Part 18

"These gentlemen have been unfortunate in attacking you. You have punished them in a most exemplary manner, without descending to their vulgar level. You have exposed their ignorance of our Revolutionary history, vindicated the character of your own State, and brought forward, to their utter confusion, their own General Jackson, to justify your remark that you would not voluntarily do anything to promote the execution of what you deemed an unconstitutional law. In a word, you have taught these orators how much more effective is a _caustic civility_ of reply than coarse, intemperate reviling."

Hon. S. E. Sewall, the constant Abolitionist, of Boston, wrote:--

"It is hardly necessary for me to tell you, what you probably see in the newspapers, that you have become one of the most popular men in Massachusetts. Even the Whigs are beginning to find out that you have maintained the character of the State far better than their own Senator.

"I suppose the idea of expelling you from the Senate, which was reported in the papers some weeks ago, could never have been seriously entertained. But the mere suggestion of such an outrage roused many men who had never been your political friends; for everybody felt that to attempt such an act would be an indignity to the State not to be tolerated.

"I find that I have left to the end of my letter, what I meant to have said in the beginning, that all your friends are delighted with your course in Congress under the very trying circumstances of the present session. We all agree that you have fought a good fight."

William I. Bowditch, Esq., of Boston, communicated the following incident:--

"One gentleman whom I saw this forenoon said that he involuntarily gave three cheers, when he had finished reading your speech; and an 'old Hunker' said to me smilingly, 'I really don't know but that I shall myself come out at last a Sumner man.'"

Dr. James W. Stone, an indefatigable member of the Free-Soil party, wrote:--

"But I should not only fail to express my own feelings, but also the universal satisfaction here evinced, did I long delay to tell you, even if I have time to do nothing more, how great the enthusiasm is in your behalf, for your noble reply to the unworthy assaults from Pettit, whose name is more significant of his mental than of his physical calibre, from Butler the faithless, and from Clay the slave-hunter, _et id omne genus_. I doubt whether even you can repress the enthusiasm which so earnestly demands a public reception for you on your return home."

Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, afterwards General, and Representative in Congress, wrote:--

"My interest in the subject of the speeches procured me the reports while they were being delivered. At that time I was at Concord, in court, seeing people of all parties; and I can assure you, from observation, that your course in the Senate is sanctioned by the approving sentiment of Massachusetts."

Robert Carter, Esq., the journalist and writer, wrote from Cambridge:--

"A month ago I thought your popularity had reached a wonderfully high pitch, that you had at a leap overcome prejudices and misconceptions that seemed likely to be surmounted only by the gradual toil of years. But the last week has wrought even greater wonders. Multitudes, formerly your enemies and revilers, are not merely willing to tolerate you, not merely willing to be satisfied with you, but have become actually proud of you, as their representative, and the champion of Massachusetts and the North. I hear on all sides nothing but commendations and exultations."

John C. Dodge, Esq., of Boston, wrote:--

"I rejoice that Massachusetts has found a defender who will, without fear or favor, tell the whole truth, when she is assailed. And I assure you that such is the voice of nearly our whole community. Whigs, Democrats, and Free-Soilers unite in the expression of approbation and pleasure."

Hon. Albert G. Browne, of Salem, wrote:--

"Let me say seriously, frankly, your reputation as a fearless, brave, and true man is firmly established,--confidence also in your discretion and good judgment, as shown in this last debate and in the management of this whole affair. There is a settled conviction that you know how to withstand the entreaties or coolness of friends, when your thoughts are not their thoughts,--that you have shown great moral and physical courage, united with admirable ability, in meeting and discomfiting the foes of Freedom, when, in your opinion, the right time had come."

Professor Edward T. Channing, of Harvard University, whose memory is dear to a large circle of pupils, wrote to a friend:--

"Sumner has done nobly. He is erect and a man of authority among the slave holders, dealers, and hunters. He has made an historical era for the North; for at least one among us has dared to confront the insolent. He makes cowards of them, or rather shows what cowards they are at the South. So will it ever be, when the Truth is bold; though it is rare for a young or old hero in politics to produce effect so rapidly. Still, and notwithstanding, and nevertheless, our Whigs would send Apollyon to the Senate as soon as Sumner, if his term should expire when they are uppermost."

