Part 1

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file which includes the original illustration. See 48170-h.htm or 48170-h.zip: (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/48170/pg48170-images.html) or (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48170/48170-h.zip)

Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive. See https://archive.org/details/completeworks08sumnuoft

Statesman Edition VOL. VIII

CHARLES SUMNER

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction by Hon. George Frisbie Hoar

Boston Lee and Shepard MCM

Copyright, 1872, By Charles Sumner.

Copyright, 1900, By Lee and Shepard.

Statesman Edition. Limited to One Thousand Copies. of Which This Is No. 565

Norwood Press: Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII.

PAGE

REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE NATIONAL STATUTES. Resolution and Speech in the Senate, December 12, 1861 1

DENIAL OF PATENTS TO COLORED INVENTORS. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 16, 1861 6

THE NATIONAL ARMIES AND FUGITIVE SLAVES. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 18, 1861 7

EXPULSION OF TRUSTEN POLK, OF MISSOURI. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 18, 1861 12

EMANCIPATION AND THE PRESIDENT. Letter to Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, December 27, 1861 14

THE TRENT CASE, AND MARITIME RIGHTS. Speech in the Senate, on the Surrender of Mason and Slidell, Rebel Agents, taken from the British Mail Steamer Trent, January 9, 1862. With Appendix 15

OFFICE OF SENATOR, AND ITS INCOMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER OFFICE. Remarks in the Senate, on the Case of General Lane, of Kansas, January 13, 1862 105

EXPULSION OF JESSE D. BRIGHT, OF INDIANA. Speeches in the Senate, January 21 and February 4, 1862 114

ANSWER OF A WITNESS CRIMINATING HIMSELF. Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill relating to Witnesses before Committees, January 22, 1862 152

LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE. Remarks in the Senate, on a Five Minutes’ Rule, January 27 and 29, 1862 155

INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION AT LONDON. Speech in the Senate, on the Joint Resolution providing for Representation there, January 31, 1862 157

ORDER IN BUSINESS: EACH QUESTION BY ITSELF. Remarks in the Senate, February 6, 1862 161

STATE REBELLION, STATE SUICIDE; EMANCIPATION AND RECONSTRUCTION. Resolutions in the Senate, February 11, 1862. With Appendix 163

TREASURY NOTES A LEGAL TENDER. Speech in the Senate, on the Clause making Treasury Notes a Legal Tender, February 13, 1862 181

LOYALTY A QUALIFICATION REQUIRED IN A SENATOR. Speeches in the Senate, February 18 and 26, 1862 208

HELP FOR MEXICO AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION. Report from the Committee of Foreign Relations upon the Draught of a Convention with Mexico, February 19, 1862 227

NO RECOGNITION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. Motion and Remarks in the Senate, February 25, 1862 238

OUR GERMAN FELLOW-CITIZENS, AND A TRUE RECONSTRUCTION. Letter to the German Republican Central Committee of New York, February 25, 1862 241

STATE SUICIDE AND EMANCIPATION. Letter to a Public Meeting at the Cooper Institute, New York, March 6, 1862 243

REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF COLOR IN CARRYING THE MAILS. Bill in the Senate, March 18, 1862, and Incidents 247

RANSOM OF SLAVES AT THE NATIONAL CAPITAL. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia, March 31, 1862 251

REBEL BARBARITIES, AND THE BARBARISM OF SLAVERY. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, April 1, 1862 301

TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Remarks in the Senate, on the Emancipation Bill, April 3, 1862 304

INDEPENDENCE OF HAYTI AND LIBERIA. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill to authorize the Appointment of Diplomatic Representatives to the Republics of Hayti and Liberia, April 23, 1862 307

FINAL SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. Speech in the Senate, on the Treaty with Great Britain, April 24, 1862 336

ENFORCEMENT OF EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, April 28, 1862 349

CONDUCT OF OUR GENERALS TOWARDS FUGITIVE SLAVES. Speech in the Senate, on a Resolution of Inquiry, May 1, 1862 351

NO NAMES OF VICTORIES OVER FELLOW-CITIZENS ON REGIMENTAL COLORS. Resolution in the Senate, May 8, 1862 361

BOUNTY LANDS FOR SOLDIERS OUT OF REAL ESTATE OF REBELS. Resolution in the Senate, May 12, 1862 363

TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR CONFISCATION AND EMANCIPATION. Resolution in the Senate, May 12, and Remarks, June 28, 1862 364

THE LATE HON. GOLDSMITH F. BAILEY, REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. Speech in the Senate, on his Death, May 15, 1862 366

USE OF PARCHMENT IN LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS. Resolution and Speech in the Senate, on the Enrolment of Bills, May 16, 1862 372

REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE NATIONAL STATUTES.

