Part 27

MR. SUMNER. Possibly. I go into no inquiry on that point. Suffice it to say we already have these eighteen diplomatic representatives, and one of these is at the Sandwich Islands, with a population, a commerce, and navigation inferior to those of Hayti. Besides, at the Sandwich Islands we have three consuls highly paid. If we have too many, let us reduce the list, but do not commence our economies on Hayti and Liberia.

The Committee in their conclusion followed the usage of nations, and also the example of the great powers at Hayti. In presenting this measure, I make no appeal on account of an oppressed race. I urge it simply as an act for our own good. We go about the world hunting up the smaller powers, where to make treaties and to place diplomatic representatives, under the temptation of petty commercial advantage. Thus far we have stood aloof from two important opportunities of extending and strengthening our influence. It is time to change.

The proposition of Mr. Davis was rejected,--Yeas 8, Nays 30.

* * * * *

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, then said:--

“After the vote just taken in the Senate, I shall not trespass upon their attention, as I intended to do,--only for a brief period, however. It is evident that this bill is going to pass. I want the country, however, to know that according to the rules of the Senate foreign ministers have a right upon this floor, and we have set apart a portion of the gallery for the ministers and their families. If this bill should pass both Houses of Congress and become a law, I predict that in twelve months some negro will walk upon the floor of the Senate of the United States and carry his family into that gallery which is set apart for foreign ministers. If that is agreeable to the taste and feeling of the people of this country, it is not to mine; and I only say that I will not be responsible for any such act. With this I will content myself.”

The question, on the passage by yeas and nays, resulted, Yeas 32, Nays 7.

So the bill was passed.

* * * * *

June 3d, the bill passed the House,--Yeas 86, Nays 37.

* * * * *

The passage of this bill was felt to be an important stage in the warfare with Slavery. Governor Andrew saw it so, and wrote:--

“The triumphant and exemplary majority which the Hayti bill obtained in the Senate is most gratifying. I am greatly rejoiced. The law, when passed, will be a recognition of the _Colored Man_, not merely of Hayti. It is a jewel in your crown.”

Joshua Leavitt, of New York, the tried Abolitionist, also saw it so, and wrote:--

“Allow me to congratulate you on the splendid vote in the Senate on Haytien recognition. I think it shows the benefit of waiting for the right time, and then striking. This action is final in regard to the supremacy of the Slave Power. How can they administer a government that is in amity with a nation of insurgent negro slaves?”

The joy in Hayti was reported by Seth Webb, Jr., our Commercial Agent at Port-au-Prince.

“We all admire the way you steered the recognition through the Senate, and can only hope for as good a pilot in the House.

“The news of the passage of the Recognition Bill through the Senate was received here about the same time with that of the taking of Yorktown and Williamsburg, and diffused real joy among all classes. The American residents illuminated their houses, and had a good time generally.

“Your speech on the passage of the Recognition Bill attracts great attention here, and, when printed in full, will be extensively read.”[289]

Hon. Benjamin C. Clark, an eminent merchant, acting as Consul of Hayti at Boston, wrote with the feelings of an American citizen, as well as of a Haytien representative.

“The passage of the bill under your thorough exposition of the subject will be a big white stone in our pathway as a nation, and a gravestone to the vampires and Vandals who have left nothing by the wayside but works of treason leading to bloodshed and desolation.”

The feelings of the Haytien people were communicated by the following letter.

“CONSULATE OF HAYTI, NEW YORK, 26 April, 1862.

“SIR,--I have the honor to express my high appreciation of the important services you have so untiringly rendered to Hayti, for which you receive the gratitude of all liberal and benevolent persons who desire justice and political equality accorded to all men, and especially, in the present instance, to a people who, under many embarrassments, have nobly maintained their position, and are daily advancing in intellectual culture and in the refinements of civilized life.…

“My despatches announcing the recognition were forwarded yesterday by a vessel sailing directly for the Bay of Port-au-Prince, and duplicates of my despatches will be sent on Monday by a fast vessel for Port-au-Prince.

“I know the character of the Haytiens thoroughly, having lived among them some fifteen years, eight years of the time as Commercial Agent of the United States, and I can imagine their hearts swelling with pleasure and gratitude on the reception of the good news; and your name, Sir, will be held in kind remembrance as long as Hayti exists.

“Be pleased, Sir, to accept assurance of my distinguished consideration.

“GEORGE F. USHER, _Hayti Commercial Agent_.

