Chapter V: Appendix: (A). Page 121 (1)

LETTER OF MR. SEWARD TO MR. SUMNER.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, June 21, 1862.

SIR,--I duly received your letter of the 3d instant,
accompanied by a copy of the resolution of the Senate of the
2d instant, referring to the consideration of the Committee
on Foreign Relations of that part of the President’s Annual
Message to Congress, of December last, which adverts to the
difference between the amount stipulated to be paid by China in
satisfaction of claims of United States citizens and the gross
amount of the awards of the Commissioners appointed pursuant to
the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1859.

In compliance with your request for information and suggestion
upon the subject, I have the honor to communicate a copy of
the Convention, a copy of the Act to carry it into effect, a
copy of all the correspondence on record or on file in the
Department touching the matter, and all the original papers
relating to the proceedings of the Commissioners. It is
desirable that great care should be taken of these last, and
that they should be returned to the Department as soon as the
subject shall have been disposed of.

The circumstance of the complaints against the Chinese, which
it was the purpose of the convention to adjust, having arisen
in a peculiar region and among a singular people, probably
suggested the appointment of Commissioners resident on the
spot, who were familiar with the scene of their duties. It is
understood, therefore, that, upon the recommendation of Mr.
Reed, the Minister who concluded the convention, Mr. Charles
W. Bradley, who was United States Consul at Ning-po, and
Mr. Oliver E. Roberts, who had acted in a similar capacity
elsewhere in China, and both of whom had long resided in that
country, were appointed Commissioners. The business-like manner
in which they discharged their trust is manifest from the
records of the Commission.

With regard to the disposition of the surplus in question,
three methods suggest themselves.

1. The refunding of the whole amount to the Chinese.

2. Appropriating the whole or a part of it in payment of claims
supposed to have been unjustly rejected by the Commissioners,
and of others in which the amounts allowed may not have been
satisfactory to the claimants.

3. Retaining the whole surplus in the Treasury of the United
States, or causing it to be invested toward indemnifying
citizens who may hereafter be injured by the Chinese
authorities.

I will abstain from any remarks on the first head.

There is but one claim, that of Messrs. Nott & Co., disallowed
by the Commissioners,--in which case application has been made
for a part of the surplus referred to. The claimants allege
that their agents in China were too far from Macao, the place
where the Commissioners met, to allow them to appeal to the
Minister in season. The Committee will be enabled to judge of
the sufficiency of this reason for considering the claim in
that case an open one.

The award in the Caldera case is the only one complained of as
having been inadequate. As all the facts and arguments in the
case are embraced in the accompanying papers, the Committee can
form their own opinion upon this point.

The Minister who concluded the convention pursued a judicious
course in requiring from the Chinese a sum in gross adequate
to meet the sums claimed in the several cases. This, however,
can hardly be allowed to imply, that, even in his opinion, the
claimants in those cases ought to receive the amounts which
severally they might expect.

Congress made it the duty of the Commissioners, by an
investigation judicial in its character, to ascertain the
amounts justly due; and if the claimants should be dissatisfied
with the decisions of the Commissioners, an appeal to the
Minister was allowed, whose decision was expected to be final.

The expediency of sanctioning a review of decisions of the
Commissioners or arbiter may be deemed questionable. They
were all of high character, peculiarly qualified for the
trust conferred upon them. It is for Congress to consider the
conveniences and inconveniences of such a precedent, when the
Government, in all its branches, may be considered to have
already fulfilled its duty to the claimants, collectively and
individually.

The whole subject is one of a purely legislative character,
affecting a fund which, although it came into the Treasury in
a peculiar manner, seems to me to belong to the United States.
This Department has no authority to inquire whether there are
equities existing on the part of any of our citizens which
Congress ought to consult in directing the disposition of the
fund. If Congress should impose any inquiry of that nature
upon the Department, it would undertake the performance of
it cheerfully and with a purpose only to consult justice and
the public advantage. But the Department sees no ground for
recommending such a measure in the present case.

I have the honor to be, Sir, your very obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

HON. CHARLES SUMNER,
_Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate_.

(B). Page 454.

CLAIMS SINCE THE AWARD.

It remains to speak of claims which have been brought forward or renewed since the awards were made.

One of these is that of Matthew Rooney, master of the bark Caldera, which had been presented to the Commissioners, but was not considered by them, in the absence of proof of citizenship. In 1864 his representatives produced to Mr. Burlingame evidence on this head, and the latter directed that he should be paid in the same manner and proportion as other persons interested in the same class of claims had been paid by order of Mr. Ward, our Minister at Peking.[139]

Mr. Burlingame says, in his dispatch reporting the action which he had taken in this matter: “There is no other demand that can ever come up for payment out of this Indemnity Fund, which has not been examined and decided.”[140]

Other claims have, however, been brought to notice. Some of these are known as the Caldera claims; another is the Neva or Nott & Co.’s claim.

