Part 19

The undersigned venture to make a single comment further on the report accompanying the bill. This report, not content with assigning reasons for its proposed bounty, proceeds to take cognizance of the conduct of the people of Massachusetts, the citizens, the soldiers, the marshal and his deputies, the mayor and police of Boston, in the recent transaction, and assumes to hold the scales of judgment. In this respect it evinces an indiscreet haste, similar to that already displayed in acting on the present proposition, without authentic evidence, and during the pendency of judicial investigations. It appears from the public journals, out of which all our information on this matter is derived, that the conduct of several public functionaries, on this occasion, in Massachusetts, has been seriously drawn in question. The marshal of the district is openly charged with making the arrest of the alleged fugitive under the fraudulent pretence that he was a criminal,--a scandalous device, which no honest man can regard without reprobation. The mayor of Boston is also openly charged with violation of the primal principles of free institutions and of the law of the land, in surrendering the city for the time being into the possession of a military force, and thus establishing there that supremacy of arms under which all law is silent. But on these things the undersigned express no opinion. They desire only to withhold all assent from the blindfold ratification which the report accompanying the bill volunteers, without reason or occasion, to the conduct of public functionaries, as well as of others, who, according to some evidence, may have acted very badly.

CHARLES SUMNER. WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

JAMES OTIS AN EXAMPLE TO MASSACHUSETTS.

LETTER TO THE CAPE COD ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, JULY 30, 1854.

Here, again, is an effort against the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.

SENATE CHAMBER, July 30, 1854.

Dear Sir,--I have been honored by the Cape Cod Association with an invitation to unite with them in their approaching festival at Yarmouth.

Amidst these unprecedented heats it is pleasant merely to think of the seaside; much pleasanter would it be to taste for a day its salt, refreshing air, especially with cherished friends, and stirred by historical memories, in these times bracing to the soul. But my duties will keep me here.

In that part of Massachusetts to which you invite me was born James Otis, one of our immortal names. He early saw the beauty of Liberty, and in those struggles which preceded the Revolution gave his eloquent tongue to her support. To the tyrannical _Writs of Assistance_, offspring of sovereign power, and at that day regarded as constitutional, he offered inflexible resistance, saying, "I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villany on the other. I cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience' sake. Let the consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed." And then again he declared of this outrageous process, "It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." With this precision he struck at an engine of tyranny, and with fervid eloquence exposed it to mankind. Such a character should not be forgotten at your commemoration. Were I there, I might ask leave to propose the following sentiment.

_The memory of James Otis, of Barnstable, the early orator of American Liberty._--Massachusetts cherishes the fame of her patriot child. Let her also imitate his virtues.

I remain, dear Sir, very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE.

STRUGGLE FOR REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

DEBATE IN THE SENATE, JULY 31, 1854.

All efforts of the friends of Freedom in Congress encountered opposition at every stage. Attempts by John Quincy Adams to present petitions were thwarted in every way that vindictive rage could prompt. Propositions for the repeal of obnoxious laws sustaining Slavery were stifled. To accomplish this result, parliamentary courtesy and parliamentary law were both set at defiance. On a former occasion,[132] when Mr. Sumner brought forward his motion for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, he was refused a hearing, and obtained it only by taking advantage of the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, and moving an amendment to it, which no parliamentary subtlety or audacity could declare to be out of order. On the presentation of petitions against the Fugitive Slave Act, from time to time, he was met by similar checks. Meanwhile anything for Slavery was always in order. An experience of a single day will show something of this.

* * * * *

On the 31st of July, 1854, Mr. Seward, of New York, under instructions from the Committee on Pensions, reported a bill, which had already passed the House of Representatives, for the relief of Betsey Nash, a poor and aged woman, whose husband had died of wounds received in the war of 1812, and asked for its immediate consideration. This simple measure, demanded by obvious justice, was at once embarrassed by an incongruous proposition for the support of Slavery. Mr. Adams, of Mississippi, moved, as an amendment, another bill, for the relief of Mrs. Batchelder, widow of a person killed in Boston, while aiding as a volunteer in the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. In the face of various objections this amendment was adopted. Mr. Sumner at once followed by a proposition in the following words:--

"_Provided_, That the Act of Congress, approved September 18, 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, be, and the same is hereby, repealed."

