Chapter X: Part 10

Reprisals were recognized by the Greeks, but disowned by the Romans. According to Bynkershoek, who is so much quoted on the Law of Nations, “there is no instance of such wickedness in the history of that magnanimous people; neither do their laws exhibit the least trace of it.”[239] This is strong language, and is in itself a condemnation of this whole agency. It is of the more weight, as the author is our austerest authority on questions of the Law of Nations, giving to the rights of war the strongest statement. According to him, reprisals are nothing less than “wickedness” (_improbitas_), and unworthy of a magnanimous people. During the Middle Ages, and afterwards, reprisals were in vogue; but they never found favor. They have been constantly reprobated. Even when formally sanctioned, they have been practically excluded by safeguards and conditions. In a treaty between Cromwell and the States-General there was a stipulation against reprisals, “unless the prince whose subject shall conceive himself to have been injured shall first lay his complaint before the sovereign whose subject is supposed to have committed the tortious act, and _unless that sovereign shall not cause justice to be rendered to him within three months after his application_.”[240] This stipulation was renewed under Charles the Second.[241] The same principle was declared by the Grand Pensionary, De Witt, who, in the name of the United Provinces, protested, “that reprisals cannot be granted, _except in case of an open denial of justice_,” and “that, even in case of a denial of justice, a sovereign cannot empower his subjects to make reprisals, _until he has repeatedly demanded justice for them_.”[242] A similar rule was also declared in the famous letter to the King of Prussia, in the case of the Silesian loan, written by Murray, afterward Lord Mansfield, and much praised by Montesquieu and by Vattel.[243] Here it is said: “The Law of Nations, founded upon justice, equity, convenience, and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long usage, does not allow of reprisals, except in case of violent injuries, directed or supported by the State, and justice absolutely denied, _in re minime dubia_, by all the tribunals, and afterwards by the prince.”[244] This is clear and strong. I might quote authorities without end to the same point. I content myself with adding the words of General Halleck, who, after saying, in his admirable manual, that “reprisals bring us to the awful confines of actual war,” proceeds to lay down the rule, that reprisals, even on property, can be only “where justice has been plainly denied or most unreasonably delayed.”[245] This rule commends itself as proper and just. It is your duty to apply it on the present occasion. But, in the face of the authorities in our own country, judges, jurists, publicists, and commentators, in long array, according to whom our own claim of allegiance is coincident with that of England,--and then, again, in face of the well-known and much-heralded disposition of foreign powers, including England, to settle this whole question by treaty, is it not absurd to say that here is a case for reprisals of any kind?

In the early days reprisals were directed against persons as well as property. Even against property it was done with hesitation, only in cases free from all doubt, and after ample appeal to the sovereign for justice. Against persons it was done very rarely. Grotius, our greatest master, who brought the rules of International Law to the touchstone of reason, asserts that all reprisals are vindicated by custom rather than by Nature. His language is, that this rule “is not indeed authorized by Nature, but generally received by custom.”[246] Since then the tendency has been to a constant mitigation of this pretension, even as regards property. Without burdening this discussion with cases, which are numerous, I give a summary of Wheaton in these words: “It appears to be the modern rule of international usage, that property of the enemy found within the territory of the belligerent state, or debts due to his subjects by the Government or individuals, at the commencement of hostilities, are not liable to be seized and confiscated as prize of war.”[247] This rule, which is applicable to the condition of things on the breaking out of war, attests the care with which the modern Law of Nations watches the rights of individuals, and how it avoids making them suffer. Thus even debts are not liable to seizure. How much more should an innocent person be exempt from any such outrage!

It is when we consider the modern rule with regard to persons, instead of property, that we are impressed still more by its benignity. Here I quote, first a British authority, and then an American. Mr. Phillimore, the author of the very elaborate and candid treatise on the Law of Nations, so full of various learning, after admitting that reprisals, “strictly speaking, affect the persons as well as the goods,” proceeds to say, that, “in modern times, however, they have been chiefly confined to goods”; and then adds, in words worthy of consideration now, that “it is to be hoped that the reprisal of persons has fallen, with other unnecessary and unchristian severities, into desuetude; _and certainly, to seize travellers, by way of reprisal, is a breach of the tacit faith pledged to them by the State, when they were allowed to enter her borders_.”[248] The same enlightened conclusion is expressed by Dana, in his excellent notes to Wheaton, as follows: “The right of making reprisals is not limited to property, but extends to persons; _still, the practice of modern times discountenances the arrest and detention of innocent persons strictly in the way of reprisal_.”[249] Thus do British and American publicists concur in homage to a common civilization.

