Chapter IX: Part 9

It seems that there are imported into the United States about 500,000 tons, being 350,000 from the British Provinces and 150,000 from Great Britain; and this coal is to be taxed at the rate of $1.50 a ton in gold. If the same amount of importation continued, this tax would yield $750,000 in gold,--a handsome addition to the revenue. But I am sure the tax is not imposed on this account. It is imposed with some vague hope of benefit to the coal interest. But here, as we look at it, we are mystified. Is it supposed that the price of coal throughout the country will be raised to this extent? The idea is monstrous. There are some 22,000,000 tons now produced, which, if raised in price according to this tax, will cost the country 33,000,000 gold dollars in addition to the present price. This might be advantageous to certain proprietors, but it must be damaging to the country. Nobody can expect this. The object, then, is something else. I will not say that it is merely to take advantage of the States that do not produce coal, for this would be sheer oppression. I suppose that it must be to exclude foreign coal, and to that extent open the market for domestic coal.

But this tax will be positively oppressive to coal-purchasers in New England, to say nothing of New York. Nature has denied coal to this region of country,--or rather, Nature has placed the natural supply for this region outside our political jurisdiction. It is in Nova Scotia, on the other side of our boundary line. Coal in abundance is there, easily accessible by water, and therefore transported at comparatively small cost. Another part of our country has a different supply. On the other side of the mountain-ridge separating the sea-coast from the valleys of the West is an infinite coal-field, the source of untold wealth, which, beginning in the mountains and filling West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania, stretches through the valley of the Ohio, enriching the States that border upon it, and then, crossing the Mississippi, extends through other States beyond, even to Colorado. This is the greatest coal-field, as it is also the greatest corn-field, in the world. It is magnificent beyond comparison. This is the natural resource for the immense region west of the Alleghanies. But why should New England, which has a natural resource comparatively near at home, be compelled at great sacrifice to drag her coal from these distant supplies?

I hear of complaint at Pittsburg, where the price of coal is only two dollars a ton, currency. But imported coal in New England costs at the mine two dollars a ton, gold. Add three or four dollars a ton for freight. And now it is proposed to pile on this a duty of more than two dollars, currency. If Pittsburg complains of coal at two dollars a ton, what must Boston say, when you make it nine dollars? Is this just? Is it practically wise? But I forget: there can be no wisdom without justice.

If it be said that the interests of New England are protected even by the bill before the Senate, I have to say in reply, that no interest of hers is protected at the expense of the rest of the country. All that we ask is fair play. Let it be shown that there is any part of the country which will suffer from the favor accorded to New England as her coal-purchasers must suffer from the favor accorded to the distant coal-owners of the mountains, and I will do what I can to see justice done. I ask nothing but that justice which I am always willing to accord. We constitute parts of one country with common interests, and the prosperity of each is bound up in the prosperity of all.

It is said that this proposed tax will be of advantage to the Cumberland coal in the mountains of Maryland. Perhaps; but not to any considerable extent. I understand that not more than 60,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal are imported in competition with that of Cumberland. This is mainly at Providence, where it is used in the manufacture of iron. But the Cumberland coal is so completely adapted to glassworks, railways, ocean steamships, blacksmiths’ forges, that it may be said to command the market exclusively. Nature has given to it this monopoly. Why not be content?

There are peculiar reasons why coal should be cheap, whether viewed as a necessary or as a motive power. As a necessary, it enters into the comforts of life; as a motive power, it is the substitute for water-power. What reason can you give for a tax on motive power from coal which is not equally strong for a tax on motive power from water, unless it be that one is “black” and the other is “white”? I plead that you shall not needlessly add to the public burden in a particular portion of the country. I have alluded to the cheapness of coal at Pittsburg. In other places it is cheaper still. At Pomeroy, in Ohio, it is $1.40 a ton, and at Cumberland itself it is $1.50 a ton, always currency; and yet New England is to pay $1.50 tax, gold, being more than the coal is worth to its producer, besides the large cost of transportation.

Next after the industry of a people is cheap coal, as an element of national prosperity. Without it, even industry will lose much of its activity and variety. It is coal that has vitalized and quickened all the mighty energies of England. From coal have come all the various products of her manufactories, and these again have furnished the freights for her ships, so that she has become not only a great manufacturing nation, but also a great commercial nation. Coal is the author of all this. Coal is the fuel under the British pot which makes it boil. It ought to do the same for us, and even more, if you will let it. Therefore I end as I began,--tax coal as little as possible.

In reply especially to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, and
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, Mr. Sumner said:--

…

Now, without following the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] in that proposition, I do insist, that, on articles of prime necessity, we should reduce taxation where we can. Therefore, when the Senator from Ohio tells me, that, if my proposition is adopted, we shall lose a certain amount of revenue derived from coal, I have an easy reply. Very well,--let us lose that amount of revenue derived from coal. You ought not to obtain it; coal ought not to be one of your taxed articles. So far as possible, coal should be cheap. That is the proposition with which I began and ended; and if I do not impress that upon the Senate, I certainly fail in what I attempted.