This was ruled out of order, as "not germane to the bill under consideration"; and the two bills, hitched together,--one for a military pension, and the other for contribution to the widow of a Slave-Hunter,--were put on their passage. Mr. Sumner then sprang for the floor, when a struggle ensued, which is minutely reported in the _Congressional Globe_. The careful reader will observe, that in order to cut off an effort to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, at least two unquestionable rules of parliamentary law were overturned.

[132] See _ante_, p. 80.

MR. SUMNER. In pursuance of notice, I now ask leave to introduce a bill.

MR. STUART (of Michigan). I object to it, and move to take up the River and Harbor Bill.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (MR. COOPER, of Pennsylvania). The other bill is not disposed of. The third reading of a Bill for the relief of Betsey Nash.

The bill was then read a third time and passed.

MR. SUMNER. In pursuance of notice, I ask leave to introduce a bill, which I now send to the table.

MR. STUART. Is that in order?

MR. SUMNER. Why not?

MR. BENJAMIN (of Louisiana). There is a pending motion of the Senator from Michigan to take up the River and Harbor Bill.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion was not entertained, because the Senator from Massachusetts had and has the floor.

MR. STUART. I make the motion now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it is in order to give the notice.

MR. SUMNER. Notice has been given, and I now, in pursuance of notice, introduce the bill. The question is on its first reading.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The first reading of a bill.

MR. NORRIS (of New Hampshire). I rise to a question of order.

MR. SUMNER. I believe I have the floor.

MR. NORRIS. But I rise to a question of order. I submit that that is not the question. The Senator from Massachusetts has given notice that he would ask leave to introduce a bill. He now asks that leave. If there be objection, the question must be decided by the Senate whether he shall have leave or not. Objection is made, and the bill cannot be read.

MR. SUMNER. Very well; the first question, then, is on granting leave, and the title of the bill will be read.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (to the Secretary). Read the title.

The Secretary read it as follows: "A Bill to repeal the Act of Congress approved September 18, 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor."

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on granting leave to introduce the bill.

MR. SUMNER. And I have the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor.

MR. SUMNER. I shall not occupy much time, nor shall I debate the bill. Some time ago, Mr. President, after the presentation of the Memorial from Boston, signed by twenty-nine hundred citizens without distinction of party, I gave notice that I should, at a day thereafter, ask leave to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. Desirous, however, not to proceed prematurely, I awaited the action of the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the Memorial, and others of a similar character, were referred. At length an adverse report was made, and accepted by the Senate. From the time of that report down to this moment, I have sought an opportunity to introduce this bill. Now, at last, I have it. At a former session, Sir, in introducing a similar proposition, I considered it at length, in an argument which I fearlessly assert----

MR. GWIN (of California). I rise to a point of order. Has the Senator a right to debate the question, or say anything on it, until leave be granted?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. My impression is that the question is not debatable.[133]

MR. SUMNER. I propose simply to explain my bill,--to make a statement, not an argument.

MR. GWIN. I make the point of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I am not aware precisely what the rule of order on the subject is; but I have the impression that the Senator cannot debate----

MR. SUMNER. The distinction is this----

MR. GWIN. I insist upon the application of the decision of the Chair.

MR. MASON (of Virginia). Mr. President, there is one rule of order that is undoubted: that, when the Chair is stating a question of order, he must not be interrupted by a Senator. There is no question about that rule of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator did not interrupt the Chair.

MR. SUMNER. The Chair does me justice in response to the injustice of the Senator from Virginia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Order! order!

MR. MASON. The Senator is doing that very thing at this moment. I am endeavoring to sustain the authority of the Chair, which certainly has been violated.

[133] Nothing is clearer, under the rules of the Senate, than that Mr. Sumner was in order, when, on introducing his bill, he proceeded to state the causes for doing it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the opinion of the Chair that the debate is out of order. I am not precisely informed of what the rule is; but such is my clear impression.

MR. WALKER (of Wisconsin). If the Senator from Massachusetts will allow me, I will say a word here.

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. WALKER. It is usual, upon notice being given of intention, to ask leave to introduce a bill. The bill is sent to the Chair, and it is taken as a matter of course that the Senator asking it has leave. But in this instance, differing from the usual practice, objection has been made to leave being granted. The necessity is imposed, then, of taking the sense of the Senate on granting leave to the Senator to introduce his bill. That, then, becomes the question. The question for the Chair to put is, Shall the Senator have leave?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the question proposed.

