Chapter VI: Front Matter (6)

(2.) _Climatic conditions_ must exist also. The proverbial hardihood of fishermen has limits. Elsewhere weather and storm have compelled the abandonment of banks which promised to be profitable. On a portion of this coast there can be no such rigors. South of Alaska and the Aleutians, and also in Bristol Bay, immediately to the north of the peninsula of Alaska, the fishing-grounds will compare in temperature with those of Newfoundland or Norway. It is more important to know if the fish, when taken, can be properly cured. This is one of the privileges of northern skies. Within the tropics fish may be taken in abundance, but the constant sun does not allow their preservation. The constant rains of Sitka, with only a few bright days in the year, must prevent the work of curing on any considerable scale. But the navigators make frequent mention of dry or preserved fish on the coast, and it is understood that fish are now cured at Kadiak. “Dried fish” from this island is described by D’Wolf.[215] For a long time it was customary there to dry seal flesh in the air, which could not be done on the main-land. Thus the opportunity of curing the fish seems to exist near the very banks where they are taken, or Fuca Straits may be a “half-way house” for this purpose. The California fishermen carry their fish home to be cured, in which they imitate the fishermen of Gloucester. As the yearly fishing product of this port is larger than that of any other in North America, perhaps in the world, this example cannot be without weight.

(3.) The _market_ also is of prime necessity. Fish are not caught and cured except for a market. Besides the extended coast, where an immediate demand must always prevail in proportion to increasing population, there is an existing market in California, amply attested by long voyages to Kamtchatka for fish, and by recent attempts to find fishing-grounds. San Francisco at one time took from Okhotsk nine hundred tons of fish, being about one eighth of the yearly fishing product of Gloucester. Her fishing-vessels last year brought home from all quarters fifteen hundred tons of dried fish and ten thousand gallons of cod-liver oil. There is also a growing market in Washington and Oregon. But beyond the domestic market, spreading from the coast into the interior, there will be a foreign market of no limited amount. Mexico, Central America, and the States of South America, all Catholic in religion, will require this subsistence, and, being southern in climate, they must look northward for a supply. The two best customers of our Atlantic fisheries are Hayti and Cuba, Catholic countries under a southern sun. The fishermen of Massachusetts began at an early day to send cod to Portugal, Spain, and Italy, all Catholic countries under a southern sun. Our “salt fish” became popular. The Portuguese minister at London in 1785, in a conference with Mr. Adams on a commercial treaty with the United States, mentioned “salt fish” among the objects most needed in his country, and added, that “the consumption of this article in Portugal was immense, and he would avow that the American salt fish was preferred to any other, on account of its quality.”[216] Such facts are more than curious.

But more important than the Pacific States of the American continent are the great empires of Japan and China, with uncounted populations depending much on fish. In China one tenth subsist on fish. Notwithstanding the considerable supplies at home, it does not seem impossible for an energetic and commercial people to find a market here of inconceivable magnitude, dwarfing the original fur-trade with China, once so tempting.

From this survey you can all judge the question of the fisheries, which I only state, without assuming to determine. You can judge if well-stocked fishing-banks have been found under such conditions of climate and market as to supply a new and important fishery. Already the people of California have anticipated the answer, and their enterprise has arrested attention in Europe. The journal of Petermann, the “Geographische Mittheilungen,” for the present year, which is the authentic German record of geographical science, borrows from a San Francisco paper to announce these successful voyages as the beginning of a new commerce. If this be so, as there is reason to believe, these coasts and seas will have unprecedented value. The future only can disclose the form they may take. They may be a Newfoundland, a Norway, a Scotland, or perhaps a New England, with another Gloucester and another New Bedford.

INFLUENCE OF FISHERIES.

An eminent French writer, an enthusiast on fishes, Lacepède, has depicted the influence of fisheries, which he illustrates by the herring, calling it “one of those natural products whose use decides the destiny of empires.”[217] Without adopting these strong words, it is easy to see that such fisheries as seem about to be opened on the Pacific must exercise a wonderful influence over the population there, while they give a new spring to commerce, and enlarge the national resources. In these aspects it is impossible to exaggerate. Fishermen are not as other men. They have a character of their own, taking complexion from their life. In ancient Rome they had a peculiar holiday, with games, known as _Piscatorii Ludi_. The first among us in this pursuit were the Pilgrims, who, even before they left Leyden, looked to fishing for support in their new home, giving occasion to the remark of King James: “So God have my soul, ’tis an honest trade; ’twas the Apostles’ own calling.”[218] As soon as they reached Plymouth they began to fish, and afterwards appropriated the profits of the fisheries at Cape Cod to found a free school. From this Pilgrim origin are derived those fisheries which for a while were our chief commerce, and still continue an important element of national wealth. The cod fisheries of the United States are now valued at more than two million dollars annually. Such an interest must be felt far and near, commercially and financially, while it contributes to the comfort of all. How soon it may prevail on the Pacific who can say? But this treaty is the beginning.

