Chapter II: Part 2

Mr. Trumbull said, “Let us settle at this time that a member
has no right to vote upon the question.… I think, upon
consideration, that perhaps the best way to arrive at it is
by the adoption of the resolution offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts.” Mr. Lane, of Kansas, who had voted to sustain
Mr. Stockton, said, “I was never more surprised in my life
than when the Senator from New Jersey asked to vote and did
vote.” Soon afterwards, Mr. Stockton said, “I rise to withdraw
my vote, with the permission of the Senate,” and proceeded
to explain his position. In reply to an inquiry from Mr.
Sumner, the presiding officer [Mr. CLARK, of New Hampshire]
said, “The Chair is of opinion that he cannot, unless by the
unanimous consent of the Senate he wishes to correct the
journal.” Mr. Sumner formally withdrew his motion to correct
the journal, “with the understanding that the Senator from
Vermont [Mr. POLAND] makes the motion for a reconsideration.”
Mr. Poland accordingly moved the reconsideration, and this
was agreed to, so that the original question was again before
the Senate. There was still debate and perplexity as to the
proper proceeding in order to repair the error in receiving Mr.
Stockton’s vote, when Mr. Sumner moved:--

“That the vote of Mr. Stockton be not received, in
determining the question of his seat in the Senate.”

Mr. Sumner remarked:--

I have no personal question with the Senator; I have for him nothing but kindness and respect. I deal with this question simply as a question of principle. The Senator tells us that he will not vote, when the case comes up again. I believe him; he will not vote. But, Sir, he has taken the Constitution in his hand, and, holding it up, he tells us that he finds in that instrument authority for it in his case.…

Since the Senator makes the claim, it is important for us to meet it, in some way or other,--by correcting the journal, or by a resolution declaring that the Senator shall not vote,--fixing the precedent forever, so that hereafter we shall not be left to the uncertain will or opinion of a Senator whose seat may be in question. We must rely, not upon his honor, but upon the Constitution, interpreted by this body and fixed beyond recall. Therefore I think still it would be better, if the Senate had corrected its journal. Being a vote that in itself was null and void, it was to be treated as not having been given.

The Senator asks to withdraw his vote. To withdraw what? Something which has never been done,--that is, legally done. There is no legal vote of the Senator. His name is recorded as having voted, but it is a vote that at the time was null and void. There is nothing, therefore, for him to withdraw, but something for the Senate to annul.

Mr. Sherman moved the reference of Mr. Sumner’s resolution
to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Senate refused to
refer,--Yeas 18, Nays 22. The resolution was then adopted.

March 27th, the consideration of the resolution declaring Mr.
Stockton “duly elected” was resumed, when, after the failure
of an effort to postpone it, Mr. Clark moved to amend it by
declaring that he “is not entitled to a seat as Senator.” On
this amendment Mr. Stockton spoke at length. The amendment
was adopted,--Yeas 22, Nays 21,--Mr. Stockton not voting. He
said, “I desire to state, in order that it may be a part of the
record, that I do not vote on this question, on account of the
resolution passed by the Senate yesterday.” The resolution as
amended was then adopted,--Yeas 23, Nays 20.

REMODELLING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO REORGANIZE THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 2, 1866.

This bill, reported from the Judiciary Committee by Mr.
Harris, of New York, was considered for several days in the
Senate, and finally passed that body. It failed in the House
of Representatives. Another bill, having a similar object,
afterwards became a law.[22]

On the present bill Mr. Sumner remarked:--

We all know that the Supreme Court is now some three years behind in its business, and the practical question is, How are we to bring relief? There are two different ways. One is by limiting appeals, so that hereafter it shall have less business. Another, and to my mind the better way, would be to allow appeals substantially as now, but to limit the court to the exclusive hearing of those appeals. Of course that raises the question, whether the judges of the Supreme Court sitting here in Washington should have duties elsewhere. That is a question of practice, and also of theory. Since I have been in the Senate, it has been very often discussed, formally or informally, and there have been differences of opinion upon it. I believe the inclination has always been that judges are better in the discharge of their duties from experience at _Nisi Prius_. That opinion, I take it, is derived from England; and yet I need not remind the Senator from New York that the two highest courts in England are held by judges who at the time do nothing at _Nisi Prius_, and do not go the circuit: I refer to the court of the Privy Council, and to the highest court of all, the court of the House of Lords. If you pass over to France, where certainly the judicature is admirably arranged on principles of science, where I believe justice is assured, you have the highest court, known as the Court of Cassation, composed of persons set apart exclusively for appeals,--never leaving Paris, and never hearing any other business except that which comes before them on appeal.

I refer to these instances for illustration. The Senate is also aware, that, in the beginning of our Government, when Washington invited his first Chief Justice and his Associates to communicate their views on the subject of the Judiciary system, the answer, prepared by John Jay, assigned strong reasons why the Supreme Court should be exclusively for the consideration of appeals.[23] The other business was by circuit judges. This recommendation was put aside, and the existing system prevailed. Justice has been administered to the satisfaction of the country, reasonably at least, under this system.

