Part 13

I put aside, also, the suggestion of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. TEN EYCK], founded on the language of the President in his inaugural address of the 4th of March. It is true that the President spoke of the Rebels in generous, fraternal words, such as became the Chief Magistrate of a great people, not yet renouncing the idea of conquering by kindness, and not forgetting that Leviathan was tamed by a cord. But, whatever the language of the President, it is none the less clear that the Rebellion at that very moment was completely organized by a succession of overt acts, which fixed the treasonable position of its authors, and especially of its chief, to whom the letter offering arms was addressed.

I put aside, also, the argument of the Senator from California [Mr. LATHAM], especially that part founded on the tolerance shown to treason, when uttered here by the retiring Rebels. Nobody questions that treason was uttered on this floor, or that treasonable counsels went forth from this Chamber. But the Senate was then controlled by the associates of the Senator of Indiana, and it was not in our power to check or chastise the traitors. It is within the recollection of many that those utterances were heard on this side of the Chamber, not only with indignant patriotism, but with bitter, stinging regret at the abject condition of the Senate, then so entirely in the hands of traitors that we were obliged to hear in silence. Surely such utterances, wicked with treason, constituting the very voice of the Rebellion, cannot be an apology for the disloyal letter of the Senator; nor can silence, when we were powerless to act, be any argument for silence now that power and responsibility are ours.

I agree with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. BROWNING], that the whole conduct and declaration of the author may be legitimately employed to elucidate the character of this letter; but I found no supplementary charge on such conduct or declaration. Others may use the argument that the Senator has declared himself against coercion of the Rebel States, or that he has refused to vote the necessary means for the suppression of the Rebellion; but I use no such argument. Much as I lament such a course, and justly obnoxious as I regard it, yet I cannot consider it as an argument for expulsion of the Senator. Freedom of debate is among the triumphs of modern civilization; and it shall never be impaired by any vote or word of mine. To this freedom I have held fast, when almost alone in this body; and what I have steadily vindicated for myself against all odds I shall never deny to another. Therefore, if I am the judge, there is no Senator who will not always be perfectly free to speak and vote as he thinks best on every question that shall legitimately arise; but beyond this immunity he must not go. He shall not talk treason; he shall not parley with rebellion; he shall not address to it words of sympathy and good-will; especially, he shall not recognize its chief in his pretended character of President, nor shall he send him improved fire-arms to be employed in the work of treason.

Putting aside all these considerations, the case against the Senator from Indiana is clear. All apologies, all excuses, utterly fail. It is vain to say that the bearer of the letter was his lifelong friend, as it is vain to say, also, that the Senator did not dream that there would be war. The first apology is as feeble as the second is audacious. If the Senator did not dream that there would be war, then why send arms to the chief of the Rebellion? To Jefferson Davis as a private citizen, to Jefferson Davis as a patriot Senator, there was no occasion or motive for sending arms. It was only to Jefferson Davis as chief of the Rebellion that arms could be sent; and to him, in that character, they were sent. But even if the Rebellion were not at that time manifest in overt acts,--as it clearly was,--still the sending of arms was a positive provocation and contribution to its outbreak, especially when the arms were sent by a Senator. And now, at the risk of repetition, I say again, it is not necessary that the war should have been commenced on the part of the United States. It is enough, that, on the part of Jefferson Davis, at the date of the letter, there was actual levying of war, or, at least, a purpose to levy war; and in either of these two cases, the latter as well as the former, the guilt of the Senator offering arms is complete,--call it treason, or simply disloyalty, if you will.

It is vain that you seek to surround the Senatorial letter-writer with the technical defences of a judicial tribunal. This will not do. They are out of place. God grant, that, in the administration of justice, a citizen arraigned for his life may always be presumed innocent till he is proved guilty! But, while zealously asserting this presumption in a criminal trial, I utterly deny it in the present case. The two proceedings are radically unlike. In the one we think most of the individual; in the other we think most of the Senate. The flag-officer of a fleet, or the commander of a garrison, when only suspected of correspondence with the enemy, is without delay deprived of command; nor can any technical presumption of innocence be invoked in his defence. For the sake of the fleet, for the sake of the garrison, which must not be betrayed, it is your duty to see that he is deprived of command. Nor can a suspected Senator, with all his confidential trusts, legislative, diplomatic, and executive, expect any tolerance denied to a suspected flag-officer, or to a suspected commander of a garrison. If not strong, pure, and upright in himself, he must not expect to find strength, purity, and uprightness in any presumption of innocence, or in any technical rule of law. For the sake of the Senate, he must be deprived of his place. Afterwards, should he be arraigned at law, he will be allowed to employ all the devices and weapons familiar to judicial proceedings.

