Chapter IV: Part 4

“As if to make the absurdity of his position more
conspicuous, Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of
‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s
despatch. He has even the incredible audacity (if it
be not, indeed, an ignorance hardly less credible) to
pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of
the pretension to treat Messrs. Slidell and Mason as
‘contraband of war.’”

This is followed by an extract from M. Hautefeuille, declaring
that a neutral ship, destined for a neutral port, is not
subject to seizure.

This passage shows that the writer had in mind something very
different from the speech he criticized. Mr. Sumner nowhere
alludes to Mr. Seward’s despatch, much less does he invoke the
sympathies of Continental Europe for its doctrines. Nor does
he pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of the
pretension to treat the Rebel agents as contraband of war; on
the contrary, he mentioned M. Hautefeuille as having “entered
into this debate with a direct proposition for the release
of the emissaries as a testimony to the true interpretation
of International Law,”[118] and himself insists upon the
very doctrine of the French publicist. Plainly, therefore,
the writer dealt hard words at Mr. Sumner, mistaking him for
somebody else.

Then comes another misapprehension.

“I know not whether, in the hazy muddle of a confused
intelligence, Mr. Sumner has figured to himself that the
seizure of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a parallel case
to the instances of impressment of seamen out of which
grew the war of 1812. Yet men of less pretensions than the
‘Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations’ ought to
be aware that the cases are not only not the same, but not
even similar. Their resemblance, at most, extends to the
proverbial identity of chalk and cheese.”

Evidently the writer had not read the opinion of the law
officers, individualizing the point, that “from on board
a merchant ship of a neutral power, pursuing a lawful and
innocent voyage, certain individuals have been taken by
force,”[119] which was the precise point so often urged by the
United States against impressment.

Then follow the general condemnation and counterblast.

“It is impossible to read such performances as the ‘Great
Speech of the Hon. C. Sumner’ without drawing a gloomy
augury for the future of a nation among whom such a man
can occupy a chief place. In all the symptoms of decadence
which the recent history of the American Republic exhibits,
there is none more conspicuous and apparently more
irreparable than the decline in capacity and character
of her public men. The men bred under the shadow of the
English colonial system were of a very different stamp
from the race which progressive Democracy has spawned for
itself.…

“But now, whether we turn to the puerile absurdities
of President Lincoln’s message, or to the confused and
transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward’s despatch, or to the
feeble and illogical malice of Mr. Sumner’s oration, we
see nothing on every side but a melancholy spectacle of
impotent violence and furious incapacity.”

In the volume of Historicus,[120] much of which constitutes a
valuable contribution to International Law, this effusion is
abridged and modified. Some things are left out, and others
are changed. Generally the personalities are mitigated. Thus,
the original caption, “The Brothers Sumner on International
Law,” is turned into “Letter on Mr. Sumner’s Speech,” and “the
hazy muddle of a confused intelligence” is softened into “a
confusion of mind” attributed to Mr. Sumner; but the article
is introduced by words describing the speech as “_professing_
to expound and to maintain the doctrines of Mr. Seward’s
despatch,” and it repeats the allegation that “Mr. Sumner
invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the
doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” whereas, in fact, he never
professed or did any such thing. It would be pleasant to forget
that an article of such a character was ever written; nor would
it be mentioned here, if it did not throw important light--and
not to be neglected--on the general tone of the British press
and its unfounded conduct towards our Republic at a critical
moment.

* * * * *

Contemporary letters from countrymen abroad tell how they were
impressed.

At home, persons in all conditions--statesmen, judges,
lawyers, clergymen, authors, citizens--made haste to express
gratification and sympathy. This copious correspondence evinces
the intensity and extent of the prevailing sentiment, which can
be learned in no other way. Thus it illustrates an important
chapter of history.

A letter from Hon. Richard H. Dana, Jr., District Attorney of
the United States at Boston, and afterwards the annotator of
Wheaton’s “Elements of International Law,” an able publicist,
full of good feeling for England, though written at Boston, may
be introduced here, as it bears especially upon the conduct of
England and the English press.

“Permit me to say that I am glad to see the London _Times’_
attack on you and your Trent speech. It will make you feel
to the quick--what you did not seem to feel, or refused to
admit--the _insolent_ tone of the British press and public
men towards us in our struggle for life, and the false
manner in which they have tried to turn this case to our
national ruin. Those few semi-republican, semi-abolition,
liberally inclined men in England, whom you respect, and
who command, perhaps, one paper and one monthly, are a drop
in the bucket. The ruling class in England is determined
to sever this Republic, and all its pent-up jealousy,
arrogance, and superciliousness are breaking out stronger
and stronger.

“There is not one English paper that I have seen which has
not either suppressed or falsified the material facts of
this case, because they know, that, properly understood,
they would not support the hostile feeling against this
country the papers depended upon keeping up. I am rejoiced
to know that you feel this.

“I have had a letter from England, from a high source,
which speaks of your speech as very able, etc., etc.,
but says, “No paper has dared to publish it,” and speaks
of their attacking without publishing it, thus making it
apparent that it is read.

“One of my letters says, ‘It is an excellent speech, but it
has cost him his favor in England.’

“I write these things to you because I take pleasure in
them. They are _the best omen for you_ that I have seen.”

Hon. George R. Russell, an excellent citizen of Boston,
travelling in Europe, wrote from Florence:--

“The _Times_ has come down on you, and has failed. It has
the usual bitterness, but the power is wanting.”