If we look at the reason of the modern rule which spares persons, we shall find it in two different considerations, each of controlling authority: first, that an innocent person cannot be seized in a foreign country without a violation of the Public Faith; and, secondly, that no private individual can be justly held responsible for the act of his Government. On the first head Vattel speaks as follows: “The sovereign who declares war can no more detain the subjects of the enemy who are found in his states at the time of the declaration than he can their effects. _They have come into his dominions on the Public Faith._ In permitting them to enter his territories and continue there he tacitly promised them full liberty and full security for their return.”[250] In the same sense Halleck says, “Travellers and passing guests are in general excepted from such liability.”[251] Here again Grotius speaks with the authority of a Christian lawgiver, saying that by the Law of Nations there can be no reprisals “on travellers or sojourners.”[252] The other reason was assigned by Mr. Webster, in his correspondence with the British Government in relation to the “Caroline.” The British Government having acknowledged the act of McLeod in burning this vessel as their act, Mr. Webster at once declared, that, after this avowal, the individuals engaged in it could not be held personally responsible, and he added words worthy of memory at this juncture: “The President presumes that it can hardly be necessary to say that the American people, not distrustful of their ability to redress public wrongs by public means, _cannot desire the punishment of individuals, when the act complained of is declared to have been an act of the Government itself_.”[253] Weighty words, by which our country is forever bound. The same principle is adopted by Halleck, in his text-book, when he says, “No individual is justly chargeable with the guilt of a personal crime for the act of the community of which he is a member.”[254] All these authorities furnish us the same lesson, and warn against the present proposition. Shall we at the same time violate the Public Faith and wreak a dishonorable vengeance on an innocent traveller or sojourner, making him the scapegoat of his country? Shall we do this outrage to the stranger within our gates?

Another argument may be found in the extent to which reprisal on persons has been discarded by modern precedents. It is denounced, not only by authority, but also by practice. I have already said that the proposition to suspend commercial relations is without an example in history. The other proposition is without example since the hateful act of the first Napoleon, condemned afterward by himself, when, at the breaking of the short-lived Peace of Amiens, he seized innocent Englishmen who happened to be in France, and detained them as prisoners, precisely as is now proposed under the present bill. Among the numerous victims of this tyrannical decree was Lord Elgin, the father of the late Sir Frederick Bruce, on his return from Constantinople, where he had been ambassador. There was also an ingenious scholar, of feeble health, but exquisite attainments, Joseph Forsyth, author of one of the best books ever written on Italy.[255] He, too, was seized. In the preface to his admirable work his family have recorded the outrage. Read it, if you would know the judgment that awaits such a transaction. There is also another record in the pages of the English historian who has pictured the events of that time.

“This declaration of war was immediately followed by an act as
unnecessary as it was barbarous, and which contributed more,
perhaps, than any other circumstance to produce that strong
feeling of animosity against Napoleon which pervaded all
classes of the English during the remainder of the contest. Two
French vessels had been captured, under the English letters
of marque, in the Bay of Audierne, and the First Consul made
it a pretence for ordering the arrest of all the English then
travelling in France between the ages of eighteen and sixty
years. Under this savage decree, unprecedented in the annals
of modern warfare, above ten thousand innocent individuals,
who had repaired to France in pursuit of business, science, or
amusement, on the faith of the Law of Nations, which never
extended hostilities to persons in such circumstances, were at
once thrown into prison, from whence great numbers of them were
never liberated till the invasion of the Allies in 1814.”[256]

Napoleon himself, at a later day, when reason resumed its sway, condemned the act. In his conversations at St. Helena with Las Cases, he said: “The greater part of these English were wealthy or noble persons, who were travelling for their amusement. The more novel the act was, _the more flagrant its injustice_, the more it answered my purpose.”[257] Here, then, was an admission that the act was at once novel and unjust. The generals that surrounded him at the time most reluctantly enforced it. From the Memoirs of the Duchess D’Abrantès, we learn how poignantly her gallant husband, Junot, took it to heart and protested. He was unwilling to have anything to do with such an infamy. Recovering at last from the stupor caused by the order, the brave soldier said: “My General, you know not only my attachment to your person, but my absolute devotion to everything which concerns you. It is that devotion which induces me to hesitate at obeying your orders, before imploring you to take a few hours to reflect on the measure which you have now commanded.… Demand my blood; demand my life; I will surrender them without hesitation; but to ask a thing which must cover us with---- … I am sure, that, when you come to yourself, and are no longer fascinated by those around you, who compel you to violent measures, you will be of my opinion.”[258] Every word of this earnest expostulation may now be justly addressed to the Senate. You, too, Senators, should you unhappily yield to those who now insist upon violent measures, will regret the surrender. You will grieve that your country has been permitted through you to fall from the great example which it owes to mankind. Save your country; save yourselves.

Suppose the law is passed, and the authority conferred upon the President. Whom shall he seize? What innocent foreigner? What trustful traveller? What honored guest? It may be Mr. Dickens, or Mr. Trollope, or Rev. Newman Hall; or it may be some merchant here on business, guiltless of any wrong and under the constant safeguard of the Public Faith. Permit me to say, Sir, that, the moment you do this, you will cover the country with shame, of which the present bill will be the painful prelude. You will be guilty of a barbarism kindred to that of the Abyssinian king Theodorus. You will degrade the national name, and make it a byword of reproach. Sir, now is the time to arrest this dishonor. See to it by your votes that it is impossible forever.