There is another illusion into which the Senator has fallen; and it seems to me that the Senator from New York, and perhaps other Senators, have followed him. It is the assumption, that, in depriving the Senator of his seat, we take from him something that is really his. This is a mistake. A Senator is simply a trustee. The Senator is trustee for Indiana. But his fidelity as trustee is now drawn in question; and since no person is allowed to continue as trustee whose character is not above suspicion,--inspired _uberrimâ fide_, according to the language of the law,--the case of the Senator should obviously be remanded to the State for which he still assumes to act. Should he be wronged by expulsion, then will that State promptly return him to his present trust, and our judgment will be generously reversed. The Senator has no right for himself here; he does not represent himself; but he represents his State, of which he is the elected, most confidential trustee; and when his fidelity is openly impeached, there is no personal right which can become his shield. Tell me not of the seat of the Senator. Let the Senator be cautious in language. By courtesy the seat may be his; but in reality the seat belongs to Indiana; and this honored State, unsurpassed in contributions to the patriot armies of the Republic, may justly protest against longer misrepresentation on this floor by a disloyal Senator.

But the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN] exclaims--and the Senator from New York follows him--that the offence of the Senator is “treason or nothing.” For myself, I have no hesitation in expressing the conviction that it is treason. If it be not treason in a Senator to send arms to an open traitor, whom he at the same time acknowledges in his traitorous character, then it were better to blot out the crime of treason from our statute-book, and to rase its definition from the Constitution. Sir, it is treason. But even if not treason according to all the technical requirements of that crime, obviously and unquestionably it is an act of disloyalty so discreditable, so unworthy, and so dangerous as to render the duty of the Senate imperative. Is it nothing that the Senator should write a friendly letter, make open acknowledgment, and offer warlike aid to a public traitor? Is it nothing, that, sitting in this Chamber, the Senator should send to the chief of the Rebellion words of sympathy and arms of power? Is it nothing that the Senator should address the traitor in terms of courtesy and official respect? Is it nothing that the Senator should call the traitor “His Excellency,” and should hail him “President of the Confederation of States”? And is it nothing that the Senator should offer to the traitor thus addressed what of all things he most coveted, to be turned against the Constitution which the Senator has sworn to support?

“Is this nothing? Why, then the world, and all that’s in ’t, is nothing; The covering sky is nothing: … … nor nothing have these nothings, If this be nothing.”

Sir, the case is too plain for argument. You cannot argue that two and two make four, that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, or that the sun shines in the sky. All these are palpable to reason or to sense. But, if I did not see before me honored Senators, valued friends, who think otherwise, I should say that to the patriot soul it is hardly less palpable that a Senator, acknowledging in friendly correspondence the chief of a Rebellion set on foot in defiance of the United States, and sending to him arms, whose only possible use was in upholding the Rebellion, has justly forfeited that confidence which is as much needed as a commission to assure his seat in this Chamber. The case is very plain, and we have taken too much time to consider it. We have been dilatory when we ought to have been prompt, and have hearkened to technical defences when we should have surrendered to that indignation which disloyalty is calculated to arouse.

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CLARK] has reminded us--as John Quincy Adams reminded another generation--of that beautiful work of Art in the other wing of the Capitol, where the Muse of History, with faithful pen, registers the transactions of each day, and he trusted that over against the record of past disloyalty another page might beam with the just judgment that followed. But there is another work of Art, famous as Art itself, and proceeding from its greatest master, which may admonish us precisely what to do. The ancient satrap Heliodorus, acting in the name of a distant sovereign, entered that sumptuous temple dedicated to the true God, where stood the golden candlesticks and hung the veil which was yet unrent, and profanely seized the riches under protection of the altar itself, when suddenly, at the intercession of the high priest, an angelic horseman armed with thongs is seen to dash the intruder upon the marble pavement, and to sweep him with scourges from the sacred presence. Now that disloyalty, in the acknowledged name of a distant traitor, intrudes into this sanctuary of the Constitution, and insists upon a place at our altar, there should be indignant chastisement, swift as the angelic horseman that moves immortal in the colors of Raffaelle. In vain do you interpose appeals for lenity or forbearance. The case does not allow them. I know well the beauty and the greatness of charity. For the Senator I have charity; but there is a better charity due to the Senate, whose solemn trusts are in jeopardy; and even if you do not accept completely the saying of Antiquity, which makes duty to country the great charity embracing all other charities, you will not deny that it is at least a commanding obligation, by the side of which all that we owe the Senator is small. And, Sir, let us not forget, let the precious example be present in our souls, that He who taught the beauty and the greatness of charity was the first to scourge the money-changers from the temple of the Lord.

