Part 19

MR. SUMNER. The Senator says, that, if the same language had been used while he was a Senator, it might justify expulsion. That is enough, Sir; and yet the Senator argues that it will not justify the Senate in refusing to open its doors, when he presents himself for admission. In plain terms, the Senate may pronounce the stigma of expulsion, but not the judgment of exclusion. A similar absurdity would be to say, that in private life an offence would justify kicking an intruder down stairs, but would not justify refusing him admission to our house. It is enough to state this case. Nothing can be clearer in the light of reason--and I say also of the Constitution--than that it is the duty of the Senate to meet disloyalty on the threshold,--to say to it, wherever it first shows itself, that this Chamber is no place for it. The English orator pictured his desolation, when he said that he was alone, and had none to meet his enemies in the gate.[204] Desolate will be the Senate, when it cannot meet disloyalty in the gate.

But the Senator from Maine complains, and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] joins in the complaint, that the claimant is not allowed to _purge_ himself by his oath,--thus using a technical phrase of the law, applicable chiefly to suspected persons. Not allowed to _purge_ himself! Rather say, Sir, not allowed to _perjure_ himself. For, in view of the testimony on your table, the inference is, unhappily, too strong, that in any oath to support the Constitution he must perjure himself. I say this with pain, and anxious not to prejudge the case, but simply because the facts, as they stand without contradiction, leave no opportunity for any other conclusion.

Since complaint is made by learned lawyers that the claimant is not allowed to purge himself, I desire to adduce a legal analogy on this question. It is well known that by the Common Law a person is not permitted to take an oath who does not believe in God. This is the general principle; but when we look at the application, we see how completely it illustrates the present case. If a person is known to have openly and recently declared disbelief, he will not be permitted to purge himself by his oath, for the reason that his own declarations are decisive.

Here Mr. Sumner read from Greenleaf’s _Law of Evidence_, § 370, and the note to that section, and then proceeded.

Here again is additional illustration from the annotations to the great work of Phillipps on the Law of Evidence.

“After the incompetency of the witness from defect of religious belief is satisfactorily established by proof of his declarations out of court, he will not be permitted to deny or explain such declarations or his opinions, or to state his recantation of them, when called to be sworn. But he may be restored to his competency on giving satisfactory proof of a change of opinion before the trial, so as to repel any presumption arising from his previous declarations of infidelity.”[205]

I would not press this illustration too far. But it seems to me clear, that, if you accept the declarations of a person as decisive against his religious belief, they must be accepted as equally decisive with regard to his political belief. An oath to support the Constitution presupposes political belief, as much as the oath itself presupposes religious belief.

Pardon me, Sir, but I cannot refrain from astonishment that Senators, learned lawyers, should be willing to treat the oath to support the Constitution as an oath of _purgation_, an oath of _defecation_, an oath of _purification_,--by which a suspected person may cleanse himself, by which an evil spirit may be cast out. Sir, it is no such thing. Such is not the oath of the Constitution. By that oath the accepted Senator dedicates himself solemnly to the Constitution. It is not an oath of purgation, as Senators insist, but an oath of consecration. To such an oath may be fitly applied the words of the ancients, when they spoke of the oath as “the greatest pledge of faith among men.”

I would not be carried into technicalities; but, since Senators insist that this oath is merely of purgation, I venture to add, that, according to early writers, there were two forms of oaths,--one technically styled “the oath of expurgation,” sometimes the _ex officio_ oath, by which persons were bound to answer all questions, even to the extent of accusing themselves or intimate friends. This oath was much used and abused in the days of Queen Elizabeth. At an earlier day it was administered to an Archbishop of York charged with murder, and no less than one hundred compurgators were sworn with him. The other is what is called “the promissory oath,” which is the oath of the sovereign, the magistrate, the judge, the senator. Obviously this is widely different from the oath by which a person clears himself from suspicion, or cleanses his name.

There is another oath, with a peculiar title: I mean the _custom-house oath_. You all know something of this oath, which is taken hastily, without solemnity or question, and is now an acknowledged nuisance and mockery, against which people petition Congress. By such oaths, “sworn is the tongue, but unsworn is the mind.” With such oaths for seed, perjury is the natural harvest. If Senators who have spoken in this debate can have their own way, you will degrade the solemn oath of the Constitution to the same class, and make it the seed of similar harvest.