It is difficult to estimate what is so uncertain, or at least is prospective only. Our own fisheries, now so considerable, were small in the beginning; they were small, even when they inspired the eloquence of Burke, in that most splendid page never equalled even by himself.[219] But the Continental Congress, in its original instructions to its commissioners for the negotiation of treaties of peace and commerce with Great Britain, required, as a fundamental condition, next to independence, that these fisheries should be preserved unimpaired. While the proposition was under discussion, Elbridge Gerry, who had grown up among the fishermen of Massachusetts, repelled the attack upon their pursuit in words which are not out of place here. “It is not so much fishing,” he said, “as enterprise, industry, and employment. It is not fish merely; it is gold, the produce of that avocation. It is the employment of those who would otherwise be idle, the food of those who would otherwise be hungry, the wealth of those who would otherwise be poor.”[220] After debate, it was resolved by Congress that “the common right of fishing should in no case be given up.”[221] For this principle the eldest Adams contended with ability and constancy until it was fixed in the treaty of peace, where it stands side by side with the acknowledgment of independence.

In the discussions which ended thus triumphantly, the argument for the fisheries was stated most compactly by Ralph Izard, of South Carolina, in a letter to John Adams, dated at Paris, 24th September, 1778; and this early voice from South Carolina may be repeated now.

“Since the advantages of commerce have been well understood,
the fisheries have been looked upon by the naval powers of
Europe as an object of the greatest importance. The French
have been increasing their fishery ever since the Treaty of
Utrecht, which has enabled them to rival Great Britain at
sea. The fisheries of Holland were not only the first rise
of the Republic, but have been the constant support of all
her commerce and navigation. This branch of trade is of such
concern to the Dutch that in their public prayers they are
said to request the Supreme Being ‘that it would please Him
to bless the Government, the Lords, the States, and also their
fisheries.’ The fishery of Newfoundland appears to me to be
a mine of infinitely greater value than Mexico and Peru. It
enriches the proprietors, is worked at less expense, and is the
source of naval strength and protection.”[222]

Captain Smith, the adventurous founder and deliverer of the colony of Virginia, when appealing to Englishmen at home in behalf of the feeble New England settlements, especially dwells upon the fisheries. “Therefore,” he concludes, “honourable and worthy Country men, let not the meannesse of the word fish distaste you, for it will afford as good gold as the Mines of _Guiana_ or _Potassie_, with lesse hazard and charge, and more certainty and facility.”[223] Doubtless for a long time the neighboring fish-banks were the gold-mines of New England.

I have grouped these allusions that you may see how the fisheries of that day, though comparatively small, enlisted the energies of our fathers. Tradition confirms the record. The sculptured image of a cod pendent from the ceiling in the hall of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, where it was placed during the last century, constantly recalls this industrial and commercial staple, with the great part it performed. And now it is my duty to remind you that these fisheries, guarded so watchfully and vindicated with such conquering zeal, had a value prospective rather than present, or at least small compared with what it is now. Exact figures, covering the ten years between 1765 and 1775, show that during this period Massachusetts employed annually in the fisheries 665 vessels, measuring 25,630 tons, with only 4,405 men.[224] In contrast with this interest, which seems so small, although at the time considerable, are the present fisheries of our country; and here again we have exact figures. The number of vessels in the cod fishery alone, in 1861, just before the blight of war reached this business, was 2,753, measuring 137,665 tons, with 19,271 men,--being more than four times as many vessels and men, and more than five times as much tonnage, as for ten years preceding the Revolution were employed annually by Massachusetts, representing at that time the fishing interest of the country.

Small beginnings, therefore, are no discouragement; I turn with confidence to the future. Already the local fisheries on this coast have developed among the generations of natives a singular gift in building and managing their small craft so as to excite the frequent admiration of voyagers. The larger fisheries there will naturally exercise a corresponding influence on the population destined to build and manage the larger craft. The beautiful baidar will give way to the fishing-smack, the clipper, and the steamer. All things will be changed in form and proportion; but the original aptitude for the sea will remain. A practical race of intrepid navigators will swarm the coast, ready for any enterprise of business or patriotism. Commerce will find new arms, the country new defenders, the national flag new hands to bear it aloft.

SUMMARY.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I now conclude this examination. From a review of the origin of the treaty, and the general considerations with regard to it, we have passed to an examination of these possessions under different heads, in order to arrive at a knowledge of their character and value. And here we have noticed the existing government, which was found to be nothing but a fur company, whose only object is trade; then the population, where a very few Russians and Creoles are a scanty fringe to the aboriginal races; then the climate, a ruling influence, with its thermal current of ocean and its eccentric isothermal line, by which the rigors of the coast are tempered to a mildness unknown in the same latitude on the Atlantic side; then the vegetable products, so far as observed, chief among which are forests of pine and fir waiting for the axe; then the mineral products, among which are coal and copper, if not iron, silver, lead, and gold, besides the two great products of New England, “granite and ice”; then the furs, including precious skins of the black fox and sea-otter, which originally tempted the settlement, and remain to this day the exclusive object of pursuit; and, lastly, the fisheries, which, in waters superabundant with animal life beyond any of the globe, seem to promise a new commerce. All these I have presented plainly and impartially, exhibiting my authorities as I proceeded. I have done little more than hold the scales. If these incline on either side, it is because reason or testimony on that side is the weightier.

WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE.

As these extensive possessions, constituting a corner of the continent, pass from the imperial government of Russia, they will naturally receive a new name. They will be no longer Russian America. How shall they be called? Clearly, any name borrowed from classical antiquity or from individual invention will be little better than misnomer or nickname unworthy of the historic occasion. Even if taken from our own annals, it will be of doubtful taste. The name should come from the country itself. It should be indigenous, aboriginal, one of the autochthons of the soil. Happily such a name exists, as proper in sound as in origin. It appears from the report of Cook, the illustrious navigator, to whom I have so often referred, that the euphonious designation now applied to the peninsula which is the continental link of the Aleutian chain was the sole word used originally by the native islanders, “when speaking of the American continent in general, which they knew perfectly well to be a great land.”[225] It only remains, that, following these natives, whose places are now ours, we, too, should call this “great land” Alaska.[226]

Another change should be made. As the settlements of this coast came eastward from Russia, bringing with the Russian flag Western time, the day is earlier by twenty-four hours with them than with us, so that their Sunday is our Saturday, and the other days of the week are in corresponding discord. This must be rectified according to the national meridian, so that there shall be the same Sunday for all, and the other days of the week shall be in corresponding harmony. Important changes must follow, of which this is typical. All else must be rectified according to the national meridian, so that within the sphere of our common country there shall be everywhere the same generous rule and one prevailing harmony. Of course, the unreformed Julian calendar, received from Russia, will give place to ours,--Old Style yielding to New Style.

An object of immediate practical interest will be the survey of the extended and indented coast by our own officers, bringing it all within the domain of science, and assuring to navigation much-needed assistance, while the Republic is honored by a continuation of national charts, where execution vies with science, and the art of engraving is the beautiful handmaid. Associated with this survey, and scarcely inferior in value, will be the examination of the country by scientific explorers, so that its geological structure may become known, with its various products, vegetable and mineral. But your best work and most important endowment will be the Republican Government, which, looking to a long future, you will organize, with schools free to all, and with equal laws, before which every citizen will stand erect in the consciousness of manhood. Here will be a motive power without which coal itself is insufficient. Here will be a source of wealth more inexhaustible than any fisheries. Bestow such a government, and you will give what is better than all you can receive, whether quintals of fish, sands of gold, choicest fur, or most beautiful ivory.

PRECAUTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION ASKING FOR COPIES OF OPINIONS WITH REGARD TO THE TENURE-OF-OFFICE LAW AND APPOINTMENTS DURING THE RECESS OF CONGRESS, APRIL 11, 1867.

Mr. Sumner moved the following resolution, and asked its
immediate consideration:--

“_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to furnish to the Senate, if in his opinion
not incompatible with the public interests, copies of
any official opinions which may have been given by the
Attorney-General, the Solicitor of the Treasury, or by any
other officer of the Government, on the interpretation of
the Act of Congress regulating the tenure of offices, and
especially with regard to appointments by the President
during the recess of Congress.”

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution. Mr. Sumner said:--

Before the vote is taken, allow me to make a statement. I understand that opinions have been given by one or more officers of the Government which go far to nullify a recent Act of Congress. In short, it seems as if we are to have Nullification here in Washington in the Executive branch of the Government. According to these opinions, the President, I understand, is to exercise a power of appointment during the recess of Congress, notwithstanding the recent Act which undertakes to regulate the tenure of office.

We all know the astuteness of lawyers. It is a proverb. And it is sometimes said that a lawyer may drive a coach-and-six through an Act of Parliament, or even an Act of Congress. The Administration is now about to drive its coach-and-six through our recent legislation. In other words, it is about to force upon the country officers who cannot be officers according to existing law. It seems to me, that, before we adjourn, we should know the precise state of this question. We should understand if any such opinion has been given, and the reasons for it. It is on this account that I have introduced the resolution now before the Senate.

The resolution was adopted.

FINISH OUR WORK BEFORE ADJOURNMENT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A MOTION TO ADJOURN WITHOUT DAY, APRIL 11 AND 12, 1867.

On the day after the adjournment of Congress the Senate was
convened for the transaction of Executive business. Treaties
and nominations were laid before it.

April 11th, on motion of Mr. Williams, of Oregon, the Senate
considered a resolution for adjournment _sine die_ “the 13th
instant.” Debate ensued. Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland,
said: “We can fix the adjournment to-morrow or next day.” Mr.
Trumbull, of Illinois, said: “Let us fix it to-day.” Mr. Sumner
said:--

I do not think we can fix it to-day, and, further, I do not think we ought to fix it to-day. It seems to me the calendar should be cleared before we talk of going home.