Hon. James E. Harvey, Minister Resident at Lisbon, wrote:--

“I have just read your speech on the Trent affair, and
cannot refrain from expressing my thanks for its able and
conclusive vindication of the position of our Government on
that subject. If any reasoning can reconcile the American
mind to the restitution of the two emissaries to British
protection, your arguments and the calm and convincing
presentation of facts must do it. What you have said of
Hautefeuille might be justly applied to this statesmanlike
production, which, in comprehension and in logical
connection, is a state paper.”

Hon. Bradford R. Wood, Minister Resident at Copenhagen, wrote:--

“I thank you for your speech on Maritime Rights, just
received, and which I have carefully read. All my
assertions that the Trent affair would not lead to war were
received here with incredulity, by the Government, by my
colleagues, by all parties. It was a bitter disappointment
to some of the English here, and I doubt not in England,
that this matter has been settled without war. The London
_Times_, while criticizing your speech and denying its
conclusions, writhes under it, and its arguments are
a severer rebuke to England than any philippics or
denunciations could be.”

William S. Thayer, Consul-General at Alexandria, wrote from his
post:--

“I lent Mr. Buckle[121] the _Intelligencer_ with your
speech on the Trent affair, some points of which received
his emphatic indorsement.”

Hon. John Bigelow, Consul at Paris, and afterwards Minister
there, wrote from Paris:--

“It produced an excellent effect here, and still better in
England, if one may judge by the ill-humor in which it put
the _Times_. The impotent venom of that journal, under the
circumstances, was more complimentary than its praise could
have been.”

Henry Woods, the Parisian member of the American importing
house of Messrs. C. F. Hovey & Co., wrote from Paris:--

“I have to thank you for a copy of your very able speech
on the Trent affair, which has been very much read, and
in all quarters I hear it spoken of with admiration. It
is considered your greatest effort, and worthy of a great
occasion.”

Professor Charles D. Cleveland, author and Abolitionist, Consul
at Cardiff, Wales, wrote:--

“How my heart rejoices that the affair of the Trent is thus
amicably settled! but--and I _must_ say so--I have little
faith in the good feeling of the Government of England,
and the leading influences here, towards our country. How
indignant have I felt the last six weeks at the tone of
the leading papers towards our country! Nothing, hardly,
could exceed the bitterness of the _Times_, the _Post_, the
_Telegraph_, the _Saturday Review_, &c., &c. Even _Punch_
lent all his influence to the Rebels, and against us. The
very first number after the news of the Trent affair was
received had a full-length figure of Britannia standing
beside a cannon, with a match in her hand, looking across
the water, and underneath was written, ‘Waiting for an
Answer.’

“True, the religious public, or rather the Dissenters, have
shown right feelings; and I wrote letters of thanks to Dr.
Newman Hall and to Mr. Spurgeon for what they had done,
and received very kind answers; but very few of the Church
Establishment have shown right feelings.

“I was always the friend of England, and few have written
or spoken more in commendation of her; but I must in truth
say that my feelings have changed since I have been here.
England would rejoice to-day to see our country divided.
She sees our growing greatness, and envies and fears it.”

In close connection with letters from abroad is that of E.
Littell, founder and editor of the _Living Age_, close student
of the English press, and warmly attached to England, who wrote
from Boston:--

“Allow me to congratulate you upon the speech on the Trent
affair. ‘They of the contrary part,’ even, ‘cannot gainsay
it.’

“After feeling so deeply the almost unbroken attitude of
the London press as to be forced to think and say that I
must give up my love for England (which was a part of my
inmost heart), I have reverted to her again, pleading that
that press does not represent either her people or her
Government.”

Hon. Henry L. Dawes, the eminent Representative in Congress,
wrote:--

“I congratulate you on your great effort to-day. It was
worthy of you. I regret I could not hear it all. But I
shall have the greater pleasure in reading it.”

Hon. Hamilton Fish, afterwards Secretary of State, wrote from
New York:--

“_Exactly_ right; you have done justice to the question,
the country, its history, its policy, and its late action.
On such ground as you have placed the subject we stand
proudly before the world.…

“It should be circulated largely in England, among the
class who will read it. The British press will not publish
it in full, unless you can bring, through some of your
friends, an influence to bear. Cannot you do so?”

Hon. N. P. Talmadge, former Senator of the United States from
New York, wrote from Georgetown, District of Columbia:--

“I have just read with great pleasure your very able speech
in regard to Messrs. Mason and Slidell and the recent
affair of the Trent. Coming in support of the lucid and
able reply of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, it places the
matter before the American people and all Europe in a light
as clear as a sunbeam.

“It seems to me that England, in the excitement of the
moment, and with the sudden impulse of redressing a fancied
wrong, has not foreseen the inevitable result to which her
own action has brought her. She may attempt hereafter,
as occasion may require, to evade the consequences by
saying that the law officers of the crown decided that
the wrong consisted in not taking the Trent into port for
the adjudication of a Prize Court, and therefore that was
the only point involved. She will find, however, that not
only the United States, but France, and all Europe, will
hold her to the consequences which you have so clearly
demonstrated flow from her own action.

“Mr. Seward’s reply to Lord Lyons, and your speech, will
settle this whole question with the American people. If
their judgments are satisfied, they cheerfully acquiesce,
no matter how high their passions may have been wrought
against these Rebels, nor how strong their desire to
keep possession of them. I believe there is not a loyal
press that has not acquiesced in the decision of the
Administration. How proudly all this contrasts with the
predictions of Dr. Russell, the correspondent of the London
_Times_, that, if these men were given up, the Government
would be dissolved and destroyed by the mob! This will show
England that a British ministry have much more to fear from
her mobs than the Administration of this Government have to
fear from our people.”