MR. GRIMES [of Iowa]. Why should it be cheap?

MR. SUMNER. Because it enters into the necessaries of life, and
because it is a motive power that works our manufactories.

…

I say that the article is necessary to us in New England. It enters into our daily life,--into the economies of every house, into the expenses of every citizen. It enters, therefore, into the welfare of the community; and you cannot tax coal without making the whole community feel it, whether rich or poor. Every poor man feels it. If I said the rich man felt it, you would reply, “That makes no difference; let him feel it.” I insist that every poor man feels it; and I insist further, that all who are interested in the manufactures of the country necessarily feel it,--not only producers and owners, but all who use the products of their looms. I say, that, as a motive power, it should be made cheap and kept cheap. Now the apparent policy is, to make it dear and keep it dear.

MR. HENDRICKS [of Indiana]. I like the Senator’s argument just
where he is now; but I wish to ask him whether, if by a tariff
you raise the price of every yard of cheap woollen goods and
cheap cotton goods, it is not a direct tax on the labor of the
poor man of the West, who has to buy them?

MR. CRESWELL [of Maryland, to Mr. Sumner]. That is the
application of your argument.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator from Maryland says that is the application of my argument. Pardon me, not at all; because the tax on cotton and on woollen goods--I have had very little to do with imposing any such tax--is not oppressive on any part of the country, nor does it bear hard on the constituents of the Senator, or on the constituents of any Senator on this floor; whereas the increase of the tax on coal will bear hard upon a whole community, and upon all its interests; and that is the precise difference between the two cases.

The Senator from Ohio seemed to speak of this with perfect tranquillity, as if there were nothing in it oppressive, or even open to criticism. He thought we might tax coal as we tax any other article. I differ from him. I do not think you should tax coal as you tax other articles; and, further, I do not think you should impose any tax bearing with special hardship, so as to be something akin to injustice, on any particular part of our country. That is my answer to the argument of the Senator from Maryland, and to the inquiry of the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. Creswell replied warmly, criticizing Mr. Sumner, saying,
among other things,--

“The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has treated
us to a Free-Trade speech in the Senate of the United
States. The commentary of the Senator from Indiana was
just and correct; it was a deduction that he had a
right logically to make; and I tell the Senator from
Massachusetts that his course in the Senate to-day is in
its effects a better Free-Trade speech than has ever been
made in any of the Middle States during the last ten years.”

Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, united with Mr. Sumner.

The amendment was lost,--Yeas 11, Nays 25.

A SINGLE TERM FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND CHOICE BY DIRECT VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION, FEBRUARY 11, 1867.

The Senate had under consideration an Amendment to the National
Constitution, reported by the Judiciary Committee, as follows:--

“No person elected President or Vice-President, who has
once served as President, shall afterward be eligible to
either office.”

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, thought that the words “who has once
served as President” should be struck out. Mr. Williams, of
Oregon, suggested: “No person who has once served as President
shall afterward be eligible to either office.” Mr. Poland, of
Vermont, moved, as a substitute, the following:--

“The President and Vice-President of the United States
shall hereafter be chosen for the term of six years; and no
person elected President or Vice-President, who has once
served as President, shall afterward be eligible to either
office.”

Mr. Sumner said:--

I agree with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON], so far as I was able to follow his remarks. It seems to me it would be better, if the term of the President were six years rather than four. I regretted that the report of the Committee did not embody such a change. I am therefore thankful to the Senator from Vermont, who by his motion gives us an opportunity to vote on that proposition.

But allow me to go a little further, and there I should like the attention of my friend opposite [Mr. JOHNSON]. If the term of the President is to be six years, should we not abolish the office of Vice-President? Are you willing to take the chance of a Vice-President becoming President a few weeks after the beginning of the six years’ term, and then serving out that full term? We all know, in fact, that the Vice-President is nominated often as a sort of balance to the President. It is too much with a view to certain political considerations, and possibly to aid the election of the President, rather than to secure the services of one in all respects competent to be President. Suppose, therefore, we have a President only, and leave to Congress the provision for a temporary filling of the office, as now on the disability of the President and Vice-President.

I throw out these views without making any motion. I submit that we do not meet all the difficulties of the present hour, unless we go still further and provide against abnormal troubles from the nomination of a Vice-President selected less with reference to fitness than to transient political considerations. As my friend says, he is thrown in for a make-weight, and then, in the providence of God, the make-weight becomes Chief Magistrate. It seems to me important, that, if possible, we should provide against the recurrence of such difficulties.

But suppose the proposition of the Committee to stand as reported, I am brought then to the question raised by the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN], whether it should be applicable to a Vice-President in the providence of God called to be President. On that point I am obliged to go with the Committee. It seems to me that the evil we wish to guard against in the case of the President naturally arises in the case of a Vice-President who becomes President. I say this on the reason of the case, and then I say it on our melancholy experience. The three cases in our history which distinctly teach the necessity of the Amendment before us are of three Vice-Presidents who in the providence of God became Presidents. But for these three cases, nobody would have thought of change. It is to meet the difficulties found to arise from a Vice-President becoming President, and then hearkening to the whisperings and temptations which unhappily visit a person in his situation, that we have been led to contemplate the necessity of change. I hope, therefore, if the proposition of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. POLAND] is not taken as a substitute, that the words of the Committee will be preserved.

