Part 7

In assuming our place as a distinct party, we simply give form and direction, in harmony with the usage and genius of popular governments, to a movement which stirs the whole country, and does not find adequate and constant organ in either of the other existing parties. The early opposition to Slavery was simply a sentiment, outgushing from the hearts of the sensitive and humane. In the lapse of time it became a determined principle, inspiring larger numbers, and showing itself first in an organized endeavor to resist the annexation of slaveholding Texas; next, to prohibit Slavery in newly acquired territories; and now, alarmed by the overthrow of all rights in Kansas, and the domination of the Slave Oligarchy throughout the Republic, it breaks forth in a stronger effort, a wider union, and a deeper channel, inspiring yet larger numbers and firmer resolves, while opposite quarters contribute to its power,--even as the fountain, first outgushing from the weeping sides of its pure mountain home, trickles in the rill, leaps in the torrent, and flows in the river, till, at last, swollen with accumulated waters, it presses onward, in irresistible, beneficent current, fertilizing and uniting the spaces which it traverses, washing the feet of cities, and wooing states to repose upon its banks.

…

Our party has its origin in the exigencies of the hour. Vowing ourselves against Slavery, wherever it exists, whether enforced by Russian knout, Turkish bastinado, or lash of Carolina planter, we do not seek to interfere with it at Petersburg, Constantinople, or Charleston; nor does any such grave duty rest upon us. Political duties are properly limited by political responsibilities; and we are in no just sense responsible for the local law or usage by which human bondage in these places is upheld. But wherever we are responsible for the wrong, there our duty begins. The object to which, as a party, we are pledged, is all contained in acceptance of the issue which the Slave Oligarchy tenders. To its repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and its imperious demand that Kansas shall be surrendered to Slavery, we reply, that Freedom shall be made the universal law of all the national domain, without compromise, and that hereafter no Slave State shall be admitted into the Union. To its tyrannical assumption of supremacy in the National Government we reply, that the Slave Oligarchy shall be overthrown. Such is the practical purpose of the Republican Party.

ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE USURPATION OF THE SENATE IN THE ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS, FEBRUARY 7, 1856.

On the 11th of December, 1855, Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, introduced a resolution directing the Committee on Finance to consider the expediency of reporting the appropriation bills for the support of the Government. The resolution was allowed to lie on the table till January 7, 1856, when it was called up for consideration, and adopted. On the 4th of February, Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, reported to the Senate the following resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills as they may deem expedient.”

The resolution was adopted by the Senate, February 7, but this was all. Nothing was done under it.

This attempt was prompted by the protracted contest in the organization of the House of Representatives, when, after one hundred and thirty-three ballotings, Mr. Banks was chosen Speaker, February 2, and the Slave Power received its first check.

In the course of the debate, February 7, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Whatever the Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD] touches he handles with a completeness to render anything superfluous from one who follows on the same side; but the opposition which his views have encountered from the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and also from the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS], as well as the intrinsic importance of the question, may justify the attempt to state the argument anew.

We are carried first to the words of the Constitution, which are as follows:--

“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.”

Under this provision, the annual appropriation bills for the Army, Navy, Post-Office, and civil and diplomatic service, from the beginning of the Government, have originated in the House of Representatives; and this has always been so, I believe, without question. It is now proposed to reverse the standing policy, and to originate such bills in the Senate; and this proposition has the sanction of the Committee on Finance.

The proposition is a clear departure from usage, and on this account must be regarded with suspicion. A slight examination will demonstrate that it tends to subvert well-established landmarks.

By looking at the debates in the Convention which framed the National Constitution, it will be found that this clause was not hastily or carelessly adopted,--that it was the subject of much discussion, and was viewed as essentially important in establishing the system of checks and balances peculiar to our Republic. It was, indeed, part of the compromise between the small States and the large States.

After much consideration, the _equality of the States_ was recognized in the Constitution of the Senate, and small States, like Delaware and Rhode Island, were allowed, in this body, equal power with large States, like Virginia and Massachusetts. But this great concession to the small States was coupled at the time with a condition that “money bills” should originate in the House of Representatives, where the people were represented according to numbers. The language finally employed was, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This was adopted, as compensation to the large and populous States for their comparative weakness in the Senate.

That I do not go too far, when I call it part of the compromise between the great States and small States, I proceed to show, from the debates in the National Convention, as reported by Mr. Madison, how it was regarded there.