Hon. Julius Rockwell, the Judge, and former Senator of the
United States, with lifelong experience, political and
judicial, wrote from Pittsfield, Massachusetts:--

“The public opinion, as far as I know it here, is in
accordance with the positions set forth in your speech,
and your speech will tend to illustrate and render it
more general. Still, some are unsatisfied, and there is
a general, I may say, almost universal, accession of
dissatisfaction with the conduct and character of England.
This feeling just now pervades our people, crops out in all
lectures, and in many sermons, and some prayers.”

Hon. Daniel Ullmann, prominent in the politics of New York, and
a General in the war, wrote from his head-quarters:--

“You will greatly oblige me by sending to my address a
pamphlet copy of your great speech on the ‘Trent affair.’ I
desire it in that form for preservation.”

Hon. James Duane Doty, Governor of Utah, and former
Representative in Congress, wrote from Salt Lake City:--

“Far, far from you, on the top of the Rocky Mountains, I
have just held communion with you by a perusal of your
able, eloquent, and conclusive speech on the Trent affair,
as reported in the _Herald_ of the 10th January, which
has just reached us. Surely no nation was ever put in a
more absurd position than you have placed England, and if
she is satisfied with the possession of the Rebels (whom,
I am glad to notice, you have not named), we ought to be
gratified; for it avoids a quarrel at an inconvenient time,
and allays public feeling, which was becoming much excited.
These two worthless Rebels could not have been put to a
better use.”

Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, afterwards Minister at Constantinople,
wrote from West Chester, Pennsylvania:--

“I cannot refrain from expressing to you the personal
obligation I feel for your last great speech. Its wise
candor and its steadfast adherence to the landmarks of
maritime freedom cannot fail to make a profound impression
upon the liberal minds of Europe; while disclaiming the
thought of her dishonor, you have lifted the Republic to
the heights of a beneficent victory.”

Hon. B. C. Clark, merchant, and Consul for Hayti, wrote from
Boston:--

“Your speech on the Mason and Slidell matter has won, most
justly, golden opinions from all sorts of people. The
affair has been put to rest, but simply on legal grounds.…
The Trent will tell more terribly upon England than the
ghost of Cæsar upon Brutus at Philippi.”

Hon. George T. Bigelow, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, wrote
from Boston:--

“I have read your speech on the Trent affair with very
great pleasure. It is an admirable exposition of the
doctrine which England has so long held on the subject of
neutral rights; and while it demonstrates that the act
of Captain Wilkes might have been justified on English
practice and precedents, it places in the most clear light
that it was inconsistent with the position which our
Government has always occupied on the subject of search and
seizure. The tone of the speech is so quiet and dignified,
that it will have the effect, I think, of a severe rebuke
on the hasty and unjustifiable conduct of the English
Cabinet in demanding a reparation and a surrender of the
captives with warlike menaces and preparations.

“The prevailing sentiment here, especially among those who
have not heretofore been inclined to speak your praise,
is one of commendation of your speech. I am rejoiced
that you have been able, while vindicating the course of
the Administration in making the surrender of Mason and
Slidell, to add so much to your reputation as a statesman.”

Hon. Theophilus Parsons, the eminent law-writer and
law-professor, wrote from Cambridge:--

“I have read and studied your speech, and am really
unwilling to repeat to you what I have said in commendation
of it to others.

“This question may be considered after the fashion of a
lawyer, or a politician, or a statesman.

“You have viewed it as a statesman, and, in my
understanding of the word, that includes the other two, and
elevates them both.

“The affair has given rise to no paper so entirely
satisfactory to me, nor to one calculated, in my judgment,
to be so truly and permanently useful.”

Hon. Emory Washburn, Professor at the Law School, and former
Governor of Massachusetts, wrote:--

“I cannot forbear expressing my satisfaction in reading
your speech in the Senate on the Trent affair. It seems
to me to place the matter on the true ground; and if the
English Government do not find, when they come to look
coolly at the matter, that in taking Mason and Slidell
they have caught two Tartars, I shall be greatly mistaken.
I think, moreover, you have spoken the sober, sound
thought of the country; and while they are indignant at
the inconsistent annoyance of the ministry and the press
of England, they feel that the course taken is not only
the wise and expedient one, but, on the whole, the most
consistent.”

Hon. John H. Clifford, former Attorney-General of
Massachusetts, and Governor, wrote from Boston:--

“I have read with unqualified approval and satisfaction
your admirable exposition of the interesting questions of
public law in your recent speech, growing out of the arrest
and rendition of the ‘two old men’ taken from the Trent. I
trust its treatment of the doctrine of Maritime Rights will
command on the other side of the water the respect to which
it is so justly entitled, and of which its reception by the
best minds at home gives a hopeful assurance.”

Hon. John C. Gray, a venerable and accomplished citizen, wrote
from Boston:--

“I return you my acknowledgments for your speech on the
Mason and Slidell affair. The more I have examined the
law,--and I regret that I did not do it earlier,--the more
I am satisfied that our civilians here were mistaken in
their first impressions.”

Hon. George S. Hale, lawyer, wrote from Boston:--

“Permit me to congratulate you on your late speech in the
Senate. I am not unfamiliar with your speeches, and feel
great pleasure in saying that none has ever, in my opinion,
so strengthened your position as a statesman; none has been
more happy, more effective, or more generally satisfactory
to your constituents.

