Chapter IV: Part 4

The time has come for us to assert the powers of the National Government, independent of the States, in certain cases. The argument in this debate has gone very much on the military power of the Government, little allusion being made to that other source of power which seems to me so ample,--the power to regulate commerce among the States. I prefer to found this power upon that text of the National Constitution. I ask Congress to interpose its power to regulate commerce among the States,--to interpose it on a great occasion, under circumstances, I admit, of special responsibility, when I consider the time and the occasion, but under circumstances which amply justify the exercise of the power. Who, Sir, can doubt, that, under these special words of the National Constitution, we have full power over this whole question? Who can doubt, that, without asking consent of New York, we may establish a canal about the Falls of Niagara? I am at a loss to understand how any Senator can hesitate as to the power of Congress.

Assuming, then, that Congress has the power, the only remaining question is as to the expediency of exercising it at this time; and that again brings me to the argument of the Senator from Kentucky, that at this time, when we are involved in a large national debt, we should not undertake to increase it. But to this I have already replied.

I hope, Sir, there will be no delay,--that the Senate will proceed with the bill at once. The question is great; it is important; it is almost historical; it is nothing less than to determine whether the northern shores of Ohio and Illinois shall be brought forward to the ocean itself, so that the large towns there shall become ports of the sea. By this ship-canal Chicago and Cleveland may be made harbors on the Atlantic coast. Sir, that is an object well worthy of an honest ambition, and I ask the Senate without delay to do what it can for the great result.

After debate, the bill was postponed to the second Tuesday of
December. Though considered at the next session, there was no
final action upon it.

HONOR TO A CONSTANT UNION-MAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE FOR CONGRESS OF THE LAW LIBRARY OF THE LATE JAMES L. PETTIGRU, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, JULY 3, 1866.

July 3d, the Senate having under consideration a joint
resolution, reported by the Library Committee, appropriating
five thousand dollars for the purchase of the law library of
the late James L. Pettigru, of South Carolina, Mr. Sumner
said:--

I see no objection to this proposition on grounds of constitutional power. I cannot doubt the power. Had I been called to vote, when under consideration some weeks ago, I should have voted in the negative. I was disposed at that time to look at the purchase simply as a question of economy. Since then I have been led to regard it in that other aspect presented by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE], and I hesitate to vote against it.

I have gone over the catalogue of the library. It is a respectable library for a practising lawyer. Some of the books are valuable, others may be useful as duplicates.

But in voting this sum I do not expect an equivalent in the books. I would make the purchase an occasion of expressing sympathy with courage and fidelity under peculiar difficulties in the cause of our country. Mr. Pettigru was like the angel Abdiel, “among the faithless faithful only he.” In the State of South Carolina, and in Charleston itself, he continued true to the Union in all its trials, early and late,--first, in those days when it was menaced by Nullification, and then again when it was openly assailed by bloody Rebellion. He died in virtuous poverty, and I am willing that Congress should make this contribution to his widow. Such a character is an example of infinite value to the Republic. I wish to show my respect for it. I should be glad to see it exalted so as to be seen by men. In the deserts of the East a fountain is always cherished as a sacred spot; such a character was a fountain in the desert. What desert more complete than South Carolina?

The joint resolution passed both Houses, and was approved by
the President.[36]

OPEN VOTING IN THE ELECTION OF SENATORS; SECRET VOTING AT POPULAR ELECTIONS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF SENATORS, JULY 11, 1866.

The case of Senator Stockton, and the questions which then
arose with regard to the election of Senators, suggested
the necessity of legislation by Congress on this subject.
Accordingly a bill was reported from the Judiciary Committee,
“to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for
Senators in Congress.”

* * * * *

July 11th, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved an amendment to
the bill, allowing every Legislature to settle the manner of
voting, whether _viva voce_ or by ballot. In the debate that
ensued, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I was impressed by a remark of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL], to the effect, that, while regulating the election of Senators, it would be well to require uniformity in all respects. I was impressed by the remark, for it seemed to me a key to this whole question. If it be of importance to require uniformity in all respects, then it seems to me we should not fail to prescribe in all respects the manner of the election. Nothing should be left uncertain. This, I understand, the bill before us undertakes to do. The amendment of the Senator from Maine, if adopted, would leave the manner of election in one important particular open to the caprice of each Legislature, so that one Legislature might act in one way and another in another way,--one might choose Senators by open vote, and another by secret vote.

Now, Sir, I remark, in the first place, that there should be uniformity. The question, then, is, Which system shall be adopted,--open voting, or secret voting? While I am entirely satisfied that at popular elections secret voting is preferable, and that every citizen, when about to vote at any such election, has a right to the protection of secrecy, I do not see my way to the same conclusion with regard to votes in a representative capacity. Such votes do not belong to the individual, if I may so express myself, but to his constituents. A sound policy requires that the constituent should be able to see the vote given by the representative; but that can be only where it is open. This argument seems to me unanswerable in principle.

