Chapter XI: Part 11

This contrast between the Rebel States and the Loyal States appeared early. It was conspicuous in two Colonies, each of which exercised a peculiar influence. Massachusetts began her existence with a system of free schools. The preamble of her venerable statute deserves immortality. “That learning may not be buried in the grave of our fathers,” her founders enacted that every township of fifty householders should maintain a school for reading and writing, and every town of a hundred householders a school to fit youths for the University.[97] This statute was copied in other Colonies. It has spread far, like a benediction. At the same time Virginia set herself openly against free schools. Her Governor, Sir William Berkeley, in 1671, in a reply to the Lords Commissioners of Plantations on the condition of the Colony, made this painful record: “I thank God _there are no free schools_, nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world, and printing has divulged them.… God keep us from both!”[98] Thus spoke Massachusetts, and thus spoke Virginia, in that ancient day. The conflict of ideas had already begun. Can you hesitate to adopt the statute so well justified by time? It began in an infant colony. Let it be the law of a mighty republic.

The papers of the day mention an incident, showing how the original spirit of the Virginia Governor still animates these States. A motion to print two hundred copies of the Report of the State Superintendent of Public Education was promptly voted down in the Senate of Louisiana, while a Senator, in open speech, “denounced the public education scheme as an unmitigated oppression, an electioneering device, an imposition, which he intended to bring in a bill to abolish, if they were allowed to go on legislating.” With such brutality is this beautiful cause now encountered. It is as if a savage rudely drove an angel from his tent.

Be taught by this example, and do not hesitate, I entreat you. Remember how much is now in issue. You are to fix the securities of the future, and especially to see that a republican government is guarantied in an the Rebel States. I call them “Rebel,” for such they are in spirit still, and such is their designation in your recent statute. But I ask nothing in vengeance or unkindness. All that I propose is for their good, with which is intertwined the good of all. I would not impose any new penalty or bear hard upon an erring people. Oh, no! I simply ask a new safeguard for the future, that these States, through which so much trouble has come, may be a strength and a blessing to our common country, with prosperity and happiness everywhere within their borders. I would not impose any new burden; but I seek a new triumph for civilization. For a military occupation bristling with bayonets I would substitute the smile of peace. But this cannot be without Education. As the soldier disappears, his place must be supplied by the schoolmaster. The muster-roll will be exchanged for the school-register, and our headquarters will be a school-house.

Do not forget the grandeur of the work in which you are engaged. You are forming States. Such a work cannot be done hastily or carelessly. The time you give will be saved to the country hereafter a thousand-fold. The time you begrudge will rise in judgment against you. It is a law of Nature, that, just in proportion as the being produced is higher in the scale and more complete in function, all the processes are more complex and extended. The mature liberty we seek cannot have the easy birth of feebler types. As man, endowed with reason and looking to the heavens, is above the quadruped that walks, above the bird that flies, above the fish that swims, and above the worm that crawls, so should these new governments, republican in form and loyal in soul, created by your care, be above those whose places they take. The Old must give way to the New, and the New must be worthy of a Republic, which, ransomed from Slavery, has become an example to mankind. Farewell to the Old! All hail to the New!

Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada,
and Mr. Conness, of California, joined in criticism of Mr.
Sumner’s opposition to the employment of the military arm in
Reconstruction, protesting particularly against the declaration
that States are “about to be born of the bayonet.” To the
proposed requirement of a system of free schools in the Rebel
States Mr. Frelinghuysen objected: “For us to undertake now
to add new conditions to the Reconstruction measure which the
Thirty-Ninth Congress adopted I hold to be bad faith.… That is
not the way to do business.… Let this nation keep its faith. I
hope, Mr. President, that the amendment will not be adopted.”
Mr. Patterson, of New Hampshire, would “be glad to have such
a requisition laid on all the States of the Union, if it were
not unconstitutional. But he wished to ask him [Mr. SUMNER]
this question: Does he think it possible to establish a system
of common schools in these Southern States corresponding to
the common-school system of New England, unless he first
confiscates the large estates and divides them into small
homesteads, so that there may be small landholders who shall
support these schools by the taxation which is laid upon them?”

MR. SUMNER. I do.

MR. PATTERSON. You think it is possible?

MR. SUMNER. I do, certainly,--most clearly.

