Part 20

MR. BRIGHT. I desire to understand the Chair. I do not wish to insist on anything that is not right, or that is not within the rules. That I insist upon having. The honorable Senator from Louisiana is right in his conclusions as to his motion, provided he had a right to make the motion; but I doubt whether he had a right to make that motion while the motion of the honorable Senator from New Hampshire was pending. I do not wish, however, to consume the time of the Senate. If the effect of the decision of the Chair is to bring us back to the question as to whether we shall receive the bill or not, I will yield the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it.

MR. BRIGHT. Very well.

MR. SUMNER. Before the vote is taken, allow me to read a few words from the Rules and Orders, and from Jefferson's Manual.

"One day's notice, at least, shall be given of an intended motion for leave to bring in a bill."

That is the 25th rule of the Senate; and then to that rule, in the publication which I now hold in my hand, is appended, from Jefferson's Manual, the following decisive language:--

"When a member desires to bring in a bill on any subject, _he states to the House, in general terms, the causes for doing it_, and concludes by moving for leave to bring in a bill entitled, &c. Leave being given, on the question, a committee is appointed to prepare and bring in the bill."

Now I would simply observe, that my purpose was merely to make a statement----

MR. BENJAMIN. I call to order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had presented his bill, and was debating it afterwards. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana to lay the appeal on the table, and on that the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted,--yeas 35, nays 10, as follows:--

YEAS,--Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Dodge, of Iowa, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson, of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, and Weller,--35.

NAYS,--Messrs. Chase, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Gillette, Rockwell, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker,--10.

So the appeal was ordered to lie on the table.

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

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

MR. STUART. I rise to a question of order; and I think, if the Chair will consider it for the moment, he will, or at least I hope he will, agree with me. The parliamentary law is the law under which the Senate act. Whenever there is a motion made to lay on the table a subject connected with the main subject, and it prevails, it carries the whole question with it. It is different entirely from the rules in the House of Representatives. The rules in the House vary the parliamentary law, and you may there move to lay a matter on the table, because that is the final vote, and is equivalent to rejecting it, and a motion to take it up from the table is not in order. But now the Presiding Officer will see, that, if this course be pursued, the Senate may grant leave to introduce this bill, they may go on and pass it, and yet next week it will be in order for the Senator from Massachusetts to move to take up the appeal which the Senate has just laid on the table; whereas the whole subject on which his appeal rested might have been passed and sent to the other House. That surely cannot be so. The ruling of the Chair in this respect, therefore, I suggest is wrong, and the motion to lay on the table carries the whole subject with it. It is important to have the matter settled for the future practice of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the first mooting of the proposition, the Chair was of that opinion; but he is perfectly satisfied now that it did not carry the whole question with it. The question was on the motion to lay the appeal on the table, and that motion was exhausted when it did lay the appeal on the table. It did not reach back to affect the question of granting leave. That is now the question before the Senate. On that the yeas and nays have been asked for by the Senator from Massachusetts.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

MR. STUART. I will not take an appeal from the decision of the Chair, but I only wish to say, that, as I am satisfied I am right, I do not wish, by acquiescing in the decision of the Chair, to embarrass us when such occasions may arise again.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays upon granting leave to introduce the bill, resulted,--yeas 10, nays 35, as follows:--

YEAS,--Messrs. Chase, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Fessenden, Foot, Gillette, Rockwell, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker,--10.

NAYS,--Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson, of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, and Weller,--35.

So the Senate refused to grant leave to introduce the bill.

DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE PRESENT CRISIS. FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

SPEECH BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION AT WORCESTER, SEPTEMBER 7, 1854.

The Free-Soil party, having assumed the name of Republican party, held its Annual Convention at Worcester, September 7, 1854. It was organized by the following officers: Hon. Robert Rantoul, of Beverly, the venerable father of the late Mr. Rantoul, as President; George R. Russell, of West Roxbury, B. W. Gage, of Charlestown, Samuel Hopkins, of Northampton, Charles Shute, of Hingham, Albert Currier, of Newburyport, Warren Lovering, of Medway, Adam Harrington, of Shrewsbury, Francis Watkins, of Hinsdale, Robert Sturtevant, of Savoy, Asaph Churchill, of Dorchester, Richard P. Waters, of Beverly, William Washburn, of Boston, Charles Beck, of Cambridge, Benjamin B. Sisson, of Westport, Joel Shed, of Bridgewater, Augustus Morse, of Leominster, Foster Hooper, of Fall River, Levi Reed, of Abington, John A. Andrew, of Hingham, Vice-Presidents; Joseph Denny, of Worcester, William H. Harris, of Worcester, E. W. Stacy, of Milford, Charles R. Ladd, of Chicopee, William H. DeCosta, of Charlestown, Secretaries. At the same Convention Hon. Henry Wilson was nominated for Governor, and Hon. Increase Sumner for Lieutenant-Governor. John A. Andrew, Esq., was made Chairman of the State Committee.

