Chapter II: Conclusion (1)

Such is this proscription, as it appears (1.) in the various statutes of the Slave States, (2.) in the eccentricities of judicial decisions, (3.) in its consequences, (4.) in examples of history, and (5.) in the grounds on which it is founded. Regarding it in either of these aspects, it must be rejected. The statutes in which it is declared and the judicial eccentricities by which it is illustrated belong to the curiosities of an expiring barbarism. Its consequences shock the conscience of the world. The examples of history testify against it. The reason on which it is founded shows that it stands on nothing that is reasonable.

It is for Congress to determine whether this proscription shall continue in the courts of the United States,--or, in other words, if a local rule, barbarous, irrational, and unjust, born of Slavery, shall be allowed to exist yet longer under the national sanction.

THE MISSION TO BELGIUM.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATION BILL, MARCH 15, 1864.

March 14th, the Senate having under consideration the bill
making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service,
Mr. Sumner, in behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
moved the following amendment:--

“That the President may, in his discretion, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint an envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the kingdom
of Belgium, who shall receive no higher compensation than
is now allowed to a minister resident.”

The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, to whom
Mr. Sumner replied.[105]

March 15th, the debate was continued, and Mr. Sumner spoke
several times. In reply to Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, he said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--There seems a perpetual disposition in this debate to change the issue. I stated that the issue was how we shall best give efficiency to our representation in Europe. Now the Senator from Kentucky says that the issue is how we shall give our minister at Belgium an opportunity to get into a little better company. That is his imagination. Surely it is not the way the Committee directed me to state the case. It is not the way in which I have presented it at any time in this discussion. I hope that Senators will not be diverted from the real issue, which is simply, Will the public interests be promoted by this change? The Committee answer in the affirmative, and in my humble opinion the Committee is right.

MR. DAVIS. Will the Chairman specify in what respect the public
interest will be promoted, in what respect the efficiency of
our representative at the court of Brussels will be increased,
and in what respect the increase of his grade will render this
Government and its interests more acceptable to Leopold?

MR. SUMNER. In the same way, Sir, that the public interests are promoted at London, and also at Paris, by a plenipotentiary instead of a minister resident.

MR. DAVIS. According to that rule, we ought to have a
first-class minister at every court in Europe and at every
government in South America, and everywhere else where we send
diplomatic representatives.

MR. SUMNER. No,--the Senator will pardon me,--not at every court in Europe, but only at those where we have considerable interests. It all pivots upon that. What are our relations with different courts? With considerable interests, we should be represented accordingly. With inconsiderable interests only, there is no reason to raise the mission. We have first-class missions, according to our scale of rank, at London, Paris, Madrid, Turin, Vienna, Berlin, and St. Petersburg. And why?

MR. DAVIS. Will the honorable Chairman tell me the relative
proportion between the commercial interests of the United
States and England, the United States and France, and the
United States and Belgium?

MR. SUMNER. There are interests of all kinds, commercial and political, differing in different countries. I need not remind the Senator that our interests with England and France are largely superior to those with any other European power,--much above those with Belgium; but if you ask me what other European power I should place next after those two, I should hesitate, in the condition of our affairs at this precise moment, to place any before Belgium.

MR. DAVIS. Would you not place Russia before Belgium?

MR. SUMNER. I would not exaggerate, but I am obliged to acknowledge, in reply to the Senator, that I should hesitate at this moment to say that even Russia was so situated as to make our minister there so important to our present interests as our minister at Belgium. In one word, our minister at Brussels has more to do than our minister at St. Petersburg. Look I pray you, at the geographical position of Belgium, its thronging, active population, its commerce, its manufactures. But countries derive character and even power from their rulers, and this is the happy advantage of Belgium, especially in her relations with us. You all know that her sovereign is able to exercise a persuasive influence over international affairs, entirely out of proportion to the extent of territory he so wisely governs, and this influence has been exerted at a critical moment in our favor.

I would not say a word in disparagement of any other power. But it would be difficult, after England and France, to name any power which, all things considered, furnishes at this moment such opportunities of usefulness in the public service to any American plenipotentiary as are afforded by Belgium. Would the Senator compare our interests there with those in Prussia, one of the most respectable and highly educated courts of the globe, or with Austria, great in military power and physical resources? At Berlin and Vienna there is less for our ministers to do, and less of opportunity, than at Brussels. The geographical position of these capitals explains this difference, at least in part.

Or, if you please, take the government of Spain, representing that great Castilian monarchy on which it was said that the sun never set. A Senator whispers that this was said some time ago. True; but you have in Spain the old Castilian pride and faith born of that immense empire; and yet our interests with Spain at this moment, or, in other words, our opportunities in that kingdom, are not more important than in the smaller kingdom of Belgium, which the sun covers in much less than a single hour.

Then there is the new-born kingdom of Italy, where we have also a plenipotentiary. Does any one suppose, that, if you put aside that sympathy which every American feels for this interesting power, newly dedicated to Liberty, our interests there at this moment are equal to those with Belgium? Here again geography explains the difference.