Sir, it is hard to treat this pretension with composure. Argument, denunciation, and ridicule are insufficient. It must be trampled under foot, so as to become a hissing and a scorn. With all the granting of legislation, it is solemnly proposed that good men shall suffer for acts in which they had no part. Innocence is no excuse against the present pretension. The whole attempt is out of time; it is an anachronism, no better than the revival of the _Prügel-knabe_, who was kept at the German courts of former days to receive the stripes which the prince had merited for his misdeeds. Surely, if anybody is to suffer, let it be the offending Government, or those who represent it and share its responsibilities, instead of private persons, who in no way represent their Government, and may condemn it. Seize the ambassador or minister. You will then audaciously violate the Law of Nations. The absurdity of your act will be lost in its madness. In the seizure which is now proposed there will be absurdity to make the world shake with laughter, if for a moment it can cease to see the flagrant cruelty and meanness of your conduct.

A debate ensued, which ran into the next day, in the course of
which Mr. Conness, of California, insisted that the striking
out of the reprisals clause would impair the efficiency of
the bill, and make it nothing but “air.” At the close of the
debate, immediately before the vote on the amendment, Mr.
Sumner summed up his objection as follows:--

My objection to the text of the bill which it is proposed to strike out is, that it is a proposal of unutterable barbarism, which, if adopted, would disgrace this country.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted,--Yeas 30,
Nays 7; as follows:--

YEAS,--Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cattell, Chandler, Cole,
Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Fessenden, Harlan, Harris,
Henderson, Howe, Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont,
Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee,
Pomeroy, Rice, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey,
Williams, and Wilson,--30.

NAYS,--Messrs. Conness, Nye, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton,
and Whyte,--7.

For the section thus amended, Mr. Williams, of Oregon, moved a
substitute; whereupon the debate was resumed, and Mr. Sumner
spoke again.

The amendment of the Senator, and the remarks that he has made, it seems to me, go on a mistaken hypothesis. They accept the idea that there has been some failure on the part of our Government with reference to citizens abroad.

MR. WILSON [of Massachusetts]. Is not that true?

MR. SUMNER. I think it is not true; and if time would allow now, I could go into the evidence and show that it is not true. I have the documents here. But we are entering upon this question to-night with an understanding, almost a compact, that there shall be no debate. I do not wish to break that compact. But here are documents lying on my table containing all the facts of record with regard to every American citizen who has been taken into custody abroad. Examine that record, and you will see how strenuous and steadfast our Government has been.

Permit me to say that the argument of the Senator from Oregon [MR. WILLIAMS] proceeds on a misunderstanding of the facts. There is no occasion now for any such legislative prompting to the Government of the United States.

MR. WILLIAMS. I should like to ask the Senator a question.

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. WILLIAMS. Why is it, if everything has been so smooth and
so placid upon this subject, that both of the political parties
of this country have seen proper to put in their platforms
resolutions in reference to the rights of American citizens
abroad?

MR. SUMNER. I have not said that things were placid or smooth; but I have said that our Government has been strenuous and steadfast in the maintenance of the rights of American citizens, whether native-born or naturalized; and the record will show the truth of what I say. Where has there been a failure? Has it been in Germany? Read the correspondence, running now over several years, between the United States and the different powers of Germany, and see the fidelity with which the rights of our naturalized citizens have been maintained there.

I wish to be as brief as possible. If the Senator will take the trouble to read the documents on the table, he will see that among all the numerous applications made by the United States to the Government of Prussia, the leading power of Germany, there is hardly an instance where this power did not meet us kindly and generously. I speak according to the record. I have been over every one of these cases; and I must say, as I read them I felt a new gratification in the power of my country, which made itself felt for the protection of its citizens in those distant places, and also a new sense of the comity of nations. A letter went forth from one of our ministers, and though at that time this difficult question of expatriation was still unsettled, yet, out of regard to our country, or out of regard, it might be, sometimes, to the personal character of our minister, the claim was abandoned. You can hardly find an instance----

MR. CONNESS rose.

MR. SUMNER. Will the Senator let me finish my sentence?

MR. CONNESS. Certainly.

MR. SUMNER. You can hardly find an instance in that voluminous correspondence where the claim has been persisted in on the part of the Prussian Government. The abstract question was left unsettled; but the individual was left free, without claim of allegiance or military service. All this was anterior to the treaty, by which this whole question is happily settled forever.

But it is not my purpose to discuss the conduct of foreign Governments. My simple aim is to show the conduct of our own. That was the point with which I began. I said that it needed no quickening such as the Senator from Oregon proposes to apply. There is no evidence that our Government has not been persistent and earnest for the protection of its citizens abroad, whether native-born or naturalized, and I alluded to Prussia only by way of illustration. Pass that by. We have then the greater and more complex case of England. But I would rather not enter upon this. Here are the documents on my table, the passages all marked, which would illustrate the conduct of the British Government and the British tribunals toward every one of these persons whose names have been brought in question. I do not wish to go into this question. I should be misunderstood; and it is not necessary. I am speaking now of the conduct of our own Government, rather than of the conduct of any other Government. Mark, Sir, my reply to the Senator from Oregon was, that our Government did not need any additional power or any additional impulse to activity in this behalf. Already it has the power to do everything permitted by the Law of Nations, and it ought not to do anything else.