“HON. CHARLES SUMNER, _United States Senator, &c., &c., &c._, Washington.”

The sentiments of Liberia were conveyed in the following.

“WASHINGTON, D. C., 10th June, 1862.

“DEAR SIR,--The children of Africa all over the globe owe you the deepest gratefulness and lasting honor, for you have been most prompt and punctual in vindicating their cause, in advancing their interests, and even in suffering in their behalf. But recently you have participated in an act which touches with benignant power upon the great home of this race, and which, combining with the generous and beneficent policy of other great nations, will, without doubt, serve to stir to unusual activity and to move with a civilizing and saving power millions of human beings throughout the entire continent of Africa.

“To you, Sir, to a very considerable degree, we owe the recognition of the Republic of Liberia by the Government of the United States.

“Had it not been for your masterly policy and your wise discretion, allied to a most persistent determination, we have reason to doubt whether the Bill of Recognition would not have met with a miscarriage during the present session of Congress.

“Thanks to your fast friendship, it has not failed, and the Republic of Liberia has been brought, through wise and cordial legislation, into brotherhood with the great Republic of America. And believe us, Sir, your name and memory will never be forgotten by us. Your virtues and excellencies shall be recited to our children’s children, your philanthropic course and painful labors shall be held up for imitation to our aspiring youth, and your effigy shall adorn the halls of legislation, of letters, and of art in Liberia, with all the other great benefactors of our country and our race, as advancing civilization shall rear stately structures and noble courts.

“In our own behalf, and in behalf of the young nation we represent, we tender you cordial congratulations and our sincerest thanks, and we are, Sir,

“Your obedient servants,

“ALEX. CRUMMELL, “EDWARD W. BLYDEN, “J. D. JOHNSON, “_Commissioners from Liberia, &c., &c._

“HON. CHARLES SUMMER.”

In the summer of 1871, the memory of this effort was revived by a beautiful medal offered to Mr. Sumner in the name of the Haytien people, as an expression of gratitude for his defence of their independence on two different occasions,--the first being the present speech, and the other a later effort, growing out of the attempt to annex Dominica, with menace to Hayti. As Mr. Sumner felt it his duty to decline the medal, the Haytien Minister placed it in the hands of the Governor of Massachusetts, who deposited it in the Library of the State-House.

FINAL SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN, APRIL 24, 1862.

Early in the spring of 1862, Mr. Seward conferred with Mr. Sumner on a treaty with Great Britain for a mutual and restricted right of search and mixed courts, with a view to the suppression of the slave-trade. The negotiation was opened and proceeded successfully. April 7th, Mr. Sumner, being at the State Department, had the happiness of witnessing the signature of this treaty by Mr. Seward and Lord Lyons. April 11th, it was communicated to the Senate in Executive Session, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. April 15th, it was reported to the Senate by Mr. Sumner, with the recommendation that the Senate advise and consent thereto. April 22d, it was brought up in the Senate, when Mr. Sumner moved the usual resolution of ratification. April 24th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution of ratification. The yeas and nays were dispensed with by unanimous consent, and the resolution was agreed to without a dissenting vote.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Already a slave-trader has been executed at New York, being the first in our history to suffer for this immeasurable crime.[290] English lawyers dwell much upon treason to the king, which they denounce in a term borrowed from ancient Rome as _lese_-majesty; but the slave-trade is treason to man, being nothing less than _lese_-humanity. Much as I incline against capital punishment, little as I am disposed to continue this barbarous penalty, unworthy of a civilized age, I see so much of good in this example at the present moment, that I reconcile myself to it without a pang. Clearly it will be a warning to slave-traders, and also notice to the civilized world that at last we are in earnest, while it helps make the slave-trade detestable. Crime is seen in the punishment, and the gallows sheds upon it that infamy which nothing short of martyrdom in a good cause can overcome.

* * * * *

The important treaty now before the Senate is to enforce on a large scale final judgment against the slave-trade. It is to do with many what has just been done with an individual. Our flag is desecrated by this hateful commerce; ships equipped in New York are tempted by its cruel gains. To stop this has been impossible, while Slavery prevailed in the National Government. How could our courts judge the slave-trader, how could the National Government set itself against the hateful commerce, while Slavery occupied all the places of power? But this is changed. If Emancipation is yet longer delayed, Slavery is at least dislodged from its predominant influence. Therefore is the way free for action against the slave-trade.