There only remains in this review, to which the Senator invites me, the empire of Russia, bound by many years of history to amity with the United States, and absolutely fixed as our friend beyond any jar of diplomacy or any jealousy of growing power. But our commercial relations with this extensive country are inferior to those with Belgium; and St. Petersburg is further removed from the great centre of observation than Brussels. The Emperor of Russia is illustrious from a transcendent act, for which his name will be blessed; but his assured regard for us takes away all solicitude as to his policy, while the complications of present questions in which he is involved render his relations to other European governments less intimate than those of King Leopold, even if the latter had not, from family and long experience, a position of peculiar weight in the scale of European affairs, so that Belgium under his rule has a value beyond her natural power or territorial extent. Belgium may be small in domain, but so was Greece; nor will any one presume to measure the influence her sovereign may exercise by the number of square miles he governs.

But the Senator asked if there was any other government so small in numbers where we were represented by a plenipotentiary. I have before me, from the last almanac, the population of Chile, where we have a plenipotentiary. It is one million five hundred and fifty-eight thousand. Here, also, is the population of Peru, where we have a plenipotentiary,--two million five hundred thousand.

MR. DAVIS. I believe that those missions ought to be reduced,
and I would vote to-day for the reduction of the missions to
Chile and to Peru.

MR. SUMNER. Very well; but let us take each question by itself. That is the more practical way. When the proposition to reduce the missions to Chile and Peru comes before the Senate, I shall be ready to meet it, and I do not say that I shall differ from the Senator; but that proposition is not now before us, nor is it involved even indirectly in the pending amendment.

It is said, that, if we raise this mission, next year there will be attempt to raise the salary. Very well; when that comes, we can meet it. Again it is said that next year there will be attempt to raise both mission and salary at the Hague and other places. Very well; when the time comes,--and it must have the sanction of a committee of this body to come before the Senate,--we will meet it. Meanwhile I ask you to consider the actual question under debate, which is, whether you will authorize the Government, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and for the support of our interests abroad, to raise the Belgian mission without any increase of salary. I have said this too often, I know; but I have been driven to it by the pertinacity with which Senators have insisted upon presenting the case in a false light.

The amendment was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 18,--and the bill
passed the Senate; but the House of Representatives would
not consent to raise the Belgian mission. Two different
conference committees were appointed. The first united in the
following substitute, drawn by Mr. Sumner, which would enable
the President to raise the mission in his discretion without
increase of salary: “That an envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary, appointed at any place where the United States
are now represented by a minister resident, shall receive the
compensation fixed by law and appropriated for a minister
resident, and no more.” But this was disagreed to by the House,
and at the second conference the Senate receded from the
amendment, so that it was lost.

In the next Congress it was renewed by Mr. Sumner, and
prevailed. It will be found in the Consular and Diplomatic Act
of July 25, 1866.[106]

CONSULAR PUPILS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATION BILL, MARCH 15, 1864.

The Senate having under consideration the Consular and
Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, an amendment was reported by Mr.
Fessenden from the Committee on Finance reviving the provision
in the Act of August 18, 1856,[107] authorizing twenty-five
consular pupils, and making an appropriation for them. The
amendment was opposed by Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, and Mr.
Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland. Mr. Sumner said in reply:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The chief objection of the Senator from Maryland seemed to be that we might educate these young men at the national expense and very soon thereafter lose them,--in other words, not get our money back. In the first place, it is very easy, by regulations at the State Department before these appointments, to provide against any such contingency; and I understand that Mr. Marcy, indefatigable and ingenious as the Senator remembers he was, did, by a series of regulations, carefully provide for this very case. Should we return to the original law, the Secretary of State would have only to revive those original regulations by one of his most distinguished predecessors. I believe this a sufficient answer to the Senator.

But the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CHANDLER] has already answered him in another way, when he asked, very pertinently, What assurance have we that we shall enjoy the services of the cadets at West Point, or the naval cadets now at Newport? There are certain requirements of service, but the Senator knows well that nothing is more common than for cadets, especially military, to pass immediately from that education they have received at the expense of their country into occupations serving only their private advantage.

MR. JOHNSON. That is with the consent of the Government. The
Government accepts their resignations.

MR. SUMNER. Very well; what is to hinder regulations at the Department of State requiring the consent of the Government before these pupils shall be released,--in short, holding them by some words of contract for a certain term? Here let me say, that, unlike cadets, these pupils will give the Government valuable service even while pupils.

But, Sir, passing from these considerations, allow me for a moment to ask the attention of the Senate to this proposition in two aspects,--the first as a carrying out of the consular and diplomatic statute of the United States, and the second as in the nature of an educational provision calculated to benefit our consular service abroad.

In the first aspect, the Senate will bear in mind that down to 1855 we had no general diplomatic and consular statute. Our representation in foreign countries went under thorough review, and the result was the statute in our books, determining grades, adjusting salaries, and, in one word, systematizing the whole business. Let the character of the statute be borne in mind. But this statute, which aimed to present a complete system, contained the provision for consular pupils.