A Senator exclaims, “Wait until we get through.” So I say. Senators are perfectly aware, that, owing to an interpretation recently put by the Executive upon the Tenure-of-Office Bill, there is an increased necessity for our staying. We have passed a law. We should see to its enforcement. At any rate, we should manifest coöperation with the Executive, so that there shall be no excuse for setting it aside. I do not admit that he can in any way set it aside; but I wish to do everything that can be done to prevent him from undertaking to set it aside. We ought to stay until our work is fully done. There can be no excuse for going home while any part of the Executive business remains unfinished. Other Congresses have stayed here till midsummer, and even into the month of September. If the necessities of the country require it, I see no reason why we should not stay till then.

April 12th, the subject was resumed, when Mr. Sumner said:--

I will say, that, just in proportion as we draw to the close of our business, we shall be better prepared to determine when we can adjourn finally. As we have not drawn to the close, I submit we are not in a condition to fix the day. That time may come; but I may remind the Senate that there is in Executive session unfinished business beyond what we had reason to expect. I say “reason to expect,” because it is well known that there are many offices still unfilled; and it is our duty, before we leave, so far as it depends upon us, to see that they are filled.

…

We should stay, it seems to me, until the offices are filled, rejecting nominations that are bad and confirming the good,--doing, in short, all we can, as a Senate, to secure good officers, and I insist, also, officers on the right side, who agree with Congress, and will sustain the policy which Congress has declared.

The resolution was amended so as to make the adjournment 16th
April, and then adopted,--Yeas 26, Nays 11,--Mr. Sumner voting
in the negative. The time was afterwards extended, on motion of
Mr. Sumner, to 20th April, when the Senate adjourned without
day.

MEDIATION BETWEEN CONTENDING PARTIES IN MEXICO.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, PROPOSING THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 20, 1867.

Resolution proposing the good offices of the United States
between the contending parties of Mexico.

Whereas the Republic of Mexico, though relieved from the presence of a foreign enemy by the final withdrawal of the French troops, continues to be convulsed by a bloody civil war, in which Mexicans are ranged on opposite sides;

And whereas the United States are bound by neighborhood and republican sympathies to do all in their power for the welfare of the Mexican people, and this obligation becomes more urgent from the present condition of affairs, where each party is embittered by protracted conflict: Therefore,

_Be it resolved_, That it is proper for the Government of the United States, acting in the interest of humanity and civilization, to tender its good offices by way of mediation between the contending parties of the Republic of Mexico, in order to avert a deplorable civil war, and to obtain the establishment of republican government on a foundation of peace and security.

This was offered on the last day of the session. It was printed
and laid on the table. Other resolutions on the same subject
were offered by Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, and Mr. Reverdy
Johnson, of Maryland.

EQUAL SUFFRAGE AT ONCE BY ACT OF CONGRESS RATHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

LETTER TO THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT, APRIL 20, 1867.

SENATE CHAMBER, April 20, 1867.

MY DEAR SIR,--You wish to have the North “reconstructed,” so
at least that it shall cease to deny the elective franchise on
account of color. But you postpone the day by insisting on the
preliminary of a Constitutional Amendment. I know your vows to
the good cause; but I ask you to make haste. We cannot wait.

Of course, we can always wait for the needful processes; but
there are present reasons why we should allow no time to be lost.
_This question must be settled forthwith_: in other words, it
must be settled before the Presidential election, now at hand.
Our colored fellow-citizens at the South are already electors.
They will vote at the Presidential election. But why should they
vote at the South, and not at the North? The rule of justice is
the same for both. Their votes are needed at the North as well
as the South. There are Northern States where their votes can
make the good cause safe beyond question. There are other States
where their votes will be like the last preponderant weight in
the nicely balanced scales. Let our colored fellow-citizens vote
in Maryland, and that State, now so severely tried, will be fixed
for Human Rights forever. Let them vote in Pennsylvania, and
you will give more than twenty thousand votes to the Republican
cause. Let them vote in New York, and the scales, which hang
so doubtful, will incline to the Republican side. It will be
the same in Connecticut. I mention these by way of example. But
everywhere the old Proslavery party will kick the beam. Let all
this be done, I say, before the next Presidential election.

Among the proposed ways is a new Constitutional Amendment. But
this is too dilatory. It cannot become operative till after
the Presidential election. Besides, it is needless. Instead of
amending the Constitution, read it.

Another way is by moving each State, and obtaining through
local legislation what is essentially _a right of citizenship_.
But this again is too dilatory, while it turns each State into
a political maelström, and submits a question of _National_
interest to the chances of local controversy and the timidity of
local politicians. This will not do. Emancipation was a National
act, proceeding from the National Government, and applicable
to all the States. Enfranchisement, which is the corollary
and complement of Emancipation, must be a National act also,
proceeding from the National Government, and applicable to all
the States. If left to the States individually, the result,
besides being tardy, will be uncertain and fragmentary.

There is another way, at once prompt, energetic, and
comprehensive. It is by Act of Congress, adopted by a majority of
two thirds, in spite of Presidential veto. The time has passed
when this power can be questioned. Congress has already exercised
it in the Rebel States. I do not forget its hesitations. Only
a year ago, when I insisted that it must do so, and introduced
a bill to this effect, I was answered that a Constitutional
Amendment was needed, and I was voted down. A change came, and
in a happy moment Congress exercised the power. What patriot
questions it now? But the power is unquestionable in the other
States also. It concerns the rights of citizenship, and this
subject is as essentially national as the army or the navy.