“Without calling up any of those questions upon which
many of them have differed from you, you have done much
to contribute to public peace, and aided well, under
peculiarly difficult circumstances, in placing the country
in an honorable position before the world.”

Hon. Charles P. Huntington, late Judge of the Superior Court
for Suffolk County, wrote:--

“I have read your speech on the Trent affair with more
satisfaction than anything that has yet been uttered on the
subject, and as placing the merits of the question on the
most satisfactory and statesmanlike ground.”

Rev. Theodore D. Woolsey, the excellent President of Yale
College, and author of a work on International Law, wrote from
New Haven:--

“Having just read with great pleasure your speech on the
Trent case, as given in the _Tribune_ of yesterday, I feel
moved to express to you my satisfaction that you have given
the affair such a shape, and have tacitly exposed some of
Mr. Seward’s errors.”

Hon. John Jay, afterwards Minister at Vienna, wrote from New
York:--

“Accept my congratulations on your very able speech on
the Trent matter. It will rather surprise your friends in
England.”

Hon. John M. Read, a Judge of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, wrote from Philadelphia:--

“I was very much gratified in reading your very able,
temperate, and forcible speech on the Trent affair.”

Then, in a second letter, the same judicial authority wrote:--

“It is the very best discussion of the whole subject that I
have seen.”

Hon. Francis Brockholst Cutting, former Representative in
Congress from New York, and a leader of the bar, wrote from New
York:--

“Your speech on Maritime Rights has given me very great
satisfaction. It was worthy of your reputation, and equal
to the occasion. The argument was particularly gratifying
to me, because, from the outset, I had looked at the case
from the American point of view, and had expressed myself
accordingly.”

Hon. R. J. Meigs, of Tennessee, for a long time eminent at the
bar and in juridical study, wrote from New York:--

“One word more. I thank you for your speech upon the
Trent affair. It vindicates the honor of our baited and
abused country. It will be a well-remembered document in
the diplomacy of the world, settling as it does forever
the immunity of neutrals from the insulting pretension of
the right to seize persons on their ships merely upon the
ground that they owe allegiance to the belligerent. It
effectually extracts that poisonous fang from the jaws of
Leviathan.”

Hon. David Roberts, lawyer, and author of a “Treatise on
Admiralty and Prize,” wrote from Salem:--

“I deem it your best effort, settling, what to me was
from the first _the_ embarrassing element in the Wilkes
question, _a true American_ definition of ‘despatches.’

“I therefore thank you for the speech sincerely; and
though differing _toto cœlo_ from you politically in other
respects, I shall not withhold my commendation from your
present effort, deeming it, as I do, the paramount duty of
all to inculcate the lesson of loyalty everywhere, until
this Government is vindicated, and the existing Rebellion
suppressed.”

Hon. George Wheatland, lawyer, wrote from Salem:--

“Allow me, for the first time of ever addressing you,
to thank you for your masterly statement of the Trent
matter, which I have just risen from reading in the _Boston
Journal_.

“You have put the matter in its true light.…

“Your speech will shed light, and, in fact, illuminate the
whole subject, and should be read by every one. By taking
Mason & Co. we were acting on the English law; by giving
them up, we act under our own view of what the law should
be, and have brought England over to adopting our view.”

Hon. Asahel Huntington, the veteran lawyer, wrote from Salem:--

“I am always greatly obliged by your speeches, which you
have had the kindness to send me from time to time. They
are all gems of the first water, but the ‘Trent’ is the
greatest gem of all,--so calm, so full, so exhaustive, so
statesmanlike, so Websterian in its statements, structure,
and heavy logic, that, on first reading it, before
receiving the pamphlet, I had it in my heart to write
you at once and express my high admiration of that great
passage in your public life. It was a great opportunity,
and was met in the true spirit of a controversy between
nations on questions of International Law. It was potential
for good at home and abroad, and is worthy itself to be
trusted as an authority from its own intrinsic weight.”

Hon. George Morey, lawyer, and for a long time a political
leader in Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:--

“I congratulate you on your having delivered an excellent
speech touching our foreign relations, and particularly the
case of the Trent.

“Your speech comes exceedingly apropos, following in the
track of Mr. Seward’s despatch. As that despatch will be
looked upon in England with some suspicion, as proceeding
from an artful and wily statesman, and there may be a
disposition to regard it as a cunning _dodge_, &c., it is
very fortunate that your speech will follow in the wake of
Mr. Seward’s letter. A very great number of distinguished
men in England, statesmen, diplomatists, &c., will say,
Mr. Sumner is honest, he speaks his real sentiments.
Besides, it will be said that Mr. Sumner is a most decided
Antislavery man, and he is heartily engaged in putting
down this great Rebellion, not because he desires to fight
for _empire_, as Earl Russell stated in a speech some time
since our Government were, but because he is anxious to
extinguish Slavery, and because he knows that Slavery is
the origin of this war. I am satisfied your speech will
have an excellent effect in England, and also in France,
and all over the Continent. You have done a capital thing
towards conciliating the favor and good-will of our
State Street gentlemen. Mr. Cartwright, President of the
Manufacturers’ Insurance Office, where I am a director,
says you have done excellent service to the country and
the good cause. He has a pretty large amount of war risks.
Your short speech in answer to Mr. Hale was commended very
highly everywhere.”