But now we are driven to a pass: justice threatens to fail in the Supreme Court, unless we provide relief. Is the bill of the Senator from New York adequate? Speaking frankly, I fear that it is not; and I fear that the proposition of my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE], if adopted, will still further limit the relief which my friend from New York proposes. I am disposed to believe that the only real relief will be found in setting apart the judges of our highest court exclusively for the consideration of appeals. They would then sit as many months in the year as they could reasonably give to judicial labor. They might, perhaps, hear every case that could reach the tribunal, while they had a vacation to themselves in which to review the science of their profession and add undoubtedly to their attainments. I remember that one of the ablest lawyers in England, in testimony some years ago before a Committee of the House of Commons on the value of what is known as the vacation,--I refer to Sir James Scarlett, afterward Lord Abinger, Lord Chief Baron,--testified that for one, as an old lawyer, he regarded the vacation as important, because it gave him an opportunity to review his studies and to read books that he could not read in the urgency of practice. I have heard our own judges make similar remarks.

Now the question is, whether the present bill meets the case. Does it supply the needed relief? I fear it does not; and I really should be much better satisfied, if my friend from New York had dealt more boldly with the whole question by providing a court of appeal, composed of the eminent judges of the land, devoted exclusively to appeals, and leaving to other judges the hearing of cases at _Nisi Prius_.

THE LATE SOLOMON FOOT, SENATOR FROM VERMONT.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS DEATH, APRIL 12, 1866.

MR. PRESIDENT,--There is a truce in this Chamber. The antagonism of debate is hushed. The sounds of conflict have died away. The white flag is flying. From opposite camps we meet to bury the dead. It is a Senator we bury, not a soldier.

This is the second time during the present session that we have been called to mourn a distinguished Senator from Vermont. It was much to bear the loss once. Its renewal now, after so brief a period, is a calamity without precedent in the history of the Senate. No State before has ever lost two Senators so near together.

Mr. Foot, at his death, was the oldest Senator in continuous service. He entered the Senate in the same Congress with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] and myself; but he was sworn at the executive session in March, while the two others were not sworn till the opening of Congress at the succeeding December. During this considerable space of time I have been the constant witness to his life and conversation. With a sentiment of gratitude I look back upon our relations, never from the beginning impaired or darkened by difference. For one brief moment he seemed disturbed by something that fell from me in the unconscious intensity of my convictions; but it was for a brief moment only, and he took my hand with a genial grasp. I make haste also to declare my sense of his personal purity and his incorruptible nature. Such elements of character, exhibited and proved throughout a long service, render him an example for all. He is gone; but these virtues “smell sweet and blossom in the dust.”

He was excellent in judgment. He was excellent also in speech; so that, whenever he spoke, the wonder was that he who spoke so well should speak so seldom. He was full, clear, direct, emphatic, and never was diverted from the thread of his argument. Had he been moved to mingle actively in debate, he must have exerted a commanding influence over opinion in the Senate and in the country. How often we have watched him tranquil in his seat, while others without his experience or weight occupied attention! The reticence which was part of his nature formed a contrast to that prevailing effusion where sometimes the facility of speech is less remarkable than the inability to keep silence; and, again, it formed a contrast to that controversial spirit which too often, like an unwelcome wind, puts out the lights while it fans a flame. And yet in his treatment of questions he was never incomplete or perfunctory. If he did not say, with the orator and parliamentarian of France, the famous founder of the “Doctrinaire” school of politics, M. Royer-Collard, that respect for his audience would not permit him to ask attention until he had reduced his thoughts to writing, it was evident that he never spoke in the Senate without careful preparation. You remember well his commemoration of his late colleague, only a few short weeks ago, when he delivered a funeral oration not unworthy of the French school from which this form of eloquence is derived. Alas! as we listened to that most elaborate eulogy, shaped by study and penetrated by feeling, how little did we think that it was so soon to be echoed back from his own tomb!

Not in our debates only did this self-abnegation show itself. He quietly withdrew from places of importance on committees to which he was entitled, and which he would have filled with honor. More than once I have known him insist that another should take the position assigned to himself. He was far from that nature which Lord Bacon exposes in pungent humor, when he speaks of “extreme self-lovers,” that “will set an house on fire and it were but to roast their eggs.”[24] And yet it must not be disguised that he was happy in the office of Senator. It was to him as much as his “dukedom” to Prospero. He felt its honors and confessed its duties. But he was content. He desired nothing more. Perhaps no person appreciated so thoroughly what it was to bear the commission of a State in this Chamber. Surely no person appreciated so thoroughly all the dignities belonging to the Senate. Of its ceremonial he was the admitted arbiter.