The provision owes its authoritative introduction to Dr. Franklin, who moved it in the committee which subsequently reported it.[30] Afterwards, in Convention, when the clause relating to _equality of votes_ was under consideration, we have this report of what he said.

“Dr. Franklin observed, that this question could not be properly put by itself, the Committee having reported several propositions as _mutual conditions of each other_. He could not vote for it, if separately taken, but should vote for the whole together.”[31]

Colonel Mason, of Virginia, was of the same opinion, and desired “that the whole might be brought _into one view_.”[32]

Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, followed up the idea of the mutual dependence of the two propositions, remarking,--

“He would not say that the concession was a sufficient one on the part of the small States; but he could not but regard it in the light of a _concession_. It would make it a constitutional principle, that the second branch were not possessed of the confidence of the people in _money matters_,”--

Please, Sir, to mark the breadth of this expression.

--“which would lessen their weight and influence.”[33]

Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, followed, saying,--

“He thought it evident that the concession was wholly on one side, that of the large States; the privilege of originating _money bills_ being of no account.”[34]

At a later stage of the debates the subject was resumed, and the two propositions still appear together.

“Mr. Rutledge [of South Carolina] proposed to reconsider the two propositions touching the originating of _money bills_ in the first, and the _equality of votes_ in the second branch.”

“Mr. Sherman [of Connecticut] was for the question on the whole at once. It was, he said, _a conciliatory plan_. It had been considered in all its parts.”

“Mr. Luther Martin [of Maryland] urged the question on the whole. He did not like many parts of it.… He was willing, however, to make trial of the plan, rather than do nothing.”

“Mr. Gerry [of Massachusetts] did not approve of a reconsideration of the clause relating to _money bills_. It was of great consequence. _It was the corner-stone of the accommodation._”[35]

At a still later stage Mr. Pinckney moved to strike out the section on money bills, “as giving no peculiar advantage to the House of Representatives, and as clogging the Government.” Mr. Gorham “was against allowing the Senate to _originate_, but was for allowing it only to _amend_.” Mr. Gouverneur Morris urged, that it was “particularly proper that the Senate should have the right of originating _money bills_. They will sit constantly, will consist of a smaller number, and will be able to prepare such bills with due correctness, and so as to prevent delay of business in the other House.” To all this Colonel Mason replied, in the strong language which seems to have been natural to him, that he “was unwilling to travel over this ground again. _To strike out the section was to unhinge the compromise of which it made a part._”[36]

I might adduce other authorities; but here surely is enough to show that the provision was in reality one of the important compromises of the Constitution.

* * * * *

This brings me, Sir, to the precise meaning of the provision. The seeming indefiniteness of the term, “bills for raising revenue,” may alone furnish apology for the present debate. It may be argued, that, while the Senate is placed under certain restrictions, it may nevertheless originate “appropriation bills.” This, of course, is a question of interpretation. Does this interdict upon the Senate extend to bills by which money is appropriated to the support of Government, as well as to bills by which it is directly obtained? Are appropriation bills included under the term, “bills for raising revenue”? Now I cannot accord with opinions so confidently expressed by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS], that it was clearly the intention of the Constitution to concede to the Senate the power of originating all appropriation bills; nor, on the other hand, do I assert that such exercise of power is in the strict sense unconstitutional. I approach the question as an inquirer anxious to find the real purpose.

Several considerations seem to shed light on the path to our conclusion.

_First._ The compromise between the small States and large States can be made completely effective, according to obvious intent of the authors of the Constitution, only by interdicting the Senate from originating the great appropriation bills. If this interdict is restricted simply to tariff bills, which occur only at rare intervals, it becomes a very inadequate compensation for the surrender by the large States to the small States in the constitution of the Senate. According to the reason of the rule, the great appropriation bills must be equally within its intendment. The reason is as strong in one case as in the other.

In the debates of the Convention, Dr. Franklin said:--

“As it had been asked what would be the use of restraining the second branch from meddling with _money bills_, he could not but remark, that it was always of importance that the people should know who had disposed of their money, _and how it had been disposed of_.”

Please, Sir, to mark these words.