Mr. Conness followed in support of the bill, and to a
correction from Mr. Sumner retorted:--

“The honorable Senator would be very quick to demand
the interference of all the powers of this Government
in behalf of an arrested American citizen, if he were
black. But, Sir, those arrested happen to be of another
color,--not a color which appeals to his sympathies, but
a color that allows him to belittle their arrest and
incarceration,--that enables him to say here in the Senate
that our Government have done everything that they could
do, all that was necessary. It is true in his judgment,
I have no doubt; for, if you only write letters, if you
only publish and utter productions of the brain, if you
only present views, the honorable Senator is satisfied.
Those are his means, except when the progress through the
thoroughfares of the city or the country of an American
citizen of African descent is involved. Then views are at
once thrown to the dogs, and he demands the interference of
the Government, the police authority; if it be a railroad
company, repeal their acts of incorporation! No matter how
much capital stands in the way,--it may be $10,000,000 that
is affected,--repeal their acts at once! How dare they
impiously set up their tyranny over one human being who is
stamped with American citizenship?… The law as proposed to
be passed under the direction of the honorable Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations amounts to nothing.…
I hope, without detaining the Senate any longer, that we
shall not add to our too great delay upon these questions
the offence and insult that the passage of this Act would
be as proposed by the Committee.[259]

To this attack Mr. Sumner replied as follows:--

I hesitate very much to say another word; and yet I think the Senate will pardon me, if I make a brief reply to the charge, so absolutely unjust, of the Senator from California. He throws upon me the reproach of indifference to foreigners. Sir, I deny the imputation, and challenge comparison on this head with any Senator on this floor. Here I know that I am without blame. Sir, you do not forget that more than ten years ago there was a storm that passed over this country which had a name more familiar than polite: I mean Know-nothing-ism. It was everywhere, and enveloped my own State. At that time I had the honor of holding the position which I now hold. Did I yield to this storm, when it was carrying all before it? Sir, at that time I went down to Faneuil Hall, and in the presence of one of the largest audiences ever there assembled, and knowing well the prevailing sentiment, I made a speech vindicating the rights of emigrants to our country and promising them welcome. I have that speech here now, and I will read a few sentences from it. This was on the 2d of November, 1855,--nearly thirteen years ago. Pardon me for reading this record of other days; but I am justified by the attacks to which I have been exposed. If any foreign-born citizen is disposed to hearken to the Senator from California impeaching me, I ask him to bear in mind how I stood for his rights at another time, when there were fewer ready to stand for them than now. I read from this forgotten speech, as reported at that time.

Mr. Sumner read the first two paragraphs on the thirteenth page
of the pamphlet edition.[260]

Such was my argument for the rights of the foreign-born among us. To all of them I offered such welcome as I could:--

“There are our broad lands, stretching towards the setting
sun; let them come and take them. Ourselves children of the
Pilgrims of a former generation, let us not turn from the
Pilgrims of the present. Let the home founded by our emigrant
fathers continue open in its many mansions to the emigrants of
to-day.”[261]

Sir, those were the words which I uttered in Faneuil Hall at a time when the opposition to foreigners was scouring over the whole country. Others yielded to that tempest, but I did not yield. All my votes in this Chamber, from the first day that I entered it down to this moment, have been in the same direction, and for that welcome which I thus early announced. Never have I missed an occasion to vote for their protection; never shall I miss any such occasion. I was the first in the Senate to announce the essential incompatibility between the claim of perpetual allegiance and the license of unlimited emigration which we had witnessed, saying that every Irishman or German leaving with the consent of his Government was a living witness to the hollowness of the original pretension. And now I am most anxious to see expatriation a law as well as a fact. If I do not adopt the expedients proposed, it is because I regard them as less calculated to produce the much-desired result than other means equally at hand, to the end that the rights of our naturalized citizens may find adequate safeguard everywhere. The present bill can do little good, and may do harm. It will not protect a single citizen; but it may be a drag on those pending negotiations by which the rights of all will be secured. Too studious of the Law of Nations, perhaps, to be willing to treat it with distrust or neglect, I look to that prevailing agency rather than to the more limited instrumentality of Municipal Law. It is the province of Municipal Law to determine rights at home,--how a foreign-born person may be naturalized in our country,--how he may be admitted to all the transcendent privileges of American citizenship; but it belongs to another system of law to determine what shall be his privileges, should he return to the country which gave him birth. We may, by our declarations, by our diplomacy, by our power, do much; but it is by our treaties that we shall fix all these rights in adamant. The Senator seems to have no higher idea than to write them in the fleeting passions of party. My vote will never be wanting to elevate them above all such fitful condition, and to place them under the perpetual sanction of International Law,--the only law which can bind two different powers. Sir, the Senator from California shall not go before me; he shall not be more swift than I; he shall not take one single step in advance of me. Be the person Irish or German or African or Chinese, he shall have from me the same equal protection. Can the Senator say as much?

THE CHINESE EMBASSY, AND OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA.

SPEECH AT THE BANQUET BY THE CITY OF BOSTON TO THE CHINESE EMBASSY, AUGUST 21, 1868.