There was no jealousy, envy, or uncharitableness in him. He enjoyed what others did, and praised generously. He knew that his own just position could not be disturbed by the success of another. Whatever another may be, whether more or less, a man must always be himself. A true man is a positive, and not a relative quantity. Properly inspired, he will know that in a just sense nobody can stand in the way of another. And here let me add, that, in proportion as this truth enters into practical life, we shall all become associates and coadjutors rather than rivals. How plain, that, in the infinite diversity of character and talent, there is place for every one! This world is wide enough for all its inhabitants; this republic is grand enough for all its people. Let every one serve in his place according to his allotted faculties.

In the long warfare with Slavery, Mr. Foot was from the beginning firmly and constantly on the side of Freedom. He was against the deadly compromises of 1850. He linked his shield in the small, but solid, phalanx of the Senate which opposed the Nebraska Bill. He was faithful in the defence of Kansas, menaced by Slavery; and when at last this barbarous rebel took up arms, he accepted the issue, and did all he could for his country. But even the cause which for years he had so much at heart did not lead him into debate, except rarely. His opinions appeared in votes, rather than in speeches. But his sympathies were easily known. I call to mind, that, on first coming into the Senate, and not yet personally familiar with him, I was assured by Mr. Giddings, who knew him well, that he belonged to the small circle who would stand by Freedom, and the Antislavery patriarch related pleasantly, how Mr. Foot, on his earliest visit to the House of Representatives after he became Senator, drew attention by coming directly to his seat and sitting by his side in friendly conversation. Solomon Foot by the side of Joshua R. Giddings, in those days, when Slavery still tyrannized, is a picture not to be forgotten. If our departed friend is not to be named among those who have borne the burden of this great controversy, he cannot be forgotten among those whose sympathies with Liberty never failed. Would that he had done more! Let us be thankful that he did so much.

There is a part on the stage known as “the walking gentleman,” who has very little to say, but always appears well. Mr. Foot might seem, at times, to have adopted this part, if we were not constantly reminded of his watchfulness in everything concerning the course of business and the administration of Parliamentary Law. Here he excelled, and was master of us all. The division of labor, which is the lesson of political economy, is also the lesson of public life. All cannot do all things. Some do one, others do another,--each according to his gifts. This diversity produces harmony.

The office of President _pro tempore_ among us grows out of the anomalous relations of the Vice-President to the Senate. There is no such officer in the other House, nor was there in the House of Commons until very recently, when we read of a “Deputy Speaker,” which is the term by which he is addressed, when in the chair. No ordinary talent can guide and control a legislative assembly, especially if numerous or excited by party differences. A good presiding officer is like Alexander mounted on Bucephalus. The assembly knows its master, “as the horse its rider.” This was preëminently the case with Mr. Foot, who was often in the chair, and for a considerable period our President _pro tempore_. Here he showed special adaptation and power. He was in person “every inch” a President; so also was he in every sound of the voice. He carried into the chair the most marked individuality that has been seen there during this generation. He was unlike any other presiding officer. “None but himself could be his parallel.” His presence was felt instantly. It filled this Chamber from floor to gallery. It attached itself to everything done. Vigor and despatch prevailed. Questions were stated so as to challenge attention. Impartial justice was manifest at once. Business in every form was handled with equal ease. Order was enforced with no timorous authority. If disturbance came from the gallery, how promptly he launched the fulmination! If it came from the floor, you have often seen him throw himself back, and then with voice of lordship, as if all the Senate were in him, insist that debate should be suspended until order was restored. “The Senate must come to order!” he exclaimed; and, like the god Thor, beat with hammer in unison with voice, until the reverberations rattled like thunder in the mountains.

The late Duc de Morny, who was the accomplished President of the Legislative Assembly of France, in a sitting shortly before his death, after sounding his crier’s bell, which is the substitute for the hammer among us, exclaimed from the chair: “I shall be obliged to mention by name the members whom I find conversing. I declare to you that I shall do so, and I shall have it put in the ‘Moniteur.’ You are here to discuss and to listen, not to converse. I promise you that I will do what I say to the very first I catch talking.” Our President might have found occasion for a similar speech, but his energy in the enforcement of order stopped short of this menace. Certainly he did everything consistent with the temper of the Senate, and he showed always what Sir William Scott, on one occasion, in the House of Commons, placed among the essential qualities of a Speaker, when he said that “to a jealous affection for the privileges of the House” must be added “an awful sense of its duties.”[25]

Accustomed as we have become to the rules which govern legislative proceedings, we are hardly aware of their importance in the development of liberal institutions. Unknown in antiquity, they were unknown also on the European continent until latterly introduced from England, which was their original home. They are among the precious contributions which England has made to modern civilization; and yet they did not assume at once their present perfect form. Mr. Hallam tells us that even as late as Queen Elizabeth “the members called confusedly for the business they wished to have brought forward.”[26] But now, at last, these rules have become a beautiful machine, by which business is conducted, legislation moulded, and debate in all possible freedom secured. From the presentation of a petition or the introduction of a bill, all proceeds by fixed processes, until, without disorder, the final result is reached and a new law takes its place in the statute-book. Hoe’s printing-press or Alden’s type-setter is not more exact in operation. But the rules are more even than a beautiful machine; they are the very temple of Constitutional Liberty. In this temple our departed friend served to the end with pious care. His associates, as they recall his stately form, silvered by time, but beaming with goodness, will not cease to cherish the memory of such service. His image will rise before them as the faithful presiding officer, by whom the dignity of the Senate was maintained, its business advanced, and Parliamentary Law upheld.