I am disposed to go still further. I would have an additional Amendment,--one that has not appeared in this discussion, though not unknown in this Chamber, for distinguished Senators who once occupied these seats have more than once advocated it,--I mean an Amendment providing for the election of President directly by the people, without the intervention of Electoral Colleges. Such an Amendment would give every individual voter, wherever he might be, a positive weight in the election. It would give minorities in distant States an opportunity of being heard in determining who shall be Chief Magistrate. Now they are of no consequence. Such an Amendment would be of peculiar value. It would be in harmony, too, with those ideas, belonging to the hour, of the unity of the Republic. I know nothing that would contribute more to bring all the people, to mass all the people, into one united whole, than to make the President directly eligible by their votes. But no such proposition is before us, nor is there any such proposition as I have alluded to with regard to the office of Vice-President. I hope, however, that these subjects will not be allowed to pass out of mind, and that some time or other we shall be able to act on them in a practical way.

After debate, the question was dropped without any vote.

RECONSTRUCTION AT LAST WITH COLORED SUFFRAGE AND PROTECTION AGAINST REBEL INFLUENCE.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE MORE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT OF THE REBEL STATES, FEBRUARY 14, 19, AND 20, 1867.

The subject of Reconstruction was uppermost during the present
session, sometimes in Constitutional Amendments and sometimes
in measures of legislation.

* * * * *

February 13th, the Senate received from the House of
Representatives a bill “to provide for the more efficient
government of the Insurrectionary States,” which, after various
changes, was finally passed under the title of “An Act to
provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States,”
being the most important measure of legislation in the history
of Reconstruction. As this bill came from the House it was a
military bill, creating five military districts in the South,
without any requirement with regard to suffrage, and with no
exclusion of Rebels. Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, and Mr. Blaine, of
Maine, announced in the House amendments requiring in the new
constitutions “that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed
by all male citizens of the United States twenty-one years
old and upward, without regard to race, color, or previous
condition of servitude, except such as may be disfranchised for
participating in the late Rebellion or for felony at Common
Law.” But they had not been able to obtain a direct vote; nor
was there any exclusion of Rebels in their propositions. Mr.
Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said:--

“The amendment of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE]
lets in a vast number of Rebels and shuts out nobody. All
I ask is, that, when the House comes to vote upon that
amendment, it shall understand that the adoption of it
would be an entire surrender of those States into the hands
of the Rebels.”

About this time the House passed what was known as the
Louisiana Bill, being a bill providing for the reconstruction
of that State, with all necessary machinery, not unlike the
bill introduced on the first day of the preceding session,
“to enforce the guaranty of a republican form of government
in certain States whose governments have been usurped or
overthrown.”[83] The two bills together would have made a
complete system of Protection, and the second, when extended to
all the States, a complete system of Reconstruction.

* * * * *

February 14th, Mr. Sumner said:--

I am in favor of each of these bills. Each is excellent. One is the beginning of a true Reconstruction; the other is the beginning of a true Protection. Now in these Rebel States there must be Reconstruction and there must be Protection. Both must be had, and neither should be antagonized with the other. The two should go on side by side,--guardian angels of the Republic. Never was Congress called to consider measures of more vital importance. I am unwilling to discriminate between the two. I accept them both with all my heart, and am here now to sustain them by my constant presence and vote.

But, Sir, what we know as the Louisiana Bill came into this Chamber first; it was first made familiar to us; it has precedence. On that account it seems to me it ought to come up first, it ought to lead the way. I am not going to say that this is better than the other, or that the other is better than this. Each is good; and yet, I doubt not, each is susceptible of amendment. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] has already foreshadowed an important amendment on the bill reported by the Committee of which he is Chairman; I have already sent to the Chair an amendment which at the proper time I may move on the other bill. But I desire to make one remark with regard to amendments. I am so much in earnest for the passage of these bills, that I shall cheerfully forego any amendment of my own, if I find it to be the general sentiment of those truly in earnest for the bills that we ought not to attempt amendments. If, however, amendments seem to be preferable, then I shall propose those I have sent to the Chair.

February 15th, the Senate began the consideration of the
Military Bill, continuing in session until three o’clock in
the morning of the next day. Speeches and motions showed
great differences on the subject. Some were content with a
purely military bill, contemplating simply the protection of
the people in the Rebel States. Others wished to add measures
of Reconstruction; and here again there were differences.
Some were content with the requirement of suffrage without
distinction of color in the new constitutions, making no
provision for the exclusion of Rebels, leaving the organization
in the hands of the existing electors, and providing, that, on
the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, and of a State
constitution securing equal suffrage, any such State should be
entitled to representation in Congress.