Hon. Theophilus P. Chandler, lawyer, wrote from Boston:--

“Your Trent speech is by far the best thing I have read
on the subject. You look _down_ upon the matter, while
others look _at_ it.… The tables are completely turned upon
England. If there is any shame in her, she will show it
now.”

Hon. E. F. Stone, lawyer, wrote from Newburyport:--

“As one of your constituents, I write to thank you for your
speech on the surrender of Mason and Slidell. I have read
and re-read it with great satisfaction. It is just the
thing to create a correct public opinion upon the subject
in the country.”

Hon. Alfred B. Ely, lawyer, and officer in the War of the
Rebellion, wrote from Boston:--

“I have just read your speech on the Trent affair with
great pleasure. I deem it entirely unanswerable, and
that it ought to conclude the whole subject. I desire,
therefore, to congratulate you upon it.”

William I. Bowditch, conveyancer and Abolitionist, wrote from
Boston:--

“I read your speech on the Mason and Slidell matter
yesterday. It certainly is very admirable and conclusive.
Still, I think it doubtful whether England will consider
that she has really abandoned any of her previous
pretensions by demanding and accepting the men.”

Hon. Edward L. Pierce, lawyer, writer, and speaker, correct in
opinion, and able, wrote from Boston:--

“I read your speech. It is grand,--dealing just right with
the British, and putting us on the highest grounds. It will
help the country.”

Rev. Baron Stow, the Baptist clergyman, wrote from Boston:--

“My opinion of its merits may be of small importance to
you, but I cannot forbear to assure you that it has the
approbation and admiration of one of your constituents. I
cannot be supposed to be much versed in International Law,
but I understand your argument, and am sure that every one
who reads must understand. I see not how you could have
made it more clear or cogent. You condense the history of
a vexed question into a crystalline lens, and every eye
must see your point. I greatly mistake, if your views do
not produce conviction both at home and abroad. You have
performed a service to the true and the right which will
surely be appreciated and acknowledged.”

Rev. Caleb Stetson, the Liberal preacher, wrote from Lexington,
Massachusetts:--

“I must for a moment break in upon your vast public labors
to thank you for your admirable speech on the affair of
those two wretches, Mason and Slidell. You have said the
best things that could be said, in the best manner. I
greatly rejoice that the traitor villains are given up,
for we cannot afford a war with England when we have this
diabolical Rebellion. I am glad of your forbearance towards
her, but I fear this generation will not forgive.”

Rev. William H. Furness, the eloquent and Radical preacher,
wrote from Philadelphia:--

“Lend me your own gift, that I may tell you in fitting
words how admirable your speech is. It is cheering to see
how it has convinced people that all is right in regard to
the Mason and Slidell affair. With all its shortcomings and
shilly-shallying, what a glorious nation this North is!”

James Russell Lowell, eminent in our literature, wrote from
Cambridge:--

“Let one of your constituents thank you for your speech on
Maritime Rights. Excellent, as far as my judgment goes, in
matter and manner.”

Charles E. Norton, the accomplished author, and for a time
editor of the _North American Review_, wrote from Cambridge:--

“I read your speech last night with such great
satisfaction, that I desire to express my thanks to you
for it. The argument could not be more forcibly presented,
or in a manner better fitted to enlighten and confirm the
sense of national dignity here, and to give the right
direction to public opinion abroad. You have done a work of
the highest value.”

Orestes A. Brownson, the able writer and reviewer, wrote from
Elizabeth, New Jersey:--

“I have been absent from home, and have read only the one
on the Trent affair, which I think does you equal credit
as a lawyer and a statesman. The view you take is the one
which I myself took, when I first heard of the capture of
Mason and Slidell, but I knew not that it could be backed
by so many and such high authorities as you have cited.”

Hon. Amasa Walker, Professor of Political Economy, and
afterwards Representative in Congress, wrote from North
Brookfield, Massachusetts:--

“I am much obliged for your speech on Maritime Rights.
It is your grandest effort. A noble theme, and treated
in an able and most statesmanlike manner. You have never
made a speech that did your country more good or yourself
more credit. I am particularly glad that it draws forth
encomiums from presses in this State that have been
very hostile to you. They seem compelled to admit their
admiration of the speech, and that it is a great historical
document.”

Parke Godwin, the able writer, wrote from the office of the
_New York Evening Post_:--

“Let me add my congratulations to the thousands you must
have already received for the noble speech in defence of
our time-honored championship of the seas. It is thorough,
searching, manly, and unanswerable.”

Charles L. Brace, the enlightened Reformer and author, wrote
from New York:--

“Will you allow me, as one of your great ‘Constituency,’ to
express my admiration of your speech on the Trent affair,
as reported by telegraph to-day? Its enlightened views,
broad treatment, sound policy, and thorough historical
soundness make it, to my mind, the first of your many
public efforts in oratory.”

Professor Henry W. Torrey, of Harvard University, wrote:--

“I hope that you will allow an old Whig, who has often
differed from you in political opinion, though never
seduced into supporting Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Bell, to
congratulate you on the position you have taken and
so ably maintained on Neutral Rights. From the first
moment I trembled for the consequences of the seizure
of the insurgents. Captain Wilkes’s act appeared to be
a portentous blunder, matched only by the truculent
indorsements that followed it. It consoles me, however,
that this deed has become the occasion for teaching our
people their own antecedents, and proving to the world
their ability to mortify their pride in the presence of
higher claims.… You have nobly substituted the _argumentum
ab humanitate_ for the _argumentum ad hominem_, which you
so justly condemn.”