Even without either of the recent Constitutional Amendments,
I am at a loss to understand how a denial of the elective
franchise simply on account of color can be otherwise than
unconstitutional. I cannot see how, under a National Constitution
which does not contain the word “white” or “black,” there can be
any exclusion on account of color. There is no such exclusion
in the Constitution. Out of what text is this oligarchical
pretension derived? But, putting aside this question, which will
be clearer to the jurists of the next generation than to us,
I vouch the authoritative words of the National Constitution,
making it our duty to guaranty a republican form of government
in the States. Now the greatest victory of the war, to which all
other victories, whether in Congress or on the bloody field, were
only tributary, was the definition of a republican government
according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
A government which denies the elective franchise on account of
color, or, in other words, sets up any “qualifications” of voters
in their nature insurmountable, cannot be republican; for the
first principle in a republican government is Equality of Rights,
according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
And this definition, I insist, is the crowning glory of the war
which beat down Rebellion under its feet. It only remains for
Congress to enforce it by appropriate legislation.

There are two recent Constitutional Amendments, each of which
furnishes ample and cumulative power.

There is, first, the Amendment abolishing Slavery, with its
clause conferring on Congress the power to enforce it by
appropriate legislation, in pursuance of which Congress has
already passed the Civil Rights Act, which is applicable to the
North as well as the South. Clearly, and most obviously beyond
all question, if it can pass a Civil Rights Act, it can also pass
a Political Rights Act; for each is appropriate to enforce the
abolition of Slavery, and to complete this work. Without it the
work is only half done.

There is yet another Amendment, recently adopted by three
fourths of the loyal States, which is itself an abundant source
of power. After declaring that all persons born or naturalized
in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
are “citizens,” this Amendment proceeds to provide that “no
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of _citizens_ of the United States”; and
Congress is empowered to enforce this provision by appropriate
legislation. Nothing can be plainer than this.

Here, then, are three different sources of power in the
Constitution itself, each sufficient, the three together three
times sufficient,--each exuberant and overflowing, the three
together three times exuberant and overflowing. How, in the face
of these provisions, any person can doubt the power of Congress
I cannot understand. But, alas! there are doubters always.

I have already sent you a copy of my bill to settle this question
by what I call “the short cut.” Give us your vote. Of course, you
will. Believe me, my dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THEODORE TILTON, Esq.

This was followed by an editorial article sustaining and
vindicating Mr. Sumner’s bill. It began:--

“Yes. Mr. Sumner has our vote. He has always had it; he is
always likely to have it. ‘How did Roger Sherman vote?’
asked our forefathers. They believed it was safe to vote
with Roger Sherman. It is just as safe to vote with Charles
Sumner.”

After explanation and argument, the article proceeds:--

“Not only is Mr. Sumner right as to the power of Congress
in the present case, but long ago he was right as to the
power of Congress to govern the unconstitutional States
as conquered provinces. He then stood almost alone in the
Senate in an opinion which he has since seen adopted by his
brother Senators. We trust his compeers will agree to his
present bill. We happen to know that Thaddeus Stevens--who,
even when sick, is more well than most men--is preparing,
on his sick-bed, an argument in support of Mr. Sumner’s
plan. We happen to know, also, that Chief Justice Chase
agrees with Mr. Sumner’s view.”

CELEBRATION AT ARLINGTON, ON ASSUMING ITS NEW NAME.

SPEECH AT A DINNER IN A TENT, JUNE 17, 1867.

West Cambridge, originally part of Cambridge, Massachusetts,
assumed the name of Arlington, with the consent of the
Legislature. The change was celebrated in the town by a public
dinner in a tent.

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF ARLINGTON:--

In looking around me on this beautiful scene of hospitality, I am reminded of that doge of Genoa, who, finding himself amid the splendors of Versailles, in its incomparable palace, and being asked what about him caused the most surprise, replied, “To find myself here.” And so to me, coming from other scenes, and for many years absolutely unused to such occasions, this spectacle is strange. But it is not less welcome because strange.

Coming here to take part in this interesting celebration, I am not insensible to the kindness of good friends among you, through whom the invitation was received. But I confess a neighborly interest in your festival. Born in Boston, and educated in Cambridge, I am one of your neighbors. Accept, then, if you please, the sympathies of a neighbor on this occasion.

Yours is not a large town; nor has it any extended history. But what it wants in size and history it makes up in beauty. Yours is a beautiful town. I know nothing among the exquisite surroundings of Boston more charming than these slopes and meadows, with background of hills and gleam of water. The elements of beauty are all here. Hills are always beautiful; so is water. I remember hearing a woman of genius, Mrs. Fanny Kemble, say more than once, that water in a landscape is “like eyes in the human countenance,” without which the countenance is lifeless. But water gleams, shines, sparkles in your landscape. Here the water-nymphs might find a home. Gardens, beautiful to the eye and bountiful in nourishing and luscious supplies, are also yours. Surely it may be said of those who live here, that their lines have fallen in a pleasant place.

