscriptions of Non-Conformists may all be revived. Mainly to escape these outrages, dictated by a dominant religious sect, was our country early settled: in one place by Pilgrims, who sought independence; in another by Puritans, who disowned bishops; in another by Episcopalians, who take their name from bishops; in another by Quakers, who set at nought all forms; and in yet another by Catholics, who look to the Pope as spiritual father. Slowly among the struggling sects was evolved that great idea of the equality of all men before the law without regard to religious belief; nor can any party now organize a proscription merely for religious belief, without calling in question this well-established principle.

But Catholics are mostly foreigners, and on this account are condemned. Let us see if there be any reason in this; and here indulge me with one word on foreigners.

With the ancient Greeks a foreigner was _a barbarian_, and with the ancient Romans he was _an enemy_. In early modern times the austerity of this judgment was relaxed; but, under the influence of feudalism, different sovereignties, whether provinces or nations, were kept in a condition of isolation, from which they have gradually passed, until now provinces are merged in nations, and nations are giving signs that they too will yet combine in one. In our country a new example is already displayed. From all nations people commingle here. As in ancient Corinth, by accidental fusion of all metals, accumulated in the sacred temples, a peculiar metal was produced, better than any individual metal, even silver or gold,--so, perhaps, in the order of Providence, by fusion of all races here, there will be a better race than any individual race, even Saxon or Celt. Originally settled from England, the Republic has been strengthened and enriched by generous contributions of population from Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, France, and Germany; and the cry is, Still they come! At no time since the discovery of the New World has the army of emigrants pressed so strongly upon us. More than one quarter of a million are annually landed on our shores. The manner in which they shall be received is a problem of national policy.

All will admit that any influence which they bring, hostile to our institutions, calculated to substitute priestcraft for religion and bigotry for Christianity, must be deprecated and opposed. All will admit, too, that there must be some assurance of their purpose to become not merely consumers of the fruits of our soil, but useful, loyal, and permanent members of our community, upholders of the general welfare. With this simple explanation, I cannot place any check upon the welcome to foreigners. There are our broad lands, stretching towards the setting sun; let them come and take them. Ourselves children of the Pilgrims of a former generation, let us not turn from the Pilgrims of the present. Let the home founded by our emigrant fathers continue open in its many mansions to the emigrants of to-day.

The history of our country, in its humblest as well as most exalted spheres, testifies to the merit of foreigners. Their strong arms have helped furrow our broad territory with canals, and stretch in every direction the iron rail. They fill our workshops, navigate our ships, and even till our fields. Go where you will among the hardy sons of toil on land or sea, and there you find industrious and faithful foreigners bending their muscles to the work. At the bar and in the high places of commerce you find them. Enter the retreats of learning, and there too you find them, shedding upon our country the glory of science.[29] Nor can any reflection be cast upon foreigners, coming for hospitality now, which will not glance at once upon the distinguished living and the illustrious dead,--upon the Irish Montgomery, who perished for us at the gates of Quebec,--upon Pulaski the Pole, who perished for us at Savannah,--upon De Kalb and Steuben, the generous Germans, who aided our weakness by their military experience,--upon Paul Jones, the Scotchman, who lent his unsurpassed courage to the infant thunders of our navy,--also upon those great European liberators, Kosciusko of Poland, and Lafayette of France, each of whom paid his earliest vows to Liberty in our cause. Nor should this list be confined to military characters, so long as we gratefully cherish the name of Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West Indies, and the name of Albert Gallatin, who was born in Switzerland, and never, to the close of his octogenarian career, lost the French accent of his boyhood,--both of whom rendered civic services to be commemorated among the victories of peace.

