Part 22

I call attention to one matter in the statute, namely, “How offences on board private armed vessels shall be punished.” It is enacted, “that all offences committed by any officer or seaman on board any such vessel having letters of marque and reprisal, during the present hostilities against Great Britain, shall be tried and punished in such manner as the like offences are or may be tried and punished, when committed by any person belonging to the public ships of war of the United States.”[147]

I would ask if it is in the power of the President merely by regulation to determine how offences on board private armed vessels shall be tried and punished? I take it that Congress must deal directly with this question. I am sure that it is unwise for Congress to renounce a duty belonging to it obviously under the Constitution, and which in former times it exercised. Senators sometimes complain that great powers are assumed by the President; but, unless I misread this bill, they are about to confer on him powers large, indeed, beyond precedent. There is, in the first place, the power to declare whether, in case of war with a foreign nation, letters of marque shall be issued,--a high prerogative, in times past reserved exclusively to Congress. But, not content with this, they would confer upon him plenary powers, as legislator, with regard to everything to be done by the letter of marque, and with regard, also, to its possible prizes. As once the French monarch exclaimed, “The State, it is I!”--so, when we have conferred these powers, one after another, on the President, I think he may make a similar exclamation.

This amendment was also lost.

Mr. Sumner then moved the following substitute for the pending bill:--

“That the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to hire any vessels needed for the national service, and, if he see fit, to put them in charge of officers commissioned by the United States, and to give them in every respect the character of national ships.”

The proposition on which a vote is now asked has all that is good in the pending measure, without any of the unquestionable disadvantages. I am unwilling to trespass upon the Senate, and would hope that I am not too earnest; but the question, to my mind, is of no common character.

The Senator who presses this measure seeks to employ private enterprise in all wars, domestic or foreign: I show him how it can be done. He seeks to enlist the private marine of the country in the public service: I show him how it can be done. He seeks to contribute at this moment to the national force: I show him how it can be done. Say not that I am against the employment of private enterprise. Nor say that I would allow our private marine to rot at the wharf. Nor say that I would begrudge anything needed by the national force. To this end the Senate cannot go further than I. All that the Senator would do I would do, but in a way to avoid those embarrassments and difficulties necessarily incident to privateering, and so as to be in harmony with the civilization of our age. Nor shall it be said that I shrink from any of the responsibilities which belong to us with regard to foreign nations; but I desire to say, that among the highest responsibilities which any can recognize is that of doing nothing needlessly which shall add to existing troubles or give the country a new burden.

In conclusion, let me once more remind you that every privateer upon the ocean carries the right of search. Wherever he sails, he is authorized to overhaul neutral ships in search of contraband, or, it may be, to determine if the voyage is to break the blockade. A right so delicate and grave I would reserve to the Government, to be exercised only by national ships. I cannot err, when I insist that it shall be intrusted to those only whose position, experience, and relations with the Government give assurance that it will be exercised with wisest discretion.

If, in order to secure private enterprise and to enlist all its energies, it were necessary to have privateers, then the argument of the other side might be entitled to weight. But all that you desire can be had without any such resort, and without any drawback or disadvantage. Let the Secretary of the Navy hire private ships, wherever he can find them, and put them in commission as national ships, with the rations, pay, officers, and character of national ships. This will be simple and most effective. I am at a loss for any objection to it: I can see none.

I may be mistaken, Sir, but I speak in frankness. To my mind the question between the two propositions is too clear for argument. On one side it is irrational, barbarous, and fruitless, except of trouble. On the other side you have practical strength, and the best assurance of that prudence which is the safeguard of peace. Between the two let the Senate choose.

This amendment was also lost,--Yeas 8, Nays 28.

The bill then passed the Senate,--Yeas 27, Nays 9. March 2d, it passed the House of Representatives without a division, and was subsequently approved by the President.

* * * * *

Failing in Congress, Mr. Sumner renewed his opposition with President Lincoln, urging upon him the impolicy of any action under the law. He advised most strenuously that no commissions should be issued, and that the law should be allowed to remain a dead letter. The President was so much impressed by these representations that he invited Mr. Sumner to attend the next meeting of his Cabinet and make them there. When Mr. Sumner doubted the expediency of such a step, as possibly giving rise to comment, the President requested him to see the members of his Cabinet individually, which he did. No commissions were ever issued, and the attempt soon subsided.