The year 1868 was memorable for the Chinese Embassy, with
Hon. Anson Burlingame at its head, which, arriving first at
Washington by the way of San Francisco, negotiated a treaty
with the United States, and then visited Europe. The abundant
hospitality with which it was received throughout the United
States was marked at Boston by a distinguished reception and
entertainment on the part of the municipal authorities. August
20th, the Embassy was received by Hon. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff,
Mayor, and escorted in public procession through the principal
streets, and with the customary diplomatic salutes, to the
Parker House, where they were lodged as the guests of the city.
The next day at noon they were publicly received at Faneuil
Hall, which was decorated for the occasion. In the evening
they were entertained at a banquet at the St. James Hotel,
where were present about two hundred and twenty-five gentlemen,
including the City Government.

The company is thus described in the official report:--

“Hon. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, Mayor, presided. On his right
were seated Hon. Anson Burlingame, Chief of the Embassy;
His Excellency Alexander H. Bullock, Governor of the
Commonwealth; Teh Lao-yeh, English Interpreter attached to
the Embassy; Hon. Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate; Hon.
Caleb Cushing; Major-General Irwin McDowell, U. S. A.;
Commodore John Rodgers, U. S. N.; Charles G. Nazro, Esq.,
President of the Board of Trade. On the left of the Mayor
were seated Chih Ta-jin, Associate Minister; Mr. McLeavy
Brown, Secretary to the Embassy; Sun Ta-jin, Associate
Minister; M. Émile Dechamps, Secretary to the Embassy; Fung
Lao-yeh, English Interpreter; Ralph Waldo Emerson, LL.D.;
Rev. George Putnam, D. D.; Mr. Edwin P. Whipple.

“Among the other distinguished guests present were: Dr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes; Hon. Nathaniel P. Banks, Hon.
George S. Boutwell, and Hon. Ginery Twichell, Members
of Congress; Rev. Thomas Hill, D. D., President of
Harvard College; Hon. George S. Hillard, United States
District Attorney; Hon. George O. Brastow, President of
the Senate; Hon. Harvey Jewell, Speaker of the House
of Representatives; Brevet Major-General H. W. Benham,
and Brevet Major-General J. G. Foster, U. S. Engineer
Corps; Major-General James H. Carleton, U. S. A.; Brevet
Brigadier-General Henry H. Prince, Paymaster U. S. A.;
Major-General James A. Cunningham, Adjutant-General;
Hon. Henry J. Gardner, Ex-Governor of the Commonwealth;
Hon. Josiah Quincy; Hon. Frederic W. Lincoln, Jr.; Dr.
Peter Parker, formerly Commissioner to China; Hon. Isaac
Livermore; Sr. Frederico Granados, Spanish Consul; Mr. G.
M. Finotti, Italian Consul; Mr. Joseph Iasigi, Turkish
Consul; Hon. Marshall P. Wilder, President of the Board
of Agriculture; Rev. N. G. Clark, D. D., Secretary of
the Board of Foreign Missions; and many of the leading
merchants and professional men of Boston.”

At the banquet speeches were made by the Mayor, Mr. Burlingame,
Governor Bullock, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Emerson, General
Banks, Mr. Nazro, and Mr. Whipple.

The Mayor announced as the fifth regular toast, “The
Supplementary Treaty with China,” and called upon Mr. Sumner to
respond. Mr. Burlingame had already said in his speech, while
declining any elaborate exposition of the Treaty: “No, Sir,--I
leave the exposition of that treaty to the distinguished
Senator on my right, who was its champion in the Senate, and
who procured for it a unanimous vote.”

Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. MAYOR,--I cannot speak on this interesting occasion without first declaring the happiness I enjoy at meeting my friend of many years in the exalted position he now holds. Besides this personal relation, he was also an honored associate in representing the good people of this community, and in advancing a great cause, which he championed with memorable eloquence and fidelity. Such are no common ties.

The splendid welcome now offered by the municipal authorities of Boston is only a natural expression of prevailing sentiments. Here his labors and triumphs began. In your early applause and approving voices he first tasted of that honor which is now his in such ample measure. He is one of us, who, going forth into a strange country, has come back with its highest trusts and dignities. Once the representative of a single Congressional district, he now represents the most populous nation of the globe. Once the representative of little more than a third part of Boston, he is now the representative of more than a third part of the human race. The population of the globe is estimated at twelve hundred millions; that of China at more than four hundred and sometimes even at five hundred millions.

If in this position there be much to excite wonder, there is still more for gratitude in the unparalleled opportunity it affords. What we all ask is opportunity. Here is opportunity on a surpassing scale,--employed, I am sure, to advance the best interests of the human family; and if these are advanced, no nation can suffer. Each is contained in all. With justice and generosity as the reciprocal rule,--and nothing else can be the aim of this great Embassy,--there can be no limits to the immeasurable consequences. Nor can I hesitate to say that concessions and privileges are of less consequence than that spirit of friendship and good neighborhood, embracing alike the distant and the near, which, once established, renders all else easy.