I go too far, when I suggest that you are without a history. West Cambridge was part of that historic Cambridge so early famous in our country, the seat of learning and the home of patriotism. The honor of Cambridge is yours. West Cambridge adjoins Lexington, and was in the war-path of the British soldiers on that 19th of April, which, perhaps, as much as any day after the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers, determined the fortunes of this continent. The shots of Concord and Lexington were heard here before their echoes began the tour of the globe. Shots from here followed, and your beautiful fields bore testimony in blood. The road from Concord was a prolonged battleground, on which British troops fell; there were patriots, also, who fell.

Then came the Battle of Bunker Hill, on the very day we now celebrate, followed soon by the arrival of Washington, who, on the 3d day of July, 1775, drew his sword as Commander-in-Chief under the well-known elm of Cambridge Common. Do not forget that you were of Cambridge then. The first duty of the new commander-in-chief was to inspect his forces. The mass of the British army, amounting to 11,500 men, occupied Bunker Hill and Boston Neck, while their general with his light horse was in Boston. The Patriot forces, amounting to about 16,000 men, were so posted as to form a complete line around Boston and Charlestown, from Mystic River to Dorchester, nearly twelve miles in circuit. Regiments from New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut occupied Winter Hill and Prospect Hill, where it is easy still to recognize their earthworks; several of the Massachusetts regiments were at Cambridge; and others from Connecticut and Massachusetts covered the high grounds of Roxbury. This was the Siege of Boston. With all these preparations, Washington was still provident of the future. And here commences an association with the hills about your town, which must be my justification for these details.

Many years ago, when I first read the account of this period by one of the early biographers of Washington, Rev. Dr. Bancroft, of Worcester, the father of our distinguished historian, I was struck by the statement, which I quote in his precise words, that, “in case of an attack and defeat, the _Welsh Mountains in Cambridge_, and the rear of the lines in Roxbury, were appointed as places of rendezvous.”[227] Perhaps this association, and even the name of the mountains, may be new to some whom I have the honor of addressing. “The Welsh Mountains” are the hills which skirt your peaceful valley. Since then I have never looked upon them, even at a distance, I have never thought of them, without feeling that they are monumental. They testify to that perfect prudence which made our commander-in-chief so great. In those hours when undisciplined patriots were preparing for conflict with the trained soldiers of England, the careful eye of Washington, calmly surveying the whole horizon, selected your hills as the breastworks behind which he was to retrieve the day. The hills still stand firm and everlasting as when he looked upon them, but smiling now with fertility and peace. They will never be needed as breastworks. There is no enemy encamped in Boston and ready to sally forth for battle; nor is there any siege.

But you will allow me to remind you that the ideas of the Revolution and the solemn promises of the Declaration of Independence are still debated. There are some who have the hardihood to deny them. Here I venture to bespeak from you the simple loyalty of those whose places you occupy. Should an evil hour arrive, when these ideas and promises are in peril, then let them find a breastwork, not in your hills, but in your hearts. And may the rally extend until it embraces the whole country, and the Revolution begun by our fathers is completed by the establishment of all the rights of all!

POWERS OF THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.

PROTEST IN THE SENATE, AT ITS OPENING, JULY 3, 1867.

July 3d, according to the provision in the resolution of
adjournment at the last session, Congress met at noon this day.
The Chief Clerk read the resolution.[228] Mr. Sumner then said
that he rose to a question of order on the resolution.

The resolution under which Congress is to-day assembled, so far as it undertakes to direct the adjournment of the two Houses of Congress without day, in the absence of a quorum of the two Houses, is unconstitutional and inoperative, inasmuch as the Constitution, after declaring that “a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business,” proceeds to provide that “a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members”; and therefore such resolution must not be regarded by the Chair, so far as it undertakes to provide for an adjournment without day.

As, according to the view, there is a quorum already present, the incident contemplated by the resolution will not arise; but I felt it my duty, by way of precaution and _caveat_, to introduce this protest, to the end that the resolution may not hereafter be drawn into a precedent so as to abridge the rights of the two Houses of Congress under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, differed from Mr. Sumner, and
entered his “protest against any such construction of the
Constitution as denies to the two Houses of Congress the right
to regulate their own adjournments.” After quoting the text of
the Constitution, that “a majority of each shall constitute a
quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from
day to day and may be authorized to compel the attendance of
absent members,” Mr. Sumner said:--

Here is a concurrent resolution providing for a future meeting of Congress. To that extent it is unquestionably constitutional; but when the resolution imposes shackles upon the two Houses of Congress assembled by virtue of that resolution, then, I submit, it does what, under the National Constitution, it cannot do,--its words are powerless. Congress, when once assembled by virtue of that resolution, has all the powers of a Congress of the United States under the Constitution. That resolution cannot restrain it. Such, at any rate, is my conclusion, after the best reflection that I have been able to give to these words of the Constitution; and I feel it my duty to make this protest, to the end that what we now do may not be drawn into an example hereafter. It is well known that those words were introduced in order to tie the hands of Congress, should it come together and there be no quorum present,--in short, to despoil the Congress then assembled of the prerogative secured to it by the National Constitution. To that extent I suggest that the resolution hereafter shall be regarded as of no value, and not be quoted as a precedent.