Now, Sir, at that time and by that statute our consular salaries were adjusted to this very provision of consular pupils. The one was in the nature of a complement to the other. The salaries were made lower than they otherwise would have been in certain cases, because the consuls were to be aided by pupils with a compensation fixed by statute. But the provision for pupils was repealed shortly afterwards, indeed before the experiment had been tried, without, however, raising the consular salaries in corresponding degree. It seems clear that something must be done now. You must do one of two things,--either raise the consular salaries or appoint consular pupils. Otherwise the original idea of the statute fails, and our system is defective.

But this seems to be the least important aspect of the subject. A mere question of salary, or, if you please, of system in the statute, is trivial, to my mind, by the side of that other consideration to which Senators have already alluded. I said that this was part of an educational system for the advancement of our service abroad. I do not think you can exaggerate its importance in this respect. Let any one who has been abroad, or had personal acquaintance with those who have been abroad, bear testimony to the abounding ignorance in our foreign service, from the circumstance that there is nobody there, unless a hired foreigner, acquainted with the language, the laws, or the usages of the people about him. Sir, it is a shame that our offices abroad, whether consular or diplomatic, are served in this inferior way. Here, now, is a practical proposition beginning a remedy. It is simple and direct. It seems to me that it cannot fail to be of considerable advantage. The business of these offices will be better done, and there will be a staff of educated experts, familiar with foreign life, whose knowledge and experience, even if not always in the service of Government, will pass into the capital stock and resources of the country. Nothing is clearer than that the education of the people is a source of national wealth, even of national power.

But the Senator from Vermont says that education is needed more in the diplomatic service than in the consular. Granted; it is needed very much in the diplomatic service; but because needed there, is that any reason why we should not supply it here? The argument, it seems to me, was hardly worthy of that Senator. Let a proposition be brought forward for an educational system applicable to our diplomatic representatives, and we will entertain it. Meanwhile let us act on that before us, which, I submit, is eminently practical in character. Who are our consuls? They are not diplomatic or political agents in the common sense of the term; they are commercial agents. To discharge their duties fitly, they should be familiar with the interests of commerce, how it is conducted, and the language it employs, where they happen to be. And permit me to say, that a great country like ours, one of whose chief sources of wealth and of grandeur is commerce, must not hesitate to supply the education needed to secure commercial representatives not unworthy of the Republic they represent.

As the consul is a commercial representative, he is on this account especially the agent of a commercial country. If our commerce were less, our interest in having good consuls would be less. But with the surpassing growth of our commerce this interest enlarges. To send abroad consuls without proper education must necessarily bring the national character into disrepute, and jeopard the concerns intrusted to them. For the sake of our good name abroad, which is part of our national possessions, and also for the sake of those vast commercial concerns which encircle the globe, I hope that this proposition, which is a small beginning in the right direction, will not be rejected.

March 16th, the debate was continued, and Mr. Sumner spoke
again. The amendment was adopted,--Yeas 20, Nays 16,--and the
bill passed the Senate. The House disagreed to the amendment,
but afterwards accepted the report of a conference committee,
authorizing the appointment of “consular clerks, not exceeding
thirteen in number at any one time, who shall be citizens of
the United States, and over eighteen years of age at the time
of their appointment, and shall be entitled to compensation
for their services respectively at a rate not exceeding
one thousand dollars per annum, to be determined by the
President.”[108]

THE LATE HON. OWEN LOVEJOY, OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE RESOLUTIONS UPON HIS DEATH, MARCH 29, 1864.

MR. PRESIDENT,--It is proposed to adjourn in honor of OWEN LOVEJOY, whose recent death we mourn. Could his wishes prevail, Senators would continue in their seats and help enact into law some one of the several measures pending to secure the obliteration of Slavery. Such an act would be more acceptable to him than any personal tribute.

He spoke well always, but he believed in deeds rather than words, although speech with him was a deed. It was his contribution to that sublime cause for which he toiled always. Words may be often “the daughters of earth,” but there was little of earth in his. Proceeding from a pure and generous heart, they have so far prevailed, even during his life, that they must be named gratefully among those good influences by which the triumph has been won. How his enfranchised soul would be elevated, even in those abodes to which he is removed, at knowing that his voice is still heard on earth, encouraging, exhorting, insisting that there shall be no hesitation anywhere in striking at Slavery,--that this unpardonable wrong, from which alone the Rebellion draws its wicked life, must be blasted by Presidential proclamation, blasted by Act of Congress, blasted by constitutional prohibition, blasted in every possible way, by every available agency, and at every occurring opportunity, so that no trace of the outrage may continue in the institutions of the land, and especially that its accursed footprints may no longer defile the national statute-book! In vain you pass resolutions in tribute to him, if you neglect that cause for which he lived, and hearken not to his voice.

Shortly before he went away from Washington to die, I sat by his bedside. There, too, within call, was the beloved partner of his life. He was cheerful; but his thoughts were mainly turned to his country, whose fortunes in the bloody conflict with Slavery he watched with intensest care. He did not doubt the great result; but he longed to be at his post again, to teach his fellow-citizens, and to teach Congress, how vain to expect an end of the Rebellion without making an end of Slavery. It is only just to his fame that now, on this occasion of commemoration, all this should be faithfully told. To suppress it would be dishonest. I could not speak at his funeral, if I were expected to unite in robbing his grave of any of these honors derived from his transcendent courage and discernment in the trials of the present hour.