In the hope of putting an end to these differences, a caucus
of Republican Senators was held the next forenoon, when a
committee was appointed, as follows: Mr. Sherman, of Ohio,
Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, Mr. Harris,
of New York, Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr. Trumbull,
of Illinois, and Mr. Sumner, to consider the pending bill and
amendments and report to the caucus. The committee withdrew
from the Senate, leaving a Senator making a long and elaborate
speech, and proceeded with their work. The House bill was
taken as the basis, and amended in several particulars, to
which Mr. Sumner afterwards alluded in the Senate. An effort
by Mr. Sumner to require equal suffrage found no favor; nor
did what was known as the Louisiana Bill, which he proposed
as a substitute; nor an effort to exclude Rebels. He felt
it his duty to say to the committee, that, on the making of
the report, he should appeal to the caucus, which he did.
The caucus, by 15 Yeas to 13 Nays,--Senators standing to be
counted,--voted to require equal suffrage in the choice of the
constitutional conventions; also in the new constitutions,
and in their ratification. But the bill was left without any
exclusion of Rebels, and with the declaration, that, doing
these things and ratifying the Amendment to the National
Constitution, a State should be entitled to representation in
Congress. In these latter respects it seemed to Mr. Sumner
highly objectionable.

The vote of the caucus to require suffrage without distinction
of color seemed a definitive settlement of that question for
the Rebel States. At that small meeting, and by those informal
proceedings, this great act was accomplished. For Mr. Sumner it
was an occasion of especial satisfaction, as his long-continued
effort was crowned with success. These volumes show how,
by letter, speech, resolution, and bill, he had constantly
maintained this duty of Congress. His bill, introduced on the
first day of the preceding session, “to enforce the guaranty
of a republican form of government in certain States whose
governments have been usurped or overthrown,” contained the
specific requirement now adopted, while the debates on the
Louisiana Bill,[84] the Colorado Bill,[85] the Nebraska
Bill,[86] and the Constitutional Amendment,[87] attested his
endeavor to apply this requirement.

During the evening session, Mr. Sherman, chairman of the
caucus committee, moved the bill accepted by the caucus, as a
substitute for the House bill. It was understood that it would
receive the support of the Republican Senators without further
amendment, and, as they constituted a large majority, its
passage was sure. Under these circumstances, Mr. Sumner left
the Chamber at midnight. The vote was taken a little after six
o’clock, Sunday morning,--Yeas 29, Nays 10.

In the other House, the substitute of the Senate was the
occasion of decided differences, not unlike those in the Senate
on the House bill. Many felt that the Unionists were left
without adequate protection. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania,
after saying that the Senate had sent “an amendment which
contains everything else but protection,” exclaimed: “Pass this
bill and you open the flood-gates of misery,--you disgrace,
in my judgment, the Congress of the United States.” Mr.
Boutwell, of Massachusetts, said: “My objection to the proposed
substitute of the Senate is fundamental, it is conclusive. It
provides, if not in terms, at least in fact, by the measures
which it proposes, to reconstruct those State governments
at once through the agency of disloyal men.” Mr. Williams,
of Pennsylvania, said: “We sent to the Senate a proposition
to meet the necessities of the hour, which was Protection
without Reconstruction, and it sends back another, which is
Reconstruction without Protection.” At length, on motion of Mr.
Stevens, the House refused to concur in the amendment of the
Senate, and asked a committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses.

* * * * *

February 19th, the excitement of the House was again
transferred to the Senate, where Mr. Williams, of Oregon,
moved that the Senate insist upon its amendment, and agree to
the conference. An earnest debate ensued, in which Mr. Sumner
favored the conference committee, and also explained what he
wished to accomplish by the bill. Mr. Williams withdrew his
motion, when Mr. Sherman moved that the Senate insist on its
amendment to the House bill and that the House be informed
thereof. Mr. Trumbull sustained the motion. Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,--In what the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] has said of the failure by the President to discharge his duties under existing laws I entirely agree. He touches the case to the quick. It is impossible not to see that the special difficulty of the present moment springs from the bad man who sits in the executive chair. He is the centre of our woes. More than once before I have recalled the saying of Catholic Europe, “All roads lead to Rome.” So now, among us, do all roads lead to the President. We attempt nothing which does not bring us face to face with him, precisely as during the Rebellion we attempted nothing which did not bring us face to face with Jefferson Davis. I mention this, not to deter, but for encouragement. We have already conquered the chief of the Rebellion. I doubt not that we shall conquer his successor also. But this can be only by strenuous exertion. It is no argument against legislation that the President will not execute it. We must do our duty, and insist always that he shall do his.

Therefore I am in favor of some measure of Reconstruction, the best we can secure, the more thorough the better. And I ask you to take such steps as will best accomplish this result. There is a difference between the two Houses, and at this stage the customary proceeding is a conference committee. But the Senator from Illinois is against any such committee in a case of such magnitude. To my mind his argument should be directed against the rule of Parliamentary Law which provides a conference committee at this precise stage of parliamentary proceedings. Let him move to change the Parliamentary Law, so that in cases of peculiar importance the common rule shall cease to be applicable. Let this be his thesis. But, so long as the _Lex Parliamentaria_ exists, I submit that it is hardly reasonable to resist its application, especially when the House has asked a conference committee on a bill of theirs which you have amended.