T. C. Connolly, Esq., under date of August 21, reported from Washington the opinion of Mr. Gales, the very able editor of the _National Intelligencer_.

"I rejoice in the assurance universally felt here, that your position in the Senate will be far more pleasant in the future than it has been in the past. I enjoyed the pleasure of a conversation with Mr. Gales on this subject a few days since. He introduced your name, and remarked that the absence of sympathy in your views could not influence his fair judgment of your worth. He was an attentive reader of the debates of the Senate, and he had seen that every step you had taken was a step upward, and that they who had affected to contemn were at length driven into a tacit acknowledgment of their very great error. He spoke in particular of the reproofs you had found it necessary to administer to Senators around you, and said, that, while they were exceedingly severe and effective, they were equally just, and unaccompanied by a single word that could be regarded as incompatible with the place and presence in which you stood."

Men particularly interested in the Peace Cause united in the prevailing sentiment.

Of these, Hon. Amasa Walker, afterwards a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, wrote:--

"Your reply to the slaveholders is capital, and receives universal admiration in this quarter. It was just such a flagellation as the slavocrats deserved, and such a one as they never received before in the Senate. I think, from what I can observe, that your course is universally popular, always excepting the mercenary minions of the Government."

J. P. Blanchard, Esq., devoted to Peace, wrote:--

"I take this occasion to express my warm admiration of the spirit and power you have exhibited in your late contest with Messrs. Butler, Pettit, _et id genus omne_. I am rejoiced and grateful that your 'backbone' has proved strong enough to stand such a test without bending: that I have not given you this acknowledgment earlier is because, being very busy, I did not take time to write a letter for that purpose only, as I knew you were so well acquainted with my sympathies that the expression of them was unnecessary. I am glad to understand that you have received commendations on this score from sources where a short time ago you would not have expected them."

Elihu Burritt, the Missionary of Peace, wrote:--

"And now I want to thank you with my whole heart for your grand and brave rejoinder to Butler and Mason. It was the best, bravest thing done in the Senate this many a year. I think more hearts in the Free States will glory in your courageous and overwhelming reply to these plantation Senators than in any public effort of your life. You must have made it, too, on short notice. I never read anything with more satisfaction."

Other letters attest a change in sentiment among those who had been lukewarm on Slavery, and perhaps adverse to Mr. Sumner.

Hon. Daniel Shattuck, of Concord, wrote:--

"Being one of the old-time Whigs, I was not pleased with your election to the high seat which you hold: for that opinion you will forgive me, I am sure, when I say that I go with you now heart and soul, and approve all you have said in defence of your native State, whose sons I know approve your course and wish you God-speed.

George M. Browne, Esq., of Boston, wrote:--

"Differing with you as I do in political sentiments, and having no other connection with public affairs than what pertains to every citizen, I desire nevertheless to express to you, what I believe to be the general feeling among all classes of reflecting minds here, an admiration for the dignified and gentlemanly bearing with which you have gone through the contest and rebuked the ruffian onslaught,--and to say, moreover, that we should, I have no doubt, all unite, from all sides, as one man, in sending you back to the Senate, should the maniac threats of expulsion by any possibility be carried into effect."

The following poem, suggested by this debate, belongs to this history.

TO C. S.

I have seemed more prompt to censure wrong Than praise the right,--if seldom to thine ear My voice hath mingled with the exultant cheer Borne upon all our Northern winds along,-- If I have failed to join the fickle throng In wide-eyed wonder that thou standest strong In victory, surprised in thee to find Brougham's scathing power with Canning's grace combined,-- That he, for whom the ninefold Muses sang, From their twined arms a giant athlete sprang, Barbing the arrows of his native tongue With the spent shafts Latona's archer flung, To smite the Python of our land and time, Fell as the monster born of Crissa's slime, Like the blind bard who in Castalian springs Tempered the steel that clove the crest of kings, And on the shrine of England's freedom laid The gifts of Cumæ and of Delphi's shade,-- Small need hast thou of words of praise from me. Thou knowest my heart, dear friend, and well canst guess, That, even though silent, I have not the less Rejoiced to see thy actual life agree With the large future which I shaped for thee, When, years ago, beside the summer sea, White in the moon, we saw the long waves fall Baffled and broken from the rocky wall, That to the menace of the brawling flood Opposed alone its massive quietude, Calm as a fate, with not a leaf nor vine Nor birch-spray trembling in the still moonshine, Crowning it like God's peace. I sometimes think That night-scene by the sea prophetical, (For Nature speaks in symbols and in signs, And through her pictures human fate divines,)-- That rock, wherefrom we saw the billows sink In murmuring rout, uprising clear and tall In the white light of heaven, the type of one Who, momently by Error's host assailed, Stands strong as Truth, in greaves of granite mailed, And, tranquil-fronted, listening over all The tumult, hears the angels say, Well done!