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, followed. Some of his words are quoted, from their bearing on Mr. Sumner’s opposition to Slavery.

“The gentleman shakes his imperial locks like a Jove, and menaces death and destruction to Slavery. I thank my stars that the gentleman is not yet the Jove of this land, nor the Jove of this Senate either. There are minds as exalted and as cultivated as his, and there are wills as patriotic and as true to the Constitution and to the country as his, and altogether independent of his; and it is to those minds that I appeal, whenever a question involving the interests of my constituents comes up here, not to the mind of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I know, Sir, what fate would await Slavery, if he could speak the fiat. He is, however, but one member of this body.”

February 5th, after further debate, the final vote was taken on the resolution of expulsion, and resulted in yeas 32, nays 14.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT. Upon this question the yeas are 32, the nays are 14. More than two thirds having agreed to the resolution, it is passed. [_Applause in the galleries._]

THE VICE-PRESIDENT. Order! Order!

The Washington correspondent of a Northern journal described the scene of the vote.

“All seemed to feel that they were acting, not for the present only, but for coming time. The great crowd of spectators filling every available spot, and the presence of many of the members of the House, added to the impressiveness of the scene. Amid breathless anxiety and profound silence the roll-call commenced. For a time the ayes and noes bore a doubtful proportion. Senator Willey, having held his vote in abeyance till the last, had just announced that he should vote against the expulsion, and Senator Carlile, who had been generally supposed to favor the resolution, also joined his colleague among the noes. As the vote proceeded, the ayes became almost uninterrupted, and we were prepared for the result. A few moments more and the event was over,--felt by those who witnessed it to be scarcely less solemn than the infliction of death itself, and which will probably be cited in precedent when all its spectators shall have long been dust.”

ANSWER OF A WITNESS CRIMINATING HIMSELF.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL RELATING TO WITNESSES BEFORE COMMITTEES, JANUARY 22, 1862.

In considering the bill amending the provisions of the second section of the Act of January 24, 1857, enforcing the attendance of witnesses before Committees of either House of Congress, the following clause was objected to: “And no witness shall hereafter be allowed to refuse to testify to any fact or to produce any paper touching which he shall be examined by either House of Congress or any Committee of either House, for the reason that his testimony touching such fact or the production of such paper _may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous_.” In the debate that ensued Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--There seems to be much inquiry as to the Common Law on this question, and various points are presented.

It is asked, for instance, whether a witness is obliged to answer, where his answer will render him infamous. I know the differences on this point, but cannot doubt that by the Common Law the witness is obliged to answer in such a case,--most certainly, if the question is relevant and material.

Again, it is asked if a witness is permitted to determine for himself whether to answer the question proposed. Here also the Common Law, when properly interpreted, is clear. The witness cannot be the final judge. He must submit to the decision of the Court, which will determine whether his answer may criminate him, by revealing either guilt or a possible link in the evidence of guilt.

But then, Mr. President, why speak of the Common Law? Why revert to these antiquarian inquiries, when we have the Constitution of the United States specifically dealing with this very question? In the fifth article of the Amendments it is provided that “no person shall be compelled _in any criminal case_ to be a witness against himself.” Such are the very words of the Constitution, derived from the Common Law, but imparting precision and limitation to the Common Law. Now it seems to me it will be enough, if, on this occasion, we follow the text of the Constitution. As in the pending proposition there is nothing inconsistent with the Constitution, we need not ransack the wide and ancient demesnes of the Common Law to stir up difficulties. Whatever the rule at Common Law, plainly under the Constitution its operation is restricted to a “criminal case,” leaving a case of infamy untouched.

I am free to say, Sir,--and what I am about to remark is particularly in answer to the Senator from New York [Mr. HARRIS],--that, if this question were presented independent of the Constitution, I should be little disposed to follow the Common Law. In my judgment the Common Law is less wise here than it ought to be. I cannot but think that the jurisprudence of other civilized countries, derived from the Roman Law, supplies a better rule. There is no other civilized jurisprudence under which a witness is excused from answering any question, though the answer may affect his character or honor, or even render him criminal. The Common Law, at an early day, under a generous inspiration, adopted a contrary principle, which, crossing the ocean with our forefathers, is embodied in the text of the Constitution. Finding it there, I accept it; certainly I do not quarrel with it; but I cannot consent that it shall receive any expansion, especially interfering with the public interests. I hope the bill may pass as it comes from the House, without amendment. It is a good bill.