* * * * *

The Caldera was a Chilian bark. On the 5th October, 1854, she sailed from Hong-Kong for San Francisco. During the ensuing night she encountered a storm, by which she was so injured as to be obliged to seek an anchorage. This she found, on the 7th October, between islands lying off the Chinese coast. Here she was attacked and plundered by successive piratical bands. The captain escaped and made his way to Hong-Kong, when, upon his information, steps were taken to recover the property and punish the pirates. A small portion of the cargo was found, and summary justice was inflicted upon such of the pirates as were captured.

The master of the Caldera was an American. An American firm were shippers by her, and various American insurance offices had taken risks upon the hull of the vessel and the larger portion of her cargo. These all appealed to Mr. McLane, then the chief diplomatic officer of the United States in China, with a view to secure indemnity. Mr. McLane declined to take action, declaring that our treaty offered “no basis whatever on which to make a claim against the Chinese Government,”[141] and referred the subject to Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State. The latter responded, under date of October 5, 1855, “that the parties injured were entitled to indemnification from the Government of China, if not specially by treaty, at least by general principles of international right and obligation.”[142] The same matter forms the subject of a dispatch from Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, to Mr. Ward, dated May 5, 1859, in which, after declaring that “the decision of the case will rest with the Commissioners and yourself,” and detailing certain allegations made to him by the claimants, who appear to have been very active, he says: “If facts of such a nature be proved, the responsibility of the Chinese Government and its duty to make indemnity would seem to be fixed, according to the treaty, as well as according to the Law of Nations.”[143]

The matter was brought before the Commissioners in 1859, and a patient hearing seems to have been given by them, the result of which was a disagreement between them. Both rendered elaborate opinions: one adjudging that no portion of the claims should be allowed; the other, an opposite view, and he proceeded to assess the damages sustained by the claimants. These he estimated at forty per cent. of their claim, holding that the vessel and her cargo had been injured by the storm to the extent of sixty per cent. of their value. The case then went before Mr. Ward, whose conclusion was expressed in the following words:--

“Under the instructions of Mr. Marcy, thus reaffirmed by Mr.
Cass, my duty may be discharged by ascertaining, as far as
possible, what have been ‘the actual losses of our citizens.’
Satisfied with the award of Mr. Roberts on this point, I have
approved the same, and ordered the amounts awarded by him to be
paid to the respective claimants.”[144]

The amounts so paid exceeded $54,000 in coin. This was received by the several claimants, and it does not appear that they protested against the awards. Some of them were, however, dissatisfied, and in 1863 addressed Mr. Burlingame, setting forth their views, and asking him to favor their purpose for a rehearing. Mr. Burlingame, as will be seen on reference to his dispatch of October 5, 1863,[145] entered on a thorough examination of their statements, and arrived at the conclusion that the awards ought not to be disturbed, using strong language in this sense.

* * * * *

The Neva was a British schooner. Messrs. Nott & Co. were American merchants, residing at Hong-Kong. On the 16th October, 1857, they shipped by the Neva, then bound for the port of Foo-chow, five packages containing twenty thousand Mexican dollars. The vessel sailed at 3 o’clock P.M. of the 17th, and the same evening, while at anchor a short distance beyond the limits of the port of Hong-Kong, five Chinese came alongside and requested passage to Foo-chow, which was granted. At 11 o’clock that night these Chinese and the Chinese members of the crew took possession of the vessel; and having murdered the master and some of the crew and secured the rest, they broke into the hold, seized four of the packages of silver and removed them to the shore. The efforts of Messrs. Nott & Co. to recover the treasure were unsuccessful; and finally, the firm having ceased to exist, the agent representing their interests placed the claim before the Commissioners, who rejected it. Correspondence with the State Department ensued, and in 1869 the representatives of the firm appeared before Congress, declaring that their agent was absent from the South of China, where the Commissioners held their sittings, at the time when the awards were made, and that they had then, innocently, been deprived of their right to appeal from them to the Minister. The Attorney-General was directed by Congress to examine their claim, and, if in his judgment it was valid, he was empowered to award its payment out of the Indemnity Fund. The Attorney-General decided in favor of the claimants, and directed payment of a certain sum in gold. Mr. Washburne, then Secretary of State, held that he was not authorized to make the payment in any other than current funds of the United States. From this ruling the claimants have lately appealed to the Court of Claims, which has decided that the award of the Attorney-General should be complied with. This will make a small deduction from the fund.

TAX ON BOOKS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JUNE 30, 1870.