Nor is the experience of our Republic peculiar. Where is the country or power which does not inscribe the names of foreigners on its historic scroll? It was Christopher Columbus, of Genoa, who disclosed to Spain the New World; it was Magellan, of Portugal, sailing in the service of Spain, who first passed with adventurous keel through those distant Southern straits which now bear his name, and opened the way to the vast Pacific Sea; and it was Cabot, the Venetian, who first conducted English enterprise to this North American continent. As in triumphs of discovery, so also in other fields have foreigners excelled, while serving states to which they were bound by no tie of birth. The Dutch Grotius, author of the great work, “Laws of War and Peace,” an exile from his own country, became Ambassador of Sweden; and, in our own day, the Italian Pozzo di Borgo, turning his back upon his own country, reached the most exalted diplomatic trust in the jealous service of Russia. In the list of monarchs on the throne of England, not one has been more truly English than the Dutch William. In Holland no ruler has equalled in renown the German William, Prince of Orange. In Russia the German Catharine the Second takes place among the most commanding sovereigns. And who of Swedish monarchs was a better Swede than Bernadotte, the Frenchman? and what Frenchman was ever filled with aspiration for France more than the Italian Napoleon Bonaparte?

* * * * *

I pass from these things, which have occupied me too long. A party, which, beginning in secrecy, interferes with religious belief, and founds a discrimination on the accident of birth, is not the party for us.

* * * * *

“Where Liberty is, there is my country,” was the sentiment of that great Apostle of Freedom, Benjamin Franklin, uttered during the trials of the Revolution. In similar strain, I would say, “Where Liberty is, there is my party.” Such an organization is now happily constituted here in Massachusetts, and in all the Free States, under the name of REPUBLICAN PARTY.

In assuming our place as a distinct party, we simply give form and direction, in harmony with the usage and genius of popular governments, to a movement which stirs the whole country, and does not find adequate and constant organ in either of the other existing parties. The early opposition to Slavery was simply a sentiment, outgushing from the hearts of the sensitive and humane. In the lapse of time it became a determined principle, inspiring larger numbers, and showing itself first in an organized endeavor to resist the annexation of slaveholding Texas; next, to prohibit Slavery in newly acquired territories; and now, alarmed by the overthrow of all rights in Kansas, and the domination of the Slave Oligarchy throughout the Republic, it breaks forth in a stronger effort, a wider union, and a deeper channel, inspiring yet larger numbers and firmer resolves, while opposite quarters contribute to its power,--even as the fountain, first outgushing from the weeping sides of its pure mountain home, trickles in the rill, leaps in the torrent, and flows in the river, till, at last, swollen with accumulated waters, it presses onward, in irresistible, beneficent current, fertilizing and uniting the spaces which it traverses, washing the feet of cities, and wooing states to repose upon its banks.

…

Our party has its origin in the exigencies of the hour. Vowing ourselves against Slavery, wherever it exists, whether enforced by Russian knout, Turkish bastinado, or lash of Carolina planter, we do not seek to interfere with it at Petersburg, Constantinople, or Charleston; nor does any such grave duty rest upon us. Political duties are properly limited by political responsibilities; and we are in no just sense responsible for the local law or usage by which human bondage in these places is upheld. But wherever we are responsible for the wrong, there our duty begins. The object to which, as a party, we are pledged, is all contained in acceptance of the issue which the Slave Oligarchy tenders. To its repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and its imperious demand that Kansas shall be surrendered to Slavery, we reply, that Freedom shall be made the universal law of all the national domain, without compromise, and that hereafter no Slave State shall be admitted into the Union. To its tyrannical assumption of supremacy in the National Government we reply, that the Slave Oligarchy shall be overthrown. Such is the practical purpose of the Republican Party.

ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE USURPATION OF THE SENATE IN THE ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS, FEBRUARY 7, 1856.

On the 11th of December, 1855, Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania,
introduced a resolution directing the Committee on Finance to
consider the expediency of reporting the appropriation bills
for the support of the Government. The resolution was allowed
to lie on the table till January 7, 1856, when it was called
up for consideration, and adopted. On the 4th of February, Mr.
Hunter, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Finance,
reported to the Senate the following resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to
prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills
as they may deem expedient.”

The resolution was adopted by the Senate, February 7, but this
was all. Nothing was done under it.