RESOLUTION AND SPEECH IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 12, 1861.

April 8, 1852, during his first session in the Senate, Mr. Sumner brought forward a resolution for a revision and consolidation of the national statutes, which was duly referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[1] Though the resolution attracted attention at the time, the committee did nothing.

Early in the next Congress, December 14, 1853, he presented the same resolution a second time, which was duly referred,[2] and again neglected.

In the succeeding Congress, February 11, 1856, he offered the same resolution a third time,[3] and with no better success than before.

Absence from the Senate and protracted disability prevented the renewal of this effort until the administration of President Lincoln, who was induced to make a recommendation on the subject in his annual message of December 3, 1861.[4] Mr. Sumner followed, December 12th, with his oft-repeated resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to consider the expediency of providing by law for the appointment of commissioners to revise the public statutes of the United States, to simplify their language, to correct their incongruities, to supply their deficiencies, to arrange them in order, to reduce them to one connected text, and to report them thus improved to Congress for its final action, to the end that the public statutes, which all are presumed to know, may be in such form as to be more within the apprehension of all.”

Of this he spoke.

MR. PRESIDENT,--It is now nearly ten years, since, on first entering this Chamber, I had the honor of presenting this identical resolution. Several times afterwards, at succeeding sessions, I brought it forward; but there was no action in regard to it, either by the Committee on the Judiciary, to which it was referred, or by the Senate. At last we have a positive recommendation from the President in his Annual Message, calling attention to the necessity of a revision of our statutes, and of reducing them to a connected text. I desire to take advantage of that recommendation, and to revive the proposition which ten years ago I first introduced.

Something in earnest, Sir, must be done. The ancient Roman laws, when first codified, were so cumbersome that they made a load for several camels. If this cannot be said of our statutes, nobody will deny that they are cumbersome, swelling to at least eleven or twelve heavy volumes, besides being most expensive. They are to be found in few public libraries, and very rarely in private libraries. They ought to be in every public library, and also in the offices of lawyers throughout the country. That can be only by reducing them in size so that they will form a single volume, which is entirely practicable,--thus rendering them easy to read and cheap to buy.

I have reason to believe, Sir, that such a work would be agreeable to the people. I am not without assurance that the people value such reading. Certainly I am justified in this conclusion, when I think of my own State; for it is within my knowledge that the statutes of Massachusetts, reduced to a single volume, as they now are, have, during a very brief period, been purchased by the people at large to the extent of more than ten thousand copies.

I hope, Sir, there will be no objection founded on the condition of the country. I do not forget the old saying, that the laws are silent in the midst of arms; but I would have our Republic show by example that such is not always the case. I am sure we can do nothing better for the honor of the Administration that is ours. Indeed, should we not all look with increased pride upon our country, most cherished when most in peril, if, while dealing with a fearful Rebellion, Congress turned aside to the edification of the people in objects that are useful, among which I place that I now propose? It will be something, if, through the din of war, this work of peace proceeds, changing the national statutes into a harmonious text, and making them accessible to all.

The resolution was agreed to.

* * * * *

This was followed, January 28, 1862, by a bill, introduced by Mr. Sumner, for the revision and consolidation of the statutes of the United States, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. May 31, the Committee, on motion of its chairman [Mr. TRUMBULL], was discharged from the further consideration of the resolution. At the same time the bill was postponed to the first Monday in December, and expired with the Congress.[5]

December 15, 1863, Mr. Sumner renewed his original resolution on the subject, and on the 23d introduced another bill with the same object, on which Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee, reported adversely, June 28, 1864.[6]

January 5, 1866, Mr. Sumner renewed his effort by a bill, which was also referred to the Judiciary Committee. February 7, Mr. Poland, from the Committee, reported the bill favorably. April 9, it was considered in the Senate and passed without debate, substantially as drawn and introduced by Mr. Sumner. In the original bill the salaries of the commissioners were $3,000 each. On the report of the Committee, they were changed to $5,000 each. June 22 the bill passed the House of Representatives without amendment, and was approved by the President June 27.[7]

Under this Act, President Johnson appointed as commissioners Hon. Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts, Hon. Charles P. James of Ohio, and Hon. William Johnston of Pennsylvania.