…

I differ from the Senator [Mr. SHERMAN, of Ohio] radically, when he intimates that the bill needs only “slight” amendments. With this opinion I can understand that he should urge a course which I fear may cut off amendments to me essential.

Mr. President, I would speak frankly of this measure, which has in it so much of good and so much of evil. Rarely have good and evil been mixed on such a scale. Look at the good, and you are full of grateful admiration. Look at the evil, and you are impatient at such an abandonment of duty. Much is gained, but much is abandoned. You have done much, but you have not done enough. You have left undone things which ought to be done. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] was right in asking more. I agree with him. I ask more. All the good of the bill cannot make me forget its evil. It is very defective. It is horribly defective. Too strong language cannot be used in characterizing a measure with such fatal defects. But nobody recognizes more cordially than myself the good it has. Pardon me, if I do my best to make it better.

This is the original House bill for the military government of the Rebel States, revised and amended by the Senate in essential particulars. As it came from the House it was excellent in general purpose, but imperfect. It was nothing but a military bill, providing protection for fellow-citizens in the Rebel States. Unquestionably it was improved in the Senate. It is easy to mention its good points, for these are conspicuous and seem like so many monuments.

Throughout the bill, in its title, in its preamble, and then again in its body, the States in question are designated as “Rebel States.” I like the designation. It is brief and just. It seems to justify on the face any measure of precaution or security. It teaches the country how these States are to be regarded for the present. It teaches these States how they are regarded by Congress. “Rebel States”: I like the term, and I am glad it is repeated. God grant that the time may come when this term may be forgotten! but until then we must not hesitate to call things by their right names.

More important still is the declaration in the preamble, that “no legal State governments” now exist in the enumerated Rebel States. This is a declaration of incalculable value. For a long time, too long, we have hesitated; but at last this point is reached, destined to be “the initial point” of a just Reconstruction. For a long time, again and again, I have insisted that those governments are _illegal_. Strangely, you would not say so. The present bill fixes this starting-point of a true policy. If the existing governments are “illegal,” you have duties with regard to them which cannot be postponed. You cannot stop with this declaration. You must see that it is carried out in a practical manner. In other words, you must brush away these illegal governments, the spawn of Presidential usurpation, and supply their places. The illegal must give place to the legal; and Congress must supervise and control the transition. The bill has a special value in the obligations it imposes upon Congress. Let it find a place in the statute-book, and your duties will be fixed beyond recall.

Another point is established which in itself is a prodigious triumph. As I mention it, I cannot conceal my joy. It is the direct requirement of universal suffrage, without distinction of race or color. This is done by Act of Congress, without Constitutional Amendment. It is a grand and beneficent exercise of existing powers, for a long time invoked, but now at last grasped. No Rebel State can enjoy representation in Congress, until it has conferred the suffrage upon all its citizens, and fixed this right in its constitution. This is the Magna Charta you are about to enact. Since Runnymede, there has been nothing of greater value to Human Rights.

To this enumeration add that the bill is in its general purposes a measure of protection for loyal fellow-citizens trodden down by Rebels. To this end, the military power is set in motion, and the whole Rebel region is divided into districts where the strong arm of the soldier is to supply the protection asked in vain from illegal governments.

Look now at the other side, and you will see the defects. By an amendment of the Senate, the House bill, which was merely a military bill for protection, has been converted into a measure of Reconstruction. But it is Reconstruction without machinery or motive power. There is no provision for the initiation of new governments. There is no helping hand extended to the loyal people seeking to lay anew the foundations of civil order. They are left to grope in the dark. This is not right. It is a failure on the part of Congress, which ought to preside over Reconstruction and lend its helping hand, by securing Education and Equal Rights to begin at once, and by appointing the way and the season in which good citizens should proceed in creating the new governments.

I cannot forget, also, that there is no provision by which the freedmen can be secured a freehold for themselves and their families, which has always seemed to me most important in Reconstruction.

But all this, though of the gravest character, is dwarfed by that other objection which springs from the present toleration of Rebels in the copartnership of government. Here is a strange oblivion, showing a strange insensibility.

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] argued that the bill would put the new governments into loyal hands. Has he read it? My precise objection is, that it does not put the government into loyal hands. Look at it carefully, and you will see this staring you in the face at all points. While requiring suffrage for all, without distinction of race or color, it leaves the machinery and motive power in the hands of the existing governments, which are conducted by Rebels. Therefore, under this bill, Rebels will initiate and conduct the work of Reconstruction, while loyal citizens stand aside. The President once said, “For the Rebels back seats.” This bill says, “For the loyal citizens back seats.” Nobody is disfranchised. There is no traitor, red with loyal blood, who may not play his part and help found the new government. The bill excepts from voting only “such as _may be_ disfranchised for participation in the Rebellion.” It does not require that any body shall be disfranchised, but leaves this whole question to the existing government, who will, of course, leave the door wide open.