A bill “to reduce internal taxes and for other purposes” being
under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved to add to the free list
of imports “books in foreign or dead languages, of which no
editions are printed in the United States.” In conclusion of a
running debate relative to the application of this amendment,
Mr. Sumner said:--

Senators seem to argue that this is applicable exclusively, or almost exclusively, to school-books; but we are all aware that outside of school-books there are works of literature, of instruction generally, of travels, of romance if you please, interesting in families, and which thousands who are familiar, for instance, with the German language, would be glad to have. For example, here is the large German population of our country,--is it not right that they should have the means of adding to those innocent recreations that are found in reading? We shall be doing a real service to them, if we enable them to import books that they lack, cheap,--not merely school-books, but I mean the large class of books outside of school-books. I see no possible objection to this provision, while I see much in its favor.

I have alluded to the large German population. There is also a very considerable Italian population. Some one told me the other day, who professed to know, that there are three hundred thousand Italians in our country. That seemed to me very large; but it was an estimate made by an Italian. Now should not those Italians be enabled under our tariff law to import books from their own country, of literature or of science, without paying a tax? It seems to me that we owe that gratification to them, when they come here to join their fortunes to ours. And so you may go through the whole list of European nations. Take Spaniards; take Swedes; take Danes: I know not why their books should be taxed, when they come to them from across the sea. It seems to me that the tax is inhospitable; it is churlish; and of course it is a tax on knowledge.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. Sumner then moved to add,--“Also books with illustrations
relating to the sciences and the arts,”--saying:--

On that I wish to read a remark of an intelligent person not belonging to the class that the Senator from Ohio characterized as rich men who import books, but one who imports books because he needs them. Remarking on the works of science and the arts, including books on architecture and the fine arts, which now pay very heavily at the custom-house, he says:--

“Books of this kind are too costly, and the sale of them is
too limited, for them to be reprinted. To add to their cost
by a heavy duty is an outrage, for it is depriving men of
small means of the tools whereby they live. It is a queer
kind of protection of home industry which seeks to keep out
of the country by taxation the knowledge which makes industry
valuable.”

Now I put it to Senators whether any injurious consequence can result from allowing these books to come in free. The duty that you receive from them is small; it is very little for you to give up; but in giving facilities to the importation of such books you contribute to knowledge. I am sure of it. I have no motive in making this motion, or this succession of motions, except my anxiety for the extension of knowledge in this Republic. I am for free schools; I am for free knowledge everywhere; and I wish to beat down all the obstructions possible, and one of these is the tax which we impose in our tariff. I hope there can be no question on that amendment.

The vote being taken by yeas and nays resulted, Yeas 14, Nays
26; so this amendment was likewise rejected.

NATURALIZATION LAWS: NO DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF COLOR.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JULY 2 AND 4, 1870.

July 2, 1870, the Senate having under consideration a bill “to
amend the Naturalization Laws and to punish crimes against
the same,” which had been reported from the Committee on
the Judiciary as a substitute for one from the House,--the
particular object of both bills being the prevention of the
election frauds perpetrated through the instrumentality of
unnaturalized or illegally naturalized aliens,--Mr. Sumner
moved to add, as a new section, a bill previously introduced
by himself, and reported favorably from the same Committee,
providing--

“That all Acts of Congress relating to naturalization be,
and the same are hereby, amended by striking out the word
‘white’ wherever it occurs, so that in naturalization there
shall be no distinction of race or color.”

The motion was strenuously resisted, as ill-timed and out of
place,--Mr. Edmunds, of the Judiciary Committee, remarking,
that, although he reported the bill in question, and believed
in it so far as he now understood, yet, under existing
circumstances, he should vote against it as an amendment to the
pending bill.

Mr. Sumner briefly responded:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The remark of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] renders it necessary for me to make a brief statement. Some time during the last Congress I had the honor of introducing a bill to strike the word “white” from our Naturalization Laws. I tried to have it put on its passage. I was resisted then by the Senator from Vermont, who moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. There it remained until near the expiration of that Congress, and was then reported adversely, too late for further action. During the third week of the present Congress, now more than a year ago, I introduced the same bill again. It remained in the room of the Judiciary Committee from March, 1869, until very recently, when it was reported favorably.

Such, Sir, have been my efforts to bring the Senate to a vote on this question. Never till this moment has it been in my power to have a vote on a question which I deem of vital importance. I have here on my table letters from different States,--from California, from Florida, from Virginia,--all showing a considerable number of colored persons--shall I say of African blood?--aliens under our laws, who cannot be naturalized on account of that word “white.”

Now, Sir, here is a practical grievance which needs a remedy. This is the first time that I have been able to obtain a vote upon it; and I should be unworthy of my seat here, if, because Senators rise and say they will vote it down on the ground that it is out of place, I should hesitate to persevere. Senators will vote as they please; I shall vote for it. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] properly says it is in place. Never was there a bill to which it was more germane. You are now revising the naturalization system, and I propose to strike out from that system a requirement disgraceful to this country and to this age. I propose to bring our system into harmony with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The word “white” cannot be found in either of these two great title-deeds of this Republic. How can you place it in your statutes?