This attempt was prompted by the protracted contest in the
organization of the House of Representatives, when, after one
hundred and thirty-three ballotings, Mr. Banks was chosen
Speaker, February 2, and the Slave Power received its first
check.

In the course of the debate, February 7, Mr. Sumner spoke as
follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Whatever the Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD] touches he handles with a completeness to render anything superfluous from one who follows on the same side; but the opposition which his views have encountered from the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and also from the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS], as well as the intrinsic importance of the question, may justify the attempt to state the argument anew.

We are carried first to the words of the Constitution, which are as follows:--

“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House
of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments, as on other bills.”

Under this provision, the annual appropriation bills for the Army, Navy, Post-Office, and civil and diplomatic service, from the beginning of the Government, have originated in the House of Representatives; and this has always been so, I believe, without question. It is now proposed to reverse the standing policy, and to originate such bills in the Senate; and this proposition has the sanction of the Committee on Finance.

The proposition is a clear departure from usage, and on this account must be regarded with suspicion. A slight examination will demonstrate that it tends to subvert well-established landmarks.

By looking at the debates in the Convention which framed the National Constitution, it will be found that this clause was not hastily or carelessly adopted,--that it was the subject of much discussion, and was viewed as essentially important in establishing the system of checks and balances peculiar to our Republic. It was, indeed, part of the compromise between the small States and the large States.

After much consideration, the _equality of the States_ was recognized in the Constitution of the Senate, and small States, like Delaware and Rhode Island, were allowed, in this body, equal power with large States, like Virginia and Massachusetts. But this great concession to the small States was coupled at the time with a condition that “money bills” should originate in the House of Representatives, where the people were represented according to numbers. The language finally employed was, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This was adopted, as compensation to the large and populous States for their comparative weakness in the Senate.

That I do not go too far, when I call it part of the compromise between the great States and small States, I proceed to show, from the debates in the National Convention, as reported by Mr. Madison, how it was regarded there.

The provision owes its authoritative introduction to Dr. Franklin, who moved it in the committee which subsequently reported it.[30] Afterwards, in Convention, when the clause relating to _equality of votes_ was under consideration, we have this report of what he said.

“Dr. Franklin observed, that this question could not be
properly put by itself, the Committee having reported several
propositions as _mutual conditions of each other_. He could not
vote for it, if separately taken, but should vote for the whole
together.”[31]

Colonel Mason, of Virginia, was of the same opinion, and desired “that the whole might be brought _into one view_.”[32]

Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, followed up the idea of the mutual dependence of the two propositions, remarking,--

“He would not say that the concession was a sufficient
one on the part of the small States; but he could not but
regard it in the light of a _concession_. It would make it
a constitutional principle, that the second branch were not
possessed of the confidence of the people in _money matters_,”--

Please, Sir, to mark the breadth of this expression.

--“which would lessen their weight and influence.”[33]

Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, followed, saying,--

“He thought it evident that the concession was wholly on one
side, that of the large States; the privilege of originating
_money bills_ being of no account.”[34]

At a later stage of the debates the subject was resumed, and the two propositions still appear together.

“Mr. Rutledge [of South Carolina] proposed to reconsider the
two propositions touching the originating of _money bills_ in
the first, and the _equality of votes_ in the second branch.”

“Mr. Sherman [of Connecticut] was for the question on the whole
at once. It was, he said, _a conciliatory plan_. It had been
considered in all its parts.”

“Mr. Luther Martin [of Maryland] urged the question on the
whole. He did not like many parts of it.… He was willing,
however, to make trial of the plan, rather than do nothing.”

“Mr. Gerry [of Massachusetts] did not approve of a
reconsideration of the clause relating to _money bills_. It
was of great consequence. _It was the corner-stone of the
accommodation._”[35]

At a still later stage Mr. Pinckney moved to strike out the section on money bills, “as giving no peculiar advantage to the House of Representatives, and as clogging the Government.” Mr. Gorham “was against allowing the Senate to _originate_, but was for allowing it only to _amend_.” Mr. Gouverneur Morris urged, that it was “particularly proper that the Senate should have the right of originating _money bills_. They will sit constantly, will consist of a smaller number, and will be able to prepare such bills with due correctness, and so as to prevent delay of business in the other House.” To all this Colonel Mason replied, in the strong language which seems to have been natural to him, that he “was unwilling to travel over this ground again. _To strike out the section was to unhinge the compromise of which it made a part._”[36]

I might adduce other authorities; but here surely is enough to show that the provision was in reality one of the important compromises of the Constitution.