The treaty proceeds on the idea of earnest work, and it recognizes two especial agencies, each of which has been discussed between the two Governments in former years, but has always failed of adoption. The first is a mutual and restricted right of search, and the second is the well-known system of mixed courts, for the enforcement of the treaty.

The treaty has just been read, so that I need not recite in detail the terms of these two provisions. I pass at once to the consideration of their origin and necessity.

* * * * *

There was a time when our country was open and earnest against the slave-trade. A well-known provision of the Constitution, classed among original compromises, restrained Congress from prohibiting it prior to the year 1808; but, just so soon as it had the power, Congress acted. Its promptitude justified the enthusiasm with which Judge Story in his Commentaries remarks: “It is to the honor of America that she should have set the first example of interdicting and abolishing the slave-trade in modern times.”[291] By Act of Congress, bearing date as early as March 2, 1807, and to take effect January 1, 1808, the importation of slaves into the United States was prohibited, under penalties of imprisonment, fine, and forfeiture. These were increased by Act of Congress of April 20, 1818. But mild and moderate enactments were not enough; and at length, by Act of May 15, 1820, Congress was constrained to declare the slave-trade piracy, and to punish it with death. Since then this offence has stood in the catalogue of capital crimes.

Already this immense subject had occupied the attention of the great European powers. In the Treaty of Paris in 1814, Great Britain and France united against what was denounced as “a species of commerce equally repugnant to the principles of natural justice and the lights of the times.”[292] This was followed by the Treaty of Ghent, at the close of the same year, in which the United States and Great Britain denounced the traffic in slaves as “irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice,” and promised their best endeavors for its suppression.[293] Then came the Treaty of Vienna, where the great powers joined in declaring it “repugnant to the principles of humanity and of universal morality.”[294] These were declarations only. The next attempt was to find a system of action, which should be effective against the Protean monster in the many metamorphoses it was able to assume, and here England nobly took the lead.

Lord Castlereagh instructed the Duke of Wellington, the British ambassador at Paris, to obtain from France the concession of a mutual right of search for the enforcement of the denunciation in which they were agreed; but this was found unwelcome to the French Government, and therefore not pressed at the time. Such was the beginning of the proposition, which, after various fortunes, is at last recognized in the treaty now before us.

Meanwhile negotiations were opened on our side particularly with Great Britain. These seem for a time to have had the sanction not only of the Executive, but of Congress, or at least of the House of Representatives. Messages from the President, calling attention to the slave-trade, were answered by reports from special committees of the House of Representatives. One of these, made February 9, 1821, concluded with a resolution, “That the President of the United States be requested to enter into such arrangements as he may deem suitable and proper with one or more of the maritime powers of Europe for the effectual abolition of the African slave-trade.” The report, while declaring that “to efface this reproachful stain from the character of civilized mankind would be the proudest triumph that could be achieved in the cause of humanity,” proceeds to announce, in words applicable to the present moment, that “this happy result, experience has demonstrated, cannot be realized by any system, except a concession by the maritime powers to each other’s ships of war of a qualified right of search.”[295] Another report, by a select committee of the House, April 12, 1822, adopted the resolution of the previous committee, and also the recommendation of a mutual right of search, adding, that it could not be doubted “that the people of America have the intelligence to distinguish between the right of searching a neutral on the high seas in time of war, claimed by some belligerents, and that mutual, restricted, and peaceful concession by treaty, suggested by your Committee, and which is demanded in the name of suffering humanity.”[296]

Then came the devoted efforts of Charles Fenton Mercer, an admirable representative of Virginia, who exposed this terrible traffic with a pathos not to be forgotten. On his motion, another resolution was adopted, February 28, 1823, by a vote of one hundred and thirty-one yeas to only nine nays, calling upon the President to enter into negotiations “for the effectual abolition of the African slave-trade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy, under the Law of Nations, by the consent of the civilized world.”[297] The character of this resolution was impaired by the rejection of an amendment, “and that we agree to a qualified right of search,”[298] which was a falling off from the recommendations of the two committees.

The Executive responded to Congress, and, under instructions from John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, a treaty was negotiated with Great Britain, bearing date March 13, 1824, in which it was stipulated that the ships of the two powers might “cruise on the coasts of Africa, _of America_, and of the West Indies, for the suppression of the slave-trade,” and empowering them under certain restrictions to detain and capture vessels engaged in this traffic.[299] Important in substance, this treaty became important historically. Although the clause quoted appeared in the original draught sent out from Washington, yet the treaty was ratified by the Senate only on the condition that the words “of America” were struck out, thus excluding operations of British cruisers along the whole extent of American coast.[300] This was fatal to the treaty, as the British Government would not accept the condition. The case is memorable, not only as a check to negotiations for the suppression of the slave-trade, but as a conspicuous instance, where the Senate, in dealing with a power like Great Britain, did not shrink from asserting its prerogative under the Constitution, not less decisive than the tribunitial veto.