Reference has been made to the English system; and I am glad to adduce it for example, not in the election of members of Parliament, but in elections by Parliament itself, as in the choice of Speaker. According to the principle I have already stated, elections for members of Parliament should enjoy the protection of secrecy, which they do not, while the representative in Parliament should be held to vote in such a way that his constituents may know what he does, and this is the English rule. The Speaker of the House of Commons is chosen by open voting, or _viva voce_.

MR. FESSENDEN. We do not do it here in the election of a
President of the Senate.

MR. SUMNER. But I am disposed to believe that in not doing it we fail to follow the best example. There is no question now with regard to the manner of voting at popular elections. Our present question concerns the manner of voting in a representative capacity, and here British precedent is in favor of open voting.

The rule at popular elections in our own country has not been uniform. In some States open voting has prevailed from the beginning; in others, voting has been by ballot. The origin of these differences, while curious historically, is not without interest in this debate. I think I do not err in saying that the example of England was early recognized in Virginia and the more southern States, also in New York after the withdrawal of Holland. The Western States, including Kentucky, I need not remind the Senate, were carved out of Virginia. The great Northwest Territory was originally part of Virginia, and I presume that the habit which the Senator from Illinois tells us prevails throughout that region was derived originally from Virginia, as the latter State derived it originally from England. In New England the usage is otherwise; nor is it difficult to trace its origin. New England borrowed her system of secret voting at popular elections from the Puritan corporation which originally planted its settlements. By the Law of Corporations a majority governs, and this rule was practically enforced by secret voting. Here the simplicity of the times harmonized with classical example. Beans were used for ballots. A candidate being named, the elector voted by dropping a black bean or white bean into a box. The rule at popular elections was carried into elections by the Legislature. These early settlers were not the first to employ beans for ballots. The law of Athens enjoined that their magistrates should be chosen by a ballot of beans: so we are told by Lucian, in his Dialogues.[37] In other places voting was by black and white pebbles.[38] These instances, besides showing a curious parallel with our New England way, illustrate the history of secret voting.

This brief statement shows the origin of the opposite rules in popular elections among us,--the South and West receiving theirs from Virginia and from England, and New England receiving hers from the practice of a Puritan corporation. I ought to mention that Rhode Island, which was organized under a charter from Charles the Second, was an exception; but in other States the original rule of secrecy in popular elections has prevailed from the beginning.

* * * * *

There is no question before us with regard to popular elections. We are considering how men should vote in a representative capacity. Much as I am in favor of secret voting at the polls, I cannot hesitate in declaring for open voting wherever men represent others. Nor can I see any reason for secrecy in elections by a legislative body which is not equally strong for secrecy in voting on the passage of laws. But nobody would dispense with the ayes and noes in our daily business. To my mind the question is clear. Republican institutions will gain by establishing the accountability of the representative, and I cannot doubt that this principle should be our guide in determining the manner of electing Senators under the National Constitution.

The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,--Yeas 6, Nays 28.

The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 25, Nays 11,--also the House
of Representatives, and was approved by the President.[39]

MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SANDWICH ISLANDS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION RELEASING THE PACIFIC MAIL STEAMSHIPS FROM STOPPING AT THE SANDWICH ISLANDS ON THEIR ROUTE TO JAPAN AND CHINA, JULY 17, 1866.

The Senate having under consideration a joint resolution
releasing the Pacific Mail Steamship Company from the portion
of their contract requiring them to stop at the Sandwich
Islands on their route to Japan and China, Mr. Wilson, of
Massachusetts, moved to require, as a condition of release,
the establishment of a monthly mail steamship line between San
Francisco and the Sandwich Islands.

Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--This question is not free from embarrassment, especially where one is in favor of the line to Japan, and also in favor of a line to the Sandwich Islands, as is the case with myself. I am anxious to see each of these lines established, believing each important to the general welfare, and especially to the commercial interests of the country. But, strong as is my desire, I am not able to see how the line to Japan can be advantageously held to turn aside and stop at the Sandwich Islands. To bring these two objects into one voyage is not unlike the idea of the elderly person who wished her Bible to be the smallest size book and the largest size type. The two things do not go together.

And yet, Sir, I confess that my interest in the Sandwich Islands inclines me to do all that I can to strengthen and increase our relations with them. I do not forget that these islands, though originally discovered by a British navigator, are mainly indebted for their present civilization to the United States. Missionaries of our country have planted churches and schools at an expense of at least a million dollars. One of our countrymen, the late John Pickering, of Boston, the eminent philologist and scholar, invented the alphabet by which the native language was reduced to a written text. The whalers of New England have made these islands a resting-place. Our ships on their way to China have made them a half-way house. Of all the foreign ships which reach there five sixths are of our country. Such are the ties of beneficence and of commerce by which we are bound to these islands. No other nation there has an interest comparable in character or amount to ours. Meanwhile the native population is constantly decaying, so that I presume now it is not more than fifty thousand.

