Part 14

"_And be it further Resolved_, That the welcome thus afforded to Louis Kossuth be extended to his associates who have landed on our shores; but while welcoming these Hungarian patriots to an asylum in our country, and to the protection which our laws do and always will afford to them, it is due to candor to declare that it is not the purpose of Congress to depart from the settled policy of this Government, which forbids all interference with the domestic concerns of other nations."

The final question was not reached till December 12th, when the amendment of Mr. Berrien was rejected: yeas 15, nays 26. The question then recurred on the resolution of Mr. Seward, which was adopted: yeas 33, nays 6. The resolution passed the House of Representatives, and was signed by the President.

On the 10th of December Mr. Sumner spoke. It was his first speech in the Senate. He rose to speak late in the afternoon of the day before, but gave way to an adjournment, which was moved by Mr. Rusk, of Texas. The next day, on motion of Mr. Seward, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution, when Mr. Sumner took the floor.

The following characteristic letter from Mr. Choate, one of his predecessors as Senator from Massachusetts, illustrates the reception of the speech in the country, besides being a souvenir of friendly relations amidst political differences.

"BOSTON, December 29, 1851.

"MY DEAR MR. SUMNER,--

"I thank you for the copy of your beautiful speech, and for the making of it. All men say it was a successful one, parliamentarily expressing it; and I am sure it is sound and safe, steering skilfully between _cold-shoulderism_ and _inhospitality_, on the one side, and the splendid folly and wickedness of coöperation, on the other. Cover the Magyar with flowers, lave him with perfumes, serenade him with eloquence, and let him go home _alone_,--if he will not live here. Such is all that is permitted to wise states, aspiring to the 'True Grandeur.'

"I wish to Heaven you would write me _de rebus Congressus_. How does the Senate strike you? The best place this day on earth for reasoned and thoughtful, yet stimulant public speech. Think of that.

"Most truly yours--_in the Union_,--

"RUFUS CHOATE."

MR. PRESIDENT,--Words are sometimes things; and I cannot disguise from myself that the resolution in honor of Louis Kossuth now pending before the Senate, when finally passed, will be an act of no small significance in the history of our country. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] was right, when he said that it was no unmeaning compliment. Beyond its immediate welcome to an illustrious stranger, it will help to combine and direct the sentiments of our own people everywhere; it will inspire all in other lands who are engaged in the contest for freedom; it will challenge the disturbed attention of despots; and will become a precedent, whose importance will grow, in the thick-coming events of the future, with the growing might of the Republic. Therefore it becomes us to consider well what we do, and to understand the grounds of our conduct.

I am prepared to vote for it without amendment or condition of any kind, and on reasons which seem to me at once obvious and conclusive. In assigning these I shall be brief; and let me say, that, novice as I am in this hall, and, indeed, in all legislative halls, nothing but my strong interest in the question as now presented, and a hope to say something directly upon it, could prompt me thus early to mingle in these debates.

The case seems to require a statement, rather than an argument. As I understand, the last Congress requested the President to authorize the employment of a national vessel to receive and convey Louis Kossuth to the United States. That honorable service was performed, under the express direction of the President, and in pursuance of the vote of Congress, by one of the best appointed ships of our navy,--the steam-frigate Mississippi. Far away from our country, in foreign waters, on the current of the Bosphorus, the Hungarian chief, passing from his Turkish exile, first pressed the deck of this gallant vessel, first came under the protection of our national flag, and for the first time in his life rested beneath the ensign of an unquestioned Republic. From that moment he became our guest. The Republic--which thus far he had seen only in delighted dream or vision--was now his host; and though this relation was interrupted for a few weeks by his wise and brilliant visit to England, yet its duties and its pleasures, as I confidently submit, are not yet ended. The liberated exile is now at our gates. Sir, we cannot do things by halves; and the hospitality, which, under the auspices of Congress, was thus begun, must, under the auspices of Congress, be continued. The hearts of the people are already open to receive him; Congress cannot turn its back upon him.

I would join in this welcome, not merely because it is essential to complete and crown the work of the last Congress, but because our guest deserves it. The distinction is great, I know; but it is not so great as his deserts. He deserves it as the early, constant, and incorruptible champion of the Liberal Cause in Hungary, who, while yet young, with unconscious power, girded himself for the contest, and by a series of masterly labors, with voice and pen, in parliamentary debate and in the discussions of the press, breathed into his country the breath of life. He deserves it by the great principles of true democracy which he caused to be recognized,--representation of the people without distinction of rank or birth, and _Equality before the law_.[72] He deserves it by the trials he has undergone, in prison and in exile. He deserves it by the precious truth he now so eloquently proclaims, of the Fraternity of Nations.