Rev. Convers Francis, the learned Professor, wrote from
Cambridge:--

“Most heartily do I thank you for your _great_ speech on
Maritime Rights, which adds another to your many claims
on the nation’s gratitude. It is a thorough, exhaustive,
and most able piece of argument,--by far the most so which
that question called forth,--and extorts praise even from
enemies.”

John Penington, the bookseller, wrote from Philadelphia:--

“I have delayed reading the ‘Maritime Rights’ speech till
I could enjoy it in the pamphlet form, corrected. It is an
admirable compend, a perfect _multum in parvo_. It is a
verification of the adage, that ‘Doctors don’t like to take
their own physic,’--our friend Bull being no exception to
the rule. I feel much obliged to you for the treat you have
afforded me.”

Alfred Pell, an intelligent Free-Trader, intimate with England,
and manager of an important insurance office, wrote from New
York:--

“I have a long letter from [Admiral] Dupont. He wrote when
his last advices from the North were of the 22d December,
so that he could not have known what action the Government
had determined upon; yet he says, ‘Few persons in the fleet
approved of the action of Commodore Wilkes, and some of the
most intelligent condemned it _in toto_, yet all allowed
that it showed high moral courage on the part of Wilkes.’ …
You show we do not stoop to conquer, and I am sure that our
friends on the other side will feel like the lady’s maid
spoken of by Swift, who said ‘that nothing annoyed her so
much as being caught in a lie.’”

John E. Lodge, merchant and personal friend, wrote from
Boston:--

“Your speech is more complete even than Mr. Seward’s note;
it is considered here as your very happiest and ablest
effort. The English will open their eyes at some parts of
it.”

Willard P. Phillips, merchant, wrote from Salem:--

“The truth is, that at last you have satisfied even the
commercial community, and they acknowledge that you have
more than ‘one idea.’ They express surprise to find that
you have attended to anything but Slavery, which they
supposed had occupied all your thoughts and all your
time. I am sure that your speech has made many who have
heretofore opposed you feel much more kindly towards you;
and I congratulate you, both upon this change of feeling
towards you, and also upon the delivery of your speech,
which, so able and clear, has satisfied even the doubtful
ones that the surrender of the ‘two old men’ was right.”

Stephen Higginson, merchant, wrote from Boston:--

“I have read to-day with infinite satisfaction your speech
of the 9th on the Trent affair, and you must allow me to
tell you how much I admire it. Crammed with unimpeachable
authorities, the argument terse, vigorous, and eloquent,
this speech sheds a flood of _American_ light upon the
subject, which has been wanting to all other essays upon it
which have come under my notice.”

George Livermore, merchant and student, wrote from Boston:--

“I read your speech on the Trent affair with unqualified
admiration, as it was printed in the _Journal_, and I hope
a large edition will be published in pamphlet form for
preservation. I had supposed Mr. Seward had exhausted all
that could be said on ‘our side,’ but you have given new
interest by your wonderful illustrations. The whole tone of
the speech is admirable.”

Waldo Higginson, an educated man of business, wrote from Boston:--

“Having just completed reading your great speech on the
Trent Question, I am impelled to write you, to do my humble
part towards thanking you for such a triumphant effort.
I think it is exhaustive, abstinent of all not strictly
germane to the weighty matter in hand, puts the country
in a far more dignified position than it was left by Mr.
Seward’s late letter to Lord Lyons, eminently courteous
towards _present_ England, and determines as far as
possible that country’s position.”

Carlos Pierce, merchant, afterwards agriculturist, wrote
enthusiastically from Boston:--

“I am especially grateful for a copy of your most
remarkable and wonderful speech, delivered in the Senate
January 9, on Maritime Rights. It came at an opportune
moment, when the whole populace were terribly excited,
ready to plan any kind of an expedition to sink the vessel
that should be sent to convey the Rebels from Fort Warren.
It is hardly possible for you to conceive of the change it
wrought in public sentiment in twenty-four hours. It was as
oil poured upon the troubled waters to their wounded pride.
But it equally astonished and delighted your best friends
and worst enemies, and won for you a host of new admirers.
It was the most masterly and powerfully convincing argument
I have ever read of yours on any subject. The people, the
press, the nation, the world, will ever delight to honor
the man that displayed the genius equal to such a rare
opportunity, and was ready to strike so powerful a blow
against a terrible wrong long endured, and in favor of our
nation’s honor, humanity, and civilization.”

Robert K. Darrah, appraiser at the Custom-House, wrote:--

“I am constrained to congratulate you upon making the
Thursday speech on the Trent affair. It has fallen on the
community with the most happy effect. It was most timely
and salutary, and most certainly the great speech of the
session in a higher than a rhetorical sense. It will have
a most wide and extended influence: first, to pacificate
the public sentiment in this country, and also in England;
and then to conciliate European powers, by acceding to the
policy and principles they urge upon us; and, finally, by
clinching England to the construction of International Law
for which we have always contended, and thus driving her
from her offensive pretensions pertinaciously adhered to
for a century. The speech is applauded on all sides, even
by those who do not love our party or you any too well.…
The peroration is particularly splendid, argumentative,
eloquent, and wise. I repeat, that all sorts of people
applaud it, and it is believed that you have done more to
put down our Rebellion by your action in the Senate on
Thursday than all the major-generals have done in the last
six months.”