The motion was lost,--Yeas 22, Nays 23.

Subsequently, on the same day, the pending bill was itself
defeated, the original bill being preferred,--and the latter
now coming up, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment, remarking,--

Now I have to say that that is worth all the rest of the bill put together. That is a section that is pure gold. It will do more for the character and honor and good name of this Republic than all the rest of the bill. I am for the rest of the bill, but this is better than all the rest. Now I ask for the yeas and nays.

After further debate the amendment prevailed,--Yeas 27, Nays
22; whereupon Mr. Williams, of Oregon, moved the following
addition:--

“_Provided_, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to
authorize the naturalization of persons born in the Chinese
Empire.”

July 4th, the debate on the House bill being resumed, Mr.
Conkling, of New York, criticized sharply the course of
Mr. Sumner in pressing his amendment, to the peril of the
bill,--denominating it “an act of self-will in defeating the
purpose of a great majority of this body to consummate a
simple, practical, and urgent measure.” Mr. Sumner replied as
follows:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from New York has chosen to make an assault on me to-day, because, in the discharge of my duties, I do not see my duty as he sees his duty,--because on this Fourth day of July I choose to stand by the Declaration of our fathers. For that I am impeached by the Senator from New York.

He presses me to postpone this proposition until to-morrow. When, Sir, will that to-morrow come? Can the Senator tell? Is he adept enough to indicate the day, or even the week, when a vote can be had on it? The Senator knows, he must know, that, if not voted on now, it will fail during the present session. The Senator shakes his head; but he knows too much of the business now before the Senate not to see that I am right. What chance is there of getting before the Senate the original bill containing this proposition? Why, Sir, the bill was introduced first on the 19th of July, 1867, now three years ago. I tried then to put it on its passage, deeming it so simple that there was no need of a reference to any committee. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] prevailed against me by insisting that it should be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It was referred, and there it slumbered until that Congress was about to close, thus sleeping the long sleep.

On the 22d of March, 1869, which was in the next Congress, I introduced the same bill again,--I have it before me,--and again it slumbered in the hands of the Judiciary Committee until a few weeks ago, when at last it was reported to the Senate. Then it took its place on the Calendar, with the numerous other bills there, important and unimportant, some very important, all in competition with it.

What chance have I had for a vote upon it? From the 19th of July, 1867, down to this hour, Saturday was the first day I was able to have a vote upon it; and now to-day Senators insist that I shall withdraw it, and postpone the whole question to some “to-morrow,” some indefinite, unknown to-morrow.

“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow Creeps in this petty
pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty
death.”

Sir, I am not one of those “fools.” I will not postpone this question to any “to-morrow.” The Senate will do as they please; but, God willing, they shall have an opportunity to vote on it. Vote as you please, Sir, but the time has come for a vote.

Mr. President, this is not the only bill on the Calendar which concerns the rights of colored persons. There are two on the Calendar, and one now before the Judiciary Committee. The first on the Calendar was reported by me from the Committee on the District of Columbia as long ago as February 8, 1870, and is entitled “A bill to repeal the charter of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia.” That society has been guilty of an act which I have no hesitation, on all the testimony before us, in declaring to be one of infamy, for which they deserve the promptest judgment of Congress, which shall take from them the power to inflict indignity on their fellow-man. Enjoying a charter from Congress which dedicates them and sets them apart to the cultivation of medical science, they have undertaken to exclude persons otherwise competent simply on account of color. They have set up a test of membership founded on color. The evidence is irrefutable; and yet I have been unable to bring the Senate to a vote on that bill; and meanwhile colored physicians in this District are subjected to the indignity of exclusion from the Society, and thus are shut out from opportunities of medical instruction.

There is another bill, which I reported from the Committee on the District of Columbia May 6, 1870, entitled “A bill to secure equal rights in the public schools of Washington and Georgetown.” That, also, I have tried in vain to press upon the Senate. There is, then, another bill, which I had the honor of introducing May 13, 1870, entitled “A bill supplementary to an Act entitled ‘An Act to protect all citizens of the United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means for their vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866.” This important bill was duly referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but I have heard nothing from it since. It slumbers on the table of the Committee.