Mr. Sumner's reception in the Convention was quickened by recent events in which he had borne part. It is thus described in a report of the Convention.

"At this point the Hon. Charles Sumner entered the hall. His reception was such as is rarely accorded to a public man. The whole vast audience rose as one man to welcome him, and the most deafening cheers of welcome resounded for several minutes. We have never seen a more hearty and enthusiastic demonstration in honor of any man. It was the spontaneous homage of true men to the man who had upheld the Freedom standard and carried it into the thickest of the fight,--to the man who had upheld the honor of Massachusetts in the Senate, vindicated her opinions, and thrown back upon her assailants the taunts and insults which they had never ceased to heap upon her. The cheering, as our Senator appeared upon the platform and took his seat, was loud and long continued."

Mr. Sumner was at once called to speak. His speech is given as reported by the Boston _Traveller_, which ran a special train in one hour from Worcester, a distance of forty miles, in order to lay it before the public without delay.

In this speech Mr. Sumner had two objects,--first, to vindicate the necessity of the Republican party, and, secondly, to destroy the operation of the Fugitive Slave Act in Massachusetts, showing especially that citizens are not constrained to its support. His position with regard to the oath to support the Constitution was much discussed at the time, and the _National Intelligencer_, in elaborate articles by Mr. Gales, undertook to call him to account. To the latter he replied by letter. The speech had an extensive circulation.

Mr. Sumner came to the Convention at the invitation of Mr. Andrew, Chairman of the Provisional State Committee, whose first letter, dated July 22, 1854, was as follows.

"You will have seen, before receiving this note, the report of the meeting at Worcester, at which _a new party was begun_, and the steps preliminary to a State nominating convention taken. I think, in spite of strong opposition from the Whig presses and fuglemen, who cannot bear to give up their factitious powers and influence, that there is a great popular movement commenced, which may, under proper cultivation, disclose a splendid result in the fall. But more depends upon the aid you can give than upon that of any one man. Your recent battles in the Senate have shut the mouth of personal opposition, wrung applause from the unwilling, excited a State's pride and gratitude, such as rarely it is the fortune of any one to win. Your presence at the nominating convention, to be held on the 10th of August,--probably at Springfield,--is a point which must be agreed to at once. It will secure a most triumphant meeting, certainly in point of numbers and enthusiasm. I want you to write to me at once, permitting me to say to any of our friends that you _will_ attend the meeting. A speech of half an hour, or an hour, is all that you _need_ make, though you could have three hours, if you would use them.... I am bold, speak urgently, since I am, as Chairman of the Provisional State Committee, officially responsible for the utmost exertions to serve the cause in this behalf."

This was followed by another letter from Mr. Andrew, dated August 28, 1854, as follows.

"I, however, wish to have the authority now to say definitely to all inquirers that you will be present on the 7th, and address the convention, and I wish this to be considered as a formal and official invitation. There are constant references made to the hope of seeing and hearing you there, on all hands. Everybody counts for that gratification. And we can do nothing which will so completely secure a triumphant gathering as to announce your name. The whole Free-Soil party, proud of your recent achievements, and grateful for the many exhibitions of your devotedness to our principles at all times of hazard and necessity, and the people of all parties, who feel you to have been the most conspicuously representative man to whom Massachusetts has intrusted her interest in Congress since the death of John Quincy Adams, are alike anxious to greet you.

"I do not wish you to feel under the necessity of preparing for one of your greatest speeches. No one will demand that of you. They only want you to come, and to say what seems to yourself proper to say at the time."

The speech drew from Mr. Chase the following expression.

"Your speech was just the thing. I read it with delighted admiration. Only one thing abated my pleasure,--the dissolution of the Independent Democracy. I am now without a party: but no matter; I shall soon cease to have any connection with politics."

Mr. Seward wrote thus:--

"I have read your noble speech. It is eminently able, and in a tone that is as characteristic as it is worthy of you. Of its particular direction, as relates to parties, it is not becoming me to speak. Its merits as an argument are unsurpassed."

MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS:--

After months of constant, anxious service in another place, away from Massachusetts, I am permitted to stand among you again, my fellow-citizens, and to draw satisfaction and strength from your generous presence. [_Applause._] Life is full of change and contrast. From slave soil I have come to free soil. [_Applause._] From the tainted breath of Slavery I have passed into this bracing air of Freedom. [_Applause._] And the heated antagonism of debate, shooting forth its fiery cinders, is changed into this brimming, overflowing welcome, while I seem to lean on the great heart of our beloved Commonwealth, as it palpitates audibly in this crowded assembly. [_Loud and long applause._]

Let me say at once, frankly and sincerely, that I am not here to receive applause or to give occasion for tokens of public regard, but simply to unite with fellow-citizens in new vows of duty. [_Applause._] And yet I would not be thought insensible to the good-will now swelling from so many honest bosoms. It touches me more than I can tell.

During the late session of Congress, an eminent supporter of the Nebraska Bill said to me, with great animation, in language which I give with some precision, that you may appreciate the style as well as the sentiment, "I would not go through all that you do _on this nigger question_ for all the offices and honors of the country." To which I naturally and promptly replied, "Nor would I,--for all the offices and honors of the country." [_Laughter and long applause._] Not in such things are the inducements to this warfare. For myself, if I have been able to do aught in any respect not unworthy of you, it is because I thought rather of those commanding duties which are above office and honor. [_Cries of "Good! good!" and loud applause._]

And now, on the eve of an important election in this State, we are assembled to take counsel how best to perform those duties which we owe to our common country. We are to choose eleven Representatives in Congress,--also, Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and members of the Legislature, which last will choose a Senator of the United States, to uphold, for five years ensuing, the principles and honor of Massachusetts. If in these elections you were governed by partialities or prejudices, personal or political, or merely by the exactions of party, I should have nothing to say now, except to dismiss you to the ignoble work. ["_That is it!_" "_Good! good!_"] But I assume that you are ready to renounce these influences, and press forward with single regard to the duties now incumbent.

* * * * *

Here two questions occur, absorbing all others: _first_, what are our political duties here in Massachusetts at the present time? and, _secondly_, how, and by what agency, shall they be performed? What and how? These are the two questions, of which I shall briefly speak in their order, attempting no elaborate discussion, but aiming to state the case so that it will be intelligible to all who hear me.

* * * * *

And first, what are our present duties here in Massachusetts? Unfolding these, I need not dwell on the wrong and shame of Slavery, or on the character of the Slave Power--that Oligarchy of Slaveholders--now ruling the Republic. These you understand. And yet there are two outrages, fresh in recollection, which I must not fail to expose, as natural manifestations of Slavery and the Slave Power. One is the repeal of the Prohibition of Slavery in the vast Missouri Territory, now known as Kansas and Nebraska, contrary to time-honored compact and plighted faith. The other is the seizure of Anthony Burns on the free soil of Massachusetts, and his surrender, without judge or jury, to a Slave-Hunter from Virginia, to be thrust back into perpetual bondage. ["_Shame! shame!_"] These outrages cry aloud to Heaven, and to you, people of Massachusetts! [_Sensation._] Their intrinsic wickedness is enhanced by the way in which they were accomplished. Of the first I know something from personal observation; of the latter I am informed only by public report.

It is characteristic of the Slave Power not to stick at the means supposed needful in carrying forward its plans; but never, on any occasion, were its assumptions so barefaced and tyrannical as in the passage of the Nebraska Bill.

This bill was precipitated upon Congress without one word of public recommendation from the President, without notice or discussion in any newspaper, and without a single petition from the people. It was urged by different advocates, on two principal arguments, so opposite and inconsistent as to slap each other in the face [_laughter_]: one, that, by the repeal of the Prohibition, the territory would be absolutely open to the entry of slaveholders with their slaves; and the other, that the people there would be left to determine whether slaveholders should enter with their slaves. With some, the apology was the alleged rights of slaveholders; with others, the alleged rights of the people. With some, it was openly the extension of Slavery; and with others, openly the establishment of Freedom, under the pretence of "popular sovereignty." The measure thus upheld in defiance of reason was carried through Congress in defiance of all the securities of legislation.

