Part 20

Of course, payment or guaranty of this large mass on our part is out of the question; nor was it contemplated by the United States in the original instructions to Mr. Corwin. It was proposed to make such payment as would afford present relief to Mexico, and secure the forbearance of the Allied Powers. To this end, Mr. Seward offered to assume the interest of the Mexican debt for the term of five years. But the unfunded claims in the foregoing list, entitled “immediate,” it is understood, are pressed with equal energy by the Allied Powers. If these were satisfied, and provision made for the interest, the United States would have the following liabilities.

Payments, immediate, or at 3, 6, and 12 months, as follows.

To England, 3, 6, and 12 months’ drafts of Mexico on United States $1,000,000 To France, 3, 6, and 12 months’ drafts of Mexico on United States 700,000 To Spain, 3, 6, and 12 months’ drafts of Mexico on United States 500,000 ---------- Total cash, or 3, 6, and 12 months $2,200,000

Interest, in semi-annual drafts of Mexico on the United States.

To England, convention, 4 per cent $200,000 bondholders, 3 per cent 1,950,000 ---------- $2,150,000 To Spain, convention, 3 per cent 240,000 ---------- Total interest, per annum $2,390,000

Other outstanding claims of the Allied Powers are not included in either of these lists. It is proposed that these should be provided for by a sinking fund, at the rate of 10 per cent a year for ten years, as follows.

To England $400,000 To France 80,000 To France 350,000 To Spain 150,000 -------- Total, per annum $980,000

The assumption of all these liabilities for a long period would throw upon the United States a burden too great for the present moment, although, perhaps, not out of proportion to the anticipated advantages. If anything be done on our part, it must be more moderate. The offer of Mr. Seward for five years, if accepted, would devolve upon the United States a responsibility sufficiently large; and this responsibility ought to be kept within a limitation, of which $15,000,000 should be a maximum.

But there are two conditions to be required by the United States, before the assumption of any such responsibility. The first is the assent of the Allied Powers, and the acceptance on their part of the friendly offers proposed. Unless the Allied Powers are parties to the transaction, it would be productive only of embarrassment and loss, without accomplishing any permanent good to the United States or to Mexico.

The other essential condition is, that security should be given by Mexico for the liabilities assumed. It is not too much to expect such security; nor is Mexico, as is well known, disinclined to give it. Her creditors are now foreclosing their demands, at the cost, perhaps, of her national existence, and she turns to the United States for help. Not merely friendship, but a continental policy, affecting our own cherished interests, prompts us to afford such help, so far as in our power. In asking for security, we simply follow the rules of prudence, whether between individuals or nations.

The security proposed by Mr. Corwin on the public lands, minerals, and Church property of Mexico, would require the appointment of a board or mixed commission for the management and disposition of this property. This necessity adds to the complications of such security.

The security proposed by Mr. Seward, on the public lands and mineral rights in the several provinces of Lower California, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Cinaloa, is simple, and it is understood that in some of this territory there is vast mineral wealth. The province of Lower California is unquestionably the territory of Mexico most interesting to the United States in a military and naval point of view.

Another security, perhaps less manageable, but more interesting still, would be the right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, with a mortgage on the adjoining public lands of the Isthmus. Estimated by its pecuniary value, this security would not be large; but there can be no doubt of its political and commercial value.

Still another security would be a pledge by Mexico of 25 per cent, or perhaps a larger percentage, of the customs or other revenues.

It is not easy to say positively, at this distance from the scene of operations, and with the information before the Committee, what is the most practicable form of security. Perhaps it is advisable to leave the matter to the careful discretion of our minister at Mexico, under instructions from the President, with the explicit understanding that the United States decline any territorial acquisition, and seek the consolidation of Mexico, without dismemberment of any kind.

Such are the main features of the question on which the President has asked the advice of the Senate. With more precise information on the matters involved, it might be proper for the Senate to enter upon details in its answer. But such information, especially with regard to actual relations, now daily changing, between Mexico and the Allied Powers, can be obtained only on the spot. It is evident, therefore, that the Senate can do little more than indicate an opinion on what has already been done, and declare the proper principles on which a negotiation with Mexico should be conducted, without presuming to fix in advance all its terms. Much must be left to the discretion of our minister there, and to the instructions he will receive from the President.