J. G. W.

_11th month, 25th, 1854._

PEACEFUL OPPOSITION TO THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

LETTER TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON, FOR THE CELEBRATION JULY 4, 1854.

SENATE CHAMBER, 1st July, 1854.

Dear Sir,--I have been honored by the invitation of the municipal authorities of Boston to unite with them in commemorating the approaching anniversary of our National Independence.

Please tender to them my gratitude, that they have thus remembered me, an absent citizen, who tries to serve truth and justice in the sphere where he has been placed. Pleasure would take me home among congenial souls, but duty keeps me here.

The approaching anniversary of Independence in Boston should be something more than a show and expense. It ought to be the occasion of a practical vow to those primal principles of Freedom which have been assailed. Our municipal history should be carefully read, and, unless we are prepared to disown our fathers, the conduct of Boston at memorable times should be set forward anew, as an example which her children must never forget. I do not refer to the violent act by which her harbor was converted into a "teapot"; but I would especially dwell on the peaceful opposition, which, according to her own records, now preserved at the City Hall, she organized against a tyrannical and unconstitutional Act of Parliament,--"bearing testimony against outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings," but never failing to "take legal and warrantable measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others the most to be dreaded, the execution of the Stamp Act." The City Clerk will find these words in his books, under date of 24th March, 1766, whence I have with my own hand copied them. With this great precedent of Freedom in my memory, I ask the municipal authorities--should I be remembered at their hospitable board--to propose in my name the following sentiment.

_The City of Boston._--While still in colonial dependence, and with no aim at revolution, her municipal fathers steadfastly opposed the execution, within her borders, of an unconstitutional and tyrannical Act of Parliament, until, without violence or collision, it was at first practically annulled, and at last repealed. Truly honoring the Fathers, let Boston not depart from their example.

I remain, dear Sir, your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON.

NO PENSION FOR SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

MINORITY REPORT TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE BILL GRANTING TO THE WIDOW OF JAMES BATCHELDER A PROVISION FOR HER FUTURE SUPPORT, JULY 13, 1854.

An attempt was made to obtain a pension for the widow of James Batchelder, killed in Boston, while guarding Anthony Burns, the fugitive slave, on the evening of May 26, 1854. A bill was reported from the Committee on Pensions. Mr. Sumner and Mr. Seward, constituting a minority of the Committee, made the following adverse report, which was drawn up by the former.

VIEWS OF MR. SUMNER AND MR. SEWARD.

The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Pensions, cannot concur with the majority of the Committee in reporting a bill for the relief of the widow of the late James Batchelder. They also dissent from the report accompanying the bill, which, however, is understood not to proceed from a majority of the Committee.

In granting pensions, or bounties of a kindred nature, it has been the habit of the Committee to require evidence of all essential facts and circumstances,--not, indeed, according to the rigorous forms of a court of law, but with substantial fulness and authenticity. Applications for pensions are constantly rejected for defect of testimony. But this reasonable practice, which is a necessary safeguard against abuse, has been disregarded in the present case. No evidence of any kind--not a shred or particle--was produced. The majority of the Committee undertook to act at once, on loose and general report, gathered from the public press at a moment of excitement. In this report they have obviously proceeded with more haste than discretion. Such a course cannot be in conformity with approved precedents. In itself it will be a bad precedent for the future.

But this proceeding seems more obnoxious to comment, when it is known that it appears, from the very sources on which the Committee relied, that the facts in question are all at this moment the subject of judicial inquiry, _still pending_, in the courts at Boston. Several citizens have been indicted for participation in the transaction to which reference is made, and in which Batchelder is said to have been killed. Their trials have not yet taken place, but are near at hand. Under these peculiar circumstances, the indiscreet haste of the Committee, thus acting in advance of authentic evidence, and _lite pendente_, is enhanced by possible detriment to the grave interests of justice, which all will admit should not be exposed to partisan influence from abroad. The report accompanying the bill, without any aid from human testimony, undertakes to pronounce dogmatically on facts which will be in issue on these trials. Anticipating the court, and literally without a hearing, it gives judgment on absent persons, as well as on distant events.