* * * * *

This effort to set afloat privateers created anxiety among our friends in England. Mr. Bright wrote:--

“I hope the President will remain firm against the letters of marque, so long as peace is preserved. They will do no good, and only tend to war. I was sorry your fight against the bill was in vain.”

A letter from Mr. Bates, the intelligent American partner in the London house of the Barings, confirmed the President in his determination. Another letter from the same source concurs with Mr. Bright in condemning the project.

“I am very glad that anything I have written has had any effect in stopping the issue of letters of marque, for I am convinced that their issue would have led to a war, and would have given those who in this country wish for war an opportunity through the press to make a war popular. It would, further, have been playing into the hands of the Confederates, who are doing all they can to embarrass the relations between this country and the United States. It is the last card the Confederates have to play.”

The Act of Congress authorizing letters of marque has since expired by its own limitation.

APPOINTMENTS TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO REGULATE THE APPOINTMENT OF MIDSHIPMEN TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY, FEBRUARY 16, 1863.

The Senate having under consideration the bill to regulate the appointment of midshipmen, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, moved the following amendment:--

“And to be selected by the Senators, Representatives, and Delegates on the ground of merit and qualification, to be ascertained by an examination of the candidates, and that the Secretary of the Navy be authorized to make the regulations under which such examinations shall be conducted, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.”

Mr. Sumner sustained the amendment.

Because these appointments are conferred upon youth, or, if you please, upon boys, it seems to me that they are too often regarded as of little moment. In reality, they are among the most important appointments under Government. They are appointments for life; since, beginning with the youth or boy, they end only at death, it may be as captain, commodore, or admiral, supported always at the expense of the country, and with increasing emoluments corresponding to increasing rank.

Therefore do I think that the Government cannot be too careful in securing the best youths, and I welcome cordially the proposition of the Senator from Rhode Island. I think it entirely practicable, and also most important. I hope the Senate will adopt it. I cannot doubt that such places should be given only to the most worthy, discarding personal or political favoritism; but there must be a rule by which to ascertain the most worthy.

The amendment was lost, having only 6 yeas against 32 nays.

EXEMPTION OF CLERGYMEN FROM MILITARY CONSCRIPTION.

REMARKS ON THE CONSCRIPTION LAW, FEBRUARY 16, 1863.

The Senate having under consideration the bill for enrolling and calling out the national forces, Mr. Sumner moved as an amendment that clergymen or ministers of the Gospel be exempted from conscription. Then ensued brief comments.

MR. POMEROY. They will fight.

MR. MCDOUGALL. I will ask the Senator from Massachusetts to modify his proposition so as not to include the Methodist clergy, because they are a fighting clergy.

MR. HOWARD. I think the loyal clergy are among the most fighting portion of our population, quite as reliable as any other.

MR. WILSON. I do hope we are not to exempt lawyers, or clergymen, or any other class.

MR. FESSENDEN. It is now provided in the bill that those who cannot go may be excused on paying a fine.

Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I would not have this proposition treated with levity. I do not say that it has been. Suffice it for me that I make it in sincerity, because I think the exception worthy of place in a permanent statute regulating the military system of our country.

I shall not be led into debate, but you will let me declare my conviction that the proper duty of the clergyman, if he joins the army, is as chaplain, ministering to the sick, the wounded, the dying, and teaching the living how to die. At the same time, I can well understand that there may be occasions when another service will be required, or when an irresistible impulse may change the chaplain into the soldier.

An eminent writer of our age, the late Lord Macaulay, has said positively that a clergyman should never fight. The motion which I make has no such extent. It simply proposes that the law shall not require him to fight.

In former days bishops have worn coats of mail and led embattled forces, and there are many instances where the chaplain has assumed all the duties of the soldier.

At the famous Battle of Fontenoy, where the French, under Marshal Saxe, prevailed over the united armies of England, Austria, and Holland, there was a British chaplain, with a name subsequently historic, who by military service acquired the title of “The Fighting Chaplain of Fontenoy.” This was the renowned Edinburgh professor, Adam Ferguson, author of the “History of the Roman Republic.” And only a few days ago I presented a petition for a pension from the widow of Rev. Arthur B. Fuller, chaplain, who fell fighting at Fredericksburg. But these instances are exceptional. Legislation cannot be founded on exceptions.