Mr. Morton said: “The proposition is fundamental in its
character; its importance cannot be overestimated; and I
hope that it will be placed as a condition, upon complying
with which they shall be permitted to return.” Mr. Cole,
of California, declared himself “warmly in favor of the
amendment.” Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, and Mr. Buckalew, of
Pennsylvania, both Democrats, spoke against it. The latter
thought Mr. Sumner “not open to criticism for the sentiments
which he has expressed upon this occasion, nor for the position
which he has assumed.” In a humorous vein, he said: “The
propositions which the Senator from Massachusetts makes one
year, and which are criticized by his colleagues as extreme,
inappropriate, and untimely, are precisely the propositions
which those colleagues support with greater zeal and vehemence,
if possible, than he, the year following. In short, Sir, we
can foresee at one session of Congress the character of the
propositions and of the arguments with which we are to be
favored at the next in this Chamber, by looking to the pioneer
man, who goes forward in advance, his banner thrown out, his
cause announced, the means by which it shall be carried on and
the objects in view proclaimed with force and frankness.”

Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The question of power, I take it, must be settled in this Chamber. You have already most solemnly voted to require in every new constitution suffrage for all, without distinction of race or color or previous condition. But the greater contains the less. If you can do that, you can do everything. If you can require that Magna Charta of human rights, you can require what is smaller. It is already fixed in your statutes, enrolled in your archives, that Congress has this great power. I do not say whether it has this power over other States; that is not the question; but it has the power over the Rebel States. That power is derived from several sources,--first, from the necessity of the case, because the State governments there are illegal, and the whole region has passed, as in the case of Territories, under the jurisdiction of Congress: no legal government exists there, except what Congress supplies. There is another source in the military power now established over that region; then, again, in that great clause of the National Constitution by which you are required to guaranty to every State a republican form of government. Here is enough. Out of these three sources, these three overflowing fountains, springs ample authority. You have exercised it by prescribing in their constitutions Suffrage for all. I ask you to go one step further, and to prescribe Education for all.

I am met here by personal objections; I am asked why I have not brought this forward before. Sir, I have brought it forward in season and out of season. I have on the table before me a speech of mine in 1865, where, in laying down the great essential guaranties, I declared them as follows: First, the unity of the Republic; secondly, Enfranchisement; thirdly, the guaranty of the National debt; fourthly, the repudiation of the Rebel debt; fifthly, Equal Suffrage; and, sixthly, Education of the people.[99] Therefore from the beginning I have asked this guaranty, believing, as I do most clearly, that under the National Constitution you may demand it. If you may demand it, if you have the power, then do I insist it is your duty so to do. Duties are in proportion to powers. These great powers are not merely for display or idleness, but for employment, to the end that the Republic may be advanced and fortified.

Then I have been reminded very earnestly by Senators that I have used strong language in saying that these governments will be open to the imputation of being born of the bayonet. This is not the first time I have used that language in this Chamber. From the beginning I have protested against Reconstruction by military power. Again and again I have asserted that it is contrary to the genius of republican institutions, and to a just economy of political forces. I have not been hearkened to. Others have pressed the intervention of military power; and now, as I am about to record my vote in favor of the pending proposition, I cannot but express my sincere and unfeigned regret that Congress did not see its way to a generous measure of Reconstruction purely civil in character, having no element of military power. Such you had before you at the last session in the Louisiana Bill, which I sought to press day by day; and when, at the last moment, the Military Bill was passed, I, from my place here, declared that I should deem it my duty at the earliest possible moment in this session to press the Louisiana Bill, or some kindred measure not military in character.

I was early tutored in the principles of Jefferson. I cannot forget his Inaugural Address, where he lays down among the cardinal principles, or what he calls “the essential principles of our Government,” and consequently those which ought to shape its administration, “The supremacy of the civil over the military authority.” Imbued with this principle, I hoped that Congress would see the way to establish at once civil governments in all those States, and not subject them to military power, except so far as needed for purposes of protection. This is the true object of the army. It is to protect the country,--not to make constitutions, or to superintend the making of constitutions. At least, so I have read the history of republican institutions, and such are the aspirations that I presume to express for my country.

The vote on Mr. Summer’s proposition stood, Yeas 20, Nays 20,
being a tie, so that the amendment was lost. Any one Senator
changing from the negative would have carried it.

The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 38, Nays 2. On the amendments
of the Senate there was a difference between the two Houses,
which ended in a committee of conference, whose report was
concurred in without a division.

March 23d, the bill was vetoed by the President. On the same
day it was passed again by the House,--Yeas 114, Nays 25,--and
by the Senate,--Yeas 40, Nays 7,--being more than two thirds;
so that it became a law, notwithstanding the objections of the
President.[100]

PROHIBITION OF DIPLOMATIC UNIFORM.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE UNIFORM OF PERSONS IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 20, 1867.

March 20th, Mr. Summer, from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, reported the following joint resolution:--

“_Resolved, &c._, That all persons in the diplomatic
service of the United States are prohibited from wearing
any uniform or official costume not previously authorized
by Congress.”