Thus it stood. Our own Government had proposed a modified search on the coast of America, but this was point-blank refused by the Senate. It appears that the proposition was made contrary to the judgment of Mr. Adams. His sense of wrong from the long-continued search exercised by British cruisers was so keen that he would not willingly furnish any excuse for its revival; and such, it was feared, might be the concession. Afterwards, in the revelations which he sometimes made to the House of Representatives, he declared his repugnance to this negotiation, and the way it was overcome. The same repugnance, doubtless, influenced Senators in the vote on the treaty, increased by a growing sentiment for Slavery, which the debates on the Missouri Compromise had quickened.

Mr. Adams’s statement made in debate at a later day lets us behind the scenes at an important period. After describing the proposition for a mutual right of search, the veteran said:--

“It was utterly against my judgment and wishes; but I was obliged to submit, and I prepared the requisite despatches to Mr. Rush, then our minister at the court of London. When he made his proposal to Mr. Canning, Mr. Canning’s reply was, ‘Draw up your convention, and I will sign it.’ Mr. Rush did so, and Mr. Canning, without the slightest alteration whatever, without varying the dot of an _i_ or the crossing of a _t_, did affix to it his signature,--thus assenting to our own terms in our own language. The convention came back here for ratification; but in the mean while another spirit came over the feelings of this House, as well as of the Senate. A party had been formed against the Administration of Mr. Monroe; the course of the Administration was no longer favored, and the House came out in opposition to a convention drawn in conformity to its own previous views.… The Senate ratified the treaty, giving the right of search in the fullest manner to Great Britain, with the exception, I think, of one article, which extended the right to the coast of the United States: that was rejected.”[301]

This statement from an eminent quarter shows how at another time the opposition to a mutual right of search became manifest. It is for the Senate to determine if the time has not come for this opposition to cease.

Not disheartened by failure with the United States, Great Britain pursued her honorable policy, enlisting Government after Government, until nearly all the maritime powers of Europe, moved by a common sentiment of humanity, had conceded a mutual and restricted right of search, with the single object of suppressing the slave-trade. The famous Quintuple Treaty of 1841 between the great powers consecrated the same principle on a wider theatre; but, owing to the extraordinary efforts of General Cass, our Minister at Paris, France was induced to withhold her assent, yielding, I fear, to an irritated Anglophobia and to the growing pretensions of Slavery. The treaty was duly ratified by Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. As a substitute, stipulations for naval coöperation were adopted between Great Britain and France,--also between Great Britain and the United States. And still Great Britain persevered in this glorious championship, until, in 1850, it was her boast that she stood party to no less than twenty-four treaties denouncing the slave-trade, of which ten conceded a mutual right of search and mixed courts, twelve conceded search with trial only before home tribunals, and two provided for naval coöperation.[302]

This summary brings us to the present treaty, where we find a mutual and restricted right of search and mixed courts for certain purposes, but with the trial of criminals only before home tribunals.

If at an earlier day there was reason to be sensitive about any concession of the right of search, especially to Great Britain, always so exacting on the ocean, that day has happily passed. The reason ceasing, so also should the opposition cease. Even if the acknowledged power of the United States and the enlightened opinion of the civilized world did not remove the liability to abuse, making it so absolutely impossible as not to be an element in the case, we cannot forget a recent signal event, when Great Britain openly renounced that tyrannous pretension which so stirred the soul of the whole American people, never again to assert it. This was done in solemn demand for the rendition of Mason and Slidell, who had been taken by a national cruiser, acting in precise conformity with early and constant British practice. Therefore on this account there need be no solicitude. Conceding search for the suppression of the slave-trade, we furnish no excuse and open no door for that other search, always so justly offensive, which finally brought war in its train. Such a concession now is only an addition to international policy demanded by the civilization of the age.

Nor need there be any jealousy on account of Slavery; for this power is disappearing. If, unhappily, it is not yet extinct, if it still lingers in prolonged malignant existence, it has ceased to sway the National Government. Therefore I see no reason why the sensibilities of its partisans should be consulted.

* * * * *