He had always looked with delight upon this Capitol,--one of the most remarkable edifices of the world,--beautiful in itself, but more beautiful still as the emblem of that national unity he loved so well. He enjoyed its enlargement and improvement. He watched with pride its marble columns moving into place, and its dome as it ascended to the skies. Even the trials of the war did not make him forget it. His care secured those appropriations by which the work was forwarded to its close, and the statue of Liberty installed on its sublime pedestal. It was natural that in his last moments, as life was failing fast, he should long to rest his eyes upon an object that was to him so dear. The early light of morning had come, and he was lifted in bed that with mortal sight he might once more behold this Capitol; but another Capitol already began to fill his vision, fairer than your marble columns, sublimer than your dome, where Liberty without any statue is glorified in that service which is perfect Freedom.

COMPLETE EQUALITY IN RIGHTS, AND NOT SEMI-EQUALITY.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE ON THE CELEBRATION OF EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APRIL 14, 1866.

SENATE CHAMBER, April 14, 1866.

DEAR SIR,--It will not be in my power to celebrate with you
Emancipation in the District, but I rejoice that the beautiful
anniversary is to be commemorated.

Looking back upon the day when that Act became a law by the
signature of Abraham Lincoln, I feel how grandly it has been
vindicated by the result. The sinister forebodings of your
enemies are all falsified. We were told that you could not bear
freedom,--that you would be lawless, idle, and thriftless. I knew
the contrary; and is it not as I foretold? Who so mad as to wish
back the old system of wrong?

But the work is only _half done_. The freedman, despoiled of
the elective franchise, is only _half a man_. He must be made _a
whole man_; and this can be only by investing him with all the
rights of an American citizen. Here, too, we encounter the same
sinister forebodings that stood in the way of Emancipation. We
are told that you cannot bear enfranchisement, and that you will
not know how to vote. I know the contrary; and I am satisfied,
further, that there can be no true repose in this country until
all its people are admitted to that full equality before the
law which is the essential principle of republican government.
It were not enough to assure equality in what are called civil
rights. This is only _semi-equality_. The equality must be
complete. This I ask, not only for your sake, but also for the
sake of my country, imperilled by such a denial of justice.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,
faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

DANIEL G. MUSE, ESQ.

JUSTICE TO MECHANICS IN THE WAR.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF CERTAIN CONTRACTORS, APRIL 17, 1866.

The Senate having under consideration a bill for the relief of
certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and
steam machinery, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am happy to agree with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. GUTHRIE] in the fundamental principle he has laid down and developed so clearly. I agree with him, that by no legislation of ours can we recognize the principle that contractors with the Government may never lose. The Senator cannot state the proposition too strongly. But I part company with him, when he undertakes to apply it to the present case. We agree on the proposition; we disagree on the application.

Had these contracts covered a period of peace, there would have been occasion for the rule of the Senator. But they were not in a period of peace; they were in a period of war. And the Senator himself has characterized the war as perhaps the greatest in history. If not made in a time of war, they were all the harder performed in those early days which were heralds of war. The practical question for us as legislators is, whether we can shut our eyes to that condition of things. The times were exceptional; and so must the remedy be also.

I have said, had it been a season of peace, then the Senator would be right, and we should not be justified in seeking exceptionally to open the Treasury for the relief of these contractors. But, Sir, war is a mighty disturber. What force in human society, what force in business, more disturbing? Wherever it goes, it not only carries death and destruction, but derangement of business, change of pursuits, interference with the currency, and generally dislocation of the common relations of life. You cannot be blind to such a condition of things. You must not shut your eyes to its consequences, if you would do justice now.

I repeat, therefore, did these contracts grow out of a period of peace, I should not now advocate them; but it is because they grow out of a period of war, that I ask for those who have suffered by them the same justice we accord to all who have contributed to our success in that terrible war. Why, Sir, how often do we appeal in this Chamber for justice to all who have helped the great result! It is my duty constantly to plead here for justice to those freedmen who have done so much and placed you under ceaseless obligations. I hope I am not indifferent also to those national creditors who supplied the means which advanced our triumph,--nor yet again to those soldiers, whether on land or sea, who have so powerfully served the national cause. But there is still another class, for whom no one has yet spoken on this floor, who have contributed to our success not less than soldier or creditor,--I was almost ready to say, not less than the freedman: I mean the mechanics of the country. They, Sir, have helped you carry this war to its victorious close. Without the mechanics, where would you have been? what would have been your equipments on the land? where would have been that marvellous navy on the sea? It was the skilled labor of the country, rushing so promptly to the rescue, that gave you the power which carried you on from victory to victory.