For myself, I am determined, so far as my vote or voice can go, that the oath shall mean something, and that it shall be kept solemn and above suspicion. It shall not be degraded to be an oath of purgation or a custom-house oath, but shall be in all simplicity what is regarded by the Constitution an oath of office, in itself the pure and truthful expression of assured loyalty,--not of loyalty still in question, still doubtful, so that people openly testify against it. And where there is evidence seriously impeaching the loyalty of a claimant, he shall not take that oath, with my consent, until the impeachment is removed. Sir, I am not insensible to the attractions of comedy, when well performed on the stage; but there is a place for everything, and I am unwilling to sit in my seat here and witness the comedy proposed. The Senate is to resolve itself into a theatre, under the management of grave Senators,--the Senator from New York, the Senator from Maine, and other Senators,--and we are to see the play proceed. The claimant from Oregon crosses the floor, and, under honorable escort, approaches the desk, takes the oath, and kisses the book. The title of the play is borrowed from a forgotten old English drama: “Treason made Easy; or, An Oath no Great Thing.”

It ill becomes the Senate at this moment to do or to forbear anything by which the standard of loyalty can be lowered. If it justly expects loyalty from others, if it requires loyalty in its soldiers and officers, surely it ought to set an example in its own members. Toward itself, at least, it cannot be too austere in requirement. Wherever about us disloyalty shows itself, whether in the Senate or in its lobby, whether already intrenched in this Chamber or struggling to enter in, whether planted at these desks or still standing in the gate, we have one and the same duty to perform. We must inquire into its character, and if it be found unworthy of trust, we must chastise it or exclude it. This is the least we can do.

Mr. Sumner was followed the same day by Mr. McDougall, Mr. Davis, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Carlile, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Harris, all in favor of admission, and by Mr. Wilmot, Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Dixon, against it.

February 27th, Mr. Browning spoke in favor of admission, Mr. Howard against it.

The vote was then taken on the amendment of Mr. Sumner, and it was lost,--yeas 18, nays 26.

The question recurred on the resolution of the Committee, which was adopted, yeas 26, nays 19; and Mr. Stark was admitted to take the oath.

* * * * *

The same question came up again in another form.

April 22d, the Committee to whom were referred the papers touching the disloyalty of Mr. Stark reported that “the Senator from Oregon is disloyal to the Government of the United States.”

May 7th, Mr. Sumner introduced the following resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That Benjamin Stark, a Senator from Oregon, who has been found by a committee of this body to be disloyal to the Government of the United States, be, and the same is hereby, expelled from the Senate.”

June 5th, Mr. Sumner moved that the Senate proceed with the consideration of this resolution, and explained it briefly.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senate will observe that the resolution declares that the Senator from Oregon has been found by a Committee of the Senate to be disloyal. Now, Sir, I have no desire to discuss the facts of this case. But, in order to exhibit the urgency of this question, it is my duty to exhibit the conclusions of the Committee, set forth in their Report, as follows.

“1st. That for many months prior to the 21st November, 1861, and up to that time, the said Stark was an ardent advocate of the cause of the rebellious States.

“2d. That, after the formation of the Constitution of the Confederate States, he openly declared his admiration for it, and advocated the absorption of the loyal States of the Union into the Southern Confederacy, under that Constitution, as the only means of peace, warmly avowing his sympathies with the South.

“3d. That the Senator from Oregon is disloyal to the Government of the United States.”

Of these propositions the first two had the sanction of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. WILLEY], while all three had the sanction of the rest of the Committee, being the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CLARK], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. WRIGHT], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD], and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]. Thus, in a Special Committee of five, raised expressly to consider this case, raised, too, after protracted discussion in the Senate, four of the Committee united in all the conclusions of the Report, and the dissenting member united in the first two conclusions. And this Report is, if possible, entitled to additional consideration, when it is known that the Senator from Oregon himself appeared before the Committee. On these accounts I accept the Report, and do not wish to go into it or behind it. It is with me the solemn verdict of a jury duly impanelled for the trial of a cause.

But if the Committee is the jury, the Senate is the court; and it remains that judgment should be entered.

I hear a voice saying that we must not take time for this question. Pray, Sir, what time is needed? The time has been already taken. The hearing has been had, the verdict is rendered.