Looking at this feature, I cannot condemn it too strongly. It is true that suffrage is at last accorded to the colored race; but their masters are left in power to domineer, and even to organize. With experience, craft, and determined purpose, there is too much reason to fear that all safeguards will be overthrown, and the Unionist continue the victim of Rebel power. This must not be. And you must interfere in advance to prevent it. You must exercise a just authority in disfranchising dangerous men. On this point there must be no uncertainty, no “perhaps.” It is not enough to say that Rebels _may be_ disfranchised; you must say _must_. Without this is surrender.

Such a surrender Congress cannot make. Therefore do I rejoice with my whole heart that the House of Representatives has given to the Senate the opportunity of reconsidering its action and taking the proper steps for amending the bill. The new governments must be on a loyal basis. Loyal people must be protected against Rebels. Here I take my stand. I plead for those good people, who have suffered as people never suffered before. I appeal to you as Senators not to miss this precious opportunity. Take care that the bill is amended, so that it may be the fountain of peace, and not the engine of discord and oppression.

Mr. Sherman followed in an earnest speech, in the course of
which the following passage occurred.

MR. SHERMAN. The Senator from Massachusetts now for the
first time in the Senate has stated his opposition to this
bill.

MR. SUMNER. Allow me to correct the Senator. The Senator
was not here, when, at two o’clock in the morning, I
denounced this amendment as I have, to-day, and much more
severely.

MR. SHERMAN. He now states that the ground of his
opposition is, that the bill does not disfranchise the
whole Rebel population of the Southern States.

MR. SUMNER. I beg the Senator’s pardon. I take no such
ground. I say it does not provide proper safeguards against
the Rebel population. I have not opened the question to
what extent the disfranchisement should go.

The motion of Mr. Sherman was agreed to, and the bill, with the
Senate amendment, was returned to the House, which proceeded
promptly to its consideration. The substitute of the Senate
was concurred in, with a further amendment,--(1.) excluding
from the conventions, and also from voting, all persons
excluded from holding office under the recent Constitutional
Amendment; (2.) declaring civil governments in the Rebel States
provisional only and subject to the paramount authority of the
United States; (3.) conferring the elective franchise upon
all, without distinction of color, in elections under such
provisional governments; and (4.) disqualifying all persons
from office under provisional government who are disqualified
by the Constitutional Amendment. The vote of the House
was,--Yeas 128, Nays 46.

* * * * *

February 20th, in the Senate, Mr. Williams moved concurrence
with the House amendments. After brief remarks by Mr. Sherman,
Mr. Sumner said:--

I differ from the Senator [Mr. SHERMAN], when he calls this a small matter. It is a great matter.

I should not say another word but for the singular speech of the Senator yesterday. He made something like an assault on me, because I required the very amendments the House have now made; and yet he is to support them. I am glad the Senator has seen light; but he must revise his speech of yesterday. The Senator shakes his head. What did I ask? What did I criticize? It was, that the bill failed in safeguard against Rebels. I did not say how many to exclude. I only said some must be excluded, more or less. None were excluded. That brought down the cataract of speech we all enjoyed, when the Senator protested with all the ardor of his nature, and invoked the State of Ohio behind him to oppose the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts. And now, if I understand the Senator from Ohio, he is ready to place himself side by side with the Senator from Massachusetts in support of the amendment from the House embodying this very proposition. I am glad the Senator is so disposed. I rejoice that he sees light. To-morrow I hope to welcome the Senator to some other height.

MR. COWAN [of Pennsylvania]. Excelsior!

MR. SUMNER. And I hope the word may be applicable to my friend from Pennsylvania also. [_Laughter._]

But there was another remark of the Senator which struck me with astonishment. He complained that I demanded these safeguards now, and said that I had already in the bill all that I had ever demanded before,--that universal suffrage, without distinction of race or color, was secured; and, said he, “the Senator from Massachusetts has never asked anything but that.” Now I can well pardon the Senator for ignorance with regard to what I have said or asked on former occasions. I cannot expect him to be familiar with it. And yet, when he openly arraigns me with the impetuosity of yesterday, I shall be justified in showing how completely he was mistaken.

Here Mr. Sumner referred to his speech before the Massachusetts
Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865, entitled
“The National Security and the National Faith, Guaranties for
the National Freedman and the National Creditor,” and showed
how completely at that time he had anticipated all present
demands.[88] He then continued:--

And yet, when I simply insisted upon some additional safeguard against the return of Rebels to power, the Senator told us that I was asking something new. Thank God, the other House has supplied the very protection which I desired; it has laid the foundation of a true peace. That foundation can be only on a loyal basis.

Two Presidents--one always to be named with veneration, another always most reluctantly--have united in this sentiment. Abraham Lincoln insisted that the new governments should be founded on loyalty; that, if there were only five thousand loyal persons in a State, they were entitled to hold the power. His successor adopted the same principle, when, in different language, he compendiously said, “For the Rebels back seats.” What is now required could not be expressed better. “For the Rebels back seats,” until this great work of Reconstruction is achieved.

Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, spoke especially in
reply to Mr. Sumner, congratulating him upon his acceptance of
the result. Mr. Sumner followed.