He then stated that it was reported from the Committee
unanimously, and that perhaps the Senate would be willing to
consider it at once. The resolution was proceeded with by
unanimous consent, when Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, remarked: “I do
not see what right we have to prevent a minister abroad from
wearing the uniform of our army, if he chooses.” Mr. Sumner
replied:--

The Senator is aware that a habit exists among our ministers in Europe of wearing uniforms of other countries in the nature of court costumes or dresses; and this is often required before they are presented. The Committee on Foreign Relations, after careful consideration, have unanimously come to the conclusion that it is expedient to prohibit any such uniform or official costume, unless sanctioned previously by Act of Congress. It seems clear that our ministers abroad should not be required by any foreign government to wear a uniform, costume, or dress unknown to our own laws. This is very simple, and not unreasonable.

This question is perhaps more important than it appears. On its face it is of form only, or rather of dress, proper for the learned in Carlyle’s “Sartor Resartus.” But I am not sure that it does not concern the character of the Republic. Shall our ministers abroad be required by any foreign government to assume a uniform unknown to our laws? Ministers of other countries appear at foreign courts in the dress they would wear before the sovereign at home. What is good enough for the sovereign at home is, I understand, good enough for other sovereigns. And surely the dress in which one of our ministers would appear before the President of the United States ought to be sufficient anywhere. Its simplicity is to my mind no argument against it.

It is sometimes said, gravely enough, that, if our ministers appear in the simple dress of a citizen, according to the requirement of Mr. Marcy’s famous circular, they may be mistaken for “upper servants.” If such be the case, they will have little of the stamp of fitness. I am not troubled on this head. Their simplicity would be a distinction, and it would be typical of the republican government they represent. Amidst the brilliant dresses and fantastic uniforms of European courts a simple dress would be most suggestive. A British minister appearing at the Congress of Vienna in simple black, with a single star on his breast, so contrasted with the bedizened crowd about him as to awaken the admiration of an illustrious prince, who exclaimed, “How distinguished!”

This is an old subject, which I trust may be disposed of at last. Mr. Marcy enjoined simplicity in the official dress of our foreign representatives, and dwelt with pride on the well-known example of Benjamin Franklin. But his instructions were not sufficiently explicit, and they were allowed to die out. Some appeared in simple black, and were not mistaken for “upper servants.” But gold lace at last carried the day, and our representatives now appear in a costume peculiar to European courts. A simple prohibition by Congress will put an end to this petty complication, and make it easy for them to follow abroad the simple ways to which they have been accustomed at home.

MR. SHERMAN. All I wish to know is, whether General Dix, or
any other minister, could wear the uniform of our army, if he
chose. The rule, if I understand it, in some foreign countries,
is, that a person must appear at court in some kind of uniform.
If none is provided by his government, or authorized by his
government, then he adopts a certain uniform according to the
custom of the country to which he is accredited. Perhaps,
however, I am not correct.

MR. SUMNER. The object of the pending measure is to encounter that precise requirement of foreign governments, and to put our ministers on an equality with those of other countries. I have already said that ministers of other countries may appear at the courts to which they are addressed as they would appear before their own sovereign. I take it the Turkish ambassador is not obliged to assume in Paris or London any official costume peculiar to France or England; but he appears, as at a reception by his own sovereign, with the fez on his head. And so the Austrian ambassador appears in his fantastic Hungarian jacket. But I see no reason why there should be one rule for these ambassadors, and another for the representatives of the American Republic. Here, as elsewhere, there should be equality. The equality of nations is a first principle of International Law. But this is offended by any requirement of a foreign government which shall not leave our representative free to appear before the sovereign of the country to which he is accredited as he would before the Chief Magistrate of the American people,--in other words, in the simple dress of an American citizen. This is the whole case.

MR. SHERMAN. The Senator does not yet answer my question: Will
this prevent an American minister abroad from wearing the
uniform of an officer of the army of the United States, such as
he would be entitled to wear under our laws, if here?

MR. SUMNER. If entitled under our laws, there could be no
difficulty.

MR. SHERMAN. We have a law which authorizes a volunteer officer
who has attained the rank of a brigadier-general, for instance,
always on state occasions to wear that uniform.

MR. SUMNER. There can be no misunderstanding. The ministers are simply to follow Congress; and as Congress has not authorized any uniform or official costume, they can have none, unless they come within the exceptional case to which the Senator has alluded. Certain persons who have been in the military service are authorized, under an existing Act of Congress, to wear their military uniform on public occasions. This resolution cannot interfere in any way with that provision. It leaves the Act of Congress in full force, and is applicable only to those not embraced by that Act.

The joint resolution passed the Senate without a division.
March 25th, it passed the House without a division, and was
approved by the President, so that it became a law.[101] It was
promptly communicated to our ministers abroad by a circular
from the Department of State.

VIGILANCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON RESOLUTIONS ADJOURNING CONGRESS, MARCH 23, 26, 28, AND 29, 1867.