This brief review furnishes a glimpse of our interest in these islands. They are the wards of the United States. We cannot turn away from them. The Government must add its contribution also. On this account I have heard with pleasure that a national ship, under the command of one of our most intelligent officers, is to be stationed at the Sandwich Islands. Her presence will exercise a salutary influence in sustaining the interests of our people. This is something. But I confess that I should like to see these islands bound to our continent by a steam line.

While declaring this desire, with my reasons for it, I am not satisfied that it is proper to require the Japan line to perform this service. It is clear, from unanswerable testimony, that the stoppage of this line cannot be effected without such a deviation as materially to interfere with its operations.

The testimony presented by the report is positive. Here, for instance, is what is said by that eminent authority, Admiral Davis:--

“These considerations with regard to the eastern voyage appear
to dispose of the whole question. They show that touching at
the Sandwich Islands, on the return from China, would prolong
the voyage so many days unnecessarily that an additional line
of steamers must soon be established, provided the intercourse
between China and America is to acquire that importance which
is confidently expected.”

This concerns the voyage from Japan to San Francisco. But Admiral Davis is also against stopping at the islands on the outward voyage.

It seems clear, then, that the Japanese line, in order to be effective, and to accomplish what is so much desired, must be left to itself, without being obliged to turn aside for any incidental purpose. It must be a Japanese line, and nothing else; and you must not forget, that, just in proportion as you impose upon it any additional obligations, you will impair its efficiency as one of the splendid links of commerce destined to put a girdle round the globe.

I am ready, therefore, to release the Japanese line from stopping at the Sandwich Islands; but at the same time I declare my hope that some other means will be found to secure a line to these islands.

In releasing the Company from this service, I am willing to leave to them the full subsidy already appropriated; but I think they should be held to shorten their voyage in proportion to the time gained. This provision will remove an objection which has been made.

The joint resolution, as amended, passed the Senate,--Yeas
24, Nays 15,--but it was not considered in the House of
Representatives. At the next session a bill became a law,
authorizing the establishment of ocean mail steamship service
between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands.[40]

TENNESSEE NOT SUFFICIENTLY RECONSTRUCTED.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING TENNESSEE AGAIN ENTITLED TO SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, JULY 21, 1866.

The Senate considered a joint resolution from the House of
Representatives “declaring Tennessee again entitled to Senators
and Representatives in Congress,” for which a substitute was
reported by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Judiciary
Committee. The joint resolution from the House and the proposed
substitute each had a preamble. In the debate, Mr. Sumner
said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The question, as I understand it, is between two preambles. I agree with my friend from Illinois, that the preamble reported by him in many respects has the advantage of that from the House. It is fuller, and in its structure better. I am glad it sets forth how Tennessee lost her representation here, and also how she may again be rehabilitated. But, while according merit to the Senator’s preamble in that respect, there are other particulars in which it fails. He himself has already recognized that it is no better than that of the House, when it sets forth that

“the body of the people of Tennessee have, by a proper spirit
of obedience, shown to the satisfaction of Congress the return
of said State to due allegiance to the Government, laws, and
authority of the United States.”

Here the two preambles are alike; there is no advantage in one over the other. But I understand the Senator is willing to alter this clause. If he consents to the alteration, and the alteration is made, then in this respect his preamble will be superior to that of the House. Clearly, Sir, the assumption is false; “the body of the people of Tennessee have” not, “by a proper spirit of obedience, shown to the satisfaction of Congress the return of said State to due allegiance to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States.” I may go too far, when I say it is false that Tennessee has shown a proper spirit, to the satisfaction of Congress,--because, if Congress votes that, it will not be for me, or for any one else, to say it has voted a falsehood; but I do say Tennessee has not shown a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. All the evidence which thickens in the air from that State, and has been darkening our sky during all this winter, shows that Tennessee has not that spirit of obedience in the body of her people. Why, Sir, only this winter, the other House has been constrained to send a commission to Tennessee to investigate an outrage of unparalleled atrocity growing out of this very rebel spirit. How can the Senate aver that the body of that people, thus saturated with the spirit of disloyalty, thus set on fire and inflamed by this hatred to the Union, have shown to the satisfaction of Congress a proper spirit of obedience? Sir, you err, if you put in your statute-book any such assertion, which is historically untrue. You cannot make it true by your averment. History hereafter, when it takes up its avenging pen, will record the falsehood to your shame.

Mr. Sumner then adduced evidence of the actual spirit in
Tennessee, when he was interrupted by Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, who
referred to the testimony of generals and civilians. Mr. Sumner
continued:--

That does not go to the question whether we can aver that there is a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. No general says there is a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. I challenge the Senator to cite the testimony showing a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. Generals testify that in their opinion it would be better to admit representatives from Tennessee on this floor and the floor of the other House. That is another question. Logically, it is not before me yet. I am now speaking of the erroneous character of this preamble. But I understand that the Senator from Illinois is willing to alter his preamble. I believe I am right,--am I not?

MR. TRUMBULL. Yes, Sir; I am willing those words should go out.

MR. SUMNER. They ought to go out; and if they do go out, it will make his preamble in this respect superior to that from the House.