The period of three years, within which the revision and consolidation were to be completed, having expired, leaving the work undone, a supplementary Act of Congress was passed,[8] continuing the original Act, and under it President Grant appointed as commissioners Hon. Benjamin Vaughan Abbott of New York, Hon. Charles P. James of Ohio, and Hon. Victor C. Barringer of North Carolina.

DENIAL OF PATENTS TO COLORED INVENTORS.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 16, 1861.

Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution, and asked for its present consideration.

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office be directed to consider if any further legislation is necessary in order to secure to persons of African descent, in our own country, the right to take out patents for useful inventions, under the Constitution of the United States.”

MR. PRESIDENT,--If I can have the attention of the Chairman of the Committee on Patents, I will state to him why this resolution is introduced. It has come to my knowledge that an inventor of African descent, living in Boston, applied for a patent under the Constitution and laws of the land, and was refused, on the ground, that, according to the Dred Scott decision, he is not a citizen of the United States, and therefore a patent cannot issue to him. I wish the Committee to consider whether in any way that abuse cannot be removed. That is all.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

* * * * *

The Committee made no report on the resolution. It was a case for interpretation rather than legislation, and the question, like that of passports, was practically settled not long afterwards by the opinion of the Attorney-General, that a free man of color, born in the United States, is a citizen.[9] Since then patents have been issued to colored inventors.

THE NATIONAL ARMIES AND FUGITIVE SLAVES.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 18, 1861.

The abuses in Missouri, to which Mr. Sumner called attention, December 4, 1861, appeared even in the neighborhood of Washington, almost under the eye of Congress, so that he felt it his duty to expose them once more.

December 18, he spoke briefly on the following resolution, introduced by himself the preceding day.

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing by additional legislation that our national armies shall not be employed in the surrender of fugitive slaves.”

MR. PRESIDENT,--Some days ago it was my duty to expose abuses in Missouri in regard to fugitive slaves. Since then I have received communications from that State, showing great interest in the question, some of them in the nature of protest against the system adopted there. One purports to be from a slave-master, educated in a Slave State, and he speaks with bitterness of the indignity put upon the army there, and of the injury it inflicts on the cause of the Union. Another contains a passage which I shall read.

“I wish to say in addition that I have lived twenty-four years in Missouri, that I know the people well, have served them in various offices; and let me assure you, it is nonsense to try to save Missouri to the Union, and the institution of Slavery also. We must give up one or the other. Slavery ought to fall, and Missouri be saved. Fremont’s army struck terror into the Secessionists. He made them feel it by taking their goods and chattels. Let our armies proclaim freedom to the slaves of the Secessionists and the Rebellion will soon close. We can take care of the free negroes at a future day; give General Lane ten thousand men, and he would establish peace in Missouri in thirty days.”

But, Sir, my special object now is, to exhibit wrong here at home rather than in distant Missouri. Brigadier-General Stone, the well-known commander at Ball’s Bluff, is adding to his disaster there by engaging in the surrender of fugitive slaves. He does this most successfully. If a fugitive slave is to be handed over to a Rebel, the General is easily victorious.

Sir, beside my constant interest in this question, beside my interest in the honor of the national army, I have a special interest at the present moment, because Brigadier-General Stone sees fit to impose this vile and unconstitutional duty upon Massachusetts troops. The Governor of my honored State has charged me with a communication to the Secretary of War, treating it as an indignity to the men, and an act unworthy of the flag. I agree with the Governor; and when I ask your attention to this outrage, I make myself his representative, as well as my own.

Others beside the Governor of Massachusetts complain. There are two German companies in one of the Massachusetts regiments, who entered into the public service with the positive understanding that they should not be put to any such discreditable and unconstitutional service. They complain, and with them all their own compatriot fellow-citizens, the enlightened, freedom-loving German population throughout the country.

The complaint extends to other quarters. Here is a letter from Philadelphia, interesting and to the point. I read a short extract only.

“I have but one son, and he fought on Ball’s Bluff in the California regiment, where his bravery brought him into notice. He escaped, wounded, after dark. He protests against being made to return fugitive slaves, and, if ordered to that duty, will refuse obedience and take the consequences. I ask, Sir, shall our sons, who are offering their lives for the preservation of our institutions, be degraded to slave-catchers for any persons, loyal or disloyal? If such is the policy of the Government, I shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its preservation.”