Of all these measures which concern equal rights, the only one which I have been able to bring before the Senate is that under consideration; and I am now pressed to withdraw it so as to avoid a vote. Why, Sir, again and again in other years have I been pressed in the same way; again and again in other years have Senators spoken to me and of me as the Senator from New York was advised to speak to-day: but it has not been my habit to yield; nor have I been alone, Sir, in such determination. One of the most beautiful instances in parliamentary history, familiar, doubtless, to the Chamber, is that motion of Mr. Buxton in the House of Commons, in 1832, which determined Emancipation. The Ministry professed to be against Slavery; a large number of the House of Commons made the same profession; but they were against declaring it; and when Mr. Buxton gave notice of a motion in favor of immediate emancipation, Ministry, members of the House, and personal friends came to him entreating that he would not press his motion, especially that he would not divide the House. One of his family records in his Memoirs, which I have in my hands, says:--

“He was cruelly beset, and acutely alive to the pain of
refusing them, and, as they said, of embarrassing all their
measures, and giving their enemies a handle at this tottering
moment.”[146]

Then it is recorded of his friends in the House:--

“‘They hated,’ they said, ‘dividing against him when their
hearts were all for him; it was merely a nominal difference;
why should he split hairs? He was sure to be beaten; where was
the use of bringing them all into difficulty, and making them
vote against him?’ He told us that he thought he had a hundred
applications of this kind in the course of the evening; in
short, nearly every friend he had in the House came to him, and
by all considerations of reason and friendship besought him to
give way.”[147]

On that occasion he wrote to the leader of the House of Commons, Lord Althorp, under date of May 22, 1832, as follows:--

“Allow me, moreover, to remind you, that, however insignificant
in myself, I am the representative, on this question, of no
mean body in this country, who would be, to an extent of which
I believe you have no idea, disappointed and chagrined at the
suspension of the question.”[148]

Sir, in a humble way I may adopt this language. I, too, am the representative, on this question, of no mean body in this country, who I know would be disappointed and chagrined at the suspension of the question. The English Emancipationist refused to yield; he insisted, according to the language of Parliament, on dividing the House. He was left in a minority, but that vote determined Emancipation; and the Ministry and those personal friends who had advised against his course complimented him upon that firmness which had at last assured the victory.

I doubt if Senators are aware of the practical bearing of this proposition on the Atlantic seaboard, and even in California. I said on Saturday that I had letters from various parts of the country attesting that there are colored aliens shut out from equal rights by that word “white” in our Naturalization Laws. I did not then read the letters; but as this debate now promises to extend, I deem it my duty to lay some of them before the Senate.

Mr. Sumner here read four letters,--two from Florida, one from
California, and another from Virginia.[149]

Such, Sir, is the personal testimony with regard to the importance, I would say the necessity, of this measure. Here are Africans in our country shut out from rights which justly belong to them, simply because Congress continues the word “white” in the Naturalization Laws. These men are humble, but they are none the less worthy of protection. Ay, Sir, it is your duty to protect them. Even if few, you cannot afford to let them suffer wrong; but they are numerous,--in Florida counted by the hundred, and even the thousand.

Strong as this measure is, as an act of justice, whether to many or few, it has another title. Its highest importance is found in its conformity to the requirement of the Declaration of Independence. Sir, this is the Fourth of July, when our fathers together solemnly declared as follows:--

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed.”

The great, the mighty words of this clause are, that these self-evident, unalienable rights belong to “all men.” It is “all men,” and not a race or color, that are placed under protection of the Declaration; and such was the voice of our fathers on the fourth day of July, 1776. Sir, such was the baptismal vow of this nation. According to this vow, _all men_ are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. But the statutes of the land assert the contrary,--they declaring that only all _white_ men are created equal.

Now, Sir, what better thing can you do on this anniversary than to expunge from the statutes that unworthy limitation which dishonors and defiles the original Declaration? It is in your power to make the day more than ever sacred.

How can you hesitate? There are the words. Does any one question the text? Will any one move to amend the text? Will any one insist that hereafter, as these great words are read on our great anniversary, the word “white” shall be inserted to qualify this sublime Declaration? No one will venture such a suggestion. There they are; there they will remain as long as this Republic endures. But if you are not ready to change the original text, you must then change your statutes and bring them into harmony with the text. The word “white,” wherever it occurs as a limitation of rights, must disappear. Only in this way can you be consistent with the Declaration.

Senators undertake to disturb us in this judgment by reminding us of the possibility of large numbers swarming from China; but the answer to all this is very obvious and very simple. If the Chinese come here, they will come for citizenship or merely for labor. If they come for citizenship, then in this desire do they give a pledge of loyalty to our institutions; and where is the peril in such vows? They are peaceful and industrious; how can their citizenship be the occasion of solicitude?

We are told that they are Imperialists; but before they can be citizens they must renounce Imperialism. We are told that they are foreigners in heart; but before they can take part with us they must renounce their foreign character. Therefore do I say, if they come for citizenship, there is no peril,--while, if they come merely for labor, then is all this discussion and all this anxiety superfluous.

Why introduce the topic into debate? Is there a Senator on this floor who will say that from anything done or said by Chinese at this moment there is any reason to fear peril to this Republic? Sir, the greatest peril to this Republic is from disloyalty to its great ideas. Only in this way can peril come. Let us surrender ourselves freely and fearlessly to the principles originally declared. Such is the way of safety. How grand, how beautiful, how sublime is that road to travel! How mean, how dark, how muddy is that other road which has found counsellors to-day! Listening to the speech of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART], more than once, nay, thrice over, denying the Declaration of Independence, I was reminded of an incident in the Gospels. I have the book from the desk of the Secretary, and now read the pertinent passage: it is in Matthew, chapter twenty-six:--

“Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto
him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

“But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou
sayest.