Now, Sir, the practical question is, whether these mechanics, who have done so much to turn the tide of battle, shall be losers by the skill, the labor, and the time they devoted to your triumph. Tell me not, Sir, that they acted according to contract. To that I reply, The war disturbed the contract, and it is your duty here, sitting as a high court of equity, to review all the circumstances of the case, and see in what way the remedy may be fitly applied. You cannot turn away from the equities, treating it literally and severely according to the precise terms of the contract. You must go into those vital considerations arising out of the peculiar circumstances.

Several facts are obvious to all: a Senator on the other side of the Chamber has alluded to them. In the first place, there was the general increase in the price of labor and material that ensued after these contracts were made. Nobody doubts this. There was then a change in the currency. There were, also,--what have been alluded to several times,--changes in the models of these vessels at the Navy Department, necessarily imposing upon these contractors additional expense and labor. There was another circumstance, to which my attention has been directed latterly,--I believe, however, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES] alluded to it yesterday,--that at the moment of the war, when labor was highest, when it was most difficult to obtain it, there came an order from the proper authorities exempting those who labored in the arsenals and public yards of the United States from enrolment. Of course, all then in private yards or with contractors, so far as they could, hurried under the national flag, that they might become workmen there, and thus obtain the coveted exemption from enrolment.

…

This order illustrates very plainly the disturbing influence from the war; and this brings me again to press this point upon your attention. I mention certain particulars in which this appeared; but I would bring home the controlling consideration that we were in a time of war, vast in proportions and most disturbing in its influence. This alone is enough to account for the failure of these contractors. We were not in a period of peace, and you err, if you undertake to hold these contractors to all the austere responsibilities proper in a period of peace.

The Senator from Kentucky said that they took the war into their calculations. Perhaps they did; but who among these contractors could take that war adequately into his calculations? Who among those sitting here or at the other end of the avenue properly appreciated the character of the great contest coming on? Sir, we had passed half a century in peace; we knew nothing of war, or of war preparations, when all at once we were called to efforts on a gigantic scale. Are you astonished that these contractors did not know more about the war than your statesmen? Be to these contractors as gentle in judgment and as considerate as you are to others in public life who have erred in calculations with regard to it.

I have said that the interest now in question was the great mechanical interest of the country. It is an interest that is not local, as the bill is for the benefit of mechanics in all parts of the loyal States, from Maryland, in the South, to Massachusetts and Maine, in the North and East, and then stretching from New York, on the seaboard, to Missouri, beyond the Mississippi. I have a list of the States concerned, through different contractors, in this very bill,--Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, and even California. The interest for which I am speaking crosses the mountains and reaches to the Pacific Ocean.

I said that this was the skilled labor of the country. What labor more valuable? what service, while the war was proceeding, more important? If these mechanics did not expose their persons in the peril of battle, they gave their skill to prepare others for victory. In ancient times, the oracle said to the city in danger, “Look to your wooden walls.” The oracle in our country said, “Look to your ironclads and your double-enders”; and these mechanics came forward and by ingenious labor enabled you to put ironclads and double-enders on the ocean, and thus secure the final triumph. The building of that invulnerable navy was one of the great triumphs of the war, to be commemorated on many a special field, and to be seen in the mighty results we now enjoy.

And yet again I ask, Are you ready to see contractors, who have done this service, sacrificed? You do not allow the soldier to be sacrificed, nor the national creditor who has taken your stock. Will you allow the mechanic? There are many who, without your help, must suffer. One of the most enterprising and faithful in the whole country is a constituent of my own, who, during the last year, has been hurried into bankruptcy from inability to meet liabilities growing out of the war, and at this moment he finds no chance of relief except in what a just Government may return to him. My friend on my right [Mr. NYE, of Nevada] asked you to be magnanimous to these contractors. I do not put it in that way. I ask you simply to be upright. Do by them as you would be done by.

The Senator from Nevada also very fitly reminded you of the experience of other countries. He told you that England, at the close of the Crimean War, when her mechanics had suffered precisely as yours, did not allow them to be sacrificed, but every pound, every shilling, of liability under their contracts was promptly met by that Government. Will you be less just to mechanics than England? It is an old saying, that republics are ungrateful. I hope that this republic will vie with any monarchy in gratitude to those who have served it. You have shown energy in meeting your enemies. I ask you to show a commensurate energy in doing justice to those who have contributed to your success.

…

This bill, after much debate, passed the Senate. It did not
pass the House.

POWER OF CONGRESS TO COUNTERACT THE CATTLE-PLAGUE.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION TO PRINT A LETTER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE ON THE CATTLE-PLAGUE, APRIL 25, 1866.