In reply to other Senators, Mr. Sumner spoke again.

The Senate is engaged in maturing a permanent law,--not merely for a year, not only for the present Rebellion, not for any exigency of the day, but an enduring statute,--and as such it will be a record of the sentiments and the civilization of our time. But I am not disposed to present this question on any ground of sentiment, though such an appeal would be difficult to answer.

Time is precious, and I content myself with another appeal,--I mean to practical experience. I think I do not err, when I say, that, in the history of the Christian world, you will not find a single evidence of a country where clergymen have been compelled to serve as soldiers,--at least I do not recall such instance,--while the most military country of modern times has refused to sanction the compulsion. I have before me the well-considered military statute of France, where everything was matured with the greatest care and consideration, and so as to secure the largest amount of service. No exemption was recognized, except after conscientious debate and for sufficient reason. Therefore this statute is testimony of the highest character. But here I find exemption, not only of the clergy, including all denominations recognized by the State, but also of students of divinity preparing to enter the ministry. If not absolutely indifferent to practical experience, the example of a military people like the French, especially in exemptions from conscription, cannot be neglected. I doubt if we shall lose by following it.

Mr. Wilson then said:--

“If they cannot bear arms, if they cannot perform military duty, they at any rate can furnish a substitute, or pay the sum provided for, be that more or less.”

Mr. Sumner replied:--

I do not understand that our clergy throughout the United States are rich. In some of the larger towns they may be comparatively so, but in the country such is not the case. Goldsmith’s village preacher, “passing rich with forty pounds a year,”--that is, about two hundred dollars,--was not unlike large numbers of the clergy among us. Now, Sir, to compel persons living on such a small allowance to pay two hundred and fifty dollars for a substitute is really asking too much. I think it unreasonable; and I think my colleague, who is pressing this bill with so much energy, would adapt himself better to the sentiment of the country and of civilization, if he admitted this natural and humane exemption into his list.

The amendment was lost.

PROTEST AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION, AND DECLARATION OF NATIONAL PURPOSE.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRESS, REPORTED IN THE SENATE FEBRUARY 28, 1863.

From the beginning of the Rebellion there had been constant anxiety lest foreign powers, especially England and France, should intervene in some way, by diplomacy, if not by arms. As early as July, 1861, Russia made an offer of its good offices between the contending parties, with warm expressions for the integrity of the Union; but these were promptly declined.[148] In October, 1862, the French Emperor instructed his ambassadors at London and St. Petersburg to propose the coöperation of the three Cabinets in obtaining a suspension of arms for six months, and, if required, to be prolonged further, during which every act of war, direct or indirect, should provisionally cease, on sea and land. The Cabinets of England and St. Petersburg both declined the proposition.[149] The French Emperor then proceeded alone. By a despatch of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to M. Mercier, the Minister at Washington, dated January 9, 1863, his good offices were tendered to the United States, in the view of facilitating negotiations between the contending parties; but these were declined by Mr. Seward, in a despatch to Mr. Dayton at Paris, February 6, 1863.[150]

Meanwhile there were suggestions in the English press, and also in Parliament, of intervention in some form. Sometimes it was proposed that the independence of the Rebels should be acknowledged.

The proposition from the French Emperor and the reply of Mr. Seward, being communicated to the Senate, were, on motion of Mr. Sumner, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and February 28th he reported the following resolutions.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRESS CONCERNING FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN THE EXISTING REBELLION.

Whereas it appears from the diplomatic correspondence submitted to Congress, that a proposition, friendly in form, looking to pacification through foreign mediation, has been made to the United States by the Emperor of the French, and promptly declined by the President; _and whereas_ the idea of mediation or intervention in some shape may be regarded by foreign governments as practicable, and such governments, through this misunderstanding, may be led to proceedings tending to embarrass the friendly relations which now exist between them and the United States; _and whereas_, in order to remove for the future all chance of misunderstanding on this subject, and to secure for the United States the full enjoyment of that freedom from foreign interference which is one of the highest rights of independent states, it seems fit that Congress should manifest its convictions thereon: _Therefore_--

_Resolved_ (_the House of Representatives concurring_), That, while in times past the United States have sought and accepted the friendly mediation or arbitration of foreign powers for the pacific adjustment of _international_ questions, where the United States were party of the one part and some other sovereign power party of the other part; and while they are not disposed to misconstrue the natural and humane desire of foreign powers to aid in arresting _domestic_ troubles, which, widening in influence, have afflicted other countries, especially in view of the circumstance, deeply regretted by the American people, that the Rebel blow aimed at the national life has fallen heavily upon the laboring population of Europe; yet, notwithstanding these things, Congress cannot hesitate to regard every proposition of foreign interference so far unreasonable and inadmissible, that its only explanation can be found in a misunderstanding of the true state of the question, and of the real character of the war in which the Republic is engaged.