[72] This important phrase is thus early introduced.

As I regard his course, I am filled with reverence and awe. I see in him, more than in any other living man, the power which may be exerted by a single, earnest, honest soul in a noble cause. In himself he is more than a whole cabinet, more than a whole army. I watch him in Hungary, while, like Carnot in France, he "organizes victory"; I follow him in exile to distant Mahometan Turkey, and there find him, with only a scanty band, in weakness and confinement, still the dread of despots; I sympathize with him in his happy release; and now, as he comes more within the sphere of immediate observation, amazement fills us all in the contemplation of his career, while he proceeds from land to land, from city to city, and, with words of matchless power, seems at times the fiery sword of Freedom, and then the trumpet of resurrection to the Nations,--

"Tuba mirum spargens sonum."[73]

I know not how others are impressed; but I call to mind no incident in history, no event of peace or war,--certainly none of war,--more strongly calculated, better adapted, to touch and exalt the imagination and the heart than his recent visit to England. He landed on the southern coast, not far from where William of Normandy, nearly eight centuries ago, had landed,--not far from where, nineteen centuries ago, Julius Cæsar had landed also; but William on the field of Hastings, and Cæsar in his adventurous expedition, made no conquest comparable in grandeur to that achieved by the unarmed and unattended Hungarian. A multitudinous people, outnumbering far the armies of those earlier times, was subdued by his wisdom and eloquence; and this exile, proceeding from place to place, traversing the country, at last, in the very heart of the Kingdom, threw down the gauntlet of the Republic. Without equivocation, amidst the supporters of monarchy, in the shadow of a lofty throne, he proclaimed himself a republican, and proclaimed the republic as his cherished aspiration for Hungary. And yet, amidst the excitements of this unparalleled scene, with that discretion which I pray may ever attend him as a good angel,--the ancient poet aptly tells us that no Divinity is absent where Prudence is present,[74]--he forbore all suggestion of interference with the institutions of the country whose guest he was, recognizing that vital principle of self-government by which every state chooses for itself the institutions and rulers it prefers.

[73] Dies Iræ, st. 3.

[74] "Nullum numen abest, si sit Prudentia."--JUVENAL, _Sat._ X. 365.

Such a character, thus grandly historic,--a living Wallace, a living Tell, I had almost said a living Washington,--deserves our homage. Nor am I tempted to ask if there be any precedent for the resolution now under consideration. There is a time for all things; and the time has come for us to make a precedent in harmony with his unprecedented career. The occasion is fit; the hero is near; let us speak our welcome. It is true, that, unlike Lafayette, he has never directly served our country; but I cannot admit that on this account he is less worthy. Like Lafayette, he perilled life and all; like Lafayette, he did penance in an Austrian dungeon; like Lafayette, he served the cause of Freedom; and whosoever serves this cause, wheresoever he may be, in whatever land, is entitled, according to his works, to the gratitude of every true American bosom, of every true lover of mankind.

The resolution before us commends itself by simplicity and completeness. In this respect it seems preferable to that of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS]; nor is it obnoxious to objections urged against that of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. FOOTE]; and I do not see that it can give any just umbrage, in our diplomatic relations, even to the sensitive representative of the House of Austria. Though we have the high authority of the President, in his Message, for styling our guest "Governor,"--a title which seems to imply the _de facto_ independence of Hungary, when it is known that our Government declined to acknowledge it,--the resolution avoids this difficulty, and speaks of him without title of any kind,--simply as a private citizen. As such, it offers him welcome to the capital and to the country.

The Comity of Nations I respect. To the behests of the Law of Nations I profoundly bow. In our domestic affairs all acts are brought to the Constitution, as to a touchstone; so in our foreign affairs all acts are brought to the touchstone of the Law of Nations,--that supreme law, the world's collected will, which overarches the Grand Commonwealth of Christian States. What that forbids I forbear to do. But no text of this voluminous code, no commentary, no gloss, can be found, which forbids us to welcome any exile of Freedom.

Looking at this resolution in its various lights, as a carrying out of the act of the last Congress, as justly due to the exalted character of our guest, and as proper in form and consistent with the Law of Nations, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion in its favor. On its merits it would naturally be adopted. And here I might stop.