I am sorry to say another word; and yet, if silent, I might expose myself to misunderstanding. I accept the amendments from the other House as the best that can be had now; but I desire it distinctly understood that I shall not hesitate to insist at all times upon applying more directly and practically the true principles of Reconstruction. There is the Louisiana Bill on our table. The time, I presume, has passed for acting on it at this session; but in the earliest days of the next session I shall press that subject as constantly as I can. I believe you owe it to every one of these States to supply a government in place of that you now solemnly declare illegal. In such a government you will naturally secure a true loyalty, and I wish to be understood as not in any way circumscribing myself by the vote of to-day.

It may be that it will be best to require of every voter the same oath required of all entering Congress, which we know as the test oath. At least something more must be done; there must be other safeguards than those supplied by this very hasty and crude act of legislation. I accept it as containing much that is good, some things infinitely good, but as coming short of what a patriotic Congress ought to supply for the safety of the Republic.

Let it be understood, then, that I am not compromised by this bill, or by blandishments of Senators over the way [Messrs. SHERMAN and STEWART]. I listen to them of course with pleasure, and to all their expressions of friendship I respond with all my heart. I like much to go with them; but I value more the safety of my country. When Senators, even as powerful as the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Nevada, take a course which seems to me inconsistent with the national security, they must not expect me to follow.

After further debate, late in the evening of February 20th
the vote was reached, and the House amendments were concurred
in,--Yeas 35, Nays 7. The effect of this was to pass the bill.

* * * * *

March 2d, the bill was vetoed. The House, on the same day, by
138 Yeas to 51 Nays, and the Senate, by 38 Yeas to 10 Nays,
passed the bill by a two-thirds vote, notwithstanding the
objections of the President, so that it became a law.[89]

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, FEBRUARY 26, 1867.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am unwilling that this bill should be embarrassed by any question of words. I am for the bill in substance, whatever words may be employed. Call it a bureau, if you please, or call it a department; I accept it under either designation. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DIXON] has not too strongly depicted the necessity of the case. We are to have universal suffrage, a natural consequence of universal emancipation; but this will be a barren sceptre in the hands of the people, unless we supply education also. From the beginning of our troubles, I have foreseen this question. Through the agency and under the influence of the National Government education must be promoted in the Rebel States. To this end we need some central agency. This, if I understand it, is supplied by the bill before us.

Call it a bureau or a department; but give us the bill, and do not endanger it, at this moment, in this late hour of the session, by unnecessary amendment. Sir, I would, if I could, give it the highest designation. If there is any term in our dictionary that would impart peculiar significance, I should prefer that. Indeed, I should not hesitate, could I have my way, to place the head of the Department of Education in the Cabinet of the United States,--following the practice of one of the civilized governments of the world. I refer to France, which for years has had in its Cabinet a Minister of Education. But no such proposition is before us. The question is simply on a name; and I hope we shall not take up time with regard to it.

The bill passed both Houses of Congress, and became a law.[90]

MONUMENTS TO DECEASED SENATORS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ERECTION OF SUCH MONUMENTS, FEBRUARY 27, 1867.

Mr. Poland, of Vermont, introduced a resolution directing
the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate to see that monuments
were placed in the Congressional burial-ground, in memory of
Senators who had died at Washington since July 4, 1861. On the
question of taking up this resolution for consideration, Mr.
Sumner remarked:--

Originally there was a reason for these monuments. Senators and Representatives dying here found their last home in the Congressional burial-ground, and these monuments covered their remains. At a later day, with increasing facilities of transportation, the custom of burial here has ceased; but the monuments, being only cenotaphs, were continued until 1861, when this custom was suspended. Meantime Death has not been less busy here, and the question is, whether the former custom shall be revived, and cenotaphs be placed in an unvisited burial-ground, to mark the spot where the remains of a Senator might have been placed, had they not been transported to repose among his family, kindred, and neighbors.

I cannot but think that the suspension of this custom of monuments, which occurred at the beginning of the war, was notice or indication that the occasion for them had passed; and I doubt sincerely the expediency of reviving the custom, unless where an associate is actually buried here. If those dying here, but buried elsewhere, are to be commemorated by Congress in any monumental form, it seems to me better that it should be a simple tablet of stone or brass in the Capitol, where it would be seen by the visitors thronging here, and perhaps arrest the attention of their successors in public duty, teaching how Death enters these Halls. But why place an unsightly cenotaph in a forlorn burial-ground,--I may add, at considerable cost? I cannot doubt that the time has come for this expense to cease.

The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Contingent
Expenses of the Senate.

A VICTORY OF PEACE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION GIVING THE THANKS OF CONGRESS TO CYRUS W. FIELD, MARCH 2, 1867.

By a joint resolution introduced by Mr. Morgan, of New York,
the President was requested “to cause a gold medal to be
struck, with suitable emblems, devices, and inscription, to be
presented to Mr. Field,” and to “cause a copy of this joint
resolution to be engrossed on parchment, and transmit the same,
together with the medal, to Mr. Field, to be presented to him
in the name of the people of the United States of America.”