Mr. Sherman of Ohio, reported the following resolution from the
Committee on Agriculture:--

“_Resolved_, That there be printed, for the use of the
Senate, ten thousand copies of a letter of the Commissioner
of Agriculture, communicating information in relation to
the rinderpest or cattle-plague.”

In considering the resolution, he remarked that the Committee
“would like very much to report some measure of a practical
character, to counteract, if possible, the cattle-plague now
prevailing in Europe; but we did not see that Congress had
authority to pass an effective measure.” Mr. Sumner followed:--

I was sorry to hear two remarks of the Senator from Ohio. The first told that the cattle-plague is coming. I hope that by proper precautions it may be averted. I do trust it may never come. I will not despair that the Atlantic Ocean may be a barrier. I was sorry also for the other remark, that in his opinion Congress could not apply any efficient remedy. I make no issue on this conclusion; but I was sorry that the Senator having the question in charge had arrived at that result. It does seem to me, that, under the National Government, Congress should be able to apply a remedy in such a case. Is not the National Government defective to a certain extent, if Congress has not that power? I open the question interrogatively now, without undertaking to express an opinion upon it.

I agree with the Senator, that it is of great importance that our people should be put on their guard; he, therefore, is right in proposing to circulate all information on the subject. But I do hope that the Senator will consider carefully whether it be not within the power of Congress, in some way or other, directly or indirectly, to apply an efficient remedy.

URGENT DUTY OF THE HOUR.

LETTER TO THE AMERICAN ANTISLAVERY SOCIETY, MAY 1, 1866.

SENATE CHAMBER, May 1, 1866.

DEAR SIR,--It will not be in my power to take part at the
approaching anniversary of the Antislavery Society. My duty keeps
me here.

I trust that the Society, which has done so much for human
rights, will persevere until these rights are established
throughout the country on the impregnable foundation of the
Declaration of Independence. This is not the time for relaxation
of the old energies. Slavery is abolished only in name. The Slave
Oligarchy still lives, and insists upon ruling its former victims.

Believing, as I do, that the National Government owes protection
to the freedmen, so that they shall not suffer in rights, I
insist on its plenary power over this great question, and that
it may do anything needful to assure these rights. In this
conviction I shall not hesitate at all times to invoke its
intervention, whether to establish what are called civil rights,
or that pivotal right of all, the right to elect the government
which they support by taxes and by arms.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,
faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ANTISLAVERY SOCIETY.

TIME AND RECONSTRUCTION.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION TO HASTEN RECONSTRUCTION, MAY 2, 1866.

Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, gave notice of his intention to
offer, as a substitute for the bills and resolution reported by
the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, the following:--

“That the interests of peace and the interests of the Union
require the admission of every State to its share in public
legislation, whenever it presents itself, not only in an
attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the persons of
representatives whose loyalty cannot be questioned under
any constitutional or legal test.”

In the debate on printing this resolution, Mr. Sumner said:--

I was about to say that the proposition involved in the resolution of the Senator from Connecticut is so important that it may be considered as always in order to discuss it. I do not know that we ought to pass a day without in some way considering it. I certainly do not deprecate this debate; but while so saying, I am very positive on another point. I should deprecate any effort now to precipitate decision on the question; and I most sincerely hope that the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN], the Chairman of the Committee on Reconstruction, who has this matter in charge, will bear that in mind. I do not believe that Congress at this moment is in a condition to give the country the best measure on this important subject. I am afraid that excellent Committee has listened too much to voices from without, insisting that there must be a political issue presented to the country. I have always thought such call premature. There is no occasion now for an issue. There are no elections in any States. The election in Connecticut is over; the election in New Hampshire is over. There are to be no elections before next autumn. What occasion, then, for an issue? I see none, unless Congress, after most careful and mature consideration of the whole subject, is able to present a plan on which we can all honestly unite and as one phalanx move forward to victory.

I shall not be drawn into premature discussion of the scheme presented by the report of the Committee on Reconstruction. I speak now to the question of time only. I am sure that report could not have been made in the last week of March. I am equally sure, that, if it had been postponed until the last week of May, they would have made a better one than they made in the last week of April. I hope, therefore, that the decision of this question will be postponed as long as possible, in order that all just influences may come to Congress from the country, and that Congress itself may be inspired by the fullest and amplest consideration of the whole question.

There is the evidence before this Committee,--we have not yet seen it together. That evidence ought to be together; it ought to be before the whole country; and we should have returning to us from the country the just influence which its circulation is calculated to produce. I am sure, that, wherever that evidence is read, the people will say, Congress is justified in insisting upon security for the future. For that purpose I presume the evidence was taken; and I hope Congress will not act until the natural and legitimate influences from the evidence are felt in their counsels.

Allow me to say, by way of comment on the proposition of the Senator from Connecticut, that it seems to me my excellent friend, in bringing it forward, forgot two things.

MR. DIXON. Probably more than that.