* * * * *

The Committee recommend the passage of the following resolution.

_Resolved_, That, in the changing condition of the relations between Mexico and the Allied Powers, and in the absence of precise information, it is impossible for the Senate to advise the President with regard to all the terms of a treaty with Mexico, so as to supersede the exercise of considerable discretion on the part of our Minister there, under instructions from the President, but that, in answer to the two several Messages of the President, the Senate expresses the following conclusions.

_First._ The Senate approves the terms of the instructions to our Minister at Mexico contained in the despatch bearing date September 2, 1861.

_Secondly._ The Senate does not advise a treaty in conformity with the project communicated by our Minister to Mexico in his despatch of November 29, 1861, as the same fails to secure in any way the application of the money to the demands of the Allied Powers, or either of them, and therefore can be in no respect satisfactory to them.

_Thirdly._ The Senate advises a treaty with Mexico providing for the assumption of the interest on the debt from Mexico to the Allied Powers during a limited period of time, and also for the payment of certain immediate claims by these Powers, the whole liability to be kept within the smallest possible sum; it being understood that the same shall be accepted by the Allied Powers in present satisfaction of their claims, so that they shall withdraw from Mexico.[206] And it shall be secured by such mortgage or pledge as is most practicable, without any territorial acquisition or dismemberment of Mexico.

* * * * *

The Resolution reported by the Committee was amended in the Senate by striking out all after the word “_Resolved_,” and inserting in lieu thereof as follows: “That, in reply to the two several Messages of the President with regard to a treaty with Mexico, the Senate express the opinion that it is not advisable to negotiate a treaty that will require the United States to assume any portion of the principal or interest of the debt of Mexico, or that will require the concurrence of European powers.”

NO RECOGNITION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL.

MOTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 25, 1862.

February 25th, the Senate having under consideration a bill, reported by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to confiscate the property and free the slaves of Rebels, an incidental question arose on the recognition of the Fugitive Slave Bill, when Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

I desire to move an amendment, which I believe will carry out the idea of the Senator from Kansas. I concur with that Senator in all he has said in relation to the Fugitive Slave Bill. I have never called it a law, hardly an act. I regard it simply as a bill, still a bill, having no authority under the Constitution. There is no unsoundness in that instrument out of which such excrescence can grow. That is my idea; I believe it is the idea of the Senator from Kansas. Therefore I concur with him in any criticism upon legislation seeming even in the most indirect way to recognize the existence of a thing which can have, thank God, under the Constitution, when properly interpreted, no legal existence. Therefore, if the language introduced in this bill has the effect which the Senator supposes, if it does in any way recognize the existence of that bill, certainly I am against it; and when I listened to the remarks of the Senator, and critically examined the language, I must say I feared that there was some implication or other on our part in favor of that bill. I therefore propose an amendment which shall remove all such implication or possibility of recognition on our part, while, at the same time, I believe it will carry out completely, adequately, in every respect, the idea of the Senator from Illinois in the measure now under consideration. The language here is as follows.

“And whenever any person claiming to be entitled to the service or labor of any other person shall seek to enforce such claim, he shall, in the first instance, and before _any order for the surrender of the person whose service is claimed, establish not only his title to such service, as now provided by law, but also_ that he is, and has been, during the existing Rebellion, loyal to the Government of the United States.”

I propose to strike out all after the word “before,” in the sixteenth line, down to the word “that,” in the nineteenth line, being these words,--

“any order for the surrender of the person whose service is claimed, establish not only his title to such service, as now provided by law, but also”--

and instead thereof insert--

“proceeding with the trial of his claim, satisfactorily prove”--

so that the sentence will read,--

“he shall, in the first instance, and before proceeding with the trial of his claim, satisfactorily prove that he is, and has been, during the existing Rebellion, loyal to the Government of the United States.”

This language, as I believe, carries out completely the idea of the Senator from Illinois in the measure before us. I think it also carries out the idea of the Senator from Kansas. It gives all proper efficacy to the language of the statute; at the same time it does not compromise any of us, in this age of Christian light, by a new recognition, direct or indirect, of the Fugitive Slave Bill.

MR. COWAN. How long will that provision last?

MR. SUMNER. As long as this statute lasts.