After reply from Mr. Trumbull, the subject was dropped.

HOMESTEADS FOR FREEDMEN.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, JULY 3, 1867.

_RESOLVED_, That the reconstruction of the Rebel States would be hastened, and the best interest of the country promoted, if the President of the United States, in the exercise of the pardoning power, would require that every landed proprietor who has been engaged in the Rebellion, before receiving pardon therefor, should convey to the freedmen, his former slaves, a certain portion of the land on which they have worked, so that they may have a homestead in which their own labor has mingled, and that the disloyal master may not continue to appropriate to himself the fruits of their toil.

On motion of Mr. Sumner, this was printed and laid on the
table. The rule limiting business during the present session
prevented him from calling it up.

LIMITATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.

OBLIGATIONS OF SENATE CAUCUSES.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, JULY 3, 5, AND 10, 1867.

Mr. Sumner had looked to this session not only for precautions
against the President, but for legislation on Suffrage. He had
never doubted that there would be a session. March 30th, just
before the final adjournment, he gave notice that on the first
Wednesday of July he should ask the Senate to proceed with his
bill to secure the elective franchise to colored citizens,
when Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said, “The Senator had better add,
‘or some subsequent day.’” [_Laughter._] Mr. Sumner said: “I
beg the Senate to take notice that there will be a session on
the first Wednesday of July, to proceed with business. I have
reason to believe that there will be a quorum here, for there
will be important public business that must be attended to.”

On the completion of the organization, Mr. Sumner proceeded
to offer petitions, when he was interrupted by Mr. Fessenden,
of Maine, who said: “I desire to interpose an objection to
the reference of these petitions; and I may as well bring the
question up here now, before the Senator offers any more. I
do it for the reason that in my judgment it is not expedient
at the present session to act upon general business”; and he
referred to the course at the session of the Twenty-Seventh
Congress, called by President Harrison. Mr. Sumner said, in
reply:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--We are a Congress of the United States, assembled under the National Constitution, and with all the powers belonging to Congress,--ay, Sir, and with all the responsibilities also. We cannot, by agreement or understanding, divest ourselves of these responsibilities, being nothing less than to transact the public business,--not simply one item or two items, but the public business in its sum total, whatever it may be,--in one word, all that concerns the welfare of this great Republic. Now the Senator limits us to one item, which he has only alluded to, without characterizing. I suppose I understand him; but he must know well that even that business has many ramifications. But why are we to be restricted thus? Looking at past usage, I need not remind you that we have habitually sat throughout the summer into the month of August, and on one occasion into the month of September. It is no new thing that Congress should be here in July. It is an exception that Congress is not here in July, during every alternate year. Therefore, in considering public business, even under these heats, we are only doing what our predecessors before us have done; we are following the usage of Congress, and not setting up a new usage of our own. The motion of the Senator, if it be a motion, or rather his suggestion, does set up a new usage. It is virtually to declare, that, when admonished by the heats of July, we will fold our hands, and will not even consider public business, except in one particular case; that all the other vast interests of this country will be left, without reference to a committee, without inquiry, unattended to, neglected.

The Senator from Maine says, that, when Congress adjourned at the end of March, it was not supposed that there would be a session at this time. He may not have supposed there would be a session. I never doubted that there would be one. I saw full well that the public interests would require a session in July, and I labored to bring it about, feeling that in so doing I was only discharging a public duty. Do you forget whom you have as President? A constant disturber, and a mischief-maker. So long as his administration continues, it is the duty of Congress to be on guard, perpetually on watch against him; and this must have been obvious when Congress adjourned, as it is obvious now. Senators may not have foreseen precisely what he would do; but I take it that there were few who did not foresee that he would do something making it important for Congress to be present. I did not doubt, then, that it would be our duty to be here in our places to make adequate provision against his misdeeds. He is President, and the head of the Executive, invested with all the powers belonging to that department. It is hard, I know, to provide against him; but nevertheless you must do it. This Republic is too great, too vast, and too precious, to be left in the hands of a bad man.

One of the greatest masters in the art of war tells us, as the lesson of his great military experience, that the good general always regards that as probable which is possible. I know no better rule for the statesman. Now, with a President such as we have, anything in the nature of disturbance or interference with the public security is possible through the Executive arm. Therefore you are to regard it as probable, and make provision against it. So I argued last spring, and was satisfied that it would be our duty to be in our seats at the coming July. We are here, and I now insist that it is our duty to go forward and discharge all our duties, without exception, under the National Constitution.