Mr. Harris, of New York, moved as an amendment: “Nor shall this Act be so construed as to require any witness to testify to any fact which shall tend to criminate him.” The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted, yeas 19, nays 21; so the amendment failed.

The bill was then passed, and, January 24th, approved by the President.[140]

LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A FIVE MINUTES’ RULE, JANUARY 27 AND 29, 1862.

A Joint Rule, moved by Mr. Wade, of Ohio, to facilitate secret sessions, contained a restriction on debate, which was afterwards struck out on his own motion. Mr. Sumner united with others against this restriction, and some of his remarks are preserved here as a record of opinion.

January 27th, he said:--

I am glad the Senator has modified his rule, so far as it bears on the length of speeches. He thinks a speech of five minutes long enough. If all had the happy faculty of my distinguished friend, who so easily speaks to the point, I doubt not it would be long enough; but we must take Senators as they are, according to our experience, and allow for their ways. Besides, such a rule would be a departure from the constant policy of the Senate.

The Joint Rule was much discussed, and underwent various modifications, some on motion of Mr. Sumner. January 29th, a substitute was moved by Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, and subsequently adopted, which contained the restriction on debate abandoned by his colleague, as follows:--

“If decided in the affirmative, debate shall be confined to the subject-matter, and be limited to five minutes by any member. _Provided_, That any member shall be allowed five minutes to explain or oppose any pertinent amendment.”

This led Mr. Sumner to speak again.

I must confess that I hesitate to place among Rules of the Senate a limitation of debate to five minutes,--not that I desire in our conversations on business to exceed that allowance. Personally I am content with what pleases my associates; but I doubt the expediency of such a rule, which thus far is a stranger among us.

Limitations of debate in various forms play a large part in the other Chamber. Shall they begin here, even in the small way proposed? A five minutes’ rule is not the previous question, with its death-dealing _garrote_, but it is a limitation of debate, and the Senate has from the beginning set itself against any such restriction, insisting always upon the largest latitude and amplest opportunity.

If there were any obvious good to be accomplished by such a rule, if there were any exigency seeming to require the sacrifice, I should welcome it; but I put it to Senators, whether experience in Executive Session does not show that it is unnecessary. I cannot doubt that the very business contemplated by the rule would be discussed directly, plainly, briefly, according to the essential nature of the question, even without any restriction. But, if unnecessary, why make a change which will look so ill that it were better to bear inconvenience rather than have such a deformity?

It is enough, if on a critical occasion we are able to close our doors, leaving the great privilege of debate unchecked, to be employed as sword or buckler, according to the promptings of patriotism and the conscience of Senators.

INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION AT LONDON.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR REPRESENTATION THERE, JANUARY 31, 1862.

January 31st, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution reported by Mr. Sumner from the Committee on Foreign Relations, providing for representation at the Exhibition of the Industry of all Nations at London in the year 1862.

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, said that he was “entirely opposed to this whole thing.” Mr. Sumner then spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HALE] objects to the joint resolution, but he assigns no reason. When I make a personal appeal to him, he declines to answer. Of course, that is according to his right. He may be silent, though we are always too happy when he speaks. It becomes my duty, therefore, to explain the resolution, which I shall do in few words.

At the extra session of Congress in July last, a joint resolution was adopted in the following words:--

“That the President be, and he hereby is, authorized to take such measures as shall to him seem best to facilitate a proper representation of the industrial interests of the United States at the Exhibition of the Industry of all Nations to be holden at London in the year 1862, and the sum of two thousand dollars is hereby appropriated for the incidental expenses thereof.”

The resolution passed Congress, and was approved by the President on the 27th of July. Under it a Commission was organized by the President, with the Secretary of State as Chairman. Associated with him were eminent gentlemen from different walks of life, from different parts of the country----

MR. GRIMES. What parts?

MR. SUMNER. All parts,--the West, the North, and the East.

MR. GRIMES. Who from the West?

MR. SUMNER. You will find the names on the printed list. At a meeting in Washington, a sub-committee was organized for the direction of business. Through this sub-committee a correspondence has been conducted with persons all over the country interested in the Exhibition, and industrial products have been gathered at New York, to be forwarded to London; but their proceedings are stopped for want of means, and the actual question is simply this: Will the Senate allow the business already commenced under their auspices to fail, or will they make the needful appropriation to carry it forward?