With such communications, some official and others private, I feel that I should not do my duty, if I failed to implore the attention of the Senate to this intolerable grievance. It must be arrested. I am glad to know that my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs [Mr. WILSON], promises us a bill to stop this outrage. It should be introduced promptly, and passed at once. Our troops must be saved from such shame.

The resolution was adopted after remarks by Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, which revealed the tone still prevalent in certain quarters. He said:--

“I agree, that, if all men were Puritans, that, if all men appreciated Liberty as we do, and as our race does, then we might extend it to all men; but to extend it to men who have no appreciation of it, who would trample the boon under foot, when granted them,--to such men it is a mischief rather than a blessing.

“Still I have only to say, that I think we have nothing in the world to do with all these questions. I think their discussion here, their being mooted in these assemblies, is mischievous, and only calculated to keep up an angry irritation, which may have exceedingly bad results in the final consummation of the struggle in which we are now engaged.”

Mr. Wilson, as chairman of the Committee, reported a bill on the subject, which, after debate, gave way to another from the House of Representatives, containing a new article of war, prohibiting the employment of the national forces in the return of fugitive slaves, which became a law March 13, 1862.[10]

* * * * *

This movement of Mr. Sumner was followed by a personal incident. General Stone, whose conduct was exposed with severity, took exception to the speech, and addressed him a letter intended to be very insulting. Mr. Sumner made no reply, nor did he utter any complaint in any quarter. A few days later be received notice from Boston that a near relative of the General had threatened to inflict personal violence upon him. Some time afterwards General Stone was taken into custody by military order, and for a long time incarcerated. The hostile press and the General’s friends charged this upon Mr. Sumner, often in most offensive terms, and it was repeated in the face of his constant denial. April 21, 1862, the question of this arrest was considered in the Senate, on motion of Mr. McDougall, of California, when Mr. Sumner spoke briefly.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have no opinion to express on the case of General Stone, for I know nothing about it. Clearly he ought to be confronted with his accusers at an early day, unless, indeed, there be some reason of transcending military character, which, in the present condition of the country, at a moment of war, might render such a trial improper. Of this I do not pretend to judge; nor am I aware of evidence on which the Senate can now act.

…

I hope I shall be pardoned, if I allude to myself. A most persistent attempt has been made in newspapers to connect me with this arrest, to the extent of according to me and my imagined influence the credit or the discredit of it. This is a mistake. I have been from the beginning an absolute stranger to it. The arrest was made originally without suggestion or hint from me, direct or indirect, and it has been continued without any such suggestion or hint from me. I knew nothing about it at the beginning, and know nothing about it now. There is no intimate friend or family relative of the prisoner more entirely free from all connection with it than myself.

EXPULSION OF TRUSTEN POLK, OF MISSOURI.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 18, 1861.

December 18, 1861, Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution, which, on his motion, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

“_Resolved_, That Trusten Polk, of Missouri, now a traitor to the United States, be expelled, and he hereby is expelled, from the Senate.”

Mr. Sumner produced a letter from Mr. Polk, which had found its way into the newspapers, where he says: “Dissolution is now a fact,--not only a fact accomplished, but thrice repeated. Everything here looks like inevitable and final dissolution. Will Missouri hesitate a moment to go with her Southern sisters? I hope not.”

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, thought the letter was “not genuine,” and added:--

“He is a native of my own State; from early boyhood he has been an exemplary Christian, a member of a religious denomination; and when the phrase is used in that letter, professing to have been written by Trusten Polk, that he had to ‘ante up $200,’ I am satisfied the language is not the language of Trusten Polk. He is not familiar with scenes where hundreds of dollars are ‘anted up.’”

Mr. Sumner replied:--

I do not pretend to an opinion on the genuineness of the letter. Like the Senator from Delaware, I have seen it in several newspapers, and my attention has been specially called to it by correspondents in Missouri, who write that its genuineness cannot be doubted. But this is a question for the Committee.

If I understand the Senator, his argument against the genuineness of the letter is founded on a phrase which he thinks Trusten Polk could never have written: it is a phrase of doubtful style or taste, showing bad associations. I am not familiar enough with Trusten Polk to sit in judgment on his style, nor is the Senate called to any such responsibility; but we are to sit in judgment on his public conduct, and if the letter is not a forgery, there can be no question as to our duty.

Believing the inquiry important, not doubting the duty of the Senate to purge itself of traitors who have too long found sanctuary in its Chamber, and satisfied that the country justly expects this to be done, I have felt bound to introduce the resolution.