MR. SUMNER. But two things he forgot were so great, so essential, that to forget them was to forget everything. In the first place, he forgot that we had been in a war; and, in the second place, he forgot that four million human beings had been changed from a condition of slavery to freedom. Those two ruling facts my excellent friend forgot, evidently, when he drew his proposition. Plainly, he forgot that we had been in a war, because he fails to make any provision for that security which common sense and common prudence, the Law of Nations and every instinct of the human heart, require should be made. He provides no guaranty. Sir, the essential thing, at this moment, is a guaranty. The Senator abandons that. If, like the Senator, I could forget this terrible war, with all the blood and treasure it has cost, I, too, could be indifferent to security for the future; but as that war is always in my mind, the Senator will pardon me, if I insist upon guaranties.

I have said that my excellent friend forgets that four million human beings have been changed in their condition. Four million slaves have been declared freemen. By whom, and by what power? By the National Government. And let me say, that, as the National Government gave that freedom, the National Government must secure it. The National Government cannot leave the men it has made free to the guardianship or custody or tender mercies of any other government. It is bound to take them into its own keeping, to surround them with its own protecting power, and invest them with all the rights and conditions which, in the exercise of its best judgment, seem necessary to that end. All that the Senator has forgotten. It is not in his mind. If I could bring myself to such obliviousness, if I could bathe so completely in the waters of Lethe as my excellent friend from Connecticut seems to have done daily in these recent times, I might, perhaps, join in the support of his proposition.

THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA AND EMANCIPATION.

REMARKS ON A JOINT RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF THE EMPEROR, MAY 8, 1866.

A joint resolution “relative to the attempted assassination
of the Emperor of Russia,” introduced in the House of
Representatives by Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, passed that body,
and in the Senate was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

May 8th, it was reported to the Senate slightly amended, so as
to read:--

“_Resolved, &c._, That the Congress of the United States
of America has learned with deep regret of the attempt
made upon the life of the Emperor of Russia by an enemy of
Emancipation. The Congress sends greeting to his Imperial
Majesty and to the Russian nation, and congratulates the
twenty million serfs upon the providential escape from
danger of the sovereign to whose head and heart they owe
the blessings of their freedom.”

Mr. Sumner, on reporting it, said, that, as it was a resolution
which would interest the Senate, and as perhaps it ought to be
acted upon immediately and unanimously, he would ask that it be
proceeded with at once. There being no objection, he explained
it briefly.

MR. PRESIDENT,--This resolution seems scarcely adequate to the occasion, but the Committee was content with making the few slight amendments already approved by the Senate, without interfering further with the idea or language adopted by the other House, where the resolution originated.

From the public prints we learn that an attempt has been made on the life of the Emperor of Russia by an assassin,--maddened against him, so it is said, on account of his divine effort to establish Emancipation. Of these things I know nothing beyond the report open to all; but I am not unacquainted with the generous efforts of the Emperor, and the opposition, if not animosity, aroused by his perseverance in completing the good work.

In urging our own duties, I have more than once referred to this shining example.[27] The decree of Emancipation, in February, 1861, has been supplemented by an elaborate system of regulations, where Human Liberty is crowned by the safeguards of a true civilization, including protection to what are styled civil rights, especially rights in court,--then rights of property, with a homestead for every emancipated serf,--then rights of public education; and added to these were political rights, with the right to vote for local officers, corresponding to our officers for town and county: all of which, though just and practical, have encountered obstacles easily appreciated by us, who are in a similar transition period. The very thoroughness with which the Emperor is carrying out Emancipation has aroused the adversaries of reform, and I think it not improbable that it was one of these who aimed the blow so happily arrested. The laggard and dull are not pursued by assassins.

* * * * *

The Emperor of Russia was born in 1818, and is now forty-eight years of age. He succeeded to the imperial throne in 1855. At once, on his accession, he was inspired to accomplish Emancipation in his extended empire, stretching from the Baltic to the Sea of Kamtchatka. One of his earliest declarations signalized his character: he would have this great work begin from above, anxious that it should not proceed from below. Therefore he insisted that the imperial government should undertake it, and not leave the blessed change to the chance of insurrection and blood. He went forward bravely, encountering opposition; and now that the decree of Emancipation has gone forth, he still goes forward to assure all those rights without which Emancipation, I fear, is little more than a name. Our country does well, when it offers sincere homage to the illustrious liberator who has attempted so great a task, and at such hazard, making a landmark of civilization.

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, moved to amend the resolution by
striking out the words “by an enemy of Emancipation,” and
advocated his amendment in a speech. Mr. Sumner replied,
that it was impossible for the Senate to ascertain through
a commission the precise facts in the case,--that it was an
historic case, to be determined by historic evidence,--that the
same testimony or report from which we learned the attempt to
take the life of the Emperor disclosed also the character of
the assassin,--and that doubtless the House of Representatives,
from which the resolution came, acted on this authority. The
amendment was rejected, and the resolution was passed without a
division.