“It was a maxim, that those who feel can best judge. This end would, he thought, be best attained, if _money affairs_ were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.”[37]

Mr. Gerry, in urging the restraint upon the Senate, said:--

“The other branch was more immediately the representatives of the people, _and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings_.”[38]

How, Sir, can the people hold the purse-strings, unless they hold the bills by which the purse is appropriated?

And Colonel Mason broke forth in language clearly revealing his sense of danger against which to guard.

“If the Senate can originate, they will, in the recess of the legislative sessions, hatch their mischievous projects for their own purposes, and have their _money bills_ cut and dried (to use a common phrase) for the meeting of the House of Representatives.”[39]

I repeat, then, according to the reason of the rule, the great appropriation bills must be embraced by the prohibition.

_Secondly._ There is a further consideration, founded on the familiar use of the term _money bills_ throughout the debates in the Convention, as applicable to bills which the Senate cannot originate. I need not occupy time by reference to instances; but whoever takes the trouble to investigate the matter in Mr. Madison’s report of the debates, and also in the report of the Virginia Convention, will find that this term is universally employed,--unless, indeed, where Mr. Gouverneur Morris uses the broader term “money plans,”[40] and Mr. Gerry “money matters.”[41] Now all these phrases are clearly applicable to “appropriation bills,” by which the Government is carried on; and the inference seems irresistible, that the parties who used them must have had such bills in mind.

In the Virginia Convention objection was made by Mr. Grayson “to the power of the Senate to propose or concur with _amendments to money bills_.” The objection is even to “amendments.” He pronounced this “a departure from that great principle which required that the _immediate representatives_ of the people only should interfere with _money bills_.… The Lords in England had never been allowed to intermeddle with money bills. He knew not why the Senate should.”[42]

_Thirdly._ This brings me to another consideration, founded on the example of England, which was obviously present to the framers of the Constitution. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] is clearly mistaken on this point. It was often adduced in debate in the National Convention, and, as we have just seen, in the Virginia Convention also. In England the rule is explicit, and of ancient date. As early as July 3, 1678, the Commons resolved:--

“That all aids and supplies, and aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons; _and all bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint, in such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants_, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.”[43]

In pursuance of this rule, estimates for the annual expenditure are submitted by the Ministry to the House of Commons, sitting as a Committee of Supply. This process is explained as follows.

“The member of the Administration representing the department for which the supplies are required first explains to the Committee such matters as may satisfy them of the correctness and propriety of the estimates, and then proceeds to propose each grant in succession, which is put from the Chair in these words: ‘That a sum not exceeding ---- be granted to her Majesty, for the object specified in the estimate.’ … The Committee of Supply votes every sum which is granted annually for the public service,--the army, the navy, the ordnance, and the several civil departments.”[44]

At the close of the session all the grants are embodied in a bill, which is known as “Appropriation Bill,” and, as it is kindred in character to that under our system, doubtless has given its name to ours. This bill is thus described:--

“It enumerates every grant made during the whole session, and authorizes the several sums, as voted by the Committee of Supply, to be issued and applied to each service.”[45]

Thus, on three grounds,--first, by the reason of the thing,--secondly, by the familiar use in all the debates of the descriptive term, “money bills,”--and, thirdly, by the example of England,--the conclusion is inevitable, that “appropriation bills,” _by which the Government is carried on_, are within the spirit of the interdict upon the Senate, and that this body cannot originate such bills without violation of a well-established principle inherited from English jurisprudence, and also without _unhinging_, according to the language of Colonel Mason, that compromise by virtue of which the small States are admitted to equality of representation on this floor.

I am not unmindful of the fact, on which the Senator from Virginia has dwelt so emphatically, that the Senate is in the habit of originating pension bills, also bills for payment of private claims, and kindred measures. I was glad, to-day, to vote for the bill originating in this body for the relief of our late distinguished Minister at Constantinople.[46] But against this usage, which is exceptional in character, and has probably attracted little attention, from its considerable convenience and little importance, may be opposed the uniform practice by which the great bills providing for the necessities of the Government have always originated in the House of Representatives. And you will bear in mind, Sir, that the question is now on these bills.

Mr. President, it is a received maxim, that it is the part of a good judge to amplify his jurisdiction; but it will hardly be accepted, that it is the part of the American Senate to amplify its powers, particularly in derogation of the popular branch. And it surely cannot escape observation, that the present effort is launched at a moment when the popular branch promises to differ from the Senate on important questions of national policy. I am not insensible to the public convenience, which has been pressed in this debate; but permit me to say, Sir, that, should this convenience require the proposed departure from our standing policy, we shall be wise, if we hearken to the counsels of the Senator from New York, and refrain from any innovation, unless assured of the consent and coöperation of the other House.