An appeal is made against the resolution on grounds which seem to me extraneous and irrelevant. There is an attempt to involve it with the critical question of intervention by our country in European affairs; and recent speeches in England and New York are adduced to show that such intervention is sought by our guest. It is sufficient to say, in reply to this suggestion, introduced by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] with a skill which all might envy, and adopted by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. MILLER], _that no such intervention is promised or implied by the resolution_. It does not appear on the face of the resolution; it is not in any way suggested by the resolution, directly or indirectly. It can be found only in the imagination, the anxieties, or the fears of Senators. It is a mere ghost, and not a reality. As such we may dismiss it. But I feel strongly on this point, and desire to go further. Here, again, I shall be brief; for the occasion allows me to give conclusions only, and not details.

While thus warmly, with my heart in my hand, joining in this tribute, I wish to be understood as in no respect encouraging any idea of belligerent intervention in European affairs. Such a system would have in it no element of just self-defence, and would open vials of perplexities and ills which I trust our country will never be called to affront. I inculcate no frigid isolation. God forbid that we should ever close our ears to the cry of distress, or cease to swell with indignation at the steps of tyranny! In the wisdom of Washington we find perpetual counsel. Like Washington, in his eloquent words to the Minister of the French Directory, I would offer sympathy and God-speed to all, in every land, who struggle for Human Rights; but, sternly as Washington on another occasion, against every pressure, against all popular appeals, against all solicitations, against all blandishments, I would uphold with steady hand the peaceful neutrality of the country. Could I now approach our mighty guest, I would say to him, with the respectful frankness of a friend: "Be content with the outgushing sympathy which you now inspire everywhere throughout this wide-spread land, and may it strengthen your soul! Trust in God, in the inspiration of your cause, and in the Great Future, pregnant with freedom for all mankind. But respect our ideas, as we respect yours. Do not seek to reverse our traditional, established policy of peace. _Do not, under the too plausible sophism of upholding non-intervention, provoke American intervention on distant European soil._ Leave us to tread where Washington points the way."

And yet, with these convictions, Mr. President, which I now most sincerely express, I trust the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] will pardon me when I say I cannot join in his proposed amendment,--and for this specific reason. To an act of courtesy and welcome it attaches a condition, which, however just as an independent proposition, is most ungracious in such connection. It is out of place, and everything out of place is to a certain extent offensive. If adopted, it would impair, if not destroy, the value of our act. A generous hospitality will not make terms or conditions with a guest; and such hospitality I trust Congress will tender to Louis Kossuth.

* * * * *

OUR COUNTRY ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM, WITHOUT BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION.

LETTER TO A PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE, DECEMBER 23, 1851.

When this letter was written, Kossuth was engaged in the effort to enlist our country in active measures for the liberation of Hungary.

WASHINGTON, December 23, 1851.

DEAR SIR,--It is not in my power to unite with the citizens of Philadelphia in their banquet to Governor Kossuth. But though not present in person, my heart will be with them in every word of honor to that illustrious man, in every assurance of sympathy for his great cause, and in every practical effort to place our country openly on the side of Freedom.

Among citizens all violence is forbidden by the Municipal Law, which is enforced by no private arm, but by the sheriff, in the name of the Government, and under the sanctions of the magistrate. So, among the Nations, all violence, and especially all belligerent intervention, should be forbidden by International Law; and I trust the day is not far distant when this prohibition will be maintained by the Federation of Christian States, with an _executive power_ too mighty for any contumacious resistance.

I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE COMMITTEE.

* * * * *

CLEMENCY TO POLITICAL OFFENDERS.

LETTER TO AN IRISH FESTIVAL AT WASHINGTON, JANUARY 22, 1852.

At the festival the following toast was given: "_Hon. Charles Sumner_: In the Cradle of Liberty the cause of the exile will ever find a friend."

The following letter was then read.

WASHINGTON, January 22, 1852.

GENTLEMEN,--It is not in my power to unite in your festal meeting this evening. But be assured I shall rejoice in every word of affection and honor for Ireland, and of sympathy with all her children, especially those patriots who have striven and suffered for the common good.

In answer to your express request, I beg leave to inclose a sentiment, which I trust may find a response at once from our own Government and from that of Great Britain.

I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JOHN T. TOWERS, Esq., Chairman, &c.

_Clemency_: A grace which it can never be otherwise than honorable to ask and honorable to grant.

"'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes The thronèd monarch better than his crown."

* * * * *

JUSTICE TO THE LAND STATES, AND POLICY OF ROADS.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE ON THE IOWA RAILROAD BILL, JANUARY 27, FEBRUARY 17, AND MARCH 16, 1852.