The Journals of the House show how faithfully he began his labors at the present session. On the 14th of December he introduced a bill, whose title discloses its character: “A bill to give effect to the Declaration of Independence, and also to certain provisions of the Constitution of the United States.” It proceeds to recite that all men are created equal, and endowed by the Creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the fruits of honest toil; that the Government of the United States was instituted to secure those rights; that the Constitution declares that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and also provides (Article six, clause two) that “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”; that it is now demonstrated by the Rebellion that Slavery is absolutely incompatible with the union, peace, and general welfare for which Congress is to provide; and it therefore enacts that all persons heretofore held in slavery in any of the States or Territories of the United States are declared freedmen, and are forever released from slavery or involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime on due conviction. On the same day he introduced another bill, to protect freedmen and to punish any one for enslaving them. These were among his last public acts. And now they testify how honestly he dealt with that _question of questions_ in which all other questions are swallowed up. It is easy to see that he scorned the wicked fantasy that man can hold property in man. This pernicious delusion, which is the source of such intolerable pretensions on the part of slave-masters, and, worse still, of such intolerable irresolution on the part of many professing opposition to Slavery, could get no hold of him. He knew that it was a preposterous falsehood, as wicked as false, born of prejudice and supreme credulity, and therefore he brushed aside as cobweb all the fine-spun snares of law or Constitution so ingeniously woven in its support. Recognizing Freedom as the God-given birthright of all who wear the human form, he knew no duty higher than to protect it always; and to this end law and Constitution must minister.

He had never been a judge, and was not even a lawyer, so that the technicalities and subtilties of the profession had no chance of enslaving him. Besides, to a nature like his, independent and self-poised, what were the sophisms of learning and skill, when employed in the support of Wrong? It was enough, that, wherever Slavery appeared, it was in defiance of that commanding law of Right, before which all unjust pretensions, whatever form they take, must disappear like the morning dew under the flashing arrows of the ascending sun. From the beginning and at all times he was fixed against all compromise with Slavery, and stood like a fortress. Sir, let it be spoken here in his honor. He lies cold in death, but he could have no better epitaph than this: “_Here rests one who would not compromise with Wrong_.” When Senators and Presidents bent to the ignoble behest, he stood firm. He was gifted to see that Slavery, unlike Tariff or Bank, did not come within the range of compromise any more than the Decalogue or Multiplication Table. He saw well how shamefully unconstitutional and inhuman was the Fugitive Slave Act, in spite of every apology of compromise, and refused it all support. He lies cold in death, but his principles will live to sweep this unutterable atrocity from the statute-book, which it still fills from cover to cover with blackness.

He was not only a faithful counsellor of perfect loyalty, in whom truth was a religion and an instinct, but he was a counsellor whose experience of mankind and of public life united with aptitude for affairs in giving to what he said added value. He sat for several years in the other House face to face with Slave-Masters, who then ruled the country, so that he knew them well in every respect, but especially in their open brutality and surpassing effrontery. During this period, while shut out from participation in the public business, his duty was that of champion, and nobly did he perform it. But those who watched him under the responsibility recently cast upon a Representative of his character observed that he developed a practical talent which rendered him useful, not only as champion, but also as workman in the machine of government. He was a supporter of the present Administration, and of that declared policy which, according to the motto of Algernon Sidney, adopted on the arms of Massachusetts, seeks “placid quiet under Liberty,”--_placidam sub Libertate quietem_. There are few among his associates who may not be instructed and inspired by his magnanimous example.

He had been a lifelong soldier of Liberty, baptized into a service of blood. While yet young, his brother, an editor in Illinois, devoted to the slave, fell a victim to the cause he served so well. His fate awakened a wide sympathy throughout the country, drawing Channing from his retirement to speak at Faneuil Hall, and touching with a living coal the lips of Wendell Phillips, whose voice then and there, for the first time, flamed forth against Slavery. It was natural that Owen Lovejoy should assume those vows of perpetual warfare with the tyrant murderer which he so truly kept,--tyrant murderer of a cherished brother,--tyrant murderer of Liberty, not only on the plantation, but everywhere throughout the land,--tyrant murderer of the Constitution, which guards alike the rights of States and citizens,--and tyrant murderer of national peace, without which there can be no true prosperity or happiness. Thus, as a soldier of Liberty, he began, and he kept his harness on to the last.