* * * * *

This brings me, Sir, to the precise meaning of the provision. The seeming indefiniteness of the term, “bills for raising revenue,” may alone furnish apology for the present debate. It may be argued, that, while the Senate is placed under certain restrictions, it may nevertheless originate “appropriation bills.” This, of course, is a question of interpretation. Does this interdict upon the Senate extend to bills by which money is appropriated to the support of Government, as well as to bills by which it is directly obtained? Are appropriation bills included under the term, “bills for raising revenue”? Now I cannot accord with opinions so confidently expressed by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS], that it was clearly the intention of the Constitution to concede to the Senate the power of originating all appropriation bills; nor, on the other hand, do I assert that such exercise of power is in the strict sense unconstitutional. I approach the question as an inquirer anxious to find the real purpose.

Several considerations seem to shed light on the path to our conclusion.

_First._ The compromise between the small States and large States can be made completely effective, according to obvious intent of the authors of the Constitution, only by interdicting the Senate from originating the great appropriation bills. If this interdict is restricted simply to tariff bills, which occur only at rare intervals, it becomes a very inadequate compensation for the surrender by the large States to the small States in the constitution of the Senate. According to the reason of the rule, the great appropriation bills must be equally within its intendment. The reason is as strong in one case as in the other.

In the debates of the Convention, Dr. Franklin said:--

“As it had been asked what would be the use of restraining the
second branch from meddling with _money bills_, he could not
but remark, that it was always of importance that the people
should know who had disposed of their money, _and how it had
been disposed of_.”

Please, Sir, to mark these words.

“It was a maxim, that those who feel can best judge. This end
would, he thought, be best attained, if _money affairs_ were to
be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.”[37]

Mr. Gerry, in urging the restraint upon the Senate, said:--

“The other branch was more immediately the representatives of
the people, _and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold
the purse-strings_.”[38]

How, Sir, can the people hold the purse-strings, unless they hold the bills by which the purse is appropriated?

And Colonel Mason broke forth in language clearly revealing his sense of danger against which to guard.

“If the Senate can originate, they will, in the recess of
the legislative sessions, hatch their mischievous projects
for their own purposes, and have their _money bills_ cut and
dried (to use a common phrase) for the meeting of the House of
Representatives.”[39]

I repeat, then, according to the reason of the rule, the great appropriation bills must be embraced by the prohibition.

_Secondly._ There is a further consideration, founded on the familiar use of the term _money bills_ throughout the debates in the Convention, as applicable to bills which the Senate cannot originate. I need not occupy time by reference to instances; but whoever takes the trouble to investigate the matter in Mr. Madison’s report of the debates, and also in the report of the Virginia Convention, will find that this term is universally employed,--unless, indeed, where Mr. Gouverneur Morris uses the broader term “money plans,”[40] and Mr. Gerry “money matters.”[41] Now all these phrases are clearly applicable to “appropriation bills,” by which the Government is carried on; and the inference seems irresistible, that the parties who used them must have had such bills in mind.

In the Virginia Convention objection was made by Mr. Grayson “to the power of the Senate to propose or concur with _amendments to money bills_.” The objection is even to “amendments.” He pronounced this “a departure from that great principle which required that the _immediate representatives_ of the people only should interfere with _money bills_.… The Lords in England had never been allowed to intermeddle with money bills. He knew not why the Senate should.”[42]

_Thirdly._ This brings me to another consideration, founded on the example of England, which was obviously present to the framers of the Constitution. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] is clearly mistaken on this point. It was often adduced in debate in the National Convention, and, as we have just seen, in the Virginia Convention also. In England the rule is explicit, and of ancient date. As early as July 3, 1678, the Commons resolved:--

“That all aids and supplies, and aids to his Majesty in
Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons; _and all bills
for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin
with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right
of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint, in such bills,
the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations,
and qualifications of such grants_, which ought not to be
changed or altered by the House of Lords.”[43]

In pursuance of this rule, estimates for the annual expenditure are submitted by the Ministry to the House of Commons, sitting as a Committee of Supply. This process is explained as follows.