Joseph Lyman, an early friend and college classmate, wrote from
Jamaica Plain, near Boston:--

“You cannot think how much I was delighted with your Trent
speech. I say nothing of it critically, but that the
statements were truly admirable; and you know very well,
that, when a case is well stated, it is more than argued,
it is adjudged. But this is not why I was so much pleased
with it. It was because it was so thoroughly in your best
line and manner. It showed you to the public as I want to
show you,--as a truly _practical man_. I know as well as
you the absurdity of those who call Antislavery a party of
one idea, of abstraction and transcendentalism, &c.,--as
if the one idea of Humanity did not absorb all others of
practical legislation.”

Rev. Samuel M. Emery, of the Episcopal Church, and a college
classmate, wrote from Portland, Connecticut:--

“It is rather late in the day to congratulate you upon
the lofty position you have reached on the round of
fame and usefulness, but not too late to thank you for
your exhaustive speech on the Trent affair. I, as well
as thousands of Union-loving people, thank you for that
speech.”

William G. Snethen, Abolitionist and lawyer, wrote from
Baltimore:--

“God bless Mr. Sumner! Who shall say that God has not
spared him from the bludgeon of the murderer, not only
to defend the poor negro in his God-given rights, but to
vindicate our country from the insolence of England, and
pronounce judgment against her past wrongs, while according
forgiveness to the tardy penitent?

“You said that the correspondence closed with Governor
Seward’s letter to Lord Lyons. True; but his annotator is
not less illustrious. _Par nobile fratrum!_ I am curious to
see how your speech will be received in England.”

John T. Morrison wrote from Washington:--

“I have been so much pleased with your clear, concise,
authoritative, and conclusive vindication of the action of
the Government in the case, and, withal, with the sublime
eloquence with which you proclaim the triumph of American
diplomacy over the long, sullen, and obstinate perverseness
of English rule, that I feel it my duty to ask a few copies
of your speech for distribution among special friends in
Indiana.”

George Ely, of Chicago, wrote from Washington, where he was a
visitor:--

“I had the pleasure of listening to your great speech,
delivered in the Senate of the United States yesterday,
on Maritime Rights. Permit so humble an individual as
myself, and a stranger to you, to congratulate you upon
the unequalled ability of your speech, and the triumphant
vindication you have given to the American doctrine upon
that question. The country will feel proud, in these times
of trouble and doubt, of such an advocate.”

Ellis Yarnall, an excellent citizen, much connected with
England, wrote from Philadelphia:--

“And now that we have had that speech, everything else
that has been said on the subject seems of little worth.
Everywhere I hear the same judgment; so that your friends
may well congratulate you on what is doubtless one of the
most brilliant successes of your life. It seems to me
of the greatest importance that the speech should have
large circulation in England. The _Times_, I fear, will
hardly publish what, from its very moderation and its
statesmanlike dignity, will tell so much for the Americans.
Yet the leading men of all parties will read it, and I
am sure it will greatly help our cause. Your rebuke of
England’s warlike preparations is most timely, and I am
confident good men in England will feel nothing but shame
at the remembrance of the menacing action into which they
were betrayed, in December, 1861, in a controversy on what
you call a question of law.”

These unsought and voluntary expressions of opinion show
that on this occasion, as when demanding Emancipation, Mr.
Sumner was not alone. Weight and numbers were with him. Nobody
better than these volunteers represented the intelligence and
conscience of the country.

OFFICE OF SENATOR, AND ITS INCOMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER OFFICE.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE CASE OF GENERAL LANE, OF KANSAS, JANUARY 13, 1862.

The question of the seat of Hon. James H. Lane, of Kansas, was
referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, at the extra
session of July, 1861, when the Committee reported that he was
not entitled to his seat. The consideration of the resolution
was postponed to the present session.

It appeared, that, previously to the extra session, and
before Mr. Lane had taken his seat as Senator from Kansas, he
was designated by President Lincoln as Brigadier-General of
Volunteers, and entered upon his public duties as such, but
without any actual commission or formal appointment according
to law. Afterwards, when informed that he could not be
Brigadier-General and at the same time Senator, he abandoned
the former post and was duly qualified as Senator. Meanwhile
Governor Robinson of Kansas, assuming that Mr. Lane had so far
accepted another office as to vacate his seat in the Senate,
appointed Hon. Frederic P. Stanton in his place, and the
Judiciary Committee affirmed the title of the latter.

January 13th, Mr. Sumner spoke against the report.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. FOSTER] has presented the objections to the seat of General Lane ingeniously and ably; but I must frankly confess that he fails to satisfy me. I could not resist the brief, but decisive, statement of the Senator from New York [Mr. HARRIS], to which we listened the other day; and the ampler argument of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CLARK], to which we have listened to-day, seems to leave little more to be said. I shall follow the latter without adding to the argument.

The language of the Constitution applicable to the case is explicit: “No person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House of Congress during his continuance in office.” But the question arises, Did General Lane hold any such office after he became Senator?

Not considering the case minutely, I content myself with briefly touching two points, either of which will be sufficient to secure his seat to General Lane.

1. At the time when the military appointment was received from the President, General Lane was simply Senator elect from Kansas, and not actually Senator. This cannot be questioned. Until he took the oath at your chair, Sir, he was Senator in title only, not in function. It is true, he already exercised the franking privilege; but this he will also exercise months after his term expires. The franking privilege was all that he possessed of Senatorial functions. On this point I read what is said by Mr. Cushing, in his elaborate work on the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies.