MR. COWAN. Then a person claiming one hundred years from this time would open his cause by showing that he was loyal during this Rebellion!

MR. SUMNER. I hope so, certainly,--forever.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill never became a law. Another bill on the same subject from the House of Representatives was adopted, with the following title, “To suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of Rebels, and for other purposes,” and approved by the President, July 17, 1862.[207]

OUR GERMAN FELLOW-CITIZENS, AND A TRUE RECONSTRUCTION.

LETTER TO THE GERMAN REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 25, 1862.

Mr. Sumner’s letter is in reply to the following resolutions, communicated to him by the Secretary of the Committee.

“The German Republican Central Committee of the City and County of New York, at their regular monthly meeting, held at head-quarters, February 14th, 1862, unanimously

“_Resolved_, That the thanks of this Committee are hereby tendered to the Hon. Charles Sumner, United States Senator from Massachusetts, for the ‘Resolutions declaratory of the relations between the United States and the territory once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by pretended Governments without constitutional or legal right,’ introduced by him into the United States Senate.

“_Resolved_, That we consider these Resolutions as embodying sound constitutional doctrine, conclusive logical argumentation, and the only true basis upon which the Union can be permanently reconstructed.”

SENATE CHAMBER, February 25, 1862.

SIR,--I have had the honor to receive the Resolutions unanimously adopted by the German Republican Central Committee of New York, declaring their adhesion to certain principles presented by me to the Senate on the relation between the United States and the territory once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by pretended Governments without constitutional or legal right.

I pray you to let the Committee know my gratitude for the prompt and generous support they have given to these principles. Our German fellow-citizens, throughout the long contest with Slavery, have not only been earnest and true, but have always seen the great question in its just character and importance. Without them our cause would not have triumphed at the last Presidential election. It is only natural, therefore, that they should continue to guard and advance this cause.

Where so many hesitate and fail, it is most gratifying to find a Committee so distinguished as yours ready again to enter into the contest for Human Rights.

Accept the assurance of the respect with which I have the honor to be, Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

WM. M. WERMERSKIRCH, Esq., _Corresponding Secretary of the German Republican Central Committee, New York._

STATE SUICIDE AND EMANCIPATION.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, MARCH 6, 1862.

This meeting was in pursuance of the following call.

“All citizens of New York who rejoice in the downfall of treason, and are in favor of sustaining the National Government in the most energetic exercise of all the rights and powers of war, in the prosecution of its purpose to destroy the cause of such treason, and to recover the territories heretofore occupied by certain States recently overturned and wholly subverted as members of the Federal Union by a hostile and traitorous power calling itself ‘The Confederate States,’ and _all who concur in the conviction that said traitorous power, instead of achieving the destruction of the Nation, has thereby only destroyed Slavery_, and that it is now the sacred duty of the National Government, as the only means of securing permanent peace, national unity and well-being, to provide against its restoration, and _to establish in said territories Democratic Institutions founded upon the principles of the Great Declaration_, ‘That all MEN are created equal, endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,’ are requested to meet at the Cooper Institute, on the sixth day of March, at eight o’clock, P. M., to express to the President and Congress their views as to the measures proper to be adopted in the existing emergency.”

On the day of this great meeting the President communicated to Congress his Message on Compensated Emancipation, which was his first public step in the transcendent cause.

The President of the meeting was Hon. James A. Hamilton, the venerable son of Alexander Hamilton, who agreed with Mr. Sumner in regard to the death of Slavery and the power of Congress. There was also a distinguished list of Vice-Presidents, with George Bancroft at the head. There were letters from Preston King, Senator of New York, Henry Wilson, Senator of Massachusetts, David Wilmot, Senator of Pennsylvania, George W. Julian, Representative in Congress from Indiana, and from Mr. Sumner. Among the orators were the President of the meeting, Mr. Martin F. Conway, Representative in Congress from Kansas, and Carl Schurz, who had recently returned from his Spanish mission.

The report in the _New York Tribune_ has the caption, “The Suicide of Slavery.--New York for a Free Republic.”

Mr. Sumner’s letter was a vindication of his Resolutions.

SENATE CHAMBER, March 5, 1862.

DEAR SIR,--Never, except when suffering from positive disability, have I allowed myself to be absent from my seat in the Senate for a single day, and now, amid the extraordinary duties of the present session, I am more than ever bound by this inflexible rule. If anything could tempt me to depart from it, I should find apology in the invitation with which you honor me.