The necessary result of the present experiment in diplomacy will be to make the countries it visits better known to the Chinese, and also to make the Chinese better known to them. Each will know the other better, and better comprehend that condition of mutual dependence which is the law of humanity. In relations among nations, as in common life, this is of infinite value. Thus far, I fear the Chinese are poorly informed with regard to us. I am sure we are poorly informed with regard to them. We know them through the porcelain on our tables, with its lawless perspective, and the tea-chest, with its unintelligible hieroglyphics. There are two pictures of them in the literature of our language, which cannot fail to leave an impression. The first is in “Paradise Lost,” where Milton, always learned, even in his poetry, represents Satan descending in his flight

“on the barren plains
Of Sericana, where _Chineses_ drive
With sails and wind their cany wagons light.”[262]

The other is in that admirable “Discourse on the Study of the Law of Nature and Nations,” where Sir James Mackintosh, in words of singular felicity, points to “the tame, but ancient and immovable civilization of China.”[263] It is for us at last to enlarge these pictures, and to fill the canvas with life.

I do not know if it has occurred to our honored guest that he is not the first stranger who, after sojourning in this distant, unknown land, has come back loaded with its honors, and with messages to the Christian powers. He is not without a predecessor in his mission. There is another career as marvellous as his own. I refer to the Venetian Marco Polo, whose reports, once discredited as the fables of a traveller, are now recognized among the sources of history, and especially of geographical knowledge. Nobody can read them without feeling their verity. It was in the latter part of the far-away thirteenth century that this enterprising Venetian, with his father and uncle, all merchants, journeyed from Venice, by the way of Constantinople, Trebizond on the Black Sea, and Central Asia, until they reached first the land of Prester John, and then that golden country known as Cathay, where the lofty ruler, Kublaï Khan, treated them with gracious consideration, and employed young Polo as his ambassador. This was none other than China, and the lofty ruler, called the Grand Khan, was none other than the first of its Mongolian dynasty, having his imperial residence in the immense city of Kambalu, or Peking. After many years of illustrious service, the Venetian, with his companions, was dismissed with splendor and riches, charged with letters for European sovereigns, as our Bostonian is charged with similar letters now. There were letters for the Pope, the King of France, the King of Spain, and other Christian princes. It does not appear that England was expressly designated. Her name, so great now, was not at that time on the visiting list of the distant Emperor. Such are the contrasts in national life. Marco Polo reached Venice, on his return, in 1295, at the very time when Dante, in Florence, was meditating his divine poem, and Roger Bacon, in England, was astonishing the age with his knowledge. These were his two greatest contemporaries, constituting with himself the triumvirate of the century.

The return of the Venetian to his native city was attended by incidents which have not occurred among us. Bronzed by long residence under the sun of the East, wearing the dress of a Tartar, and speaking his native language with difficulty, it was some time before his friends could be persuaded of his identity. Happily there is no question on the identity of our returned fellow-citizen; and surely it cannot be said that he speaks his native language with difficulty. A dinner was spread at Venice as here at Boston, and now, after the lapse of nearly six hundred years, the Venetian dinner still lives in glowing description. Marco Polo, with his companions, appeared first in long robes of crimson satin reaching to the floor, which, when the guests had washed their hands, were changed for other robes of crimson damask, and then again, after the first course, for other robes of crimson velvet, and at the conclusion of the banquet, for the ordinary dress worn by the rest of the company. Meanwhile the other costly garments were distributed among the attendants at the table. In all your magnificence to-night, Mr. Mayor, I have seen no such largess. Then were brought forward the coarse threadbare garments in which they had travelled, when, on ripping the lining and patches with a knife, costly jewels, in sparkling showers, leaped forth before the eyes of the company, who for a time were motionless with wonder. Then at last, says the Italian chronicler, every doubt was banished, and all were satisfied that these were the valiant and honorable gentlemen of the house of Polo. I do not relate this history to suggest any such operation on the dress of our returned fellow-citizen. No such evidence is needed to assure us of his identity.

The success of Marco Polo is amply attested. From his habit of speaking of “millions” of people and “millions” of money, he was known as _Messer Millioni_, or the millionaire, being the earliest instance in history of a designation so common in our prosperous age. But better than “millions” was the knowledge he imparted, and the impulse he gave to that science which teaches the configuration of the globe and the place of nations on its face. His travels, dictated by him, were reproduced in various languages, and, after the invention of printing, the book was multiplied in more than fifty editions. Unquestionably it prepared the way for the two greatest geographical discoveries of modern times,--the Cape of Good Hope, by Vasco da Gama, and the New World, by Christopher Columbus. One of his admirers, a French _savant_, does not hesitate to say, that, “when, in the long series of ages, we seek the three men who, by the magnitude and influence of their discoveries, have most contributed to the progress of geography or the knowledge of the globe, the modest name of the Venetian traveller finds a place in the same line with those of Alexander the Great and Christopher Columbus.”[264] It is well known that the imagination of the Genoese navigator was fired by the revelations of the Venetian, and that, in his mind, the countries embraced by his transcendent discovery were none other than the famed Cathay, with its various dependencies. In his report to the Spanish sovereigns, Cuba was nothing else than Zipangu, or Japan, as described by the Venetian, and he thought himself near a Grand Khan,--meaning, as he says, a king of kings. Columbus was mistaken. He had not reached Cathay or the Grand Khan; but he had discovered a new world, destined in the history of civilization to be more than Cathay, and, in the lapse of time, to welcome the Ambassador of the Grand Khan.