RELIEF OF VESSELS IN DISTRESS ON THE COAST.

LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE EXCHANGE NEWS-ROOM, BOSTON, FEBRUARY 18, 1856.

SENATE CHAMBER, February 18, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--I have pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of the memorial, forwarded by you from the underwriters and merchants of Boston, and addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, asking the despatch of immediate relief to the large fleet of vessels now distressed by the rigors of this severe winter on our northern coast. It reached me Sunday morning; but its charitable object did not allow delay, and on that day I placed the memorial in the hands of the Secretary.

I have his verbal answer to-day, expressing great interest in the object of the memorial, but saying, that, beyond the revenue cutter, the Treasury Department has no vessel at Boston which can be detached on this service, and that the cutter was directed some weeks ago to do what it could for the relief of distressed vessels.

Though the memorial was addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, I felt it my duty to apply to the Secretary of the Navy. He entered into the plan with much benevolence, and expressed a desire to do all that the means at his command would permit. The only vessel at Boston in readiness is the steam-frigate Merrimack, which is about to start on a “trial-trip” of one week, previous to a cruise of six months. This vessel has already been ordered to make the week’s voyage direct from Boston to Norfolk; but the Secretary will give directions that she shall proceed to the Great Banks as far as can be judiciously done, under the circumstances, in order to afford relief to vessels in distress. He would extend the cruise to a longer term at once, but the contractors who have furnished her engines have certain rights which he is bound to respect.

The Secretary authorizes me to say also that he will send further relief, if possible.

I beg you to assure the memorialists that it will give me pleasure to promote the objects of the memorial to the full extent of my power.

Believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JOHN T. SMITH, Esq., Exchange News-Room.

THE EXAMPLE OF WASHINGTON AGAINST SLAVERY NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN NOW.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE OF THE BOSTON MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, FEBRUARY 19, 1856.

WASHINGTON, February 19, 1856.

DEAR SIR,--I have been honored by your invitation to be with the Mercantile Library Association on the 22d instant. You know well the happiness I find in any coöperation with the young men of that Association, and I need not assure you of the gratification with which I should participate in any services calculated to exalt the example of Washington.

Particularly at this moment should it be invoked, when the Republic, which he helped to found, seems to shake with the first throes of civil war, engendered by an interest which was condemned by him during life and formally abjured by him at his death. His great name should now be employed for the suppression of that Slave Power which is the fruitful mother of so much wretchedness. It will not be enough to quote his paternal words for Union: his example must be arrayed against the gigantic wrong which now disturbs this Union to its centre, and, in the madness of its tyranny, destroys the very objects of Union.

The play of Othello without the part of Othello would be a barren spectacle; and the example of Washington, without his testimony against the malevolent force which disturbs the Republic, would be hardly less barren. Let the young men of Boston be encouraged to dwell on those sentiments and acts which, while they elevate his name, apply with prevailing power to the existing state of things among us. Let them bear in mind that he declared it to be “_among his first wishes_ to see some plan adopted by which Slavery in this country may be _abolished by law_,”--that, to promote this purpose, he expressed a desire, in a recorded interview with a distinguished foreigner, for the formation of an Antislavery Society,--that on many occasions he condemned Slavery,--that, in congratulations to Lafayette on his purchase of a plantation with a view of emancipating the slaves on it, he exclaimed, “Would to God a like spirit might diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country!”--and that, finally, by his last will and testament, written within six months of his death, he bore his practical testimony to those ideas and aspirations, by the emancipation of his slaves. With these things taken to heart, the example of Washington will exert its just conservative influence over the country, holding it back from the extension of that evil against which he set himself, and arousing the general sentiment to repulse the aggressions which now threaten civil war. Then, indeed, will the Father of his Country have a new birth and influence.

Believe me, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

CHARLES G. CHASE, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

CONSTANT EXERTION AND UNION AMONG GOOD MEN.

LETTER TO A MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE, FEBRUARY 25, 1856.

The papers announce, that the following letter, when read, was received with six rousing cheers.

SENATE CHAMBER, February 25, 1856.