March 23d, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, offered a resolution
adjourning the two Houses on Tuesday, March 26th, at twelve
o’clock, noon, until the first Monday of December, at twelve
o’clock, noon. Mr. Drake, of Missouri, moved to amend by
striking out “the first Monday of December,” and inserting
“Tuesday, the 15th day of October.” This amendment was
rejected,--Yeas 19, Nays 28. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, then
moved to amend by inserting “first Monday of November,” and
this amendment was rejected,--Yeas 18, Nays 27. Mr. Sumner then
moved the adjournment of the two Houses on Thursday, the 28th
day of March, at twelve o’clock, noon, until the first Monday
of June, and that on that day, unless then otherwise ordered
by the two Houses, until the first Monday of December. This
was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 31. The question then recurred on
the resolution of Mr. Trumbull. A debate ensued, in which Mr.
Sumner said:--

I am against the resolution. In my opinion, Congress ought not to adjourn and go home without at least some provision for return to our post. As often as I think of this question, I am met by two controlling facts. I speak now of facts which stare us in the face.

You must not forget that the President is a bad man, the author of incalculable woe to his country, and especially to that part which, being most tried by war, most needed kindly care. Search history, and I am sure you will find no elected ruler who, during the same short time, has done so much mischief to his country. He stands alone in bad eminence. Nobody in ancient or modern times can be his parallel. Alone in the evil he has done, he is also alone in the maudlin and frantic manner he has adopted. Look at his acts, and read his speeches. This is enough.

Such is the fact. And now I ask, Can Congress quietly vote to go home and leave such a man without hindrance? These scenes are historic. His conduct is historic. Permit me to remind you that your course with regard to him will be historic. It can never be forgotten, if you keep your seats and meet the usurper face to face,--as it can never be forgotten, if, leaving your seats, you let him remain master to do as he pleases. Most of all, he covets your absence. Do not indulge him.

Then comes the other controlling fact. There is at this moment a numerous population, counted by millions,--call it, if you please, eight millions,--looking to Congress for protection. Of this large population, all the loyal people stretch out their hands to Congress. They ask you to stay. They know by instinct that so long as you remain in your seats they are not without protection. They have suffered through the President, who, when they needed bread, has given them a stone, and when they needed peace, has given them strife. They have seen him offer encouragement to Rebels, and even set the Rebellion on its legs. Their souls have been wrung as they beheld fellow-citizens brutally sacrificed, whose only crime was that they loved the Union. Sometimes the sacrifice was on a small scale, and sometimes by wholesale. Witness Memphis; witness New Orleans; ay, Sir, witness the whole broad country from the Potomac to the Rio Grande.

With a Presidential usurper menacing the Republic, and with a large population, counted by millions, looking to Congress for protection, I dare not vote to go home. It is my duty to stay here. I am sure that our presence here will be an encouragement and a comfort to loyal people throughout these troubled States. They will feel that they are not left alone with their deadly enemy. Home is always tempting. It is pleasant to escape from care. But duty is more than home or any escape from care. As often as I think of these temptations, I feel their insignificance by the side of solemn obligations. There is the President: he must be watched and opposed. There is an oppressed people: it must be protected. But this cannot be done without effort on the part of Congress. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Never was there more need for this vigilance than now.

An admirable and most suggestive engraving has been placed on our tables to-day, in “Harper’s Weekly,”[102] where President Johnson is represented as a Roman emperor presiding in the amphitheatre with imperatorial pomp, and surrounded by trusty counsellors, among whom it is easy to distinguish the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Navy, looking with complacency at the butchery below. The victims are black, and their sacrifice, as gladiators, makes a “Roman holiday.” Beneath the picture is written, “Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum--Massacre of the Innocents at New Orleans, July 30, 1866.” This inscription tells the terrible story. The bloody scene is before you. The massacre proceeds under patronage of the President. His Presidential nod is law. At his will blood spurts and men bite the dust. But this is only a single scene in one place. Wherever in the Rebel States there is a truly loyal citizen, loving the Union, there is a victim who may be called to suffer at any moment from the distempered spirit which now rules. I speak according to the evidence. This whole country is an “Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum,” where the victims are counted by the thousand. To my mind, there is no duty more urgent than to guard against this despot, and be ready to throw the shield of Congress over loyal citizens whom he delivers to sacrifice.

The resolution of Mr. Trumbull was agreed to,--Yeas 29, Nays 16.

March 25th, on motion of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, the
resolution was returned from the House of Representatives for
reconsideration. Meanwhile the House adopted the following
resolution, which was laid before the Senate:--

“That the Senate and House of Representatives do hereby
each give consent to the other that each House of Congress
shall adjourn the present session from the hour of twelve
o’clock, meridian, on Thursday next, the 28th day of March
instant, to assemble again on the first Wednesday of
May, the first Wednesday of June, the first Wednesday of
September, and the first Wednesday of November, of this
year, unless the President of the Senate _pro tempore_ and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall by joint
proclamation, to be issued by them ten days before either
of the times herein fixed for assembling, declare that
there is no occasion for the meeting of Congress at such
time.”