Pray, why not take time? We are engaged in war to put down disloyalty. For this we set armies in the field, and contend in battle with our own fellow-citizens. For this we incur untold debts. For this we are preparing to incur untold taxation. Sir, all this is simply to put down disloyalty. And yet, when a committee of this body, after careful inquiry, solemnly declares a Senator disloyal to the National Government, we are told that there is no time to consider the question. Sir, I am against disloyalty, wherever it shows itself, whether in belligerent States, sheltered and strengthened by numbers, or sitting here, with all the privileges of this Chamber. Others will do as they please; but I cannot remain silent, while disloyalty, already exposed by our own Committee, is allowed a seat in our councils, open and secret. In not acting, you will discredit the Report of the Committee, or show that the Senate is indifferent to the character of its members. I will have no part in any such thing.

The Senate refused to consider the resolution.

June 6th, Mr. Sumner again moved to proceed with the resolution, urging, that, with the Report of the Committee on the table affirming his disloyalty, it was the duty of the Senate to act promptly.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted, yeas 16, nays 21. So the motion was not agreed to.

HELP FOR MEXICO AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION.

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF FOREIGN RELATIONS UPON THE DRAUGHT OF A CONVENTION WITH MEXICO, FEBRUARY 19, 1862.

A convention was made at London, October 31, 1861, between Great Britain, France, and Spain, professedly to obtain redress and security from Mexico for citizens of the three contracting powers. Provision was made for the accession of the United States as a fourth party; but the note inviting us to join was dated a month after the Convention. The invitation was declined. But, anxious to help Mexico, Mr. Seward proposed pecuniary aid, in the hope of enabling our neighbor republic to satisfy the demands of the invading allies, so far at least as to make them withdraw. The draught of such a Convention with Mexico was transmitted to the Senate, who were asked to give their advice with regard to it.

A few passages of a letter from Mr. Corwin to Mr. Sumner, dated at Mexico, April 14, 1862, will show the condition of things there.

“The general and leading objects of my mission to Mexico were, first, to prevent the Southern Confederacy from obtaining any recognition here, and thus cut off the hope of augmenting the power of the South by acquisition, accompanied with Slavery, in Mexico, or any of the Southern Spanish-American republics; secondly, to use every proper means to prevent European power from gaining a permanent hold upon this part of the American Continent.

“In the first object I have fully succeeded. The Southern Commissioner, after employing persuasion and threats, finally took his leave of the city, sending back from Vera Cruz, as I am informed, a very offensive letter to the Government here. In obtaining the second end I have had more difficulty.…

“If the French attempt to conquer this country, it is certain to bring on a war of two or three years’ duration. The gorges of the mountains, so frequent here, afford to small detachments stronger holds than any position fortified by art; and the Mexicans have a strong hatred of foreign rule, which animates the whole body of the people. I trust our Government will remonstrate firmly against all idea of European conquest on this continent, and in such time as to have its due influence on the present position of France in Mexico.…

“But I am satisfied this danger may be avoided by the pecuniary aid proposed by the present treaty with us, and the united diplomacy of England, Spain, and the United States. If these means are not promptly and energetically applied, a European power may fasten itself upon Mexico, which it will become a necessity with us, at no distant day, to dislodge. To do this, in the supposed event, would cost us millions twenty times told more than we now propose to lend upon undoubted security.”

Spain and England soon withdrew from coöperation, leaving the French Emperor alone to pursue the unhappy enterprise, which ended in the sacrifice of Maximilian, whom he had placed on the Mexican throne.

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred a Message from the President, of December 17, 1861, transmitting a Draught for a Convention with the Republic of Mexico, with accompanying papers, and a Message from the President, of January 24, 1862, transmitting a Despatch from Mr. Corwin, Minister at Mexico, have had the same under consideration, and report.

On the 2d of September, 1861, Mr. Seward, in a despatch to Mr. Corwin, at Mexico, announced that the President greatly desired the political status of Mexico as an independent nation to be permanently maintained; that the events communicated by Mr. Corwin alarmed him, and he conceived that the people of the United States would scarcely justify him, were he to make no effort for preventing so great a calamity on this continent as would be the extinction of that neighbor republic; that he had therefore empowered Mr. Corwin to negotiate a treaty with Mexico for the assumption by the United States of the interest, at three per cent, upon the funded debt of that country, the principal of which was understood to be about sixty-two millions of dollars, for the term of five years from the date of the decree recently issued by Mexico suspending such payment, provided that Mexico could pledge to the United States its faith for the reimbursement of the money, with six per cent interest, to be secured by special lien upon all the public lands and mineral rights in the several Mexican States of Lower California, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Cinaloa, the property so pledged to become absolute in the United States at the expiration of the term of six years from the time when the treaty went into effect, if such reimbursement were not made before that time. The President felt that this course was rendered necessary by circumstances as new as they are eventful, and seeming to admit of no delay.