MR. WALKER. Now, Sir, it does seem to me that it is proper, and that it is in order, for the Senator to address himself to the Senate, with the view of showing the propriety of granting the leave asked for. He has a right to show that there would be propriety on the part of the Senate in granting the leave. I think, therefore, as this may become a precedent in future in regard to other matters, that it should be settled with some degree of deliberation.

MR. GWIN. Let the Chair decide the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has decided that debate was not in order, in his opinion.

MR. SUMNER. From that decision of the Chair I most respectfully take an appeal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. From that ruling of the Chair an appeal is taken by the Senator from Massachusetts. The question is on the appeal.

MR. BENJAMIN. In order to put a stop to the whole debate, I move to lay the appeal on the table. That is a motion which is not debatable.

MR. SUMNER. Is that motion in order?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Certainly it is in order.[134]

MR. WELLER (of California). I desire to make one remark in regard to the rule.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not in order now. The question must be taken without debate.

MR. SUMNER. Allow me to state the case as it seems to me. I was on the floor, and yielded it to the Senator from Wisconsin strictly for the purpose of an explanation. When he finished, I was in possession of the floor; and then it was that the Senator from Louisiana, on my right----

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Massachusetts give leave to the Chair to explain?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order was made by the Senator from California [Mr. GWIN], that debate was not in order upon the question of granting leave; and the Chair so decided. The Senator from Massachusetts then lost the floor, as I apprehend, and he certainly did by following it up by an appeal. After that he could go no further. He lost the floor then again for a second time, and then it was that the Senator from Louisiana intervened with another motion, which is certainly in order, to lay the appeal on the table. That is not debatable. This, it seems to me, is the state of the case.

[134] The motion was clearly out of order: first, because in the Senate an appeal from the decision of the Chair on a question of order cannot be laid on the table; and, secondly, because Mr. Sumner was already on the floor, so that Mr. Benjamin could not make a motion.

MR. CHASE (of Ohio). Will the Chair allow me to make a single statement?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Certainly.

MR. CHASE. The Senator from Massachusetts rose and held the floor during the suggestion made to the Chair by the Senator from Wisconsin. The Chair then, after the Senator from Wisconsin had finished his suggestion, declared his opinion to be, notwithstanding the suggestion, that debate was not in order. The Senator from Massachusetts then took an appeal, and retained the floor for the purpose of addressing the Senate on that appeal. While he occupied the floor, the Senator from Louisiana rose and moved to lay the appeal upon the table. That will be borne out by the gentlemen present.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is so; but the Chair does not understand that debate was in order on the appeal. The appeal was to be decided without debate, and therefore the Senator from Massachusetts necessarily lost the floor after he took the appeal.

MR. BELL (of Tennessee). I would inquire whether there is not a bill already pending for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I have not inquired of the Secretary, but it is my belief there is a similar bill pending; but it was not on that ground the Chair made this ruling.

MR. BELL. I would inquire whether there is not such a bill pending? Did not the honorable Senator from Ohio some time ago bring in such a bill?

MR. WELLER. I think he did.

MR. CHASE. No, Sir.

MR. BELL. Then I am mistaken.

MR. CHASE. My bill is not on that subject.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana, to lay on the table the appeal taken by the Senator from Massachusetts from the decision of the Chair.

MR. CHASE. I ask if the motion of the Senator from Louisiana is in order, when the Senator from Massachusetts retained the floor for the purpose of debating the appeal?

MR. BENJAMIN. The Senator is not in order in renewing that question, which has already been decided by the Chair.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Chair acted under an erroneous impression in supposing that debate on the appeal was not in order, when it actually is, it was the fault of the Chair, and it would not have been in order for the Senator from Louisiana to make the motion which he did make, while the Senator from Massachusetts was on the floor. But the Chair recognized the Senator from Louisiana, supposing that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor. The Senator had taken an appeal; he followed it up by no address to the Chair, indicating an intention that he intended to debate the appeal, or the Chair certainly should so far have recognized him. But the Chair would reconsider his ruling in that respect, with the consent of the Senator from Louisiana.

MR. BRIGHT (of Indiana). The Chair will permit me to suggest that I think the motion proper to be entertained now is the one proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. NORRIS]. The Senator from Massachusetts presented his bill; the Senator from New Hampshire raised the question as to whether the Senate would grant leave to introduce it; and I think the proper question to be put now is, Will the Senate grant leave to introduce a bill repealing the Fugitive Slave Law? The effect of the motion of the Senator from Louisiana would be to lay the subject on the table, from which it might be taken at any time for action. For one, I desire to give a decisive vote now, declaring that I am unwilling to legislate upon the subject, that I am satisfied with the law as it reads, and that I will not aid the Senator from Massachusetts, or any Senator, in----

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is certainly not in order.