The Venetian, returning home, journeyed out of the East, westward; our Marco Polo, returning home, journeyed out of the West, eastward. And yet they both came from the same region: their common starting-point was Peking. This change is typical of the surpassing revolution under whose influence the Orient will become the Occident. Journeying westward, the first welcome is from the nations of Europe; journeying eastward, the first welcome is from our Republic. It remains that this welcome should be extended, until, opening a pathway for the mightiest commerce of the world, it embraces within the sphere of American activity that ancient ancestral empire, where population, industry, and education, on an unprecedented scale, create resources and necessities on an unprecedented scale also. See to it, merchants of the United States, and you, merchants of Boston, that this opportunity is not lost.

And this brings me, Mr. Mayor, to the Treaty, which you invited me to discuss. But I will not now enter upon this topic. If you did not call me to order for speaking too long, I fear I should be called to order in another place for undertaking to speak of a treaty not yet proclaimed by the President. One remark I will make, and take the consequences. The Treaty does not propose much; but it is an excellent beginning, and, I trust, through the good offices of our fellow-citizen, the honored plenipotentiary, will unlock those great Chinese gates which have been bolted and barred for long centuries. The Embassy is more than the Treaty, because it prepares the way for further intercourse, and helps that new order of things which is among the promises of the Future.

Mr. Burlingame’s sudden death, at St. Petersburg, February 23,
1870, arrested the remarkable career he had begun, leaving
uncertain what he might have accomplished for China with
European powers, and also uncertain the possible influence he
might have exercised with the great nation he represented, in
opening its avenues of approach, and bringing it within the
sphere of Western civilization.

THE REBEL PARTY.

SPEECH AT THE FLAG-RAISING OF THE GRANT AND COLFAX CLUB, IN WARD SIX, BOSTON, ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1868.

I find a special motive for being here to-night in the circumstance that this is the ward where I was born and have always voted, and where I expect to vote at the coming election. Here I voted twice for Abraham Lincoln, and here I expect to vote for Grant and Colfax. According to familiar phrase, this is my ward. This, also, is my Congressional District. Though representing the Commonwealth in the Senate, I am not without a representative in the other House. Your Congressional representative is my representative. Therefore I confess a peculiar interest in this ward and this district.

In hanging out the national flag at the beginning of the campaign, you follow the usage of other times; but to my mind it is peculiarly appropriate at the present election. The national flag is the emblem of loyalty, and the very question on which you are to vote in the present election is whether loyalty or rebellion shall prevail. It is whether the national flag shall wave gloriously over a united people in the peaceful enjoyment of Equal Rights for All, or whether it shall be dishonored by traitors. This is the question. Under all forms of statement or all resolutions, it comes back to this. As during the war all of you voted for the national flag, while some carried it forward in the face of peril, so now all of you must vote for it, and be ready to carry it forward again, if need be, in the face of peril.

As loyalty is the distinctive characteristic of our party, so is disloyalty the distinctive characteristic of the opposition. I would not use too strong language, or go beyond the strictest warrant of facts; but I am obliged to say that we cannot recognize the opposition at this time as anything else but the Rebel Party in disguise, or the Rebel Party under the _alias_ of Democracy. The Rebels have taken the name of Democrats, and with this historic name hope to deceive people into their support. But, whatever name they adopt, they are the same Rebels who, after defeat on many bloody fields, at last surrendered to General Grant, and, by the blessing of God and the exertions of the good people, will surrender to him again.

I am unwilling to call such a party democratic. It is not so in any sense. It is not so according to the natural meaning of the term, for a Democrat is a friend of popular rights; nor is it so according to the examples of our history, for all these disown the policy of the opposition. Thomas Jefferson was an original Democrat; but he drew with his own hand the Declaration of Independence, which announces that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent of the governed. Andrew Jackson was another Democrat; but he put down South Carolina treason with a strong hand, and gave the famous toast, “The Union, it must be preserved.” These were Democrats, representative Democrats, boldly announcing the Equal Rights of All and the Unity of the Nation. Thus looking at the word, in its natural bearing or in the great examples of our history, we find it entirely inapplicable to a party which denies equal rights and palters with Rebellion itself. Such a party is the Rebel Party, and nothing else; and this is the name by which it should be known.

Look at the history of their leaders,--Rebels all, Rebels all. I mention those only who take an active part. A party, like a man, is known by the company it keeps. What a company! Here is Forrest, with the blood of Fort Pillow still dripping from his hands; Semmes, fresh from the Alabama, glorying in his piracies on our commerce; Wade Hampton, the South Carolina slave-master and cavalry officer of the Rebellion; Beauregard, the Rebel general, who telegraphed for the execution of Abolition prisoners; Stephens, Toombs, and Cobb, a Georgia triumvirate of Rebels; and at the head of this troop is none other than Horatio Seymour of New York, who, without actually enlisting in the Rebellion, dallied with it, and addressed its fiendish representatives in New York as “friends.” A party with such leaders and such a chief is the Rebel Party.