The Senate having under consideration the "bill granting the right of way, and making a grant of land to the State of Iowa, in aid of the construction of certain railroads in said State," Mr. Sumner entered into the debate, speaking several times. His remarks were much noticed at the time in the Senate, and also in the country, especially in the West. At home in Massachusetts political opponents seized the occasion for criticism, and resolutions on the subject were introduced into the Legislature of Massachusetts. He spoke first January 27, 1852, as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--This bill is important by itself, inasmuch as it promises to secure the building of a railroad, at large cost, for a long distance, through a country not thickly settled, in a remote corner of the land. It is more important still as a precedent for a series of similar appropriations in other States. In this discussion, then, we have before us, at the same time, the special interests of the State of Iowa, traversed by this projected road, and also the great question of the public lands.

I have no inclination to enter into these matters at length, even if I were able; but entertaining no doubt as to the requirements of policy and of justice in the present case, and in all like cases,--seeing my way clearly before me by lights that cannot deceive,--I hope in a few words to exhibit these requirements and to make this way manifest to others. I am especially moved to do so by the tone of remark often heard out of the Senate, and sometimes even here, begrudging these appropriations, and charging particular States for which they are made with undue absorption of the national property. It is sometimes said--not in this body, I know--that "the West is stealing the public lands"; and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], who expresses himself with frankness and moderation worthy of regard, in discussing this very measure, distinctly says that "we are squandering away the public lands"; and he complains that such appropriations are partial, "because very large amounts of land are distributed to those States in which they lie, while nothing is given to the old States." And the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD], taking up this strain, dwells at great length, and in every variety of expression, on the alleged partiality of the distribution.

Now I know full well that the States in which these lands lie need no defender like myself. But, as a Senator from one of the old States, I desire thus early to declare my dissent from these views, and the reasons for this dissent. Beyond a general concern that the public lands, of which the Union is now almoner, custodian, and proprietor, should be administered freely, generously, bountifully, in such wise as most to promote their settlement, and to build upon them towns, cities, and States, the nurseries of future empire,--beyond this concern, which leads me gladly to adopt the proposition in favor of actual settlers brought forward by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WALKER], I find clear and special reason for supporting the measure before the Senate in an undeniable rule of justice to the States in which the lands lie.

Let me speak, then, for _justice_ to the Land States. And in doing so I wish to present an important, and, as it seems to me, decisive consideration,--not adduced thus far in this debate, nor do I know that it has been argued in any former discussion,--_founded on the exemption from taxation enjoyed by the national lands in the several States, and the unquestionable value of this franchise_. The subject naturally presents itself under two heads: _first_, the origin and nature of this franchise; and, _secondly_, its extent and value, after deducting all reservations and grants to the several States.

* * * * *

I. In the _first_ place, as to the origin and nature of the immunity enjoyed by the national domain in the several States.

The United States are proprietors of large tracts within the municipal and legislative jurisdiction of States, not held directly by virtue of any original prerogative or eminent domain, by any right of conquest, occupancy, or discovery, but under acts of cession from the old States, in which the lands were situated, and from foreign countries, recognized and confirmed in the statutes by which the different States have been constituted. Words determining this relation are found in the Ordinance of 1787, as follows: "The Legislatures of those districts or new States shall never interfere with _the primary disposal of the soil_ by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the _bona fide_ purchasers." This provision is incorporated, as an article of compact, in subsequent statutes under which the new States took their place in the Union. It is "the primary disposal of the soil," without any incident of _sovereignty_, which is here secured.

Regarding the United States, then, as simple proprietors, under the jurisdiction of the States, would they not be liable, in the discretion of the States, to the burdens of other proprietors, unless specially exempted? This exemption is conceded. In the Ordinance of 1787 it is expressly declared that "no tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States"; and this provision, like that already mentioned, was embodied in succeeding Acts of Congress by which new States were constituted. The fact that it was formally conceded and has been thus embodied seems to denote that such concession was regarded as necessary to secure the desired immunity. Indeed, from familiar principles of our jurisprudence, recognized by the Supreme Court, it is reasonable to infer, that, without such express exemption, this whole extent of territory would be within the field of local taxation, liable, like the lands of other proprietors, to all customary burdens and incidents.

Thus, in an early case of Pennsylvania, it is decided that the purchase of land by the United States would not alone be sufficient to vest them with the jurisdiction, or to oust the jurisdiction of the State, without being accompanied or followed by the consent of the Legislature of the State.[75] And it is judicially declared by the late Mr. Justice Woodbury, in a well-considered case:--

"Where the United States own land situated within the limits of particular States, and over which they have no cession of jurisdiction, for objects either special or general, little doubt exists _that the rights and remedies in relation to it are usually such as apply to other land-owners within the State_."[76]

[75] See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania _v._ Young. 1 Kent's Com., 431.

[76] United States _v._ Ames, 1 Woodbury and Minot, 80.

After setting forth certain rights of the United States, the learned judge proceeds:--