Mr. Seward proceeds to say, that his instructions are conditional upon the consent of the British and French Governments to forbear action against Mexico, on account of failure or refusal to pay the interest in question, until after the treaty had been submitted to the Senate, and, if ratified, then so long thereafter as the interest is paid by the United States.

Mr. Seward adds, that his instructions are not to be considered as specific, but general, subject to modification as to sums, terms, securities, and other points.

Mr. Corwin, in an earlier despatch, dated at Mexico, 29th July, 1861, and addressed to Mr. Seward, had already suggested the policy he was now authorized to pursue, and proposed a lien on the public lands and mineral rights in the provinces mentioned by Mr. Seward. From such arrangement, in his opinion, two consequences would follow: first, all hope of extending the domain of a separate Southern republic in this quarter or in Central America would be extinguished; and, secondly, any further attempt to establish European power on this continent would cease to occupy either England or Continental Europe.

Afterwards, in a despatch, dated at Mexico, November 29, 1861, Mr. Corwin enclosed to Mr. Seward the project of a treaty between the United States and Mexico, by which the United States were to lend Mexico five millions of dollars, payable in monthly instalments of one half million a month,--also the further sum of four millions of dollars, payable in sums of one half million every six months; the whole to be secured by mortgage on the public lands, mineral rights, and Church property of Mexico, for the realization of which a board of five commissioners was to be organized, three to be appointed by Mexico and two by the United States, holding sessions in the city of Mexico until the debt and interest were fully discharged. No reference was made in the proposed treaty to the consent of the British and French Governments, mentioned by Mr. Seward as a condition, nor to the application of the money, when received by Mexico; nor does anything on this subject appear in the accompanying despatch.

The President, by his Message of December 17, 1861, submitted the draught of this treaty to the Senate for their advice. Afterwards, by another Message, of January 24, 1862, he called their attention to it again, in the following language.

“I have heretofore submitted to the Senate a request for its advice upon the question pending by treaty for making a loan to Mexico, which Mr. Corwin thinks will in any case be expedient. It seems to me to be my duty now to solicit an early action of the Senate upon the subject, to the end that I may cause such instructions to be given to Mr. Corwin as will enable him to act in the manner which, while it will most carefully guard the interests of our country, will at the same time be most beneficial to Mexico.”

Meanwhile, Great Britain, France, and Spain, by a Convention, dated at London, October 31, 1861, have entered into an alliance, the declared object of which is “to demand from the authorities of the Republic of Mexico more efficacious protection for the persons and properties of their subjects, as well as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted by the Republic of Mexico.” The high contracting parties engaged not to seek for themselves, in the employment of coercive measures, any acquisition of territory, nor any special advantage, and not to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to constitute freely the form of its government. Desiring that the measures they intend to adopt should not bear an exclusive character, and being aware that the Government of the United States, on its part, has, like them, claims upon the Mexican Republic, they further agree that our Government shall be invited to join in the Convention.

Mr. Seward, in a despatch, dated at Washington, December 4, 1861, declined to join in the Convention, saying, “that the United States prefer, as much as lies in their power, to maintain the traditional policy recommended by the Father of their country, confirmed by successful experience, and which forbids them to make an alliance with foreign powers.”

In pursuance of this Convention, the naval and military forces of the three great powers have assembled at San Juan de Ulua, and the flags of the three powers now float over the castle. The Government of Mexico has rallied the people to resistance, and there is at this moment the prospect of a prolonged and exhausting contest. The occasion seems to have arrived, when the aid proposed by Mr. Seward, in his despatch of September 2, 1861, may be of decisive value to Mexico. To the United States it may also be of great importance, if it could be the means of removing from Mexico the pressure of hostile armaments, and placing a neighbor republic in a more tranquil and independent condition. If the Allied Powers desire security for their claims, and nothing else, then a reasonable provision of this nature ought to be satisfactory, so far as any question arises from the claim.

The debt of Mexico to the Allied Powers may be stated, in round numbers, as follows.

To England, immediate $ 1,000,000 convention, 4 per cent interest 5,000,000 bondholders, 3 per cent interest 65,000,000 general claims 4,000,000 ----------$75,000,000

To France, immediate 500,000 convention, balance, immediate 200,000 Pennand agreement 800,000 claims, general 3,500,000 ---------- 5,000,000

To Spain, immediate 500,000 convention, 3 per cent interest 8,000,000 claims 1,500,000 ---------- 10,000,000 ---------- Total $90,000,000