“SEC. 2. _Refusal to qualify._ One who is returned a member of
a legislative assembly, and assumes a seat as such, is bound
to take the oaths required of him, and perform such other acts
as may be necessary to qualify him, if any, to discharge the
duties of his office. If a member elect refuses to qualify,
he will be discharged from being a member, with more or less
of obloquy, or none at all, according to the circumstances of
his case; but he cannot be expelled, because he cannot as yet
discharge the duties of a member.”[122]

It is clear that the member elect is not invested with the office until qualified by taking the oath. If illustration of this rule be needed, it will be found in the Parliamentary History of Great Britain. Soon after the Revolution of 1688, two persons returned as members refused to take the oaths and were discharged. But there is an historic precedent almost of our own day. As the long contest for Catholic Emancipation in Great Britain was drawing to a close, Mr. O’Connell was elected by the County of Clare to a seat in Parliament. Presenting himself at the bar of the House of Commons, he refused to take the Oath of Supremacy, then required of all members, and was heard at the bar in support of his claim; but the House resolved that he was not entitled to sit or vote, unless he took this oath; and as he persisted in refusal, a writ was issued for a new election. Still later, the same question arose in the case of Baron Rothschild, the eminent banker of the Jewish persuasion, who, when elected as representative for the city of London, refused to take the oaths required, and on this account was kept out of his seat, until what is known as the Jews’ Relief Bill became a law. The conclusion is irresistible, that, until the oath was taken, General Lane had not entered upon his functions as Senator; and here the argument of the Senator from Connecticut, with regard to the effect of the oath, is strictly applicable. An oath in public, at your chair, Sir, being at once of record and sealing the acceptance of an office, is very different from the informal oath taken in private, at a distance, before a local magistrate, which is in the nature of an escrow, until recorded in the proper department.

2. Even if General Lane had been Senator, invested with the functions of the office, and completely qualified by taking the necessary oath, it is still clear that the military duties he had undertaken did not operate as a resignation. And here I remark, that, when it is proposed to unseat a Senator, to deprive him of a place in this body,--I might almost say to deprive him of his rank,--the evidence must be complete. It must be, according to that old phrase of the Common Law, “certainty to a certain intent in every particular.” If there be doubt, either in law or fact, the interpretation should be in his favor. But this case requires no such interpretation. It is true that General Lane had entered upon certain military duties, but he had assumed no military office under the Constitution of the United States. Colonel Baker, a late lamented member of this body, had assumed military duties also. Like General Lane, he, too, had come forward at the summons of the President. It is true that Colonel Baker acted professedly under a commission from a State. General Lane has latterly acted under a similar commission; but at the moment in question he was acting under certain informal and extra-constitutional proceedings of the President, rendered necessary by the exigencies of the hour. The President, by proclamation, undertook to organize an army. He called for volunteers, and also for additions to the regular army. All approved the patriotic act. But I am at a loss to understand how it is supposed that this proceeding can be made effective to oust a Senator of his seat. The act of the President was proper, just, and patriotic; but clearly, and beyond all question, it needed the sanction of Congress to be completely legal. Without such sanction, the army must have drawn its breath from the proclamation alone, and every commission would have been merely a token of Presidential confidence, liable to be defeated, first, by the failure of Congress to sanction the proclamation, and, secondly, by refusal of the Senate to advise and consent to the nomination. It was only when the Act of July 22d was passed, that the President was authorized to appoint new Brigadier-Generals. Then it was, for the first time, that a legal addition was made to the national army, and that this very office was legally created which General Lane was charged with accepting some time in June.

I do not forget the retroactive statute passed on the last day of the session, declaring that all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President respecting the army and navy, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers, are approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid, to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of Congress. The clause in the Constitution against _ex post facto_ laws has been restricted by judicial interpretation to criminal matters; but I doubt if even this much questioned interpretation would sanction such a retroactive effect as is now proposed. So much, at least, I do know: the Senate is judge, without appeal, with regard to the seats of its members; and I am sure it will not unseat a Senator by a strained application of an _ex post facto_ statute.

The conclusion is twofold: first, that at the time in question General Lane was not a Senator; and, secondly, that at the time in question he was not a Brigadier. The whole case is unreal. It is a question between an imaginary Senator and an impossible Brigadier; or rather, it is a question whether an imagined seat in this body was lost by alleged acts under an impossible military commission. The seat of the Senator did not become a reality until some days after General Lane is supposed to have vacated it; and the military commission did not become a possibility until several weeks after General Lane had abandoned it.

Of course, with this view of the law on these two decisive points, it becomes entirely unnecessary to consider the multifarious and indefinite evidence with regard to what General Lane did in the way of accepting his military commission; because nothing that he did, and nothing that he could do, under that impossible commission, would operate legally in the present case.

In reply to Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Sumner spoke further.

I have no desire to follow at length the Senator from Kentucky, but I venture to ask the attention of the Senate simply to one of the points he has presented. According to him, General Lane, when elected as Senator, by the mere fact of his election became Senator, so that the Constitution operated to create an incompatibility between the function of Senator and the new office which it is said he accepted. The Senator from Kentucky, as I understood, argued that the function of the Senator, at least for the purpose of this case, commences with his election.

MR. DAVIS. Will the Senator from Massachusetts permit me to ask
him a question?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly, if the Senator will allow me just to make my statement. The Senator, I say, assumes that the function of the Senator, at least for the purposes of this case, commences with his election; and in support of that assumption he quotes the Constitution of the United States, as follows:--

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which
he was elected, be appointed to any civil office, under the
authority of the United States, which shall have been created,
or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during
such time.”