It was carried, _first_, by _whipping in_, through Executive influence and patronage, men who acted against their own declared judgment and the known will of their constituents; _secondly_, by _thrusting out of place_, both in the Senate and House of Representatives, important business, long pending, and usurping its room; _thirdly_, by _trampling under foot_ the rules of the House of Representatives, always before the safeguard of the minority; and, _fourthly_, by _driving it to a close_ during the present Congress, so that it might not be arrested by the indignant voice of the people. Such were some of the means by which the Nebraska Bill was carried. If the clear will of the people had not been defied, it could not have passed. If the Government had not nefariously interposed, it could not have passed. If it had been left to its natural place in the order of business, it could not have passed. If the rules of the House and the rights of the minority had not been violated, it could not have passed. If it had been allowed to go over to another Congress, when the people might be heard, it would have failed, forever failed.

Contemporaneously with the final triumph of this outrage at Washington, another dismal tragedy was enacted at Boston. In those streets where he had walked as freeman Anthony Burns was seized as slave, under the base pretext that he was a criminal,--imprisoned in the Court-House, which was turned for the time into fortress and barracoon,--guarded by heartless hirelings, whose chief idea of Liberty was license to wrong [_loud applause, and cries of "That's it! that's it!"_],--escorted by intrusive soldiers of the United States,--watched by a prostituted militia,--and finally given up to a Slave-Hunter by the decree of a petty magistrate, who did not hesitate to take upon his soul the awful responsibility of dooming a fellow-man, in whom he could find no fault, to a fate worse than death. How all this was accomplished I need not relate. Suffice it to say, that, in doing this deed of woe and shame, the liberties of all our citizens, white as well as black, were put in jeopardy, the Mayor of Boston was converted to a tool [_applause_], the Governor of the Commonwealth to a cipher [_long continued applause_], the laws, the precious sentiments, the religion, the pride and glory of Massachusetts were trampled in the dust, and you and I and all of us fell down while the Slave Power flourished over us. [_"Shame! shame!" and applause._]

These things in themselves are bad, very bad; but they are worse, when regarded as natural offspring of the Oligarchy now swaying the country. And it is this Oligarchy which, at every political hazard, we must oppose, until it is overthrown. Lord Chatham once exclaimed, that the time had been, when he was content to bring France to her knees; now he would not stop till he had laid her on her back. Nor can we be content with less in our warfare. We must not stop till we have laid the Slave Power on its back. [_Prolonged cheers._] And, fellow-citizens, permit me to say, not till then will the Free States be absolved from all political responsibility for Slavery, and relieved from that corrupt spirit of compromise which now debases at once their politics and their religion; nor till then will there be repose for the country. [_Immense cheering._] Indemnity for the past and security for the future must be our watchwords. [_Applause._] But these can be obtained only when Slavery is dispossessed of present vantage-ground, by driving it back exclusively within the limits of the States, and putting the National Government, everywhere within its constitutional sphere, openly, actively, and perpetually on the side of Freedom. The consequences of this change of policy would be of far-reaching and incalculable beneficence. Not only would Freedom become national and Slavery sectional, as was intended by our fathers, but the National Government would become the mighty instrument and herald of Freedom, as it is now the mighty instrument and herald of Slavery. Its powers, its treasury, its patronage, would all be turned, in harmony with the Constitution, to promote Freedom. The Committees of Congress, where Slavery now rules,--Congress itself, and the Cabinet also,--would all be organized for Freedom. The hypocritical disguise or renunciation of Antislavery sentiment would cease to be necessary for the sake of political preferment; and the Slaveholding Oligarchy, banished from the National Government, and despoiled of ill-gotten political consequence, without ability to punish or reward, would cease to be feared, either at the North or the South, until at last the citizens of the Slave States, where a large portion have no interest in Slavery, would demand Emancipation, and the great work would commence. Such is the obvious course of things. To the overthrow of the Slave Power we are summoned by a double call, one political and the other philanthropic,--first, to remove an oppressive tyranny from the National Government, and, secondly, to open the gates of Emancipation in the Slave States. [_Loud applause._]

While keeping this great purpose in view, we must not forget details. The existence of Slavery anywhere within the national jurisdiction, in the Territories, in the District of Columbia, or on the high seas beneath the national flag, is an unconstitutional usurpation, which must be opposed. The Fugitive Slave Bill, monstrous in cruelty, as in unconstitutionality, is a usurpation, which must be opposed. The admission of new Slave States, from whatsoever quarter, from Texas or Cuba [_applause_], Utah or New Mexico, must be opposed. And to every scheme of Slavery, whether in Cuba or Mexico, on the high seas in opening the slave-trade, in the West Indies, or in the Valley of the Amazon, whether accomplished or merely plotted, whether pending or in prospect, we must send forth an EVERLASTING NO! [_Long continued applause._] Such is the present, immediate duty of Massachusetts, without compromise or hesitation.