The meeting called under such distinguished auspices is needed at this moment as a rally to those true principles by which alone this great Rebellion can be permanently suppressed. I should be truly happy to take part in it, and try to impart something of the strength of my own convictions.

It is only necessary that people should see things as they are, and they will easily see how to deal with them. This is the obvious condition of practical action. Now, beyond all question, Slavery is the great original malefactor and omnipresent traitor,--more deadly to the Union than all Rebel leaders, civil or military. Therefore, as you are in earnest against the Rebellion, you will not spare Slavery. And happily the way is plain, so that it cannot be mistaken.

Look throughout the whole Rebel territory, and you do not find a single officer legally qualified to discharge any function of Government. By the Constitution of the United States, “members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.” But these functionaries have all renounced allegiance to the United States, and taken a new oath to support the Rebel Government, so that at this moment they cannot be recognized as constitutionally empowered to act. But a State is known only through its functionaries, constitutionally empowered to act; and since all these have ceased to exist, the State, with its unnatural institutions, has ceased to exist also, or it exists only in the lifeless parchments by which its Government was originally established. The action of these functionaries was impotent to transfer its territory to a pretended confederation. To destroy the State was all they could do.

In the absence of any legitimate authority in this territory, Congress must assume the necessary jurisdiction. Not to do so is abandonment of urgent duty. Some propose a temporary military government; others propose a temporary provisional government, with limited powers. These all concede to Congress jurisdiction over the territory; nor can such jurisdiction be justly questioned. But I cannot doubt that it is better to follow the authoritative precedents of our history, and proceed as Congress is accustomed to proceed in the organization and government of other territories. This is simple.

And as to Slavery, if there be any doubt that it died constitutionally and legally with the State from which it drew its malignant breath, it might be prohibited by the enactment of that same Jeffersonian ordinance which originally established Freedom throughout the great Northwest.

Accept my thanks for the honor you have done me, and believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

Among the resolutions adopted at the meeting was one calling for the overthrow of Slavery,--“because the supreme jurisdiction of the National Constitution over all the territories now occupied by the Rebel States must be held to be exclusive of the traitorous Rebel authorities therein established, by virtue of which alone Slavery now therein exists, and that wherever the Constitution has exclusive jurisdiction it ordains Liberty and not Slavery.”

These were forwarded to Mr. Sumner by one of the secretaries, with the following letter.

“I hand herewith a copy of Resolutions adopted, amid the wildest enthusiasm, and without a breath of dissent, by an assembly of some three thousand of our prominent citizens, last evening, at the Cooper Institute Mass Meeting. No such audience has been convened in this city (except only the Union Square meeting of last April) since your address in July, 1860. Nor has so demonstrative a gathering been seen here since that time. I say this to give you an idea of the character and popularity of the affair. I hand the Resolutions to you _for personal presentation to the President_ (and to _Congress_, if your views are not opposed to such a course), preferring to secure their reaching the President through you as a medium of communication.”

Mr. Sumner had pleasure in presenting them to the President.

REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF COLOR IN CARRYING THE MAILS.

BILL IN THE SENATE, MARCH 18, 1862, AND INCIDENTS.

March 18, 1862, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill to remove all disqualification of color in carrying the mails, which was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads.

The bill in its operative words was as follows.

That, from and after the passage of this Act, no person, by reason of color, shall be disqualified from employment in carrying the mails; and all Acts and parts of Acts establishing such disqualification, including especially the seventh section of the Act of March 3, 1825, are hereby repealed.

March 27th, the bill was reported to the Senate by Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, Chairman of the Committee, without amendment.

* * * * *

The existing law was as follows:--

“That no other than a free white person shall be employed in conveying the mail, and any contractor who shall employ or permit any other than a free white person to convey the mail shall for every such offence incur a penalty of twenty dollars.”[208]

This passed the Senate March 1, 1825, and the House March 2, without a division. The first suggestion of this measure was as early as 1802, by Gideon Granger, Postmaster-General, in a communication addressed to Hon. James Jackson, Senator from Georgia, which, it will be seen, was private in character.

“GENERAL POST-OFFICE, March 23, 1802.