Mr. Fessenden replied, referring to the proceedings at the
called session of the Twenty-Seventh Congress on resolutions of
Mr. Clay to limit business. Mr. Sumner rejoined:--

I hope the Senate will pardon me, if I add one word to what I have already said. The Senator from Maine introduces as a precedent something which he will pardon me if I say is not a precedent. He calls our attention to a session of Congress convened by virtue of a summons of the President, being a called session. Why, Sir, this is no called session. This is simply a continuing session, begun on the 4th day of March. It is not a new session. It is a session already begun, prolonged by adjournment into the midst of July. Were it such a session as the Senator from Maine seems to imagine, his precedent might be applicable. We might then search the message of the President to find the subjects proper for consideration. It is, however, no such session. We are here broadly, under all our powers as a Congress, our life as a Congress having begun here on the 4th day of March at noon. Therefore, allow me to say, the precedent is inapplicable.

The practical question, then, is, What shall we do, being a Congress assembled as any other Congress, with all powers and all duties? I submit, proceed with the public business in due order, until such time as by the reports of committees or by votes of the two bodies we shall be satisfied that it is not advisable to proceed further. I think, therefore, petitions should be presented and referred, bills introduced and take their proper destinations, and business of all kinds be brought before the Senate.

At the suggestion of Senators, the petitions were laid on the
table to await formal action on the question.

* * * * *

July 5th, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, moved the following
resolution, which had been agreed upon in a caucus of
Republican Senators:--

“_Resolved_, That the legislative business of this session
be confined to removing the obstructions which have been or
are likely to be placed in the way of the fair execution of
the Acts of Reconstruction heretofore adopted by Congress,
and to giving to said Acts the scope intended by Congress
when the same were passed; and that further legislation, at
this session, on the subject of Reconstruction, or on other
subjects, is not expedient.”

Mr. Sumner at once appealed to Mr. Anthony:--

Before a resolution of such importance, so open to criticism, so doubtful in point of order, so plainly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, is brought under consideration, I do think that the Senator who brings it forward should enlighten us in regard to its object, and the reasons in justification of so extraordinary a proposition.

Mr. Anthony made a brief statement, in which he said that
he “supposed the reason for this proposition was so evident
to every Senator who has conversed with the members of the
body, that it would require no explanation whatever”; that
“the public sentiment of the country demanded that there
should be some legislation in order to make the Reconstruction
Acts precisely what we intended them to be, and not as they
have been construed.” Mr. Sumner then moved the following
substitute:--

“That the Senate will proceed, under its rules, to the
despatch of the public business requiring attention, and
to this end all petitions and bills will be referred for
consideration to the appropriate committees, without
undertaking in advance to limit the action of Congress to
any special subject, and to deny a hearing on all other
subjects.”

He then remarked:--

I object to the proposition of my friend from Rhode Island, which I cannot but think he has introduced hastily and without sufficient consideration, or at any rate under influences which I think his own better judgment should have rejected. I am against it on several grounds. If I said it was contrary to precedent, I should not err; for the attempt made the other day to show that there was precedent for such a proceeding, it seems to me, signally failed. Attention was then called to a resolution adopted at a session of Congress convened by the President of the United States for a declared purpose, announced at the time in advance. I think the course taken by Congress was regarded as questionable, even under the peculiar circumstances. But the two cases are different. The present session is not like that. It is a continuing session of a Congress begun on the 4th day of March last, being simply a prolongation of that session; and the practical question is, whether you will limit the business of Congress in a general session called under a statute of the United States. Clearly there is no precedent for any such proceeding. You plunge into darkness without a guide.

But I go further, and I say, that, even if there were a precedent, I would reject it; for I much prefer to follow the National Constitution. I do not say that the text of the Constitution positively forbids the proposition, but I cannot doubt that the spirit of the Constitution is against it. How often, in other times, have we all throbbed with indignation at the resolution in the other House, also in this Chamber, to stifle discussion on a great question! You do not forget the odious rule by the name of the “Gag,” attached to which was the name of its author, beginning with the letter A.[229] I hope there will be no other gag of a larger character to be classified with the letter A. That was justly offensive, because it violated the right of petition; but you propose not only to interfere with the right of petition, but also with all possible measures concerning the public welfare, except as they may relate to one single business, and that in its narrowest relations.

I object to such a proposition as in its spirit unconstitutional. I appeal to my associates to reject it, that it may not pass into history as a precedent of evil example to be employed against Freedom. You may see, Sir, how obstructive it is, if you will glance at certain matters within my own knowledge, which, I submit, it is our duty to consider, and my duty as a Senator to press upon your attention. No relations with political associates can absolve me from official responsibility.

Every Senator, doubtless, has within his own knowledge business which in his judgment deserves attention, and other business which he does not doubt must be acted on. There are Senators on the other side of the Chamber who will plead the cause of the frontiers menaced by the Indians. I have heard something of that peril from chance travellers during these few weeks past; and yet, by the proposition of my friend from Rhode Island, we are to abandon the frontiers, and I know no other reason than that the weather is too hot. It may be hot in this Chamber; but it is hotter there. The reports from the frontier show that danger has begun. The sound of the war-whoop has broken even into this Capitol. The corpses of fellow-countrymen lie unburied on the roadside, and their memories haunt us. And yet we fold our hands, and decline to supply the needed protection.

Mr. Sumner then alluded to the necessity of legislation to
carry out a recent treaty with Venezuela, and also the treaty
with Russia.