Such a party, so filled and permeated with treason, cannot utter any shibboleth of loyalty. Every loyal word must stick in its throat, as “Amen” stuck in the throat of Macbeth, after the murder of his royal guest. Therefore, I say again, let it be called the Rebel Party. This is a truthful designation, stamping upon the party its real character. By this name I now summon it to judgment. If I could make my voice heard over the Republic, it should carry everywhere this just summons. It should go forth from this schoolhouse, traversing the land, echoing from valley to valley, from village to village, from town to town, and warning all who love their country against a party which is nothing but a continuation of the Rebellion. How can such a party pretend to hang out the national flag? I do not wonder that its Presidential candidate has cried out in his distress, “Press the financial question!” Yes, press anything to make the country forget the disloyalty of the party,--anything to divert attention from the national flag, which they would dishonor. But on the financial question, as everywhere else, they are disloyal. Repudiation is disloyalty, early taught by Jefferson Davis in his own State, and now adopted by the Rebel Party, North and South.

Here I come back to the point with which I began. Hang out the national flag! It is the flag of our country, our whole country, beaming with all its inseparable stars, and proclaiming in all its folds the strength, the glory, and the beauty of Union. Let that flag be the light to your footsteps. _By this conquer!_ And surely you will conquer. The people are not ready to join with Rebels or submit to Rebel yoke. They will stand by the flag at the ballot-box, as they stood by it on the bloody field. History has recorded the triumphant election of Abraham Lincoln, as the representative of Loyalty against Rebellion. Thank God, it will soon make the same joyful record with regard to Grant and Colfax, the present representatives of Loyalty against Rebellion.

Every man must do his duty, each in his way, according to his ability,--some by voice, and others by efforts of a different kind, but all must work and vote. The cause is that of our country and its transcendent future, pictured in the flag. And permit me to remind you that our Congressional District has obligations it cannot forget. It must be true to itself and to its own example. At the last Presidential election there was a report, which travelled all the way to Washington, that ours was a doubtful district. On the evening of the election, as soon as the result was known, I had the happiness of telegraphing to the President that in this district the majority was some five thousand for himself and Mr. Hooper. It so happened that it was the first despatch received from any quarter announcing the triumph of that great day. On reading it, the President remarked, with his humorous point: “Five thousand majority! If this is a specimen of the doubtful districts, what may we expect of the whole country?” This victory must be repeated. There must be another five thousand majority; and let General Grant, like Abraham Lincoln, measure from our majority the majorities throughout the country, giving assurance that the Rebel Party is defeated and utterly routed in its last desperate struggle. This is Beacon Hill, the highest point of Boston, where in early days were lighted the beacon fires which flashed over the country. The fires which we light on Beacon Hill will be of congratulation and joy.

ENFRANCHISEMENT IN MISSOURI: WHY WAIT?

LETTER TO A CITIZEN OF ST. LOUIS, OCTOBER 3, 1868.

The following letter appeared in the _St. Louis Democrat_.

BOSTON, October 3, 1868.

DEAR SIR,--I am pained to learn that there can be any question
among good Republicans with regard to the enfranchisement of
the colored race, especially as declared in the Constitutional
Amendment now pending in Missouri. When shall this great question
be settled, if not now? Why wait? Why prolong the agony? There is
only one way in which it can be settled. Why not at once? All who
vote against it only vote to continue the agitation, which will
never end except with the establishment of the Equal Rights of
All.

Only in this way can the Declaration of Independence be
vindicated in its self-evident truths. As long as men are
excluded from the suffrage on account of color, it is gross
impudence for any nation to say that they are equal in rights. Of
course, men are not equal in strength, size, or other endowments,
physical or mental; but they are equal in rights, which is what
our fathers declared. They are equal before God, equal before the
divine law; they should be made equal before human law. Equality
before the Law is the true rule.

How can any possible evil result from a rule which is so natural
and just? There can be no conflict of races where there is no
denial of rights. It is only when rights are denied that conflict
begins. See to it that all are treated with justice, and there
will be that peace which is the aspiration of good men. For the
sake of peace I pray that this great opportunity be not lost.

I hear a strange cry about the supremacy of one race over
another. Of course I am against this with my whole heart and
soul. I was against it when it showed itself in the terrible
pretensions of the slave-master; and now I am against it, as it
shows itself in the most shameful oligarchy of which history
has made mention,--an oligarchy of the skin. Reason, humanity,
religion, and common sense, all reject the wretched thing. Even
if the whites are afraid that the blacks will become an oligarchy
and rule their former masters, this is no reason for a continued
denial of rights. But this inquietude on account of what is
nicknamed “negro supremacy” is as amusing as it is incredible.
It is one of the curiosities of history. Occupied as I am at
this moment, I should be tempted to put aside all other things
and journey to the Mississippi in order to look at a company of
whites who will openly avow their fear of “negro supremacy.” I
should like to see their pallid faces, and hear the confession
from their own trembling lips. Such a company of whites would be
a sight to behold. Falstaff’s sorry troops were nothing to them.

Such foolish fears and foolish arguments cannot prevail against
the great cause of Equal Rights. Spite of all obstacles and all
prejudices, this truth must triumph. Was it not declared by our
fathers? What they declared is a promise perpetually binding on
us, their children.

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

CHARLES SUMNER.

ISSUES AT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

SPEECH AT THE CITY HALL, CAMBRIDGE, OCTOBER 29, 1868.

At the Republican State Convention, held at Worcester,
September 9, 1868, of which Hon. George S. Boutwell was
President, the following was the last resolution of the
platform, which was unanimously adopted:--