He was one of the most amiable of men, whose heart was abundant with goodness and gentleness, and whose countenance streamed with sunshine. But on this account he was only the more inexorable toward a wrong so cruel in all its influences. A child of the New Testament, he was no stranger to the early Hebrew spirit, and had little patience with those who, born among Northern schools and churches, strove to arrest or mitigate the doom of Slavery. The famous curse of Meroz, so solemnly denounced against neutrality, which had been echoed from ancient Judea by English Puritans in their great contest, found an echo in his heart: “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.”[109] Of course, in this spirit he used plain words, and did not hesitate. But if he did not hesitate, it was because he saw clearly the path of duty. Amiability did not make him doubt. He was a positive man, of positive principles, who knew well how much was always lost by timid counsels, especially on great occasions. Because there were some about him who were skeptical and irresolute, he was not disheartened, but preserved to the last an example of fidelity which history will piously enshrine. His own illustrations were from the sacred writings, but a heathen poet has given a warning which is part of the lesson of his life:--

“Old Priam’s age, or Nestor’s, may be out,
And thou, O Taurus, still go on in doubt.
Come, then, how long such wavering shall we see?
Thou mayst doubt on; but then thou’lt nothing be.”[110]

Of all doubts, there are none more painful or indefensible than those by which human rights are put in jeopardy.

He was a Representative of Illinois, born in Maine when Maine was part of Massachusetts, which made him a connecting link between the East and the West. The welcome he found in the West, and his complete fellowship with that region, while his sympathies overflowed to his early home, attest better than arguments the ligatures binding together these different parts of our common Union; so that, hereafter, should any malignant spirit seek to sow strife between us, his name alone will be a standing protest against the alienation. Born in the East, he was honored in the West. Honored in the West, he never lost his love for the East. But the whole country, not excepting the South, had a home in his patriotic, hospitable, and capacious heart. He hated Slavery; but he loved his country in every part, with heart, soul, and mind.

He was of the Old Guard of Antislavery, and we bury him with the honors that belong to such a soldier. Flags are at half-mast, and funeral guns are sounding in our hearts. But from his new-made grave he speaks now to the whole vast Republic, animating all good citizens to labor as he labored and to live as he lived, that this land may be redeemed. Especially does he speak to the State that honored him in life, and to those associate States constituting the mighty Northwest, where he found the home of his mature years,--Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota,--exhorting them to take up bravely and without faltering the cause he made his own, that it may not lose by his death. But, alas! the vigilance of many will be needed to supply the place he filled.

Such a character must be mourned in Congress; but he will be mourned throughout the country, at all those virtuous firesides where fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters speak of those who have helped human happiness on earth. And there is another company, who cannot yet pronounce his name, but, as they hear how truly he was their friend, will rise to call him blessed. Already, unseen of men, in vast uncounted procession, the slaves of the Union help to swell his funeral.

COLORED SUFFRAGE IN THE TERRITORY OF MONTANA.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL FOR A TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT OF THAT TERRITORY, MARCH 31 AND MAY 19, 1864.

March 30th, the Senate having under consideration a bill, that
had already passed the House of Representatives, to provide
a temporary government for the Territory of Montana, Mr.
Wilkinson, of Minnesota, moved to amend the clause relating
to persons entitled to vote and eligible to office, so that,
instead of “every _white male inhabitant_,” it should read
“every _free male citizen_ of the United States, and those who
have declared their intention to become such.” Mr. Reverdy
Johnson at once declared that “the effect of the amendment was
to admit to the elective franchise in the proposed Territory
black men as well as white,” and, after mentioning the number
of Africans now in the United States, he proceeded to say
that “it can hardly be seriously contended, that, of that
four millions, such portion of them as have been in a state
of slavery from infancy to the present time are intelligent
enough, or likely to become intelligent enough, at once to
exercise the right of suffrage”; and he anticipated another
question, “just as likely to excite the public as the question
of the existence of Slavery in itself.”

March 31st, the amendment was adopted,--Yeas 22, Nays 17. The
debate continuing, Mr. Johnson said that the term “citizen”
was not applicable to “black men,” “because the Supreme
Court of the United States has decided, and that question
was directly before the Court in the Dred Scott case, that
a person of African descent is not a citizen of the United
States.” Mr. Wilkinson was willing it should stand according
to his amendment, and let the decision of the Supreme Court be
whatever it might. He wanted neither “white” nor “black” put
into the bill. Mr. Sumner then remarked:--

“I take it that each branch of the Government can interpret
the Constitution for itself. I think that Congress is as
good an authority in its interpretation as the Supreme
Court, and I hope that in legislation it will proceed
absolutely without respect to a decision which has
disgraced the country, and ought to be expelled from its
jurisprudence.”

Mr. Johnson vindicated the Dred Scott decision at length, and
made an elaborate eulogy of Chief Justice Taney. In the course
of his remarks, he said: “There are many men, the equals of
the honorable Senator, to say the least, intellectually, who
think that that decision was anything but an outrage.… We
have an interest, jurisprudence has an interest, justice has
an interest, the nation has an interest, in maintaining the
character of that tribunal against all unjust reproach. It is
no light thing to pronounce a decision given by such a tribunal
as that as a disgrace.… I cannot, therefore, stand still and
hear a tribunal like that assailed, as I think unnecessarily,
by anybody, and particularly by the honorable member from
Massachusetts.”

Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The multiplication table tells us that two and two make four. Now, if a tribunal honored like the Supreme Court should undertake to declare that two and two make five, and a Senator as distinguished as the Senator from Maryland should uphold the high tribunal in its decision, I am not satisfied that it would be presumptuous in me to call that decision in question. But the Dred Scott decision was as absurd and irrational as such a reversal of the multiplication table, besides shocking the moral sense of mankind. The Senator will pardon the little scruple with which I denounce it. I claim nothing for myself; I may be weak; but, according to the measure of my abilities as God has given them to me, I enter a standing protest against that atrocious judgment, which was false in law, and also false in the history with which it sought to maintain its false law.

The Senator seems to imply that I am not familiar with the case. Sir, I know it too well. I have read carefully the opinion of the Chief Justice, which the Senator now vaunts, and I have read, also, the opposing opinions, by the side of which that much vaunted opinion is dwarfed into the pettiness proper to a production in such a cause, ignoble in character, and impotent except in that little brief authority incident to judicial rank. The Senator pleads for this judgment in the name of jurisprudence, of justice, and of the nation. Sir, by the same title I denounce it,--in the name of jurisprudence, which it disgraces, of justice, which it denies, and of the nation it has offended.

Among the influences and agencies that helped forward the present Rebellion, and set fellow-citizens in bloody conflict with each other, the Dred Scott decision must always be held in dismal memory. It gave conspirators new confidence. It filled patriots for a while with despair. It became the platform of Slavery, whose tyrannical behests would have triumphed, had this decision been allowed to prevail. Hating the Rebellion in its origin and all the circumstances that nursed it into wicked being, we must hate this decision.

But the Senator wandered into eulogy of that old Supreme Court, now departed, when Marshall was Chief Justice, and from the past claimed consideration for the present. Sir, I have been no careless student of that court in its great and palmy days. I know the learning, wisdom, and ability of its judgments, and am proud that there are such pages in the jurisprudence of my country. My sentiments toward the court of that day are warmed, also, by personal experience. It is among the cherished reminiscences of early life, that I was privileged to know, as a youth might know, the illustrious magistrate whom the Senator praises so well. He received me at his table, and allowed me to accompany him in his morning walks to the court-room. He was a venerable character. But I pray the Senator not to claim for the Dred Scott decision any of the reverence justly belonging to his name. There is no question of tribute to Chief Justice Marshall, or respect for the tribunal while he presided over it. The Dred Scott decision is more noticed from contrast with all that is good and great in the decisions of other days. It is sad that the tribunal that had established such an authority among us should do an act by which its authority has been endangered.

This whole debate is in the nature of a diversion or a deviation, and therefore I bring it back to the precise point from which it started. The Senator from Maryland invoked the Dred Scott decision as a reason why Congress should not recognize colored persons as citizens. In reply I simply asserted the right of Congress to interpret the Constitution without constraint from the Supreme Court, and this I now repeat. Each branch of the Government must interpret the Constitution for itself, according to its own sense of obligation under the oath we have all taken. And God forbid that Congress should consent to wear the strait-jacket of the Dred Scott decision!

Mr. Johnson closed his reply by saying: “And without meaning
to offend the honorable member from Massachusetts, and with
all the personal regard which I feel for him, and recollecting
the courtesy that he has extended to me, and which I have
reciprocated from the bottom of my heart, I say to him, without
any purpose of offence, that, if I am obliged to act upon
the weight of authority upon all questions of Constitutional
Law, I shall prefer holding to the opinion of Taney than
holding to the opinion of the honorable member.” Mr. Hale,
of New Hampshire, after remarking that he differed from Mr.
Sumner, said: “I do not believe that I think any better of
that decision than he does. I think it was an outrage upon the
civilization of the age and a libel upon the law; but I do not
think it was a disgrace to the Supreme Court of the United
States.” [_Laughter._]

The bill passed,--Yeas 29, Nays 8.

* * * * *

The House of Representatives disagreed to the Senate amendment,
and a Committee of Conference was ordered, which reported
in its favor. But the House again disagreed, and, April
15th, another Committee of Conference was appointed, under
instructions, moved by Mr. Webster, of Maryland, “to agree
to no report that authorizes any other than _free white
male citizens_, and those who have declared their intention
to become such, to vote.” The vote of the House on these
instructions stood, Yeas 75, Nays 67. The Senate refused
a further conference upon the terms proposed, which were
abandoned by the House, and a conference without limitation was
agreed to. May 19th, the Conference Committee reported, in lieu
of the Senate amendment, the following clause: “All citizens of
the United States, and those who have declared their intention
to become such, and who are otherwise described and qualified
under the fifth section of the Act of Congress providing for a
temporary government for the Territory of Idaho, approved March
3, 1863.” The reference to the Idaho Act required explanation,
when the following dialogue took place.

MR. SUMNER. I should like to know the nature of the
substitute, if the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] will be
good enough to state it.

MR. MORRILL. I will state in a word that the effect of the
amendment of the Committee of Conference is to authorize
the temporary organization of the Government of Montana by
that class of persons that were authorized to organize the
Territory of Idaho.

MR. SUMNER. What class of persons was that?