“And when he was gone out into the porch another maid saw him,
and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with
Jesus of Nazareth.

“And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

“And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said
to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech
bewrayeth thee.

“Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the
man. And immediately the cock crew.

“And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said unto him,
Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went
out, and wept bitterly.”

Sir, thrice has a Senator on this floor denied these great principles of the Declaration of Independence. The time may come when he will weep bitterly.

On a subsequent motion by Mr. Conkling for the reconsideration
of the vote on Mr. Sumner’s amendment, in consequence of the
debate ensuing upon Mr. Williams’s proviso, Mr. Sumner said:--

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. WILLIAMS], who spoke with earnestness and with argumentative force this morning, before the motion to reconsider was made, has given us reasons why we should not admit the Chinese into the promised fellowship of the Declaration of Independence. I took down some of his precious words,--not many.

He says that my proposition gives to millions of heathens and pagans power to control our institutions. How and when have I made any such proposition? I wish the Senator were here, that I might ask him to explain this unjustifiable exaggeration. How and when? I make no proposition that I do not find in the institutions of my country. I simply ask you to stand by the Declaration of your fathers. I say nothing about millions of heathens and pagans. I do not ask to give them power or control. Full well do I know that there are no millions of heathens or pagans, and no other millions on this earth, that can control the institutions of this Republic. I know that we stand too firm to suffer from any such contact. Fearlessly we may go forward and welcome all comers, for there can be no harm here; the heathens and pagans do not exist whose coming can disturb our Republic. Worse than any heathen or pagan abroad are those in our midst who are false to our institutions. Millions of heathens and pagans! Whence are they to come? From China? But if they come for citizenship, then, as I said this morning, do they give the pledge of loyalty to the Republic; and how can you fear them, if they enter your courts and with oaths and witnesses ask to be incorporated with our citizenship?

MR. STEWART. Allow me to ask the Senator if he knows any way
in which they can give a pledge that they would understand as
binding on them?

MR. SUMNER. Precisely as an Englishman, a Scotchman, an Irishman, a Frenchman, a German, a Swede, a Dane, a Russian, or an African may give a pledge; precisely as the Senator may give a pledge. I have seen the Senator go up to that table and take the oath. The Senator is able. He knows that I know that; but does the Senator suppose that he surpasses in ability many of the Chinese who might come here? Does the Senator suppose that he feels more keenly the oath which he took at that desk than a Chinese might feel it? I am not speaking of those who may come over here in enforced labor: I join with the Senator in effort to stop that. But I am speaking of the intelligent Chinese, so well and satisfactorily described by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SCHURZ] this morning, who come voluntarily to join their fortunes with ours. Suppose they come, where is the peril? Sir, it is against common sense to imagine peril from such a source.

The Senator from Missouri has shown you how slowly they must come, according to the natural order of things,--how many decades of years it must take before there will be a million of them, while meantime our population is swelling by unknown millions, so that when we have a solitary million of Chinese we shall have one hundred millions of intelligent Americans treading this continent. And yet the Senator from Nevada is afraid. “What! a soldier, and afraid!” What! a Senator of the United States anxious about a million of Chinese twenty-five or thirty years from now absorbed in that mighty one hundred millions which will then compose our population! The Senator is not in earnest; he cannot be. He was certainly excited in speech, if I may judge from manner; but I really believe, that, in quiet thought reviewing this whole question, he will see that he has hastily taken counsel of fear rather than of reason. Let the Senator put trust in the Republic, and those ideas which are its strength and glory.

The Senator from Oregon wound up another passage by charging me and those who voted with me, particularly myself, with an intention, or with conduct calculated,--I quote now his own words,--“to put the destinies of this nation into the hands of Joss-worshippers.” Sir, that is a strong, pungent phrase; but is it true? Who here proposes any such thing? How can Joss-worshippers obtain control of the destinies of this nation? Will any Senator be good enough to tell me? By what hocus-pocus, by what necromancy, by what heathen magic will these Joss-worshippers obtain the great ascendency? Why, Sir, it is to disparage this Republic of ours, it is to belittle it, when you imagine any such thing. The peril exists only in imagination; it is an illusion, not a reality.