On motion of Mr. Fessenden, this resolution was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

March 26th, the House resolution was reported by Mr. Trumbull,
with a substitute adjourning the two Houses “on the 28th
instant, at twelve o’clock, meridian.” Debate ensued, when Mr.
Howe, of Wisconsin, moved an adjournment on the 29th of March
until the first Monday of June, and on that day, unless then
otherwise ordered by the two Houses, until the first Monday of
December. After debate, this amendment was rejected,--Yeas 17,
Nays 25. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to amend the substitute
of the Committee by adding “to meet again on the first Monday
of November next,” which was rejected,--Yeas 16, Nays 25. Mr.
Sumner then moved to amend the substitute by adding:--

“_Provided_, That the President of the Senate _pro tempore_
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives may by
joint proclamation, at any time before the first Monday
of December, convene the two Houses of Congress for the
transaction of business, if in their opinion the public
interests require.”

Here he said:--

I am unwilling to doubt that Congress may authorize their officers to do that. I cannot doubt it. Assuming that we have the power, is not this an occasion to exercise it? I do not wish to be carried into the general debate. I had intended to say something about it; but it is late.… I will not, therefore, go into the general question, except to make one remark: I do think Congress ought to do something; we ought not to adjourn as on ordinary occasions,--for this is not an ordinary occasion, and there is the precise beginning of the difference between myself and the Senator from Maine, and also between myself and the Senator from Illinois.

The Senator from Illinois said, Why not, as on ordinary occasions, now go home? Ay, Sir, that is the very question. Is this an ordinary occasion? To my mind, it clearly is not. It is an extraordinary occasion, big with the fate of this Republic.

The amendment of Mr. Sumner was rejected,--Yeas 15, Nays 26.
Mr. Howe then moved to insert “Friday, the 29th,” instead of
“Thursday, the 28th,” which was rejected. Mr. Drake then moved
an amendment, 28th March until 5th June, when, unless a quorum
of both Houses were present, the presiding officers should
adjourn until 4th September, when, unless a quorum of both
Houses were present, they should adjourn until the first Monday
of December. This also was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 27. The
substitute reported by Mr. Trumbull was then agreed to,--Yeas
21, Nays 17. The other House then adopted a substitute,
adjourning March 28th to the first Wednesday of June, and
to the first Wednesday of September, unless the presiding
officers, by joint proclamation ten days before either of
these times, should declare that there was no occasion for the
meeting of Congress at that time. In the Senate, March 28th,
Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved a substitute, adjourning March
30th to the first Wednesday of July, and then, unless otherwise
ordered by both Houses, on the next day adjourning without day.

Mr. Sumner said:--

The Senate seems to have arrived at a point where the difference is one of form rather than substance. We have been occupied almost an hour in discussing the phraseology of the resolution. We have reached the great point which was the subject of such earnest discussion two or three days ago, that Congress ought in some way or other to secure to itself the power of meeting during the long period between now and next December. I understand Senators are all agreed on that. I am glad of it. Only by time and discussion we have reached that harmony. The House has given us three opportunities. The old story is repeated. The Senate, so far as I can understand, is ready to adopt the proposition of the House,--substantially I mean, for this proposition, as I understand it, is simply to secure for Congress an opportunity of coming together during the summer and autumn. Now the practical question is, How shall this be best accomplished? I am ready to accept either of the forms. I am willing to accept the form last adopted by the House. I do not see that that is objectionable. I am ready, if I can get nothing better, to accept the form proposed by the Senator from Vermont; but I must confess that the form proposed by the Senator from Missouri seems briefer, clearer, better. If I could have my own way, I would set aside the proposition of the Senator from Vermont, and fall back upon that of the Senator from Missouri, as better expressing the conclusion which I am glad to see at last reached.

I believe it is settled that we shall not adjourn to-morrow. Am I right?

MR. EDMUNDS. Yes, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. I am glad of it. That is the gain of a day. We were to adjourn to-day at twelve o’clock, and then again to-morrow at twelve o’clock, and now it is put off until Saturday. I cannot doubt that the Senate would do much better, if it put off the adjournment until next week. There is important business on your table, which ought to be considered.

Mr. Sumner then called attention to measures deserving
consideration, and continued:--

Here is another measure, which I once characterized as an effort to cut the Gordian knot of the suffrage question. It is a bill introduced by myself to carry out various constitutional provisions securing political rights in all our States, precisely as we have already secured civil rights. The importance of this bill cannot be exaggerated. There is not a Senator who does not know the anxious condition of things in the neighboring State of Maryland for want of such a bill. Let Congress interfere under the National Constitution, and exercise a power clearly belonging to it, settling this whole suffrage question, so that it shall no longer agitate the politics of the States, no longer be the occasion of dissension, possibly of bloodshed, in Maryland or in Delaware, or of difference in Ohio. Let us settle the question before we return home.