MR. BRIGHT. I certainly am in order in calling the attention of the Chair to the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire----

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is not in order.

MR. BRIGHT. Then I will sit down and ask the Chair to state wherein I am out of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In discussing a question which is not before the Senate.

MR. BRIGHT. I claim that the motion is before the Senate. The Senator from New Hampshire raised the question immediately, that----

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair decides otherwise.

MR. BRIGHT. Then I appeal from the decision of the Chair, and I state this as my point of order: that, before the bill was presented in legal parlance, the Senator from New Hampshire raised the question as to whether the Senate would grant leave, and that is the point now before the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the question which he supposes to be pending. The Senator from California made a point of order, that debate on the bill proposed to be introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts was not in order. The Chair so ruled. From that ruling the Senator from Massachusetts took an appeal. The Chair supposed that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor, and he gave the floor to the Senator from Louisiana, who moved to lay that appeal on the table. That is the question which is now pending. The Chair before suggested, that, if the Senator from Massachusetts had not yielded the floor, he had made a mistake in giving the floor to the Senator from Louisiana, but he did not suppose that the Senator from Massachusetts, after taking the appeal, without some indication of his intention to debate it, could continue to hold the floor, and he therefore recognized the Senator from Louisiana. The Chair is sorry, if he did the Senator from Massachusetts injustice in that respect; but he did not hear him, and recognized the Senator from Louisiana.

MR. BRIGHT. I would respectfully ask the Chair what has become of the motion submitted by the Senator from New Hampshire?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not understand him to submit a motion, but the Senator from California took his point of order.

MR. BRIGHT. I wish to inquire of the Senator from New Hampshire whether he has withdrawn his motion?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not entertained. It is not in his power to say whether it was withdrawn or not, for it was not entertained.

MR. NORRIS. I think I can inform my friend from Indiana how the matter stands. The Senator from Massachusetts proposed to introduce a bill on notice given. I raised the question, that it could not be introduced without leave of the Senate, if there was objection.

MR. SUMNER. Do I understand the Senator to say without notice given? I asked leave to introduce the bill in pursuance of notice.

MR. NORRIS. The Senator from Massachusetts, I have already stated, offered his bill agreeably to previous notice.

MR. SUMNER. Precisely.

MR. NORRIS. The question was then raised, whether it could be received, if there was objection? The question arose, whether leave should be granted to the Senator from Massachusetts to introduce the bill?

MR. SUMNER. That is the first question.

MR. NORRIS. The Senator from Massachusetts, upon the question of granting leave, undertook to address the Senate. He was then called to order by my friend from California for discussing that question. The Chair sustained the objection of the Senator from California. From the decision of the Chair the Senator from Massachusetts took an appeal; and that is where the question now stands, unless the Senator from Louisiana had a right to make the motion which he did make, which was to lay the appeal on the table.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, unless the Senator from Louisiana will disembarrass the Chair by withdrawing it, on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana to lay the appeal on the table.

MR. SUMNER. On that motion I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

MR. FOOT (of Vermont). On what motion have the yeas and nays been ordered?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion of the Senator from Louisiana.

MR. WALKER. I wish to know, before voting, what will be the effect of a vote given in the affirmative on this motion? Will it carry the bill and the whole subject on the table?

MR. FOOT. An affirmative vote carries the whole measure on the table.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Sir; if the motion to lay on the table be agreed to, it carries the bill with it.

SEVERAL SENATORS. No, no!

MR. BENJAMIN. The question is, whether, on the motion for leave to introduce the bill, there shall be debate? The Chair has decided that there shall be no debate. Those who vote "yea" on my motion to lay the appeal of the Senator from Massachusetts on the table will vote that there is to be no debate upon the permission to offer the bill, and then the question will be taken upon granting leave.

MR. WALKER. The Chair decides differently. The Chair decides, if I understand, that it will carry the bill on the table. Then how can we ever reach the question of leave, when objection is made?

MR. WELLER. I object to this discussion. The Chair will decide that question when it arises. It does not arise now. I insist that the Secretary shall go on and call the roll.

MR. WALKER. Suppose some of us object to it?

MR. WELLER. Then I object to your discussing it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on reflection, thinks that the motion, if agreed to, would not have a further effect than to bring up the question of granting leave.