MR. MORRILL. They were, as I recollect the qualification,
white citizens of the United States, and such others as
had declared their intention to become citizens. As it
now stands, the qualification in Montana will be that the
voters at the first election will be citizens of the United
States, and such as have declared their intention to be
citizens of the United States, and such as are qualified by
the fifth section of the Act organizing the Territory of
Idaho.

MR. SUMNER. That is, free white persons, I understand.

MR. MORRILL. That is what it comes to.…

MR. SUMNER. Is not the new proposition almost identical
with the original House proposition on the question of
color?

MR. MORRILL. On the question of the exclusion of colored
men it is identical. It does exclude colored men.

MR. SUMNER. I understand that the point of difference
between the two Houses was simply as to the word “white” or
“black.”

MR. MORRILL. That was the principal question, and on that
point I desire to say precisely how the Committee found the
question.…

MR. SUMNER. Then the proposition, as I understand it, is,
that the Senate shall abandon its position. Why so? Because
the House of Representatives will not abandon its position.

MR. MORRILL. No, Sir, the Senator will allow me: because
there did not seem to be any practical sense in adhering to
it; because to adhere to it defeated the bill; because to
adhere to it accomplished no earthly purpose, gave nobody
any right.

MR. SUMNER. For the other House to adhere on the other side
defeated the bill also.

MR. MORRILL. Yes.

MR. SUMNER. And the question is, Which shall adhere, the
side that is right or the side that is wrong?

MR. MORRILL. And that is the question the Committee submit
to the Senate.

MR. SUMNER. I hope the Senate will adhere to its original
position, and I believe that the assertion of that
principle at this moment is more important than the bill.

In the debate that ensued, Mr. Harlan said that he should
“vote against the report of the Committee, chiefly, however,
because he did not think there was a pressing necessity for
the organization of another Territory in that part of our
domain.” Mr. Sumner called attention to the Ordinance for the
organization of the Northwest Territory, and then said:--

It will be observed that in this Ordinance, to which we so often refer as a commanding authority, there is no discrimination of color. Now I ask if this is not a good precedent. Like the present bill, it was applicable to a vast unsettled Territory. Senators may say that our fathers, in the Ordinance, were not practical. I am not of that number. Senators may say that our fathers, in the Declaration of Independence, were not practical. I am not of that number. Senators may say that our fathers, in the Constitution of the United States, which contains no discrimination of color, were not practical. I am not of that number. Sir, I believe that the authors of this Ordinance, and the authors of the Declaration of Independence, and the authors of the Constitution were eminently practical, when they excluded from those instruments any discrimination of color. But it is said that there are no persons in the new Territory to whom the principle is now applicable. This can make no difference. It is something to declare a principle, and I cannot hesitate to say that at this moment the principle is much more important than the bill. The bill may be postponed, but the principle must not be postponed.

MR. MORRILL. I will suggest to the Senator, if he will permit
me,--

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

--that the statement I made about its applicability was this:
it is not by possibility applicable to any man of African
descent. There are some five or six thousand Indians, to whom
a bill in general phrase, without limitation of “white,” might
possibly apply; I do not say that it would apply to them in
this case.

MR. SUMNER. Practically, the subject-matter of this clause is not Indians, but the well-known African race of this continent; and it is proposed, by specious words wrapped up in a clause borrowed from another bill, to exclude them from the right of suffrage in this Territory; and the argument for this injustice, as my friend from New Hampshire [Mr. HALE] has so ably stated, is only a reproduction of that well-known ancient argument for Slavery in the Territories. How often were we in those days compelled to encounter the charge that we were not practical,--that we were urging a prohibition, when there was no occasion for it! For myself, I believe you cannot too often assert a prohibition of Slavery, nor too often assert human rights, wherever they may be called in question; and especially do I believe in the importance of such assertion when you are laying the foundations of a new community. “Just as the twig is bent the tree’s inclined.” These are familiar words of childhood. Would my friend from Maine have the tree that he plants grow up with a generous and protecting shelter for all mankind, or shall it be the bent and crabbed product of unhappy prejudices which are only a growth of Slavery? I know my friend means no such thing; but I insist that the policy he recommends tends to such fatal end. For myself, Sir, I am satisfied with the Declaration of Independence; I am satisfied with the Constitution on this important subject; and, adopting the language of our Lieutenant-General in the field, I desire to say, “I will fight on this line to the end, even if it takes all summer.” There is no line better than that of human rights. While fighting on that line, I cannot err; there is no pertinacity too great; there is no ardor that is not respectable. I thank General Grant for these words. They express his own steadfast purpose, and we all thank him. But each, in his sphere, may make them his own. I make them mine, wherever human rights are in question.

The report of the Conference Committee was adopted,--Yeas 26,
Nays 13. And so this first battle for colored suffrage was lost.

CLAIMS ON FRANCE FOR SPOLIATIONS OF AMERICAN COMMERCE PRIOR TO JULY 31, 1801.

REPORT IN THE SENATE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, APRIL 4, 1864.