But there is another allegation in the Senator’s preamble, which I must say is as erroneous as that on which I have remarked. He there declares, and calls upon us to declare, that the constitution adopted by Tennessee is republican in form. A constitution which disfranchises more than one quarter of its population republican in form! What, Sir, is a republican form of government? It is a government founded on the people and the consent of the governed. Sir, the constitution of Tennessee is not founded on the consent of the governed. It cannot invoke in its behalf that great principle of the Declaration of Independence; therefore it is not republican in form. And when you allege that it is republican in form, permit me to say, you make an allegation false in fact. I do not raise any question of theory, but I submit that a constitution which on its face disfranchises more than one fourth of the citizens cannot be republican in form. You, Sir, will make a terrible mistake, if at this moment of your history you undertake to recognize it as such. You will inflict a blow upon republican institutions. I hope the Senator from Illinois, as he has consented to one amendment, will consent to another, and will strike out the words declaring this constitution republican in form and in harmony with the Constitution of the United States. Do not compel us to aver what history will look at with scorn. Who can doubt, when this war is considered gravely and calmly in the tranquillity of the future, that the historian must bring all these events to the rigid test of principle? Bringing them to such test, it will be impossible to recognize any government like that of Tennessee either as republican in form or in harmony with the National Constitution.

Mr. Trumbull then moved to strike out the first clause objected
to, and insert instead, “and has done other acts proclaiming
and denoting loyalty,” which was agreed to. Mr. Sumner then
moved to strike out the words “republican in form and not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United
States,” which was also agreed to.

Mr. Sumner then moved his proviso, already moved in the
Louisiana bill and the Colorado bill,[41] that the Act should
not take effect “except upon the fundamental condition that
within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral
franchise, or of any other rights, on account of race or color,
but all persons shall be equal before the law.” This was
lost,--Yeas 4, Nays 34. The four affirmative votes were, Mr.
Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Wade, of
Ohio, and Mr. Sumner.

The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 28, Nays 4,--and was
approved by the President.[42] The four negative votes were,
Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania,
Mr. McDougall, of California, and Mr. Sumner. Its preamble had
been amended according to Mr. Sumner’s desire, but he was not
ready to receive Representatives and Senators from Tennessee
except on the fundamental condition moved by him.

THE SENATE CHAMBER: ITS VENTILATION AND SIZE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, JULY 23, 1866.

On motion of Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, a committee was
appointed to consider the ventilation and sanitary condition
of the Senate wing of the Capitol; and the committee made an
elaborate report.

July 23d, while the Senate had under consideration the bill
making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the
Government, this Senator moved an amendment appropriating
$117,685.25 for improvements approved and recommended in the
report. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Pennsylvania has entitled himself to the gratitude of all his brethren for the attention he has bestowed upon an uninviting subject, which concerns the comfort of the Senate,--I was about to say, the character of our legislation; for, while breathing this anomalous atmosphere, legislation itself must too often suffer with our bodies. But he will pardon me, if I suggest that he is not sufficiently radical in his proposition. I am aware that he is unwilling to be thought radical. The name is not pleasant to him.

MR. BUCKALEW. I have no distaste for the name. I claim to be
very radical on some subjects.

MR. SUMNER. Very well. I hope he will be radical now,--in other words, that he will be thorough in his remedy for the present case.

Catching a phrase from ancient Rome, the Senator says that the roof over our heads must be destroyed, as if it were another Carthage. To my mind, this is not enough; the walls by which we are shut in must be destroyed. Our present difficulty is less with the roof than with the surrounding inclosure, separating us entirely from the open air and the light of day. Windows are natural ventilators; but we have none. Let this chamber be brought to the open air and the light of day, and Nature will do the rest. From its commanding position on a beautiful eminence, where every breeze can reach it, the Capitol will have an invigorating supply from every quarter. I doubt if any public edifice in the world can compare in site with that enjoyed by it,--and I do not forget the monumental structures of London, Paris, Vienna, or Rome. But in entering this stone cage with glass above, we renounce the advantages and opportunities of this unparalleled situation.

I would have all this massive masonry about us taken down, and the chamber brought to the windows. This change would make ventilation easy, and secure all that the Senator so anxiously recommends. It is more revolutionary than his plan. It will be expensive, very expensive, I fear; for the very completeness of the original work is an impediment to change. This Capitol, as we all see, is built for immortality. Its disadvantages will not be less permanent than its advantages, unless we apply ourselves resolutely to their revision. Without legislation and positive effort on our part, this chamber will continue uncomfortable for generations and long centuries. Senators after us, in thickening ranks, will sit here as uncomfortable as ourselves. If not for ourselves, then for those who come after us, we should initiate a change.

Besides bringing this chamber to the windows, its proportions should be reduced,--I am disposed to say one half. A chamber of one half the size would answer every purpose of business, and not fail essentially even on occasions of display. Everything is now sacrificed to the galleries. Senators are treated as the gladiators of the ancient amphitheatre, not to make “a Roman holiday,” but a Washington show. As many as fourteen or fifteen hundred people are constantly gathered in these galleries. But such surrounding multitudes are plainly inconsistent with the quiet transaction of business and the simple tone which belongs to legislation.