“The member of the Administration representing the department
for which the supplies are required first explains to the
Committee such matters as may satisfy them of the correctness
and propriety of the estimates, and then proceeds to propose
each grant in succession, which is put from the Chair in these
words: ‘That a sum not exceeding ---- be granted to her Majesty,
for the object specified in the estimate.’ … The Committee of
Supply votes every sum which is granted annually for the public
service,--the army, the navy, the ordnance, and the several
civil departments.”[44]

At the close of the session all the grants are embodied in a bill, which is known as “Appropriation Bill,” and, as it is kindred in character to that under our system, doubtless has given its name to ours. This bill is thus described:--

“It enumerates every grant made during the whole session, and
authorizes the several sums, as voted by the Committee of
Supply, to be issued and applied to each service.”[45]

Thus, on three grounds,--first, by the reason of the thing,--secondly, by the familiar use in all the debates of the descriptive term, “money bills,”--and, thirdly, by the example of England,--the conclusion is inevitable, that “appropriation bills,” _by which the Government is carried on_, are within the spirit of the interdict upon the Senate, and that this body cannot originate such bills without violation of a well-established principle inherited from English jurisprudence, and also without _unhinging_, according to the language of Colonel Mason, that compromise by virtue of which the small States are admitted to equality of representation on this floor.

I am not unmindful of the fact, on which the Senator from Virginia has dwelt so emphatically, that the Senate is in the habit of originating pension bills, also bills for payment of private claims, and kindred measures. I was glad, to-day, to vote for the bill originating in this body for the relief of our late distinguished Minister at Constantinople.[46] But against this usage, which is exceptional in character, and has probably attracted little attention, from its considerable convenience and little importance, may be opposed the uniform practice by which the great bills providing for the necessities of the Government have always originated in the House of Representatives. And you will bear in mind, Sir, that the question is now on these bills.

Mr. President, it is a received maxim, that it is the part of a good judge to amplify his jurisdiction; but it will hardly be accepted, that it is the part of the American Senate to amplify its powers, particularly in derogation of the popular branch. And it surely cannot escape observation, that the present effort is launched at a moment when the popular branch promises to differ from the Senate on important questions of national policy. I am not insensible to the public convenience, which has been pressed in this debate; but permit me to say, Sir, that, should this convenience require the proposed departure from our standing policy, we shall be wise, if we hearken to the counsels of the Senator from New York, and refrain from any innovation, unless assured of the consent and coöperation of the other House.

RELIEF OF VESSELS IN DISTRESS ON THE COAST.

LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE EXCHANGE NEWS-ROOM, BOSTON, FEBRUARY 18, 1856.

SENATE CHAMBER, February 18, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--I have pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of the
memorial, forwarded by you from the underwriters and merchants
of Boston, and addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury,
asking the despatch of immediate relief to the large fleet of
vessels now distressed by the rigors of this severe winter on our
northern coast. It reached me Sunday morning; but its charitable
object did not allow delay, and on that day I placed the memorial
in the hands of the Secretary.

I have his verbal answer to-day, expressing great interest in
the object of the memorial, but saying, that, beyond the revenue
cutter, the Treasury Department has no vessel at Boston which can
be detached on this service, and that the cutter was directed
some weeks ago to do what it could for the relief of distressed
vessels.