March 2d, the joint resolution was considered. After a speech
from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I rejoice in every enterprise by which human industry is quickened and distant places are brought near together. In ancient days the builders of roads were treated with godlike honor. I offer them my homage now. The enterprise which is to complete the railroad connection between the Pacific and the Atlantic belongs to this class. But this is not so peculiar and exceptional as that which has already connected the two continents by a telegraphic wire. It is not so historic. It is not itself so great an epoch.

It is not easy to exaggerate the difficulty or the value of the new achievement.

The enterprise was original in its beginning and in every stage of its completion. It began by a telegraph line connecting St. John’s, the most easterly port of America, with the main continent. This was planned at the house of Cyrus W. Field, by a few gentlemen, among whom were Peter Cooper, Moses Taylor, Marshall O. Roberts, and David Dudley Field. New York and St. John’s are about twelve hundred miles apart. When these two points were brought into telegraphic association, the first link was made in the chain destined to bind the two continents together. Out of this American beginning sprang efforts which ended in the oceanic cable.

In other respects our country led the way. The first soundings across the Atlantic were by American officers in American ships. The United States ship Dolphin first discovered the telegraphic plateau as early as 1853, and in 1856 the United States ship Arctic sounded across from Newfoundland to Ireland, a year before Her Majesty’s ship Cyclops sailed the same course.

It was not until 1856 that this American enterprise showed itself in England, where it was carried by Mr. Field. Through his energies the Atlantic Telegraphic Company was organized in London, with a board of directors composed of English bankers and merchants, among whom was an American citizen, George Peabody. By conjoint exertions of the two countries the cable was stretched from continent to continent in 1858. Messages of good-will traversed it. The United States and England seemed to be near together, while Queen and President interchanged salutations. Then suddenly the electric current ceased, and the cable became a lifeless line. The enterprise itself hardly lived. But it was again quickened into being, and finally carried to a successful close. British capital, British skill, contributed largely, and the society had for its president an eminent Englishman, the Right Honorable James Stuart Wortley; but I have always understood that our countryman was the mainspring. His confidence never ceased; his energies never flagged. Twelve years of life and forty voyages across the Atlantic were woven into this work. He was the Alpha and the Omega of a triumph which has few parallels in history.

Englishmen who took an active part in this enterprise have received recognition and honor from the sovereign. Some have been knighted, others advanced in service. Meanwhile Cyrus W. Field, who did so much, has remained unnoticed by our Government. He has been honored by the popular voice, but it remains for Congress to embody this voice in a national testimonial. If it be said that there is no precedent for such a vote, then do I reply that his case is without precedent, and we must not hesitate to make a precedent by this expression of national gratitude. Thanks are given for victories in war: give them now for a victory of peace.

The joint resolution passed both Houses without a division, and
was approved by the President.[91]

FURTHER GUARANTIES IN RECONSTRUCTION.

LOYALTY, EDUCATION, AND A HOMESTEAD FOR FREEDMEN; MEASURES OF RECONSTRUCTION NOT A BURDEN OR PENALTY.

RESOLUTIONS AND SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, MARCH 7 AND 11, 1867.

March 7th, the following resolutions were introduced by Mr.
Sumner, and on his motion ordered to lie on the table and be
printed.

“RESOLUTIONS declaring certain further guaranties required
in the Reconstruction of the Rebel States.

“_Resolved_, That Congress, in declaring by positive
legislation that it possesses paramount authority over the
Rebel States, and in prescribing that no person therein
shall be excluded from the elective franchise by reason of
race, color, or previous condition, has begun the work of
Reconstruction, and has set an example to itself.

“_Resolved_, That other things remain to be done, as
clearly within the power of Congress as the elective
franchise, and it is the duty of Congress to see that these
things are not left undone.

“_Resolved_, That among things remaining to be done are the
five following.

“First. Existing governments, now declared illegal, must be
vacated, so that they can have no agency in Reconstruction,
and will cease to exercise a pernicious influence.

“Secondly. Provisional governments must be constituted
as temporary substitutes for the illegal governments,
with special authority to superintend the transition to
permanent governments republican in form.

“Thirdly. As loyalty beyond suspicion must be the basis of
permanent governments republican in form, every possible
precaution must be adopted against Rebel agency or
influence in the formation of these governments.

“Fourthly. As the education of the people is essential to
the national welfare, and especially to the development of
those principles of justice and morality which constitute
the foundation of republican government, and as, according
to the census, an immense proportion of the people in the
Rebel States, without distinction of color, cannot read and
write, therefore public schools must be established for the
equal good of all.

“Fifthly. Not less important than education is the
homestead, which must be secured to the freedmen, so that
at least every head of a family may have a piece of land.

“_Resolved_, That all these requirements are in the nature
of guaranties to be exacted by Congress, without which the
United States will not obtain that security for the future
which is essential to a just Reconstruction.”

March 11th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to
consider the resolutions. Mr. Williams, of Oregon, was not
prepared to vote on these resolutions until they had received
the consideration of some committee, and he moved their
reference to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Sumner said:--