On grounds irrespective of the merits of the case, the undersigned object to any action upon it on the present evidence, and in the existing state of things. They object for two reasons: _first_, that such action would become a bad precedent, opening the way to a disregard of evidence in the distribution of pensions and bounties; and, _secondly_, that it would be an interference--offensive, though indirect--with the administration of justice, in matters _still pending_, and involving the fortunes of several citizens. These reasons are ample.

But on other grounds, of a different character, and vital to the merits of the case, the undersigned must dissent from the majority of the Committee.

Regarding the Act of Congress usually known as the Fugitive Slave Act as unconstitutional, while it is justly condemned by the moral sense of the communities where it is sought to be enforced, the undersigned are not disposed to recognize any services rendered in its enforcement as meritorious in character. Especially are they unwilling to depart beyond the clear line of precedent, in voting bounties on account of such services. This of itself is sufficient reason for opposition to the proposed bill.

But admitting for the moment the asserted constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act, and its conformity with just principles of duty, and admitting further, that efforts for its enforcement are to be placed in the same scale with efforts to enforce other Acts of Congress, of acknowledged constitutionality, and clear conformity with just principles of duty, then the undersigned beg leave to submit, that, according to the practice of our country, such efforts have not been considered as entitled to the ordinary reward of pensions or kindred bounties.

The pensions and kindred bounties of our country have been founded exclusively on _military_ and _naval_ services. In England, _civil_ services, whether on the bench, in diplomacy, or in the departments of State, are subjects of pension; but it is otherwise here. With us there are no general laws to this end; nor are there special laws of such clear meaning and character as to become precedents, sanctioning pensions or bounties for civil service. A report of this Committee, made by its Chairman at this very session of Congress, states the rule and practice of Congress. Here is the whole report.

"IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

"APRIL 11, 1854.--Ordered to be printed.

"Mr. JONES, of Iowa, made the following report.

"_The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Rebecca Bright, beg leave to report_:--

"That the petitioner is the widow of Jacob Bright, an armorer, who was killed at the navy-yard in this city by the bursting of a shell. _He being an employee of the Government, and in no sense to be regarded as in its 'military or naval service,' the Committee can find no reason, founded in law or justice, for pensioning his widow._ Her case is precisely that of the widow of a laborer or mechanic employed by the day or month upon any public work. They therefore recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be rejected."[131]

[131] Reports of the Committees of the Senate, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., No. 199.

And yet, in the very teeth of this recommendation, made by themselves at this very session, the Committee now propose to bestow a bounty upon such services. If the Committee were right in their former report, they cannot be right now.

The report accompanying the bill shows that three of the Committee have felt that their recommendation needed the support of precedents, and they have ransacked the records for them. Two only are produced.

The first is an Act of Congress, bearing date June 7, 1794, which provides "that the sum of two thousand dollars be allowed to the widow of Robert Forsyth, late marshal of the district of Georgia, for the use of herself and the children of the said Robert Forsyth." On search in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, where this bill originated, and also at the Treasury, where the money was paid, no papers have been found showing the occasion of this grant; nor has anybody undertaken to state any. This precedent, then, can be of little value in establishing an important rule in the dispensation of national bounties.

The only other precedent adduced by the Committee is an Act bearing date May 8, 1820, providing "that the Postmaster-General be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to pay to the widow of John Heaps, late of the city of Baltimore,--who, while employed as a carrier of the mail of the United States, and having the said mail in his custody, was beset by ruffians and murdered,--out of the money belonging to the United States, arising from the postage of letters and packets, five hundred dollars in ten equal semiannual payments." On this precedent Congress will surely hesitate to establish a rule which will open a new drain upon the country.

The general laws do not award pensions or bounties for services in enforcing the revenue laws of the country; and it is not known that any special acts have ever been passed rewarding such services, though they have often been rendered at imminent danger to life, as well from shipwreck as from the violence of smugglers. The proposed bill will be an apt precedent for bounty in this large class of cases; and it may properly be opposed by all who are not ready for a new batch of claimants.