Then the Senator proceeded to denounce the Chinese as Imperialists and Pagans. Pagans perhaps,--though Senators who have ever looked into those books which have done so much for the Chinese mind will hesitate before they use harsh language in speaking of their belief. Has any Senator read the system of Confucius, uttered before that of the Saviour, and yet containing truths marvellously in harmony with those which fell from his lips? Throughout this great, populous empire the truths of Confucius have been ever regarded as we regard our Scriptures. They are the lesson for the young and the old, and the rule for government and for rulers; they are full of teachings of virtue. And yet the Chinese are called Pagans! Imperialists they may be while they remain in China, for their ruler is an Emperor. But what are Frenchmen? Are they not Imperialists? What are Russians? Are they not Imperialists? And yet will any Senator rise here and say that a Frenchman, that a Russian, shall not be admitted to naturalization? I take it not. Of course the Frenchman, the Russian, and the Chinese will begin by renouncing Imperialism. Therefore it is perfectly idle to say that he is an Imperialist.

The Senator then blazed forth with a fulmination: “Let the people of Massachusetts know that her Senator is willing that Chinese should come to Massachusetts.” Those were his words. Well, Sir, I think the people of Massachusetts know their Senator well enough to be assured that he is willing to have justice on this earth. Let the gates of Massachusetts be open always. God forbid that any system of exclusion should find place there, such as I have heard vindicated by the Senator from Oregon to-day! Be just to all men, and all will be safe. The people of Massachusetts are intelligent, generous, truthful; and they long to see the great ideas of the Republic established beyond change. They desire to see the Declaration of Independence no longer a promise, but a living letter. Therefore it is perfectly vain for the Senator to flash to Massachusetts that her Senator here is in favor of justice to the Chinese.

The Senator says again that I am inviting their competition. I make no invitation. That is not my office. What am I, Sir? I have no power, as I have no disposition, to speak any such invitation. My office is entirely different. I stand here on the ancient ways,--those ways that were laid down by the Fathers of the Republic, and where I wish forevermore to keep the Republic sure. I stand by the Declaration of Independence. Sir, these are no ideas of mine; I am speaking nothing from myself; I am only speaking from the history of my country, and from the great Declaration of the Fathers. That is all. I insist that at this day, at this stage of our history, the statutes of the land shall be brought into harmony with the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.

Now, Sir, I say that in those two great title-deeds of the Republic,--and that is the term by which I shall always designate them,--one interpreting the other, there is no single word which can sanction any exclusion on account of race or color.

Here allow me to mention an incident. You may remember, some of you, that during the Rebellion the question occurred, whether a colored officer of the Army was entitled to pay. The question came before President Lincoln, and, at my suggestion, was by him referred to the Attorney-General, at that time Mr. Bates, of Missouri. At the request of President Lincoln, I called on Mr. Bates, to confer with him on his opinion. I did not know then how strongly he inclined to what I will call the side of justice. So I began my conversation interrogatively, when he turned upon me, saying, “Will you allow me to ask you a question?” “Certainly,” said I. Said he, “Mr. Senator, is there anything in the Constitution of the United States to prevent a negro from being President?” The question took me by surprise, coming from the Attorney-General. I replied, promptly, “Of course, Mr. Attorney, there is nothing.” “Well, you are right; of course there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a negro from being President; how, then, can there be anything to prevent a negro from being an officer, and receiving his pay as such?” I replied at once to the Attorney-General, that I thought he needed no suggestion from me on that question. I left him; and you may remember the opinion which followed shortly after, in which he affirmed that colored officers were entitled to pay in the Army of the United States.[150]

Sir, there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent a negro from being President. On the contrary, that Constitution, interpreted as it must be by the Declaration of Independence, opens the way to all men without distinction of race or color. No, Sir, I am not the author of that doctrine. I had nothing to do with it. I find it, and now simply present it to the Senate. But, presenting it to the Senate, I insist that you shall see to it that the existing statutes are brought into conformity with the text of the Constitution, and with the Declaration of Independence: that is all. Strike out the word “white,” which nowhere appears in the Constitution, and which is positively prohibited by the Declaration of Independence. That is what you are to do. So doing, you will complete the work of harmony.

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. POMEROY], in that speech, this evening, which to my mind was in many respects exquisite with most beautiful thought and with unanswerable argument, has taught the Senate, what I have said again and again in debates in this Chamber and in other places, that nothing can be settled which is not right. And so this question will never be settled until it is settled according to the great principles of justice. Vainly you try, you cannot succeed. And now, Sir, I do entreat Senators,--I hope they will pardon me; I mean to say only what it belongs to a Senator to say,--I do entreat Senators not to lose this precious opportunity of completing the harmony of the statutes of the land with the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. Only in this way can you have peace. Let us have peace. Sir, I tell you how you may have it. Adopt the amendment which I have proposed, strike out the word “white,” and the harmony will begin. The country will straightway accept the result. But reject that amendment, and you open at once the floodgates of controversy. From this time the debate will proceed, and what is said here will find its echoes and reverberations throughout the whole land and be returned to us from the Pacific coast, never to die out until the good cause prevails and all the promises of the Fathers are fulfilled.