April 14th, the Senate, after debate, ordered three thousand
extra copies of this report,--Yeas 23, Nays 19. Mr. Reverdy
Johnson, while urging the extra copies, remarked: “The report
is quite an elaborate one, drawn up with all the fulness
which characterizes papers of this description prepared by
the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. He has
collected together, very accurately, I have no doubt, all the
facts connected with the claims. He has given the history
of the proceedings in Congress and the proceedings of the
Executive, and has examined very fully all the principles of
law applicable to the questions which the claims present.”

The same report was subsequently adopted by the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and printed by the Senate, March 12, 1867,
and also January 17, 1870.

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom were referred
numerous petitions and resolutions of State Legislatures,
taken from the files of the Senate, and also the petition of
sundry citizens of New York, presented at the present session,
asking just compensation for “individual” claims on France,
appropriated by the United States to obtain release from
important “national” obligations, have had the same under
consideration, and beg leave to report.

The welfare of the Republic requires that there should he an end of “suits,” lest, while men are mortal, these should be immortal. Such is a venerable maxim of the law, illustrated by the case before the Committee. The present claims have outlived all the original sufferers, and at least two generations of those who have so ably enforced them in the Halls of Congress. Against their unwonted vitality death has not been able to prevail.

CHARACTER OF THESE CLAIMS.

Of all claims in our history, these are most associated with great events and great sacrifices. First in time, they are also first in character, for they spring from the very cradle of the Republic and the trials of its infancy. To comprehend them, you must know, first, how independence was won, and, secondly, how, at a later day, peace was assured. Other claims have been personal or litigious; these are historic. Here were “individual” losses, felt at the time most keenly, and constituting an unanswerable claim upon France, which, at a critical moment, were employed by our Government, like a credit or cash in hand, to purchase release from outstanding “national” obligations, so that the whole country became at once trustee of these sufferers, bound, of course, to gratitude for the means thus contributed, but bound also to indemnify them against these losses. And yet these sufferers, thus unique in situation, have been compelled to see all other claims for foreign spoliations satisfied, while they alone have been turned away. At the beginning of our history, our plundered fellow-citizens obtained compensation to the amount of many million dollars on account of British spoliations. Similar indemnities have been obtained since from Spain, Naples, Denmark, Mexico, and the South American states, while, by the famous Convention of 1831, France contributed five million dollars to the satisfaction of spoliations under the Continental system of Napoleon. Spain stipulated to pay for every ship or cargo taken within Spanish waters, even by the French; so that French spoliations on our commerce within Spanish waters have been paid for, but French spoliations on our commerce elsewhere before 1800 are still unredeemed. Such has been the fortune of claimants the most meritorious of all.

In all other cases there has been simply a claim for foreign spoliations, but without superadded obligation on the part of our Government. Here is a claim for foreign spoliations, the precise counterpart of all other claims, but with superadded obligation, on the part of our Government, in the nature of a debt, constituting an _assumpsit_, or implied promise to pay; so that these sufferers are not merely _claimants_ on account of French spoliations, but they are also _creditors_ on account of a plain assumption by the National Government of the undoubted liability of France. The appeal of these _creditor claimants_ is enhanced beyond the pecuniary interests involved, when we consider the nature of this assumption, and especially that in this way our country obtained final release from embarrassing stipulations with France contracted in the war for national independence. Regarding it, therefore, as _debt_, it constitutes part of that sacred debt incurred for national independence, and is the only part now outstanding and unpaid.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS.

Before proceeding to consider the nature of existing obligations on the part of the United States, the Committee ask attention to three objections which they encounter on the threshold: the first, founded on the alleged antiquity of the original claims; the second, on the alleged character of the actual possessors; and the third, on the present condition of the country.

I.--CLAIMS ANCIENT, BUT NOT STALE.

It is said that the claims are ancient and stale, and therefore not to be entertained. It is true that the claims are the most ancient of any now pending, and that they date from the very origin of our existence as a nation. But in this respect they do not differ from a Revolutionary pension or a Revolutionary claim. Down to this day there is a standing committee of the Senate, entitled “Committee on Revolutionary Claims”; but if a claim traced to the Revolution must be rejected for staleness, there can be little use for this committee. If these claims, after uninterrupted sleep throughout the long intervening period, were now for the first time revived, they might be obnoxious to this imputation. But, as from the beginning of the century they have occupied the attention of Congress, and been sustained by speeches, reports, and votes, it is impossible to say that they have been allowed to sleep.

The whole case was stated with admirable succinctness, as long ago as 1807, by Mr. Marion, of South Carolina, in the report of a committee of the House of Representatives.

“From a mature consideration of the subject, and from the
best judgment your Committee have been able to form on the
case, _they are of opinion that this Government_, by expunging
the second article of our Convention with France of the 30th
September, 1800, _became bound to indemnify the memorialists
for those just claims_ which they otherwise would rightfully
have had on the Government of France, for the spoliations
committed on their commerce by the illegal captures made
by the cruisers and other armed vessels of that power, in
violation of the Law of Nations, and in breach of treaties
then existing between the two nations; which claims they
were, by the rejection of the said article of the Convention,
forever barred from preferring to the Government of France for
compensation.”[111]

Claims thus authoritatively stated at that early day cannot be overcome by any sleep.