When I rose, I had no purpose of calling attention to these measures. My special object was to express satisfaction that the Senate at last is disposed to harmonize with the other House on the important question of securing to Congress the power of meeting during the summer and autumn. That is a great point gained for the peace and welfare of the country. Without it you will leave the country a prey to the President; you will leave our Union friends throughout the South a sacrifice to the same malignant usurper.

The substitute proposed by Mr. Edmunds was agreed to,--Yeas
25, Nays 14. The House non-concurring, it was referred to a
committee of conference.

March 29th, another resolution having been meanwhile adopted by
the House, providing for an adjournment to the first Wednesday
of June, and then, if a quorum of both Houses were not present,
to the first Wednesday of September, and then, in the absence
of a quorum, to the first Monday of December, Mr. Edmunds moved
the following substitute:--

“The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives are hereby directed to adjourn their
respective Houses on Saturday, March 30, 1867, at twelve
o’clock, meridian, to the first Wednesday of July, 1867,
at noon, when the roll of each House shall be immediately
called, and immediately thereafter the presiding officer of
each House shall cause the presiding officer of the other
House to be informed whether or not a quorum of its body
has appeared; and thereupon, if a quorum of the two Houses
respectively shall not have appeared upon such call of the
rolls, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives shall immediately adjourn their
respective Houses without day.”

Mr. Sumner said:--

I am against the amendment on two grounds: first, that it proposes to adjourn too soon; and, secondly, that it superfluously and unnecessarily makes a new difference with the House of Representatives. In the first place, it proposes to adjourn too soon,--that is, to-morrow at twelve o’clock. The business of the country will suffer by adjournment at that time. We are now in currents of business that recall the last days of regular sessions, or the rapids that precede a cataract. Senators are straggling for the floor, and perhaps are not always amiable, if they do not obtain it. We ought to give time for all this important business, so that there be no such unseemly struggle.

The calendar of the Senate shows one hundred and fifteen bills now on your table from the Senate alone, of which only a small portion have been considered; and looking at the House calendar, I find one of their late bills numbered one hundred and two, showing that very large number, of which you have considered thus far only a very small proportion. I do not ask attention to these numerous bills, but unquestionably among them are many of great importance. There are two especially to which I have already referred, and to which I mean to call your attention, so long as you sit as a Congress, and down to the last moment, unless they shall be acted on. I mean, in the first place, the bill providing for a change in the time of electing a mayor and other officers in the city of Washington. Congress ought not to go home leaving this question unsettled.

You have bestowed the suffrage upon the colored people here, and they are about to exercise it in choosing aldermen and a common council; but those aldermen and common councilmen will find themselves presided over by a mayor chosen by a different constituency, and hostile to them in sentiment, one possessing sometimes the veto power, and always a very considerable influence, which he will naturally exercise against this new government. Will you leave Washington subject to such discord? Will you consent that the votes of the colored people shall be thus neutralized the first time they are called into exercise? I trust Congress will not adjourn until this important bill is acted upon. It is very simple; it need not excite discussion; it is practical. Let it be read at the table, and every Senator will understand it, and will be ready to vote upon it without argument. Thus far I have not been able to bring it before the Senate, though I have tried day by day. I have not yet been able to have it read.

Mr. Sumner then referred again to the bill securing the
elective franchise throughout the country, vindicating its
constitutionality and necessity.

Mr. Wilson then moved to amend by making the day of adjournment
the 10th of April; but this was rejected,--Yeas 13, Nays 28.
Mr. Sumner then moved to amend by inserting “five o’clock,
Saturday afternoon,” instead of “twelve o’clock, noon,” saying,
“so that we shall have five hours more for work”; but this,
modified by the substitution of four o’clock, was likewise
rejected.

The substitute of Mr. Edmunds was then adopted,--Yeas 28, Nays
12,--Mr. Sumner voting in the negative. The House concurred,
and the adjournment took place accordingly.

* * * * *

In this episode began the differences with regard to President
Johnson. To protect good people against him was the object of
the earnest effort to prolong the session and to provide for an
intermediate session before the regular meeting of Congress.
Among those who voted for the adjournment were distinguished
Senators who afterwards voted for his acquittal, when impeached
at the bar of the Senate.

LOYALTY AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE REBEL STATES.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SURVEYS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LEVEES OF THE MISSISSIPPI, MARCH 29, 1867.