I am reminded of the testimony attributed to Sir Robert Peel, whose protracted parliamentary life made him an expert. Interrogated by the Committee of the House of Commons with regard to the proper size for the new chamber, he replied, that, though the House consisted of six hundred and fifty-eight members, yet that full number was rarely in attendance, so that on common occasions even a small house would not be filled, and in his judgment the chamber should be constructed with a view to the daily business rather than to the infrequent occasions when it would be crowded. His compendious conclusion was, that the House should be comfortable every day, at the risk of a tight squeeze now and then. The same idea had been expressed before by one of the best of early English writers, Thomas Fuller, who in his proverbs says: “A house had better be too little for a day than too great for a year”:[43] houses ought to be proportioned to ordinary, and not extraordinary occasions. In these concurring sayings I find practical sense.

Plainly the Senate Chamber is too big for our daily life. It is not proportioned to ordinary occasions or every-day business. We all know that anything in a common tone of voice is heard with difficulty, unless we give special attention. Now I cannot doubt that the chamber should be so reduced that a motion or question or remark in a common tone of voice would be easily heard by every Senator. This should have been the rule for the architect at the beginning; and I would have it followed now in the change I suggest. With seven hundred listeners in the galleries, and with the large corps of reporters, the public would be in sufficient attendance, and the business of the country would be transacted more easily and advantageously.

Looking at these enormous spaces, adapted to the eye rather than to the ear, I turn with envy to that other chamber where the Senate sat so many honorable years, and listened to speeches which now belong to the permanent literature of the country. I doubt if any Senator who remembers that interesting chamber would not prefer it to this amphitheatre. For the transaction of daily business it was infinitely superior; and even on rare occasions, when the republic hung upon the voice of the orator, there were witnesses enough. The theory of our institutions was satisfied. The public was not excluded, and there were reporters to communicate promptly what was said.

The amendment was agreed to.

A SHIP-CANAL THROUGH THE ISTHMUS OF DARIEN.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, JULY 25, 1866.

July 25th, the Senate having under consideration the bill
making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the
Government, Mr. Conness, of California, moved the following
amendment:--

“To provide for a survey of the Isthmus of Darien, under
the direction of the War Department, with a view to the
construction of a ship-canal, in accordance with the report
of the Superintendent of the Naval Observatory to the Navy
Department, $40,000.”

In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner remarked:--

I have had the advantage of cursorily examining the able and interesting report on this work by Admiral Davis. It is learned and instructive, and develops the importance of such a canal to the commerce of the United States. I need not remind you that California is necessarily interested, because it is across the Isthmus of Darien that we reach the distant part of our own country. Therefore this is to increase and extend the facilities of communication with a part of our own country. Unhappily, we are obliged to go outside of our own borders, but I do not know that it becomes on that account any the less important.

The Senate will easily see not only its practical value, but also its grandeur in an historical aspect. From the time of Charles the Fifth, one of the aspirations of Spain, and indeed of all adventurers and navigators in those seas, has been to find what was often called “the secret of the strait,” being a natural gate by which to pass from ocean to ocean. The proposition now is, not to find, but to make, a gate by which this object may be accomplished.

We may well be fascinated by the historic grandeur of the work; but I am more tempted by its practical value in promoting relations between distant parts of our own country and in helping the commerce of the world. But the pending proposition is simply to provide for surveys. There is no appropriation for the work. We do not bind ourselves in the future. Such an appropriation, whether regarded in a practical, scientific, or historic light, is amply commended. I shall gladly vote for it.

The amendment was agreed to,--Yeas 22, Nays 13.

INQUIRY INTO THE TITLE OF A SENATOR TO HIS SEAT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE CREDENTIALS OF THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE, JULY 26, 1866.

On the presentation of the credentials of Hon. David T.
Patterson as a Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Sumner moved their
reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, with a view to
inquiry whether he could take the oaths required by Act of
Congress and the rule of the Senate.[44] In remarks on this
motion, Mr. Sumner referred to the case of Mr. Stark, of
Oregon.[45] Afterwards, in reply to Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, he
said:--

…

But, Sir, there was something that fell from the Senator from Iowa to which I would make a moment’s reply. He imagines, that, if we make this reference, we shall establish a dangerous precedent; and he even goes so far as to imagine the possibility that he or his colleague, arriving from the patriotic State of Iowa, may find their credentials called in question. Sir, the Senator forgets for a moment the history of the country: he forgets that we have just emerged from a great civil war,--that the State of Tennessee took part in that war,--and that the very question now under consideration is, whether the gentleman presenting himself as a Senator was compromised by that war.