Why, Sir, the words of the Declaration of Independence were not uttered in vain. Do you suppose them idle? Do you suppose them mere phrase or generality? No such thing. They are living words, by which this country is solemnly bound, and from which it can never escape until they are all fulfilled. Your statutes cannot contain any limitation which inflicts an indignity upon any portion of the human family.

Therefore do I entreat you, Senators, do not lose this precious opportunity. It comes to you now unexpectedly, perhaps; but what is there in life more golden than opportunity, whether to country, to community, or to individuals? It is what each of us covets, as he treads along the highway of the world. It is what we covet for our country. Here, Sir, you have golden opportunity. Use it. Use it wisely; use it bravely; use it so that you will secure peace, harmony, and reconciliation. Beautiful words! All these are within your power, if you now let it be known that you will stand by the Declaration to the end. You cannot suffer, there can be no peril, no harm from any such dedication,--nothing but gain. All our institutions will be assured in proportion as you respect these great principles. Reconstruction will have new strength, when you show this homage to human nature.

And yet in the face of all this we are now asked to retreat,--to retrace the steps already taken,--to reconsider the vote that has been adopted,--and to confirm in the statutes those words which are there without any sanction in the Constitution, and in defiance of the Declaration of Independence. Sir, I will not believe that the Senate will do any such thing until the vote is recorded. But whatever may be the result, I give notice that I shall not cease my effort,--I shall continue it to the end. I am a soldier for the war; and until I see this great Declaration a living letter, I shall never intermit my endeavors. I shall go forward, and on every possible occasion I shall press the Senate to another vote. But I trust the Senate will not reconsider what they have done, but that they will settle this great question so that it shall never again disturb our debates.

Something I might say here on the “practical.” Some Senator to-day has said something about being practical, taking to himself great credit on this account. Of course I who make this effort am not practical! I simply strive to bring the statutes into harmony with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; but that is not practical! Our fathers were not practical, when they put forth the great Declaration! Our fathers were not practical, when they established the Constitution without the word “white”! Of course I am not practical, because I humbly strive to imitate the Fathers! Now, Sir, which is the more practical,--to allow this word to remain, breeding debate, controversy, strife, or at once to strike it out and complete our great work of Reconstruction? This is something to do. Tell me not that it is not practical. Is there anything in the bill that is equally practical? There are provisions, as I said this morning, for the safeguard of naturalization, which I value much; but how small in value, compared with the establishment of that great principle which fixes forevermore the fundamental idea of the Republic! Is not that practical? Why, Sir, the two cannot be compared. Both are important; but the first belongs to the class of policies or expedients, and not of principles. Adopt it, and you will help the machinery of naturalization, which I desire to do. But strike out the word “white” from your statutes, and you will do an act of justice whose influence will be immeasurable. The Republic will be exalted, and all our institutions will have new strength and security.

The motion for reconsideration prevailed,--Yeas 27, Nays 13.

The question now recurring on the adoption of the amendment,
Mr. Sumner rose to speak again,--whereupon a debate sprang up
as to his right to do so under the rules, finally terminated
by the withdrawal of an appeal which had been taken from a
decision of the President _pro tempore_ affirming such right,
when he was allowed to proceed. Beginning with some remarks
upon this episode, Mr. Sumner said:--

The appeal is withdrawn; but I believe I have the floor on the question. We have pending before us the Tax Bill, and during a day perhaps a dozen or twenty propositions are moved on that bill. According to the suggestion of the Senator from New York [Mr. CONKLING], one who had spoken on two of those propositions would be debarred from speaking on any of the others during that day. As a Senator suggests to me, if a Senator had spoken about salt or tea, then he could not speak on sugar, or the income question, or anything else. I believe the rule of the Senate will not compel us to any such absurdity.

I do not like to take up the time of the Senate; and I should not speak now, except for my desire to bring home to the Senate once more the gravity of the question, and to introduce a new authority, which I had on my table, but which I forgot to use, when I was up before,--I mean the late Abraham Lincoln. He, too, had a great controversy in Illinois with a distinguished representative of the Democratic party (Mr. DOUGLAS) on the Declaration of Independence. Let Mr. Douglas state his position in his own words. He said:--

“I believe that this Government of ours was founded on the
white basis. I believe that it was established by white men, by
men of European birth, or descended of European races, for the
benefit of white men and their posterity in all time to come.
I do not believe that it was the design or intention of the
signers of the Declaration of Independence or the framers of
the Constitution to include negroes, Indians, or other inferior
races, with white men, as citizens.”[151]

Then, again, in another place, Mr. Douglas said:--

“The Declaration of Independence only included the white people
of the United States.”[152]

How like what we have heard in this Chamber on Saturday and to-day! Senators have been unconsciously repeating these exploded arguments of the late Mr. Douglas.

How did Abraham Lincoln answer? In a speech at Springfield, while admitting that negroes are “not our equals in color,” this eminent citizen, afterward President, thus spoke for the comprehensive humanity of the Declaration:--