Though the memorial was addressed to the Secretary of the
Treasury, I felt it my duty to apply to the Secretary of the
Navy. He entered into the plan with much benevolence, and
expressed a desire to do all that the means at his command
would permit. The only vessel at Boston in readiness is
the steam-frigate Merrimack, which is about to start on a
“trial-trip” of one week, previous to a cruise of six months.
This vessel has already been ordered to make the week’s voyage
direct from Boston to Norfolk; but the Secretary will give
directions that she shall proceed to the Great Banks as far as
can be judiciously done, under the circumstances, in order to
afford relief to vessels in distress. He would extend the cruise
to a longer term at once, but the contractors who have furnished
her engines have certain rights which he is bound to respect.

The Secretary authorizes me to say also that he will send further
relief, if possible.

I beg you to assure the memorialists that it will give me
pleasure to promote the objects of the memorial to the full
extent of my power.

Believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JOHN T. SMITH, Esq., Exchange News-Room.

THE EXAMPLE OF WASHINGTON AGAINST SLAVERY NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN NOW.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE OF THE BOSTON MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, FEBRUARY 19, 1856.

WASHINGTON, February 19, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--I have been honored by your invitation to be with the
Mercantile Library Association on the 22d instant. You know well
the happiness I find in any coöperation with the young men of
that Association, and I need not assure you of the gratification
with which I should participate in any services calculated to
exalt the example of Washington.

Particularly at this moment should it be invoked, when the
Republic, which he helped to found, seems to shake with the
first throes of civil war, engendered by an interest which was
condemned by him during life and formally abjured by him at his
death. His great name should now be employed for the suppression
of that Slave Power which is the fruitful mother of so much
wretchedness. It will not be enough to quote his paternal words
for Union: his example must be arrayed against the gigantic wrong
which now disturbs this Union to its centre, and, in the madness
of its tyranny, destroys the very objects of Union.

The play of Othello without the part of Othello would be a barren
spectacle; and the example of Washington, without his testimony
against the malevolent force which disturbs the Republic, would
be hardly less barren. Let the young men of Boston be encouraged
to dwell on those sentiments and acts which, while they elevate
his name, apply with prevailing power to the existing state of
things among us. Let them bear in mind that he declared it to
be “_among his first wishes_ to see some plan adopted by which
Slavery in this country may be _abolished by law_,”--that, to
promote this purpose, he expressed a desire, in a recorded
interview with a distinguished foreigner, for the formation of
an Antislavery Society,--that on many occasions he condemned
Slavery,--that, in congratulations to Lafayette on his purchase
of a plantation with a view of emancipating the slaves on it,
he exclaimed, “Would to God a like spirit might diffuse itself
generally into the minds of the people of this country!”--and
that, finally, by his last will and testament, written within six
months of his death, he bore his practical testimony to those
ideas and aspirations, by the emancipation of his slaves. With
these things taken to heart, the example of Washington will exert
its just conservative influence over the country, holding it back
from the extension of that evil against which he set himself, and
arousing the general sentiment to repulse the aggressions which
now threaten civil war. Then, indeed, will the Father of his
Country have a new birth and influence.

Believe me, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

CHARLES G. CHASE, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

CONSTANT EXERTION AND UNION AMONG GOOD MEN.

LETTER TO A MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE, FEBRUARY 25, 1856.

The papers announce, that the following letter, when read, was
received with six rousing cheers.

SENATE CHAMBER, February 25, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR,--I cannot be present at the festival in
commemoration of the election of Mr. Banks as Speaker. My duties
will keep me here.

But with you I rejoice in this triumph of Freedom, which is the
first achieved in the National Government, since the recognition,
by the earliest Congress under Washington, of the Ordinance
prohibiting Slavery in the Northwestern Territory. To advance
this victory, and to obtain its just fruits, there must be no
relaxation of efforts, but constant exertion, with union among
good men, and a determination to yield no jot in the conflict.

To Massachusetts belongs an honorable place at the head of the
battle. May no treason or hesitation of any of her sons deprive
her of this post!

Yours, faithfully,

CHARLES SUMNER.

F. H. UNDERWOOD, Secretary, &c., &c.

THE ABROGATION OF TREATIES.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, MARCH 6 AND MAY 8, 1856.