If in the State of Iowa there should unhappily be a rebellion, and if public report should announce that our patriot friend had taken part in it to such an extent as to sit on the bench as a judge, enjoying its commission and swearing allegiance to it, then should he present himself with credentials as a Senator, I think we should be justified in asking an inquiry; and that is the extent of what I ask now. I take the case the Senator from Iowa supposes, but remind you of well-known facts which he omits; and there, permit me to say, is the whole question. If the case of Tennessee were an ordinary case, like that of Iowa, there would be no occasion and no justification for inquiry. But it is not an ordinary case; it is a case incident to the anomalous condition of public affairs at this moment. It cannot be treated according to the ordinary rule; it is a new case, and to meet it we must make a new precedent.

The Senator is much afraid of precedents. Sir, I am not afraid of any precedent having for its object the protection of right; and just in proportion as new circumstances arise must they be met by a new precedent. New circumstances have arisen, and you are called on to meet them frankly, simply.

The motion prevailed,--Yeas 20, Nays 14.

* * * * *

July 27th, the Committee reported that Mr. Patterson, “upon
taking the oaths required by the Constitution and laws, be
admitted to a seat in the Senate of the United States”; and
this report was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 11,--Mr. Sumner voting
in the negative.

NO MORE STATES WITH THE WORD “WHITE” IN THE CONSTITUTION.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA AS A STATE, JULY 27, DECEMBER 14 AND 19, 1866, AND JANUARY 8, 1867.

The question of admitting Nebraska as a State followed that of
Colorado, and with the same effort on the part of Mr. Sumner
to require equal rights without distinction of color in the
constitution of the new State. Nebraska, like Colorado, failed
in this respect. Unquestionably, the discussion on these two
cases prepared the way for the requirement of equal suffrage in
the Rebel States.

* * * * *

July 27th, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Chairman of the Committee on
Territories, moved to proceed with the bill for the admission
of the State of Nebraska into the Union, and urged its passage.
Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am very sorry to occupy the attention of the Senate even for one minute, but I shall be very brief. The Senator [Mr. WADE] tells us that the majority of the people in favor of the State government was about one hundred and fifty; and by such a slender, slim majority you are called to invest this Territory with the powers and prerogatives of a State. The smallness of the majority is an argument against any present action; but, going behind that small majority, and looking at the number of voters, the argument increases, for the Senator tells us there were but eight thousand voters. The question is, Will you invest those eight thousand voters with the powers and prerogatives now enjoyed in this Chamber by New York and Pennsylvania and other States of this Union? I think the objection on this account unanswerable. It would be unreasonable for you to invest them with those powers and prerogatives at this time.

But, Sir, I confess that with me the prevailing objection is, that the State does not present itself with a constitution republican in form, and on this question I challenge the deliberate judgment of my excellent friend, the Senator from Ohio, who is now trying to introduce this Territory into the Union as a State. I challenge the distinguished Senator to show that a constitution which disqualifies citizens on account of color can be republican in form. Sir, I say it is not a republican government, and I am sorry that my distinguished friend lends his countenance to a government of such a character. I wish that my friend would lift himself to the argument that such a government cannot be republican, and must not be welcomed as such on this floor.

I forbear entering into the argument. Again and again I have presented it. Senators have made up their minds. Each must judge for himself. It is not without pain and trouble that I find myself constrained to differ from valued friends and associates, with whom I am always proud to agree; but I cannot recognize a constitution with the word “white” as republican. With such conviction, it is my duty to oppose the welcome of this Territory as a State just so long as I can.

Mr. Wade said in reply: “It is republican in form, but is not
that kind of republicanism that I approve of. If I had my way
about it, nobody would be excluded from the franchise that was
a male citizen of proper age, let his color be what it would.
That would be the color of republicanism that I should like the
best. But to deny that under the Constitution of the United
States this constitution is republican in form is to deny that
we have a republic at all.… The State of Massachusetts is a
little forward on this subject. I am glad of it.”

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Mr.
Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, Mr. Garrett
Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, Mr. Buckalew, of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Nye, of Nevada, and
Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, took part in the debate. In the course
of Mr. Nye’s remarks, the following occurred.

MR. NYE. But my conscientious friend from Massachusetts,
I am terribly afraid, mistakes twinges of dyspepsia for
constitutional scruples. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. I never had the dyspepsia in my life.

MR. NYE. I am glad to hear it; it is some other disease,
then. [_Laughter._] This word “white” is the nightmare of
his mind.

Mr. Wade, speaking again, said: “The Senator from Massachusetts
has a certain one idea that covers the whole ground.… All the
opposition that he really has to it is because they put the
word ‘white’ in their constitution.”

Mr. Sumner moved the proviso already moved on the Louisiana
and Colorado bills, requiring as a fundamental condition that
within the State there should be no denial of the elective
franchise or of any other right on account of race or color,
and that this condition should be ratified by the voters of
the Territory; which was lost,--Yeas 5, Nays 34. The Senators
voting yea were Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, Mr. Fessenden, of
Maine, Mr. Morgan, of New York, Mr. Poland, of Vermont, and Mr.
Sumner.

The bill then passed the Senate,--Yeas 24, Nays 18. It also
passed the House of Representatives, but did not receive the
signature of the President.