March 29th, on motion of Mr. Sprague, of Rhode Island, the
Senate proceeded to consider a joint resolution directing
an examination and estimate to be made of the cost of
reconstructing the levees of the Mississippi. Mr. Sumner
remarked that he was not against making this exploration
and inquiry,--that he welcomed anything of the kind,--but
he was anxious that Congress should not commit itself to
the expenditure involved. He therefore moved the following
amendment:--

“_Provided_, That it is understood in advance that no
appropriations for the levees of the Mississippi River
shall be made in any State until after the restoration of
such State to the Union, with the elective franchise and
free schools without distinction of race or color.”

On this he remarked:--

I am unwilling that Congress should seem in any way to commit itself to so great an expenditure in one of these States, except with the distinct understanding that it shall not be until after the restoration of the State to the Union on those principles without which the State will not be loyal or republican. We are all seeking to found governments truly loyal and truly republican. Will any Rebel State be such until it has secured in its constitution the elective franchise to all, and until it has opened free schools to all? The proposition is a truism. A State which does not give the elective franchise to all, without distinction of color, is not republican in form, and cannot be sanctioned as such by the Congress of the United States. Now I am anxious, so far as I can, to take a bond in advance, and to hold out every temptation, every lure, every seduction to tread the right path,--in other words, to tread the path of loyalty and of republicanism. Therefore I seize the present opportunity to let these States know in advance, that, if they expect the powerful intervention of Congress, they must qualify themselves to receive it by giving evidence that they are truly loyal and truly republican.

This is no common survey of a river or harbor. The Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] has already pointed out the difference between the two cases. They are wide apart. It is an immense charity, a benefaction, from which private individuals are to gain largely. Thus far these levees have always been built, as I understand,--I am open to correction,--by the owners of the lands, and by the States.

MR. STEWART [of Nevada]. And principally by the swamp lands
donated by Congress.

MR. SUMNER. Now it is proposed, for the first time, that the National Government shall intervene with its powerful aid. Are you ready to embark in that great undertaking? I do not say that you should not, for I am one who has never hesitated, and I do not mean hereafter to hesitate, in an appropriation for the good of any part of the country, if I can see that it is constitutional; and on the question of constitutionality I do not mean to be nice. I mean always to be generous in interpretation of the Constitution, and in appropriations for any such object; but I submit that Congress shall not in any respect pledge itself to this undertaking, involving such a lavish expenditure, except on the fundamental condition that the States where the money is to be invested shall be truly loyal and republican in form; and I insist that not one of those States can be such, except on the conditions stated in my amendment.

No vote was reached, and the joint resolution was never
considered again.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Commentaries on American Law (4th edit.), Vol. I. p. 226.

[2] Stansbury, Report of the Trial of Judge Peck, Appendix, p. 499.

[3] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States (2d edit.), § 126, p. 47.

[4] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States (2d edit.), Appendix, IV., p. 996.

[5] Savigny, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, § 97, Band II. p. 329.

[6] Maxims, Reg. 3.

[7] Broom, Legal Maxims, (3d edit.,) p. 111.

[8] Broom, Legal Maxims, (3d edit.,) p. 116.

[9] Hobart, R., 86, 87.

[10] 8 Coke, R., 118.

[11] 12 Modern Reports, 687, 688.

[12] “Nec erit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac; sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et immutabilis continebit, unusque erit communis quasi magister et imperator omnium deus.”--_De Republica_, Lib. III. c. 22.

[13] Rules and Orders of the House of Representatives: Rule 28 [29].

[14] May, Treatise on the Law, etc., of Parliament, (5th edit.,) p. 598.

[15] Dwarris, Treatise on Statutes, (2d edit.,) Part I. p. 220.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Dwarris, Treatise on Statutes, (2d edit.,) Part I. p. 245.

[18] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies (2d edit.), p. 711.

[19] Ibid., p. 713.

[20] Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies (2d edit.), pp. 712, 713.

[21] History of His Own Times (fol. edit.), Vol. I. p. 485.

[22] Act of April 10, 1869: Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI. pp. 44, 45.

[23] Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, § 1573, Vol. III. pp. 437, seqq., note.

[24] Essays: Of Wisdom for a Man’s Self.

[25] Address on nominating Hon. Charles Abbot to the Speakership of the House of Commons, November 16, 1802: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XXXVI. col. 915.

[26] Constitutional History of England (London, 1829), Vol. I. p. 358, note.

[27] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 312-314; Vol. XIII. pp. 57-60.

[28] Narrative, p. 265.

[29] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 357.

[30] Act, March 2, 1833: Statutes at Large, Vol. IV. p. 654.

[31] Act, March 3, 1843: Ibid., Vol. V. p. 641.

[32] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 369.

[33] See, _ante_, Vol. XII. p. 105.

[34] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 66.

[35] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 601.

[36] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 365.