_Resolved_, That the United States are grappling with an unprovoked and wicked Rebellion, which is seeking the destruction of the Republic, that it may build a new power, whose corner-stone, according to the confession of its chiefs, shall be Slavery; that for the suppression of this Rebellion, thus saving the Republic and preventing the establishment of such a power, the National Government is employing armies and fleets, in full faith that the purposes of conspirators and rebels will be crushed; that, while engaged in this struggle, on which so much depends, any proposition from a foreign power, whatever form it take, having for object the arrest of these efforts, is, just in proportion to its influence, an encouragement to the Rebellion, and to its declared pretensions, and on this account is calculated to prolong and embitter the conflict, to cause increased expenditure of blood and treasure, and to postpone the much desired day of peace; that, with these convictions, and not doubting that every such proposition, although made with good intent, is injurious to the national interests, Congress will be obliged to look upon any further attempt in the same direction as an unfriendly act, which it earnestly deprecates, to the end that nothing may occur abroad to strengthen the Rebellion, or to weaken those relations of good-will with foreign powers which the United States are happy to cultivate.

_Resolved_, That the Rebellion, from its beginning, and far back even in the conspiracy which preceded its outbreak, was encouraged by hope of support from foreign powers; that its chiefs constantly represented the people of Europe as so far dependent upon regular supplies of the great Southern staple, that, sooner or later, their governments would be constrained to take side with the Rebellion in some effective form, even to the extent of forcible intervention, if the milder form did not prevail; that the Rebellion is now sustained by this hope, which every proposition of foreign interference quickens anew, and that without this life-giving support it must soon yield to the just and paternal authority of the National Government; that, considering these things, which are aggravated by the motive of the resistance thus encouraged, the United States regret that foreign powers have not frankly told the chiefs of the Rebellion that the work in which they are engaged is hateful, and that a new government, such as they seek to found, with Slavery as its acknowledged corner-stone, and with no other declared object of separate existence, is so far shocking to civilization and the moral sense of mankind that it must not expect welcome or recognition in the Commonwealth of Nations.

_Resolved_, That the United States, confident in the justice of their cause, which is the cause of good government and of human rights everywhere among men, anxious for the speedy restoration of peace, which shall establish tranquillity at home and remove all occasion of complaint abroad, and awaiting with well-assured trust the final suppression of the Rebellion, through which all these things, rescued from present peril, will be secured forever, and the Republic, one and indivisible, triumphant over its enemies, will continue an example to mankind, HEREBY ANNOUNCE, as their unalterable purpose, that the war will be vigorously prosecuted, according to the humane principles of Christian nations, until the Rebellion is overcome; and they reverently invoke upon their cause the blessing of Almighty God.

_Resolved_, That the President be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions, through the Secretary of State, to the ministers of the United States in foreign countries, that the protest and declaration herein set forth may be communicated by them to the governments near which they reside.

March 3d, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions. In reply to Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, he remarked: “The resolutions speak for themselves, and I content myself by simply asking for a vote.” Then, in reply to Mr. Carlile, of West Virginia, he said: “These resolutions proceed from the spontaneous deliberations of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, without a suggestion or hint from the Secretary of State or from any member of the Administration; but I am able to state, that, since the resolutions have been reported, they have the entire and cordial approval of the Secretary of State, who has authorized me to say that he takes a special interest in their adoption by Congress.”

The resolutions passed the Senate by a vote of 31 yeas to 5 nays. On the same day they passed the House of Representatives,--Yeas 103, Nays 28.

Being concurrent resolutions of the two Houses, and not a joint resolution, they were never submitted to the President for approval; but, according to the request in the last resolution, they were communicated by the Secretary of State in an official note to our ministers abroad.

* * * * *

The reception of these resolutions at the time will appear by an extract from the _Evening Post_ of New York.