* * * * *

At the next session of Congress, Mr. Wade introduced another
bill for the admission of Nebraska, which he afterwards
reported from the Committee on Territories. Notwithstanding its
constitution with the word “white,” December 14th, he moved to
proceed with the consideration of this bill. Mr. Sumner was
against taking it up.

…

I hope you do not forget the great act of yesterday. By solemn vote, you have recorded yourselves in favor of Human Rights, and have established them here at the National Capital. And now, Sir, you are asked to set aside Human Rights, and to forget the triumph and example of yesterday. Before you is a constitution with the word “white,”--a constitution creating a white man’s government, such as is praised by Senators on the other side,--and you are asked to recognize that disreputable instrument. I am against any such government, and I trust the Senate will not proceed with its consideration.

Do not to-day undo the good work of yesterday, nor imitate that ancient personage who unwove at night the web woven during the day, so that her work never proceeded to any end. Do not, I entreat you, unweave to-day the beautiful web of yesterday.

Instead of undoing, let us do always; nor is there any lack of measures deserving attention. There is the Bankrupt Bill, practical and beneficent in character, and involving no sacrifice of Human Rights. This is a measure of real humanity, calculated to carry tranquillity and repose into the business of the country. Besides, it has been too long postponed.

Mr. Wade replied with some warmth, when the following passage
occurred.

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, I hope to be pardoned, if I make one word of reply to the Senator. He seemed to think his argument advanced by personal allusions to myself. If I understand him, he sought to show inconsistency on my part.

MR. WADE. Yes, I think I did.

MR. SUMNER. I am at a loss to understand how the Senator can find inconsistency, unless he chooses to misunderstand facts. He assumed that I voted for the admission of Tennessee.

MR. WADE. When you said you did not, I gave it up.

MR. SUMNER. My name is recorded, on all the yeas and nays, and they were numerous, against the admission of Tennessee; and the reason I assigned was, that the constitution contained the word “white.”

MR. WADE. You voted for the Constitutional Amendment.

MR. SUMNER. Yes, I did vote for the Constitutional Amendment, in its final form;[46] but does the Senator consider himself bound to admit a Rebel State refusing the suffrage to freedmen? I wish my friend to answer that.

MR. WADE. No, I do not.

MR. SUMNER. I knew he did not.

MR. WADE. I do not know that I understand the Senator. Let me
say that I should consider myself bound by the Constitutional
Amendment, if the Southern States complied with it within a
reasonable time; and that reasonable time, in my judgment, is
nearly elapsed.

MR. SUMNER. Even with the word “white” in a constitution?

MR. WADE. Without regard to that.

MR. SUMNER. Without regard to the rights of the freedman?

MR. WADE. On complying with the requisitions of the
Constitutional Amendment, I should vote for them.

MR. SUMNER. I do not agree with the Senator. I distinctly stated, when the Amendment was under discussion, that I did not accept it as a finality, and that, so far as I had a vote on this floor, I would insist that every one of these States, before its Representatives were received in Congress, should confer impartial suffrage, without distinction of color; and now I ask my friend what inconsistency there is, when I insist upon the same rule for Nebraska.

MR. WADE. I cannot see how the Senator could have misled the
Southern States with that. When they complied with all we asked
of them in the Constitutional Amendment, I supposed we could
not refuse to let them in on those terms.… Certainly I am as
much for colored suffrage as any man on this floor; but when I
make such an agreement as that, I stand by it always.

MR. SUMNER. When I make an agreement, I stand by it. But I entered into no such agreement, and I do not understand that the Senate or Congress entered into any such agreement. I know that certain politicians and editors have undertaken to foist something of this sort into the Constitutional Amendment; but there was no authority for it. The Committee on Reconstruction may have reported a resolution to that effect, but they never called it up, and I know well that I offered a resolution just the contrary.

MR. DOOLITTLE. The Senator from Massachusetts will allow me?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. DOOLITTLE. The Committee on Reconstruction reported a
resolution, that, if each State should adopt this Amendment,
and the Amendment should become a part of the Constitution, be
adopted by a sufficient number of States, then the States might
be accepted. That was what they reported.

MR. JOHNSON. It was a bill.

MR. WADE. That was the understanding I alluded to.

MR. BROWN. That was not acted upon.

MR. SUMNER. It was not acted on. I suppose that those who had
it in charge did not venture to invite a vote upon it.

MR. DOOLITTLE. It was laid on the table by a vote in the House
of Representatives, upon the yeas and nays.

MR. SUMNER. It never became in any respect a legislative act; therefore nobody entered legislatively into the agreement attributed to me. How the Senator could attribute it to me, in the face of constant asseveration that I would not be a party to any such agreement, surpasses comprehension.