* * * * *

Hon. Gustavus V. Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, was
sent to Russia in the ironclad Miantonomoh, charged with
the communication of this resolution to the Emperor. He was
received with much distinction and hospitality. The visit was
subsequently described in a work entitled “Narrative of the
Mission to Russia, in 1866, of the Hon. Gustavus Vasa Fox,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, from the Journal and Notes
of J. F. Loubat, edited by John D. Champlin, Jr., 1873.”
The mission was entertained brilliantly by Prince Galitzin
at Moscow, August 26th (14th), and it is said that “among
the invited guests at the dinner was the emancipated serf,
Gvozdeff, the mayor of the commune.”[28]

POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE AGAINST CHOLERA FROM ABROAD.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF CHOLERA INTO THE PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 9, 11, AND 15, 1866.

May 9th, the Senate having under consideration a joint
resolution, which had passed the House of Representatives,
to prevent the introduction of cholera into the ports of the
United States, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I must say, that, reflecting upon this question, I find that I travelled with my friend from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] through his inquiries and his doubts, but it was only to arrive substantially at the conclusion of my friend from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS]. I thought that the criticism of my friend from Maine was in many respects, at least on its face, just. I went along with him, and yet I hesitated in adopting the conclusion he seemed to intimate. I doubt, if we proceed under the House resolution, whether we shall do the work thoroughly. I doubt whether that resolution can be made sufficiently effective. Indeed, I may go further, and say I am satisfied that it will not be efficient for the occasion. We then have the substitute proposed by our own Committee. Against that there is certainly the remark to be made, that it is novel. I am not aware that any such proposition has ever before been brought forward; but certainly it has in its favor the great argument of efficiency. Yet the question remains behind, to which the Senator from Maine has directed attention,--whether this proposition is not something more than even a novelty,--whether it is not a departure from just principles. I am not inclined to say that it is anything more than a novelty. I admit that it is such. It does invest the Government with large and perhaps unprecedented powers, in order to meet a peculiar case, where a stringent remedy must be applied.

But, as the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce suggests, the powers are temporary. I am not ready to say that such powers cannot be intrusted to the Government. I believe they can be. But while I agree in that, and am ready to vote accordingly, yet I should like to know from the Chairman why these powers are to be placed under the direction of the Secretary of War rather than of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. Chandler, of Michigan, the Chairman, said that they were
placed jointly in three Secretaries, the Secretary of War, the
Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Treasury. After
briefly considering this organization, Mr. Sumner proceeded
further.

* * * * *

May 11th, Mr. Sumner spoke again.

I should not say anything now, but for the remarks of my friend from New York [Mr. HARRIS], who seemed at a loss where to find the power it is proposed to exercise. He was so much at a loss that he went beyond the bounds he usually prescribes for himself in this Chamber, and indulged in unwonted jocularity. Not content with showing, as he supposed, that the power did not exist where it was said to exist, he asked, with ludicrous face, whether it was not found under the clause to guaranty a republican form of government. I am very glad to find that my excellent friend is looking to that clause of the Constitution. It is a clause very much neglected, but to my mind one of the most potent in the whole Constitution,--full of beneficent power, which it would be well, if the Government, at this crisis of its history, were disposed to exercise. Here are waters of healing for our distressed country. Follow this text in its natural and obvious requirements, and you will have security, peace, and liberty under the safeguard of that great guaranty, the Equal Rights of All.

But I must remind my friend that there is no occasion for any resort to this transcendent source of power at the present moment. The power from which this resolution is derived seems very obvious. My friend interrupts me to say that it is the war power. I say it is very obvious, and I will show him in a moment, that it is not the war power. It is a power that has been exercised constantly, from the beginning of our history, with regard to which there can be no question,--because it is embodied in one of the clearest texts of the National Constitution,--because it has been expounded by a series of decisions from our Supreme Court, which are among the most authoritative in our history. It is the power to regulate commerce. My friend smiles; but would he smile at the Constitution of his country?

“The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several States.”

By the present resolution it is clearly proposed to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Have not all regulations with regard to passengers been under this power? Have they not all been to regulate commerce with foreign nations? Can there be any doubt? Is it not as plain as language can make it? Why, Sir, ever since I have been in Congress we have had annual bills for the regulation of passengers coming into our ports,--bills of different degrees of stringency, laying one penalty here and another penalty there, all in the execution of this unquestionable power.

MR. GRIMES. Will the Senator be kind enough to look at the
second clause of the amended proposition, where it says,--

“That he”--

that is, the Secretary of War--

“shall also enforce the establishment of sanitary cordons
to prevent the spread of said disease from infected
districts adjacent to or within the limits of the United
States”:--

not confining it to the lines between the States, but giving
him authority to establish cordons within the jurisdiction of a
State. I should like to know where the Constitution authorizes
such a thing as that.

MR. SUMNER. I am obliged to my friend even for interrupting me
to call attention to that section, though he will pardon me,
if I do not answer him at this moment, but when I come to that
part of the resolution.

MR. GRIMES. Any time will do, so that we get it.

MR. SUMNER. You will have it all.