[37] The Sale of Philosophers: Works, tr. Francklin, (London, 1781,) Vol. I. p. 412.

[38]

“Mos erat antiquus, niveis atrisque lapillis,
His damnare reos, illis absolvere culpâ.”

OVID, _Metam._, Lib. XV. 41, 42.

[39] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 243, 244.

[40] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 343, 344.

[41] _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 185; Vol. XIII. p. 352.

[42] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 364.

[43] Holy State: Of Building.

[44] _Ante_, Vol. X. pp. 273, seqq.

[45] _Ante_, Vol. VIII. pp. 208, seqq.

[46] The Fourteenth Amendment.

[47] _Ante_, p. 130.

[48] Total vote, 7776: for the constitution, 3938; against, 3838: majority, 100.--_Congressional Globe_, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 126, 852.

[49] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 391.

[50] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. p. 374.

[51] Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., col. 933, January 8, 1790.

[52] Ibid., 2d Cong. 1st Sess., col. 15, October 25, 1791.

[53] Plan for establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States, July 13, 1790: Writings, Vol. VII. p. 488.

[54] Annals of Congress, 14th Cong. 2d Sess., col. 14, December 3, 1816.

[55] Report upon Weights and Measures, p. 48.

[56] See, _ante_, p. 19, note.

[57] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 370.

[58] Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d Sess., Senate, No. 13.

[59] Speech at the Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865: _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 305, seqq.

[60] Bramston, Art of Politics, 162-165. See, _ante_, Vol. VIII. p. 212.

[61] Luther _v._ Borden et al., 7 Howard, R., 42, 45.

[62] Act, February 9, 1863: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 646.

[63] Act, July 2, 1862: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 502.

[64] Annual Message, December 8, 1863.

[65] Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, April 22, 1861: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Senate, No. I. p. 198.

[66] This was done in part. Mr. Sumner’s efforts to make education a condition failed. See, _post_, pp. 304-316, 326-343.

[67] Letter to the Right Hon. Henry Dundas, April 9, 1792: Works (Boston, 1865-67), Vol. VI. p. 261.

[68] Speech in the House of Commons, on the Abolition of the Slave-Trade, March 1, 1799: Speeches (4th edit.), Vol. I. p. 192.

[69] Speech in the House of Commons, on the Abolition of the Slave-Trade, March 1, 1799: Speeches (4th edit.), Vol. I. pp. 193, 194.

[70] Speech in the House of Lords, on Negro Apprenticeship, February 20, 1838: Speeches (Edinburgh, 1838), Vol. II. pp. 218, 219.

[71] History of Brazil (London, 1810), Vol. I. p. 223, note.

[72] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Boston, 1855), Chap. LII. Vol. VI. p. 387.

[73] Speeches, February 22 and August 18, 1866: McPherson’s History of the United States during Reconstruction, pp. 61, 127.

[74] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 5-7.

[75] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 375.

[76] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 546.

[77] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 47, seqq.

[78] Areopagitica; A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing: Works (London, 1851), Vol. IV. p. 442.

[79] Histoire de la Révolution Française (13me édit.), Tom. X. p. 357.

[80] Annual Message, December 1, 1862: Executive Documents, 37th Cong. 3d Sess., House, No. 1, p. 23.

[81] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 430-432.

[82]

“Lucri bonus est odor, ex re
Qualibet.”--JUVENAL, _Sat._ XIV. 204, 205.

An allusion to the familiar anecdote of Vespasian: “Reprehendenti filio Tito, quod etiam urinæ vectigal commentus esset, pecuniam ex prima pensione admovit ad nares, sciscitans, num odore offenderetur; et illo negante, ‘Atqui,’ inquit, ‘e lotio est.’”--SUETONIUS, _Vespasianus_, c. 23. See the Commentators generally.

[83] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 21, seqq.

[84] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 179, seqq.

[85] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 346, seqq.

[86] _Ante_, pp. 128, seqq.

[87] _Ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 115, seqq.

[88] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 337-339.

[89] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 428-430.

[90] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 434.

[91] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 574.

[92] Speech on “The Equal Rights of All,” February 5, 6, 1866: _ante_, Vol. XIII. pp. 115, seqq.

[93] Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775: Wirt’s Life of Henry (3d edit.), p. 120.

[94] Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 20.

[95] Speech in the House of Lords, on Troops at Elections, March 1, 1867: Times, March 2.

[96] See “Barbarism of Slavery,” _ante_, Vol. VI. p. 157.

[97] Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, November 11, 1647, Vol. II. p. 203.

[98] Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia, Vol. II. p. 517.

[99] Speech entitled “The National Security and the National Faith”: _ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 325, seqq.

[100] Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. pp. 2-5.

[101] Statutes at Large, Vol. XV. p. 23.

[102] March 30, 1867.