…

So far as the Senator considered the merits of the question, I will not now reply. There may be a time for that, and the magnitude of the issue may justify me even in setting forth arguments already adduced. If I repeat myself, it is because you repeat an effort which ought never to have been made. But I enter my most earnest protest. To my mind this is a most disastrous measure. I use this word advisedly; it is disastrous because it cannot fail to impair the moral efficiency of Congress, injure its influence, and be something like a bar to the adoption of a just policy for the Rebel States. Sir, we are now seeking to obliterate the word “white” from all institutions and constitutions there; and yet Senators, with that great question before them, rush swiftly forward to welcome a new State with the word “white” in its constitution. In other days we all united, and the Senator from Ohio was earnest among the number, in saying, “No more Slave States!” I now insist upon another cry: “No more States with the word ‘white’!” On that question I part company with my friend from Ohio. He is now about to welcome them.

The motion of Mr. Wade was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 11,--and the
bill was before the Senate for consideration. Mr. Gratz Brown
then offered the proviso, offered formerly by Mr. Sumner,[47]
requiring, as a fundamental condition, that there should be
no denial of the elective franchise or of any other right on
account of race or color, and upon the further condition that
this requirement be submitted to the voters of the Territory.
In the earnest debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke repeatedly,
especially in reply to Mr. Wade, setting forth again the
objections already made to the admission of Colorado.

* * * * *

December 19th, Mr. Sumner said:--

I have another word for the Senator from Ohio. He does not see the importance of this question. It is the question of every day, a commonplace question. There is the precise difference between the Senator from Ohio and other Senators. There have been times when the Senator has most clearly seen the importance of a question of Human Rights. The Senator has not forgotten a contest in which he took part with myself against an effort to precipitate Louisiana back into this Chamber with a constitution like that of Nebraska. Now the Senator remembers it well. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] tried to put that constitution through the Senate; but, with all his abilities and the just influence that belonged to his position, he could not do it. The Senator from Ohio will not be instructed by that example. He now makes a kindred effort, seeking to introduce into the Union a State which defies the first principle of Human Rights. The Senator becomes the champion of that community. He who has so often raised his voice for Human Rights now treats the question as trivial: it is a technicality only; that is all.

Sir, can a question of Human Rights be a technicality? Can a constitution which undertakes to disfranchise a whole race be treated in that effort as only a technicality? And yet that is the position of the Senator. Why, Sir, the other day he did openly arraign the constitution of Louisiana, and the effort of our excellent President, Abraham Lincoln, who pressed it upon us. The constitution of Louisiana was odious; it should not have been presented to the Senate; and I doubt if there is any Senator on the right side who does not now rejoice that it was defeated.

Then followed a passage with Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, who
volunteered to consider that Mr. Sumner had attacked the
constitution of Iowa, when he had made no allusion to it.

MR. KIRKWOOD. He compares the case of the Territory of
Nebraska to that of the lately rebellious States. I think
there is a great difference between them. The people of the
Territory of Nebraska are loyal men; the people of the late
rebellious States are not loyal; and when he compares the
one with the other, I think he does injustice to himself
and to the people of that Territory.

MR. SUMNER. I made no such comparison.

MR. KIRKWOOD. He speaks of the constitution submitted by
some persons in Louisiana as odious, as offensive, and
compares the constitution of Nebraska and the constitution
of that State, or proposed State, intending to convey the
idea, I presume, that the constitution of Nebraska is
odious and offensive. Now I wish to say to that Senator
that the constitution of Nebraska and the constitution of
Iowa in this particular are identical. Does he call the
constitution of Iowa odious and offensive?… The people of
Iowa are as loyal as the people of Massachusetts are.

MR. SUMNER. No doubt about it. I never said otherwise.

MR. KIRKWOOD. But he said our constitution was offensive.

MR. SUMNER. I made no allusion to the constitution of Iowa.

MR. KIRKWOOD. But you made an allusion to a constitution
precisely similar in this identical point to that of
Iowa.… I repeat again, I cannot see the difference between
characterizing the constitution of Iowa as odious and
offensive and characterizing the constitution of another
State that agrees with it precisely in terms in that way.

MR. SUMMER. May I ask the Senator if he considers that
provision in the constitution of Iowa right or wrong?

MR. KIRKWOOD. I conceive it to be the business of the
people of Iowa, and not the business of the Senator from
Massachusetts. The people of Iowa will deal with it in
their own way, when they see fit; and, as a loyal people,
they have the right to do so; and so, I apprehend, have the
people of Nebraska.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator from Iowa has not been in this body very long. Had he been here longer, he would have known that toward the people of Iowa, by vote and voice, I have always been true. One of my earliest efforts in this Chamber, now many years ago, was in protection of the interests of the people of Iowa. On that occasion, as the record shows, I received from the Senators of Iowa expressions of friendship and kindness which I cannot forget. I have never thought of that State except with kindness and respect. I have never alluded to that State except with kindness and respect. I have made no allusion to Iowa to-night. I have not had Iowa in my mind to-night. And, Sir, for one good reason: it is my habit, when I speak, so far as I am able, to speak directly to the question. Iowa has not been before us; her constitution has not been under discussion; therefore I have had no occasion to express any opinion upon it.